The 8 Witnesses

[Avatar4321]

Is this anything like another "showing" Joseph made?

"the bank vault was lined with many boxes, each marked $1,000. These boxes were actually filled with "sand, lead, old iron, stone, and combustibles," but each had a top layer of bright fifty-cent silver coins. Anyone suspicious of the bank's stability was permitted to lift and count the boxes.

Joseph was quite the trickster.

Form an outsiders view, it is hard to believe anything the man said.

I must admit I am alittle confused on how your post has anything relevant to a discussion on the 8 witnesses who lifted the plates, felt the engravens, saw them and turned the pages.

[Daniel Peterson]

Is this anything like another "showing" Joseph made?

"the bank vault was lined with many boxes, each marked $1,000. These boxes were actually filled with "sand, lead, old iron, stone, and combustibles," but each had a top layer of bright fifty-cent silver coins. Anyone suspicious of the bank's stability was permitted to lift and count the boxes.

Joseph was quite the trickster.

Source, please?

Form an outsiders view, it is hard to believe anything the man said.

Yet you trust that silly story?

[flameburns623]

As memory serves me--and it rarely serves me well--there were enough discrepancies in the later testimonies of the Eight Witnesses to suggest either collusion or hypersuggestibility or something of a combination of the two. I am however not a professional historian nor do I have any sources at my fingertips to back up my bald assertion. It's worth the paper it's printed on---and I ain't using no paper. Where O where is Dan Vogel when you need him?

[Billy]

Milk could shoot out of my nose.

That would be really cool. It you can get this down, will you please post it on Youtube?

Are you admitting that Joseph actually had physical plates that appeared like Gold?

Yes. I think that both the 8 LDS witnesses AND the 7 James Strang witnesses saw plates that appeared ancient in origin, and they handled them with their hands.

8 Witnesses LDS

"That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship." http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns

7 Witnesses Strangites

"We examined them with our eyes, and handled them with our hands. The engravings are beautiful antique workmanship, bearing a striking resemblance to the ancient oriental languages; and those from which the laws in this book were translated are eighteen in number, about seven inches and three-eights wide, by nine inches long, occasionally embellished with beautiful pictures." 7 Witnesses http://www.strangite.org/Law.htm

[ERayR]

Those who don't believe often accuse those who do of going through great contortions to justify our belief. Yet they themselves are the contortionists in their invention of all that Joseph Smith could have done. It is quite amusing to see the great elastic people bend and twist to invent altenative explanations. Some of you could now take your heels from behind your head.

[Rommelator]

As memory serves me--and it rarely serves me well--there were enough discrepancies in the later testimonies of the Eight Witnesses to suggest either collusion or hypersuggestibility or something of a combination of the two. I am however not a professional historian nor do I have any sources at my fingertips to back up my bald assertion. It's worth the paper it's printed on---and I ain't using no paper. Where O where is Dan Vogel when you need him?

Who needs Dan Vogel when you have Richard L. Anderson?

Seriously, though, from what I have read all of the Witnesses stayed remarkably in harmony with each other and themselves in their later years when reporting on what they saw.

[Phinehas]

I must admit I am alittle confused on how your post has anything relevant to a discussion on the 8 witnesses who lifted the plates, felt the engravens, saw them and turned the pages.

It goes to credibility

[John Williams]

Did you read this link?

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=235

What is interesting is that the only part of the description in the FARMS article that comes from the "eight witnesses" is Joseph Smith himself and the official testimony itself. There really isn't all that much known about what the eight witnesses actually saw. At best, though, they saw something that they judged to be an ancient record on plates. That isn't evidence that the Book of Mormon is actually a translation of an ancient record. It's just evidence that they saw something. Note that they say, "and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands." How could they know that?

This might pass off with the 3 Witnesses, but not the 8. There is no hocus pocus or anything supernatural with their account. They simply describe the plates.

Yep, they appear to have seen something that they interpreted as being the plates that Joseph translated. What is that evidence for?

