The Testimony of the Eight Witnesses

[Daniel Peterson]

A scam the mechanics of which are never quite explained by the critics. 

C.I.

Your point?

My point would be that there is no plausible explanation of how the supposed scam worked nor of what it was designed to accomplish, and that there is no substantial evidence of such a scam, nor even of a motivation for such a scam, while there is considerable evidence for the good character and reputation of the Witnesses.

Which is probably why intellectually more serious critics such as the noted Maya linguist and Mesoamerican field archaeologist Dan Vogel have ditched the notion of a scam and a conspiracy in favor of the alternative reductionist explanation that the Witnesses simply had a difficult time, on specific occasions, distinguishing reality from fantasy.

[Bob Crockett]

You repeat yourself, indeed, and repeat your error.

What I've stated multiple times is that the individual statements of the Eight Witnesses - their statements besides the signed Testimony of Eight Witnesses - are uniform and merely echo the Testimony. If you still can't "get" what I'm saying or follow the argument in my initial post, there's nothing else I can do to help you, except suggest schooling.

Schooling is something I will always seek, so thanks for the encouragement.

I guess I see no formulaism in their extra-statement accounts. They said they saw and handled the plates. That's some sort of formula?

In April 1838, Hyrum Smith told an audience that he was a witness because he knew by his physical senses. He said that "he had seen the plates with his eyes and handled them with his hands." Anderson, Investigating, p. 159.

John Whitmer was an editor of the Messenger and Advocate, and in an 1836 piece he wrote: "Therefore I desire to testify that I have most assuredly seen the plates from whence the Book of Mormon is translated, and that have handled these plates . . . ." Ibid, p. 130. In another place, John Whitmer explained that the plates had "fine engravings." Ibid, p. 131.

Is there some formula here other than the truth of what they saw?

rcrocket

[Confidential Informant]

Which is probably why intellectually more serious critics such as the noted Maya linguist and Mesoamerican field archaeologist Dan Vogel have ditched the notion of a scam and a conspiracy in favor of the alternative reductionist explanation that the Witnesses simply had a difficult time, on specific occasions, distinguishing reality from fantasy.

Or they were hypnotized. Yeah, that's it. "Oliver...LOOK INTO MY EYES.....YOU ARE GETTING SLEEPY, SLEEPY, SLEEPY......ON THE COUNT OF THREE, YOU WILL SEE...AN ANGEL........"

Yep, that's plausibility for you. And the purpose of all this was...what? To get Jospeh's dad baptized?

C.I.

[Scott Lloyd]

Which is probably why intellectually more serious critics such as the noted Maya linguist and Mesoamerican field archaeologist Dan Vogel have ditched the notion of a scam and a conspiracy in favor of the alternative reductionist explanation that the Witnesses simply had a difficult time, on specific occasions, distinguishing reality from fantasy.

Or they were hypnotized. Yeah, that's it. "Oliver...LOOK INTO MY EYES.....YOU ARE GETTING SLEEPY, SLEEPY, SLEEPY......ON THE COUNT OF THREE, YOU WILL SEE...AN ANGEL........"

Yep, that's plausibility for you. And the purpose of all this was...what? To get Jospeh's dad baptized?

C.I.

Hmm, the foregoing responses to Jaybear by Confidential Informant and Daniel Peterson seem very uniform, almost to the point of being [gasp] forumlaic!

I think I smell a conspiracy.

[Log]

Given scientific naturalism, there must exist a reductionist account of the witnesses' testimony - an explanation which does not require the actual existence of a God. That one hasn't been found yet, and the explanations which have been propounded mutually conflict (like Gould Vs Dawkins, etc) does not disconfirm the whole reductionist project, but rather makes hashing out the details an interesting problem. Since in principle such an explanation exists, the reductionist may press forward with confidence that one day the explanation will be known - or not, it really doesn't matter once the principle is assumed.

I swear this is like deja vu - this strikes me as profoundly similar to the ID vs Darwin debates.

[Jaybear]

Or they were hypnotized. Yeah, that's it. "Oliver...LOOK INTO MY EYES.....YOU ARE GETTING SLEEPY, SLEEPY, SLEEPY......ON THE COUNT OF THREE, YOU WILL SEE...AN ANGEL........"

Yep, that's plausibility for you. And the purpose of all this was...what? To get Jospeh's dad baptized?

I don't remember speculating that Oliver was scammed. I speculated that Oliver was in on it. But then I suppose far more plausible for you to believe that Oliver was bapbtised by the ghost of John the Bapbtist, than to believe was part of conspiracy.

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't remember speculating that Oliver was scammed.  I speculated that Oliver was in on it.

Lyndon Johnson could conceivably have been involved in a possible conspiracy to kill John F. Kennedy, too -- along with his mistress, Jacqueline. Heck, for that matter Steve McQueen may have been involved.

