The 8 Witnesses

[John Williams]

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?

Yes, that's what it appears.

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.

"If you take the statement at face value" means just what it says. If you accept that what they said is what happened, then yes, they handled physical plates. Apparently, not everyone accepts that they saw what they say they did.

[flameburns623]

Really? And how do you know this?

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

Look: the whole story presents itself as improbable from the outset. Joseph made claims for which there should be a very high standard of evidence. Nephite culture should have left behind obvious remnants readily discoverable. Native Americans and/or Polynesians, or some subset of them, should clearly have Semitic DNA, linguistic ties readily discernable as influenced by Hebrew, etcetera. Some creature logically resembling a horse should be extant, or it's remains readily identifiable.

The whole business of the plates strikes almost anyone who hears the Joseph Smith story for the first time as laughable: why weren't the things put on general display somewhere, why have they vanished? An ANGEL carried them away? Eleven, or some other number fewer than twenty are the only people who ever actually saw them, and most of these people were relatives of one another or close associates of Joseph Smith? While one does not want to lower the discussion to a simple ad hominem, the best evidence we have is that Joseph Smith definitely was someone capable of spinning tall tales, of exploiting the credulity of others (the 'money-digging' incident), not someone necessarily of impeccable character--granting that not everyone who was on record as critical of him were without personal motivations.

Even if the plates were in our possession we have no real confidence that Joseph Smith had any real ability to translate anything. After the fact, we know that Joseph Smith's attempts to translate the Book of Abraham are totally unrecognizable when compared with the actual translation from the papyri.

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

I have 'lifted' and 'hefted' things in dreams. I have prayed earnestly to be 'baptised by the Holy Ghost', for days and weeks on end, and having sought such a blessing--have received a sort of vision in which I imagined myself being blessed by Christ and given water by Him which I drank. The experience was real enough to me at the time--as real as the testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon which I later also prayed and fasted for and ultimately received. However, mature consideration has led me to be convinced that these subjective experiences happened because I so earnestly and absolutely desired them to happen. It is speculative but not beyond the pale of reason that the Witnesses could have 'lifted' and 'hefted' in visions.

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

I deem it a reasonable explanation and one which accounts for the fact that Smith was both a scoundrel and yet capable of greatness and heroism. I don't believe him merely a dastard.

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.

In my case I would very much like for the Book of Mormon to be true. I like Mormons. I like the Mormon Church. I wish it were grounded in a credible and properly substantiatable founding story. I come here hoping to convince myself that perhaps, after all, it is. I just cannot convince myself that it is so.

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".

Granting that--something I would agree with by the way--it is possible to be fair and balanced, to identify one's biases in advance and to exert reasonable care to not allow those biases to blind oneself to the evidence, etcetera. Otherwise, all the truth-seeking that goes on in colleges, universities, and elsewhere, is just so much sound and fury. We had just as well pick a side, pick up our weapons, and let 'truth' be determined by the sound of our implements of battle.

Has Vogel some particular axe to grind with the LDS Church? I believe he is former LDS but I am not aware he has some particular reason to despise it or wish it harm. He, like I, from what little I know of him (mostly from here on this forum btw), wishes he could believe but finds himself unable so to do.

[Rommelator]

the whole story presents itself as improbable from the outset.

Really? And this is compared to which other religious tradition? Christianity, with a virgin birth and walking on water? Islam with a prophet riding into heaven on a winged horse? Judaism with a deity writing on stone tablets? What is the difference between those religious traditions and Mormonism? Are you seriously suggesting that one is more "improbable from the outset" than the other?

Joseph made claims for which there should be a very high standard of evidence

Same with Jesus. After all, he claimed to be the Son of God who rose from the dead, right? Should we not apply the same standard of evidence to Jesus as well?

Nephite culture should have left behind obvious remnants readily discoverable. Native Americans and/or Polynesians, or some subset of them, should clearly have Semitic DNA, linguistic ties readily discernable as influenced by Hebrew, etcetera. Some creature logically resembling a horse should be extant, or it's remains readily identifiable.

Wow, that is a great laundry list you got there. Want to throw anything else in while we're at it?

Tell you what, why don't we do something Christians just hate and apply the Bible to the same standard as the Book of Mormon, hmm?

The Israelites should have left behind some obvious remants while they were in Egypt and wandering in the desert for 40 years, huh?

Adam and Eve should have left some DNA that would not give all of us these silly ideas about man evolving from lower species over millions of years, shouldn't they?

Some creature logically resembling a camel should be extant, or its remains readily identifiable for the time it is mentioned in the Old Testament.