[Rommelator]

Yep, they appear to have seen something that they interpreted as being the plates that Joseph translated. What is that evidence for?

That Joseph had plates. That is all I am saying. Whether or not they were ancient is a different story. But the 8 Witnesses prove that Joseph had plates.

[John Williams]

That Joseph had plates. That is all I am saying. Whether or not they were ancient is a different story. But the 8 Witnesses prove that Joseph had plates.

Sure. If you take the statement at face value, Joseph had plates. How is that "one of the strongest piece of evidence that Joseph Smith was telling the truth"?

[Rommelator]

What is interesting is that the only part of the description in the FARMS article that comes from the "eight witnesses" is Joseph Smith himself and the official testimony itself.

There was one by John Whitmer.

At best, though, they saw something that they judged to be an ancient record on plates. That isn't evidence that the Book of Mormon is actually a translation of an ancient record.

I agree. As I said, all that the 8 Witnesses prove is that Joseph had plates. That is all that I am arguing.

Note that they say, "and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands." How could they know that?

IIRC, the 8 Witnesses saw the plates after the 3 Witnesses received the testimony from Moroni that the Book of Mormon was translated correctly. Furthermore, it is possible that Joseph was informing them of what it was they were handling, that is, leaves of the plates Joseph had translated. Furthermore, remember that 2/3 of the plates were sealed. It is possible that using deductive reasoning the 8 Witnesses could figure out that what they were handling was the translated section.

Actually, I am reminded of John Whitmer right now. When in Missouri, after he had been excommunicated, he told a local reporter that he was not sure that the Book of Mormon was true. Why? He handled the plates, he affirmed, but he did not know if the translation was correct. It was only the 3 Witnesses that received that testimony from Moroni. It is interesting, I think, that even when he doubted the veracity of the Book of Mormon translation, John Whitmer nevertheless affirmed that he had handled physical plates and never denied such.

As I mentioned in the OP, it is the 3 Witnesses that act as the evidence that the plates were ancient and that the translation was correct (since this is what Moroni told them) and it is the 8 Witnesses who affirm that there were plates, period. Together the 3 & 8 Witnesses come together and cover all the bases, so to speak. For, as I mentioned in the OP, one could still dismiss the Book of Mormon with only one set of the testimony of either the 3 or 8 Witnesses. But, when combined, the testimony of all 11 men (plus many more who were not officially witnesses but still handled the plates in some manner) is strong evidence that Joseph was telling the truth.

[Rommelator]

How is that "one of the strongest piece of evidence that Joseph Smith was telling the truth"?

Because 8 other men all verified that Joseph had plates. Did not Joseph claim to have real plates? If he claimed to have real plates, and 8 other men verified that he had real plates, that is strong evidence that Joseph was telling the truth about his possessions of plates, yes?

If you take the statement at face value,

What do you mean "If you take the statement at face value"? How more clearer could these men be? They all testified that they handled physical plates. That they touched them, lifted them, turned the leaves, etc. I don't know how much explicate you want them to be.

[Daniel Peterson]

The testimony of the Eight Witnesses is a very important piece in a larger cumulative argument.

They do, however, absolutely destroy any possibility of dismissing the salient early historical events of the Restoration as mere subjective figments of Joseph Smith's imagination, thus blocking off one possible evasion route for those who wish to write his claims off.

[Billy]

The testimony of the Eight Witnesses is a very important piece in a larger cumulative argument.

They do, however, absolutely destroy any possibility of dismissing the salient early historical events of the Restoration as mere subjective figments of Joseph Smith's imagination, thus blocking off one possible evasion route for those who wish to write his claims off.

Couldn't you say the same thing about the James Strang's witnesses as well who saw actual plates and claimed "the everlasting kingdom of God is established"?

Would you say that both the 8 LDS and the 7 James Strang witnesses are equally impressive?

"And we testify unto you all that the everlasting kingdom of God is established, in which this law shall be kept, till it brings in rest and everlasting righteousness to all the faithful.