Evidence would be nice.

[Pahoran]

Or they were hypnotized. Yeah, that's it. "Oliver...LOOK INTO MY EYES.....YOU ARE GETTING SLEEPY, SLEEPY, SLEEPY......ON THE COUNT OF THREE, YOU WILL SEE...AN ANGEL........"

Yep, that's plausibility for you. And the purpose of all this was...what? To get Jospeh's dad baptized?

I don't remember speculating that Oliver was scammed. I speculated that Oliver was in on it. But then I suppose far more plausible for you to believe that Oliver was bapbtised by the ghost of John the Bapbtist, than to believe was part of conspiracy.

Jaybear,

just FYI, neither I nor any Latter-day Saint of my acquaintance "believe that Oliver was bapbtised[sic] by the ghost of John the Bapbtist[sic]."

I thought you'd like to know that.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Confidential Informant]

But then I suppose far more plausible for you to believe that Oliver was bapbtised by the ghost of John the Bapbtist, than to believe was part of conspiracy.

Knowing what I do about conspiracies, yes I do.

C.I.

[Jaybear]

My point would be that there is no plausible explanation of how the supposed scam worked nor of what it was designed to accomplish, and that there is no substantial evidence of such a scam, nor even of a motivation for such a scam, while there is considerable evidence for the good character and reputation of the Witnesses.

I am still waiting for the punch line. Is it ....

....ergo it must all be true? JS was a true prophet visited visited by Angels, God, Jesus, Adam, John the Babptist.

Come on Dan, CI, don't hold back. Finish your point. Don't leave me hanging.

Personally, I prefer to be a bit more pragmatic. I don't think we know enough about what happened in the woods to speculate how Martin Harris was duped. Thanks in part to Martin Harris' gullible belief that he was not allowed to say what really happened.

Btw, if Harris' own wife (smart, smart, smart) thought he was being duped, is it really all that implausible for others to have such a belief? After all this is a man, who believed that he would be struck dead if he looked at plates without God's consent.

But, I will speculate that the motivation was money. I think the trio belived that if they convince the public that the plates were real scriptures, holding a copyright would be lucrative.

[Jaybear]

Or they were hypnotized. Yeah, that's it. "Oliver...LOOK INTO MY EYES.....YOU ARE GETTING SLEEPY, SLEEPY, SLEEPY......ON THE COUNT OF THREE, YOU WILL SEE...AN ANGEL........"

Yep, that's plausibility for you. And the purpose of all this was...what? To get Jospeh's dad baptized?

I don't remember speculating that Oliver was scammed. I speculated that Oliver was in on it. But then I suppose far more plausible for you to believe that Oliver was bapbtised by the ghost of John the Bapbtist, than to believe was part of conspiracy.

Jaybear,

just FYI, neither I nor any Latter-day Saint of my acquaintance "believe that Oliver was bapbtised[sic] by the ghost of John the Bapbtist[sic]."

I thought you'd like to know that.

Regards,

Pahoran

Is that a commentary on my typing skills, or my use of the term "ghost?" .

[Daniel Peterson]

My point would be that there is no plausible explanation of how the supposed scam worked nor of what it was designed to accomplish, and that there is no substantial evidence of such a scam, nor even of a motivation for such a scam, while there is considerable evidence for the good character and reputation of the Witnesses.

I am still waiting for the punch line. Is it ....

....ergo it must all be true? JS was a true prophet visited visited by Angels, God, Jesus, Adam, John the Babptist.

Come on Dan, CI, don't hold back. Finish your point. Don't leave me hanging.

It is that there is no concrete, substantial evidence for a conspiracy. If your urge to disbelieve requires that you posit a conspiracy, of course, the lack of evidence may well represent no obstacle for you. That's for you to decide.

Personally, I prefer to be a bit more pragmatic.  I don't think we know enough about what happened in the woods to speculate how Martin Harris was duped.  Thanks in part to Martin Harris' gullible belief that he was not allowed to say what really happened.

I think you meant to say dogmatic. It's a bit early for you to be lamenting the lack of evidence as to how Martin Harris was duped, since there is no evidence that he was duped. But again, as I say, your need to assume that he was may be so urgent that it will override trivial factors like, say, utter lack of evidence.

But, I will speculate that the motivation was money.  I think the trio belived that if they convince the public that the plates were real scriptures, holding a copyright would be lucrative.

Since your historical method appears to work perfectly well in the complete absence of evidence -- and perhaps works even better without such distraction -- absolutely anything is possible. They may have been doing it to please their alien lizardmen masters, or to satisfy the god Moloch, or as a joke to amuse an acquaintance in central Africa, or because a mad scientist had implanted a control device in their brains. If evidence doesn't matter, why not?