The whole business of the plates strikes almost anyone who hears the Joseph Smith story for the first time as laughable:

What a pathetic mind reader you are. You do a worse job than Fawn Brodie.

Tell that to Joseph's neighbors who violently tried to steal the plates from him again and again. Tell that to the pious Christians who tore the Smith residence apart trying to locate old Joe's "Golden Bible". Tell that to Joseph when he dislocated his thumb fighting off the men trying to steal the plates. Tell that to the mob who would beat Joseph mercilessly trying to force him to give up the plates.

But, most importantly, tell that to 13 million Latter-day Saints who have all gained a testimony in the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel.

why weren't the things put on general display somewhere, why have they vanished?

Why don't you ask the same thing to Jesus. Why did he have to fly away into the sky and not show himself to those who crucified him? Why did he only show himself to his close friends and family? These were question burning within Celsus, who laughed at Paul and snickered at the witnesses and testimony of the Apostles.

An ANGEL carried them away?

Again, you seem to be very skeptical of Joseph Smith's claims, and yet don't even bother to realize that to, say, the atheists of this board, your own religious claims are just as ridiculous.

Eleven, or some other number fewer than twenty are the only people who ever actually saw them, and most of these people were relatives of one another or close associates of Joseph Smith?

Just like Jesus' witnesses and disciples.

While one does not want to lower the discussion to a simple ad hominem, the best evidence we have is that Joseph Smith definitely was someone capable of spinning tall tales

CFR!! CFR!! CFR!! CFR!! CFR!! CFR!! CFR!! CFR!! CFR!!

of exploiting the credulity of others (the 'money-digging' incident)

CFR!!! CFR!!! CFR!!! CFR!!! CFR!!! CFR!!! CFR!!! CFR!!!

not someone necessarily of impeccable character

CFR!! CFR!! CFR!! CFR!! CFR!! CFR!! CFR!! CFR!! CFR!!

Even if the plates were in our possession we have no real confidence that Joseph Smith had any real ability to translate anything.

So then what is the big deal? I have been the first to say this exact same thing! Who cares if we had the plates. All it would prove is that he had plates! Period! It would not prove he got them from an angel, it would not prove that he was able to translate them and it would not prove that they talk about Nephites. All it would prove is that he had plates. But, as I said in the OP, we also have the 3 Witnesses who testified that they had seen the angel and heard him declare that the translation was correct. Couple that with the 8 Witnesses and you have some strong evidence for the Book of Mormon.

Furthermore, this contradicts your previous indignation that the Angel Moroni had taken the plates back. If you really didn't care, then why did you even bring this up?

After the fact, we know that Joseph Smith's attempts to translate the Book of Abraham are totally unrecognizable when compared with the actual translation from the papyri.

Good grief. Let me put it to you plain and simple:

We do not have the papyri from whence Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham. After his death, his papyri collection was separated and the scroll from which the Book of Abraham came from was lost in the Chicago fire. John Gee has done a lot of research on this subject and can fill you in on the details. See his works at the Maxwell Institute website and elsewhere. If you do not agree with Dr. Gee, then I challenge you to refute his analysis with sound evidence and logic.

Really, your credibility is not looking to well here. You have not demonstrated that you are familiar with LDS research in these areas and are making misinformed and misguided attacks based off of double standards, faulty information (let me guess, you learned all about the Book of Abraham from the IRR or MRM or UTLM, huh?) and sheer ignorance.

I have 'lifted' and 'hefted' things in dreams. I have prayed earnestly to be 'baptised by the Holy Ghost', for days and weeks on end, and having sought such a blessing--have received a sort of vision in which I imagined myself being blessed by Christ and given water by Him which I drank. The experience was real enough to me at the time--as real as the testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon which I later also prayed and fasted for and ultimately received. However, mature consideration has led me to be convinced that these subjective experiences happened because I so earnestly and absolutely desired them to happen. It is speculative but not beyond the pale of reason that the Witnesses could have 'lifted' and 'hefted' in visions.

That's it? That's the best you've got? You obviously are not aware of the work of Richard L. Anderson, otherwise you would know that it is very much so beyond the pale to suggest that the 8 Witnesses were in some kind of "visionary" mode when they handled the plates. Really, your attempts to contort or ignore the evidence is amazing. At least Billy, for whom I now have much more respect for, was able to recognize that the evidence inevitably leads us to conclude that Joseph Smith had plates, that the 8 Witnesses physically handled said plates, etc.