SAMUEL GRAHAM,

SAMUEL P. BACON,

WARREN POST,

PHINEAS WRIGHT,

ALBERT N. HOSMER,

EBENEZER PAGE,

JEHIEL SAVAGE."

http://www.Strangite.org/Law.htm

[MormonPeasant]

You really are struggling with this aren't you. The 8 witnesses verify that Joseph SMith had the plates. They did not testify to their authenticity. The 3 witnesses testified to that.

Likewise, the 8 witnesses to the Strang plates testified to their existence, not to their authenticity. And opinion by either group that the plates were ancient in origin is merely speculation. As we came to learn, the Kinderhook plates turned out to be fraudulent.

The 8 witnesses of the Book of Mormon never retracted their testimonies or claimed Joseph Smith made them himself or that they were produced by some other means counter to Joseph's version.

Couldn't you say the same thing about the James Strang's witnesses as well who saw actual plates and claimed "the everlasting kingdom of God is established"?

Would you say that both the 8 LDS and the 7 James Strang witnesses are equally impressive?

"And we testify unto you all that the everlasting kingdom of God is established, in which this law shall be kept, till it brings in rest and everlasting righteousness to all the faithful.

SAMUEL GRAHAM,

SAMUEL P. BACON,

WARREN POST,

PHINEAS WRIGHT,

ALBERT N. HOSMER,

EBENEZER PAGE,

JEHIEL SAVAGE."

http://www.Strangite.org/Law.htm

[Kenngo1969]

None of the witnesses ever saw the plates with their own physical eyesight.

I see. So when the Eight Witnesses spoke of seeing and hefting and handling the plates, they used those terms in some esoteric, idiosyncratic sense, unlike how you and I use those terms in everyday communication. Thanks for the clarification.

[N]ot a one wrote any description of what they saw other than the signed affidavit that was written by the man they already accepted as a prophet.

Okey-doke. Richard Lloyd Anderson didnâ??t have any primary source material to draw from, then, that indicates otherwise. He just manufactured Investigating the Book of Morrmon Witnesses out of whole cloth.

Martin Harris was no pushover. He was far more skeptical than you give him credit for being.

The early Church was marked by belief in supernatural activities, folk magic and heavenly manifestations. Every street magician knows that the best tool in fooling an audience is their preconceived idea of what they are going to see.

Right. Joseph Smith said, â??You see that angel standing right over there, donâ??t you, Sidney? How can you not see him?! Heâ??s standing right there!â? Please! Dismiss purported heavenly manifestations to groups of early members of the Church of Jesus Christ if you like, but please come up with better explanations for them than, â??Joseph Smith told them what they were gonna see (or what they saw), they said they saw it, and that settles it for me!â?

If you sit and think about [sic], there are probably 1000s of things he could have done.

Right. I think he conspired with shape-shifting reptilian aliens to manufacture the whole thing (since any explanation other than what Joseph Smith and his coreligionists gave will do).

He had time to prepare.

Right. Along with unlimited money, know-how, and other resources. Boy, that Joseph Smith was sure a crafty fella!

Add this to the willing audience and the need to see and I am sure you can see why outsiders do not find this â??evidenceâ? compelling.

Right. Martin Harris, in particular, was just a pushoverâ??not skeptical at all. And it wasnâ??t Joseph Smith that had any need for other witnesses, it was the witnesses themselves. I gotcha.

Martin Harris was not one of the 8 witnesses.

Right. And itâ??s not like he took a sample of the characters and translation to New York, to Professors Anthon and Mitchell, who both said that the characters were of ancient origin and that the translation of them was correct; and itâ??s not like Professor Anthon had any reason for retracting his authentication other than that the whole thing was a fraudâ??such as being unwilling to attach his professional reputation to an artifact of claimed supernatural origin.

Is it possible that JS could of arranged for somebody to have the plates made and brought to him in a discrete manner?