[Jaybear]

DCP:

Lyndon Johnson could conceivably have been involved in a possible conspiracy to kill John F. Kennedy, too -- along with his mistress, Jacqueline. Heck, for that matter Steve McQueen may have been involved.

Evidence would be nice.

No problem. I will provide you evidence to support a claim of conspiracy to defraud. But first you have to concede that (1) Martin Harris mortgaged his farm to fund the production of the book of mormon, (2) on his belief that JS had the ability to translate ancient golden plates recovered with the help of an angel.

[Daniel Peterson]

I will provide you evidence to support a claim of conspiracy to defraud.  But first you have to concede that (1) Martin Harris mortgaged his farm to fund the production of the book of mormon, (2) on his belief that JS had the ability to translate ancient golden plates recovered with the help of an angel.

I have no problem with conceding universally accepted and undisputed facts of history.

Do you?

[Bob Crockett]

If evidence doesn't matter, why not?

Perhaps you misunderstand.

Non-evidence is evidence. The absence of proof means that there must be an justification for speculation. The Will Bagley/Richard Van Wagoner approach to history.

[Pahoran]

Or they were hypnotized. Yeah, that's it. "Oliver...LOOK INTO MY EYES.....YOU ARE GETTING SLEEPY, SLEEPY, SLEEPY......ON THE COUNT OF THREE, YOU WILL SEE...AN ANGEL........"

Yep, that's plausibility for you. And the purpose of all this was...what? To get Jospeh's dad baptized?

I don't remember speculating that Oliver was scammed. I speculated that Oliver was in on it. But then I suppose far more plausible for you to believe that Oliver was bapbtised by the ghost of John the Bapbtist, than to believe was part of conspiracy.

Jaybear,

just FYI, neither I nor any Latter-day Saint of my acquaintance "believe that Oliver was bapbtised[sic] by the ghost of John the Bapbtist[sic]."

I thought you'd like to know that.

Regards,

Pahoran

Is that a commentary on my typing skills, or my use of the term "ghost?" .

Actually, upon three things:

First (and least important) your spelling. The word is not "babptize" or "babtize" but "baptize" or (in my part of the world) "baptise." Hence, "baptized" and "Baptist."

Second, the obligatory (for some people) sneering and mockery implicit in the word "ghost" rather badly backfired on you. If you are going to make fun of our beliefs, you ought to try not to make a complete fool of yourself by demonstrating your stunning failure to grasp the rather unsubtle difference between a spook and a resurrected person.

Open mouth. Change feet.

Third, and most important, even once you sort out those details, you still don't really have a clue what you are shooting your mouth off about. Latter-day Saints don't believe that Oliver was baptised by John the Baptist; we believe that he had the Aaronic Priesthood conferred upon him by John the Baptist. Oliver was baptised by Joseph Smith, and AFAIK no-one has ever claimed otherwise.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Froggie]

My point would be that there is no plausible explanation of how the supposed scam worked nor of what it was designed to accomplish, and that there is no substantial evidence of such a scam, nor even of a motivation for such a scam, while there is considerable evidence for the good character and reputation of the Witnesses.

I am still waiting for the punch line. Is it ....

....ergo it must all be true? JS was a true prophet visited visited by Angels, God, Jesus, Adam, John the Babptist.

Come on Dan, CI, don't hold back. Finish your point. Don't leave me hanging.

Personally, I prefer to be a bit more pragmatic. I don't think we know enough about what happened in the woods to speculate how Martin Harris was duped. Thanks in part to Martin Harris' gullible belief that he was not allowed to say what really happened.

Btw, if Harris' own wife (smart, smart, smart) thought he was being duped, is it really all that implausible for others to have such a belief? After all this is a man, who believed that he would be struck dead if he looked at plates without God's consent.

But, I will speculate that the motivation was money. I think the trio belived that if they convince the public that the plates were real scriptures, holding a copyright would be lucrative.

Harris' own wife would agree with you about the motivation being money.

Palmyra, Nov. 29, 1833

[Daniel Peterson]

Harris' own wife would agree with you about the motivation being money. 

Did she have any actual evidence? Her opinion isn't evidence.

And her view isn't quite compatible with that of Jaybear, anyway. Jaybear thinks that Martin Harris was simply a credulous dupe. Lucy Harris thinks that her former husband was himself in it to make money.

Are all statements made by divorced people about their ex-spouses always credible, incidentally? In the other sources from the period, does Lucy Harris appear to have been the devoted, meek, humble, virtually silent, long suffering, completely offended wife? What did Lucy Mack Smith think of her, for example?

How much money did Martin Harris actually make from the Book of Mormon? When he died in 1875, still insistently bearing his testimony of the angel and the plates, how much had he taken in?

[Pahoran]

My point would be that there is no plausible explanation of how the supposed scam worked nor of what it was designed to accomplish, and that there is no substantial evidence of such a scam, nor even of a motivation for such a scam, while there is considerable evidence for the good character and reputation of the Witnesses.

I am still waiting for the punch line. Is it ....

....ergo it must all be true? JS was a true prophet visited visited by Angels, God, Jesus, Adam, John the Babptist.

Come on Dan, CI, don't hold back. Finish your point. Don't leave me hanging.

Personally, I prefer to be a bit more pragmatic. I don't think we know enough about what happened in the woods to speculate how Martin Harris was duped. Thanks in part to Martin Harris' gullible belief that he was not allowed to say what really happened.

Btw, if Harris' own wife (smart, smart, smart) thought he was being duped, is it really all that implausible for others to have such a belief? After all this is a man, who believed that he would be struck dead if he looked at plates without God's consent.

But, I will speculate that the motivation was money. I think the trio belived that if they convince the public that the plates were real scriptures, holding a copyright would be lucrative.

Harris' own wife would agree with you about the motivation being money.

So she does, and it reflects rather poorly upon you to be repeating such gossip.

Having read it, I am inclined to feel even sorrier for poor Martin; but I fail to see that there is any evidence to support your alleged profit motive.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Personally, I prefer to be a bit more pragmatic.  I don't think we know enough about what happened in the woods to speculate how Martin Harris was duped.

In point of fact, you don't even know that he was duped; but don't by any means let that stop you.

Thanks in part to Martin Harris' gullible belief that he was not allowed to say what really happened.

I agree that anyone who thinks that Martin believed "that he was not allowed to say what really happened" does indeed hold an extraordinarily "gullible belief."

Btw, if Harris' own wife (smart, smart, smart)

Some people let cartoonists do their thinking for them. (Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.)

Martin Harris has gone down in history as one of the leading figures of the Restoration; his wife Lucy is remembered, to the extent that she is remembered at all, as a poor man's version of Mary Todd Lincoln, only meaner. Yet some people think she was smarter than her husband. (Dumb dumb dumb dumb really really dumb.)

But, I will speculate that the motivation was money.  I think the trio belived that if they convince the public that the plates were real scriptures, holding a copyright would be lucrative.

This is a well-known anti-Mormon technique called "projection."

Regards,

Pahoran

[DonBradley]

For whatever it's worth, I don't believe there was any conspiracy the witnesses were in on. Oliver Cowdery saw a vision of John the Baptist, and he and David Whitmer and Martin Harris experienced what they said they did in the Testimony of Three Witnesses. I also believe that, within the possible constraints on their testimony imposed by revelation through Joseph Smith, the Eight Witnesses experienced roughly what they report in that testimony. I think the evidence for the overall sincerity of these men is overwhelming.

I am simply stating this as my view, rather than arguing for it, because I have lost the desire to continue to participate at FAIR. I think my time is very poorly spent here, especially considering the level and quality of most of the discourse. So, I'm choosing this post on this thread as a place to say, "I'm leaving FAIR," in order to keep myself from returning. If you see me here again, give me a hard time and some ultra-frustrating apologetic arguments to make me leave again - please.

Ciao,

Don Bradley

[Froggie]

Harris' own wife would agree with you about the motivation being money.

[Daniel Peterson]

Well, poor Mrs. Harris, duped and beat by her husband, and dared to have an opinion as to what motivated him.  I'm sure you all know better than she what was going on in his life.

LOL.

I guess you're of the school that believes that everything said by a divorced person about a former spouse is always unquestionably true.

If I'm ever a defendant, and you're in the jury pool, my attorney will most assuredly challenge your participation in the trial. I'll make sure of that.

From all indications, it appears Martin LOST money rather than made it.    That may have made him extremely devoted to the cause, it may have caused him to drive harder to make money to recoup lost funds.  Indeed, we don't know.

So Martin's motivation for participating in the scam was to make money, and, naturally, his zeal for the scam increased because he lost all of his possessions, or maybe he became particularly enthusiastic because he hoped, at the end of his life, that he still stood to make lots of money from sales of the Book of Mormon, from which he received no royalties.

This is a remarkably flexible explanation.

[Hyrum Page]

So Martin's motivation for participating in the scam was to make money, and, naturally, his zeal for the scam increased because he lost all of his possessions, or maybe he became particularly enthusiastic because he hoped, at the end of his life, that he still stood to make lots of money from sales of the Book of Mormon, from which he received no royalties.

Given Martin's propensity for communicating with God in the form of various species of wildlife, I too have a hard time believing money was the principal motivation.

[Guest Five to one]

Given Martin's propensity for communicating with God in the form of various species of wildlife, I too have a hard time believing money was the principal motivation.

Martin doesn't seem to have been the sharpest knife in the drawer.