Yes. Iâ??m sure he just took the cost for doing that out of the â??petty cashâ? portion of the Smith fortune.

Form [sic] an outsiders [sic] view, it is hard to believe anything the man said.

Anything â?¦ ?

The engravings are beautiful antique workmanship, bearing a striking resemblance to the ancient oriental languagesâ?¦

Dang. So the witnesses to the Strang plates were experts in â??ancient oriental languages,â? huh? Oh, well â?¦ guess thatâ??s one strike against the Book of Mormon.

[Rommelator]

Right. Along with unlimited money, know-how, and other resources. Boy, that Joseph Smith was sure a crafty fella!

Plus, let us not forget that he is rummaging around old Libraries picking out dozens if not hundreds of esoteric and old books, having to memorize the contents of those books to put the information in the Book of Mormon (all without ever being caught), hunting for treasure and swindling guys like Josiah Stowell, right? Geez, Joseph was one busy guy alright.

[flameburns623]

Those who don't believe often accuse those who do of going through great contortions to justify our belief. Yet they themselves are the contortionists in their invention of all that Joseph Smith could have done. It is quite amusing to see the great elastic people bend and twist to invent altenative explanations. Some of you could now take your heels from behind your head.

I don't think one must be contortionist. Little in the BoM itself convinces impartial persons that the book has any sort of genuine link to ancient sources. That it is an imposture fairly leaps out at most people on first reading. Nothing seems to credibly substantiate the book, efforts of Mopologists notwithstanding. If the book is an imposture, then there are only a limited number of responses to the claims of the 11 witnesses. Either their testimony uses language in some esoteric way that precludes their having ever actually seen or hefted actual plates; OR they colluded and simply never overtly denied their testimony; OR Joseph Smith used some sort of contrivance to trick them into believing that there were plates. Or some combination of the three.

I called on the name of Dan Vogel partly because I know he actually posts here, but also because he seems to share with me a sense that whatever Joseph Smith was doing--he was acting from motives that are understandable if not even rather commendable. Smith wanted to draw a line in the sand against the 19th century tide of skepticism (that's not so much Vogel's thesis as Robert Hullinger's). Smith also wanted to unify his family under a single religious commitment (Vogel's actual proposed thesis). And, Smith probably sincerely wanted to find and to belong to The One True Church of Jesus Christ. I suspect that the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses had similar motives. Vogel may or may not know of evidence that might substantiate such a thing. If he weighs in, perhaps we'll hear from him what he thinks is the best explanation for the testimonies of the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses. Or, perhaps there are other critics of the LDS who have the ability to substantiate some alternative understanding.

Of course: if one feels the Holy Ghost has personally revealed to oneself that the BoM is real and that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God--then one will defend the BoM at all costs. But at that point, of course, one ceases to fit the description of an 'impartial person'.

[Rommelator]

Little in the BoM itself convinces impartial persons that the book has any sort of genuine link to ancient sources. That it is an imposture fairly leaps out at most people on first reading. Nothing seems to credibly substantiate the book, efforts of Mopologists notwithstanding.

Really? And how do you know this?

Furthermore, I think Margaret Barker, James Charlesworth, and others would disagree.

If the book is an imposture, then there are only a limited number of responses to the claims of the 11 witnesses. Either their testimony uses language in some esoteric way that precludes their having ever actually seen or hefted actual plates; OR they colluded and simply never overtly denied their testimony; OR Joseph Smith used some sort of contrivance to trick them into believing that there were plates. Or some combination of the three.

Esoteric? How on earth can lifted and hefted and felt be esoteric?

I called on the name of Dan Vogel partly because I know he actually posts here, but also because he seems to share with me a sense that whatever Joseph Smith was doing--he was acting from motives that are understandable if not even rather commendable. Smith wanted to draw a line in the sand against the 19th century tide of skepticism (that's not so much Vogel's thesis as Robert Hullinger's). Smith also wanted to unify his family under a single religious commitment (Vogel's actual proposed thesis). And, Smith probably sincerely wanted to find and to belong to The One True Church of Jesus Christ. I suspect that the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses had similar motives. Vogel may or may not know of evidence that might substantiate such a thing. If he weighs in, perhaps we'll hear from him what he thinks is the best explanation for the testimonies of the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses. Or, perhaps there are other critics of the LDS who have the ability to substantiate some alternative understanding.

So then you subscribe to the "pious fraud" theory?

Of course: if one feels the Holy Ghost has personally revealed to oneself that the BoM is real and that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God--then one will defend the BoM at all costs.

Conversely, if one feels that the Book of Mormon is a fraud then one will attack the Book of Mormon at all costs. It cuts both ways. If you have already made up your mind that the book is false, then you do anything to find an explanation other than the one Joseph Smith gave and will ignore the evidence to the contrary.

But at that point, of course, one ceases to fit the description of an 'impartial person'.

Objectivity is a myth. Everyone is going to bring biases into their argument and analysis. Furthermore, I sincerely hope that you do not think that Dan Vogel is an "impartial person".

[Tchild2]

I don't think one must be contortionist. Little in the BoM itself convinces impartial persons that the book has any sort of genuine link to ancient sources. That it is an imposture fairly leaps out at most people on first reading. Nothing seems to credibly substantiate the book, efforts of Mopologists notwithstanding. If the book is an imposture, then there are only a limited number of responses to the claims of the 11 witnesses. Either their testimony uses language in some esoteric way that precludes their having ever actually seen or hefted actual plates; OR they colluded and simply never overtly denied their testimony; OR Joseph Smith used some sort of contrivance to trick them into believing that there were plates. Or some combination of the three.

I called on the name of Dan Vogel partly because I know he actually posts here, but also because he seems to share with me a sense that whatever Joseph Smith was doing--he was acting from motives that are understandable if not even rather commendable. Smith wanted to draw a line in the sand against the 19th century tide of skepticism (that's not so much Vogel's thesis as Robert Hullinger's). Smith also wanted to unify his family under a single religious commitment (Vogel's actual proposed thesis). And, Smith probably sincerely wanted to find and to belong to The One True Church of Jesus Christ. I suspect that the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses had similar motives. Vogel may or may not know of evidence that might substantiate such a thing. If he weighs in, perhaps we'll hear from him what he thinks is the best explanation for the testimonies of the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses. Or, perhaps there are other critics of the LDS who have the ability to substantiate some alternative understanding.

Of course: if one feels the Holy Ghost has personally revealed to oneself that the BoM is real and that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God--then one will defend the BoM at all costs. But at that point, of course, one ceases to fit the description of an 'impartial person'.

Great post. If one attempts to describe the events of the origin of the plates and the book of Mormon from a naturalistic viewpoint, (which is what skeptics tend to do) Then Flameburns and Vogels hypothesis is exactly how I see it also. Good intentions by J.S and others, but not literally true as claimed.

[Rommelator]

Great post. If one attempts to describe the events of the origin of the plates and the book of Mormon from a naturalistic viewpoint, (which is what skeptics tend to do) Then Flameburns and Vogels hypothesis is exactly how I see it also. Good intentions by J.S and others, but not literally true as claimed.

I suppose Dale Morgan would have been your buddy. He remarked how because of his atheism, he was willing to look for any explanation other than the one Joseph Smith gave.

[Phinehas]

Only three of the eight witnesses made separate statements that they actually handled the plates.

They were Joseph Smithâ??s brothers, along with John Whitmer.

However, another Smith that was not among the witnesses, also claims to have handled the plates.

Josephâ??s brother William Smith said,

"I did not see them uncovered, but I handled them and hefted them while wrapped in a tow frock and judged them to have weighed about sixty pounds. ... Father and my brother Samuel saw them as I did while in the frock. So did Hyrum and others of the family."

The interviewer asked if he didn't want to remove the cloth and see the bare plates, William replied,

"No, for father had just asked if he might not be permitted to do so, and Joseph, putting his hand on them said; 'No, I am instructed not to show them to any one. If I do, I will transgress and lose them again.' Besides, we did not care to have him break the commandment and suffer as he did before." (Zion's Ensign, p. 6, January 13, 1894.)

This witness claims that Joseph Smith forbade anyone from seeing the bare plates that they were lifting.

Without uncovering the plates, how can the witnesses testify that what they were lifting were gold plates as opposed to another heavy metal, such as lead?

John Whitmer said to Theodore Turley in 1839,

"I now say, I handled those plates; there were fine engravings on both sidesâ?¦they were shown to me by a supernatural power" (History of the Church, Vol. 3, p. 307).

If John Whitmer had physically seen the plates with his own eyes, why would he need a supernatural power to see them? Unless, of course, he saw them through the same spiritual eye described by the three witnesses. Now, while the eight witnesses testify to seeing the plates and handling them, the question as to whether this was a literal or a spiritual occurrence is, as yet, unanswered.

http://contenderministries.org/mormonism/w...ssesontrial.php

[Rommelator]

Only three of the eight witnesses made separate statements that they actually handled the plates.

They were Joseph Smith’s brothers, along with John Whitmer.

However, another Smith that was not among the witnesses, also claims to have handled the plates.

Joseph’s brother William Smith said,

The interviewer asked if he didn't want to remove the cloth and see the bare plates, William replied,

This witness claims that Joseph Smith forbade anyone from seeing the bare plates that they were lifting.

Without uncovering the plates, how can the witnesses testify that what they were lifting were gold plates as opposed to another heavy metal, such as lead?

John Whitmer said to Theodore Turley in 1839,

If John Whitmer had physically seen the plates with his own eyes, why would he need a supernatural power to see them? Unless, of course, he saw them through the same spiritual eye described by the three witnesses. Now, while the eight witnesses testify to seeing the plates and handling them, the question as to whether this was a literal or a spiritual occurrence is, as yet, unanswered.

http://contenderministries.org/mormonism/w...ssesontrial.php

Nice try. I just read the following, which deals with the Turley statement, among other things. See the following:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/pdf.php?fi...p;type=amJtcw==

[Phinehas]

(Billy)

Is it possible that JS could of arranged for somebody to have the plates made and brought to him in a discrete manner?

Dr. John C. Bennett:

"Shortly after I located in Nauvoo, Joe proposed to me to go to New York and get some plates engraved and bring them to him, so that he could exhibit them as the genuine plates of the Book of Mormon, which he pretended had been taken from him, and "hid up" by an angel, and which he would profess to have recovered...."

Hey you never know???

(Wyl, Dr. W., Mormon Portraits, p. 21 Joseph's Nauvoo Accomplice)

[Rommelator]

Also see:http://en.fairmormon.org/%22shown_to_me_by...atural_power%22

Dr. John C. Bennett: "Shortly after I located in Nauvoo, Joe proposed to me to go to New York and get some plates engraved and bring them to him, so that he could exhibit them as the genuine plates of the Book of Mormon, which he pretended had been taken from him, and "hid up" by an angel, and which he would profess to have recovered...." Hey you never know???(Wyl, Dr. W., Mormon Portraits, p. 21 Joseph's Nauvoo Accomplice)

Are you seriously going to accept a late, hostile account over a contemporary one?

Hey you never know???

1. Who is this person?

2. How did Joseph Smith know him/her?

3. How did Joseph Smith pay this person for his/her services when he could barely support himself? To produce plates would be neither cheap nor easy to do.

4. When did Joseph inform this person that he needed plates? To make something as described by the witnesses would not be easy, and most assuredly very time consuming. At what point did Joseph decide he needed plates?

5. What happened to the plates? This is a biggy, since, as critics assure me, this would "prove" Joseph Smith's story, right?

6. How did this conspiracy go unnoticed by everyone?