I deem it a reasonable explanation and one which accounts for the fact that Smith was both a scoundrel

A scoundrel? Great libel there, buddy.

CFR!!! CFR!!! CFR!!! CFR!!! CFR!!! CFR!!! CFR!!! CFR!!!

I wish it were grounded in a credible and properly substantiatable founding story.

Man alive. I really have nothing to say about this. It is sad, really, but oh well, what can ya do?

Has Vogel some particular axe to grind with the LDS Church? I believe he is former LDS but I am not aware he has some particular reason to despise it or wish it harm. He, like I, from what little I know of him (mostly from here on this forum btw), wishes he could believe but finds himself unable so to do.

Mr. Vogel in his biography of Joseph Smith shows a priori that he rejects any supernatural explanation for the founding events of Mormonism. He may not have an axe to grind, but he, like all of us, is terrifically biased in his approach to Joseph Smith. Just like historians like Richard Bushman who are approaching LDS history with a positive bias, Vogel has clearly demonstrated via his earlier works critical of Mormon scripture and history that he is approaching with a negative slant.

[flameburns623]

Could someone define "CFR" I am familiar with the acronym only from political discussions whence it denotes "Council on Foreign Relations". I assume that is not what is being referenced here.

Romelator: I am not a professional scholar or academic; actually I am a security officer and a sometime bus driver. I do have a college degree--in sociology--but in this day and age that's sort of like saying, I'm Jethro Bodine and I has done gone plum' thru the Sixth Grade!

I also read a lot. I actually haven't read a lot of anti-Mormon material firsthand: some of the Tanner's stuff, the original publication by the descendant of Cowdery, the one who suggests (rather implausibly) that the BoM was written by Spaulding. (I'm referring to the book that was written sometime in the 1980's and has recently been republished and updated, apparently without improving on the original, if I am to judge by the discussion I heard about it on Issues, Etcetera, a Lutheran apologetics program that has since gone defunct). I also have looked at a lot of LDS promotional material--here on this site for example. Heck, I spent part of this evening re-watching the missionary film The Restoration. I've been reading the BoM and the D&C for the past couple of weeks, partly because of other threads which have raised interesting issues I wanted to review for myself.

Oh--I must confess to having heard a lot of anti-LDS stuff--my job nails me to isolated places frequently, places where my only companion is a radio. I listen to a lot of talk radio as a result, and some of that talk radio includes Christian talk radio. None of which will I pretend makes me academically qualified to lock horns with you at length on the subject of LDS origins. In a church that ordains 12 year-old boys to the priesthood, dubs 18 year-old men as 'elders', and widely scorns professional clergy in favor of a much more egalitarian 'priesthood of all believers'--I think I can raise issues and point out which ones are most meaningful to me. And hope that I get respectful answers and responses when I do so.

I don't believe Joseph Smith had real encounters with God or with angels. I don't believe he had plates, whether of gold or otherwise. The story as he told it has too many zigs and too many zags for me to believe other than that he foisted a fraud for some reason or another. I happen to want to believe his motives for that fraud were good ones, even if I disagree with his methods. I do recollect from philosophy classes that one does NOT prove the validity of one belief system by holding up another to ridicule. Over and above that--we have at least somewhat better evidence for the accounts of the Bible than we have of the BoM. We at least know what Hebrew and Koine Greek are and we know where Jerusalem and the Sinai Desert are. You might at least acknowledge that since we don't know what Reformed Egyptian might look like, since we can't yet verify the locations of the cities of Zarahemla or of Moroni--the Bible has somewhat of an edge over the BoM.

My initial entry into this thread was to point out that it doesn't require a lot of effort to dismiss the BoM. Most non-LDS who have asked me about Mormonism over the years find the whole First Vision story, the story of the plates, etcetera, absolutely incredible. They cannot believe that anyone buys into that sort of stuff. It violates their conception of common sense. If you have grown up in Mormon Utah, or someplace where there is a significant preponderance of LDS--perhaps you don't encounter that so much.

My wife and daughter, and some of her friends watched The Restoration with me. Aside from finding the film boring, they found the whole story silly. I left my LDS Scriptures at my mom's house once for several months and she tried to read them. She found them tedious and said it sounded like someone was trying too hard to sound like the (King James) Bible. Of course--none of these folks are really interested in the subject, not really engaged by it. They'd probably find the Qu'ran or a film about the Buddha difficult as well. But their initial reaction is rather confirmatory to what I said earlier: the story JS told is very difficult to take at face value, and the evidence for it seems mighty thin to most folks who are already somehow predisposed to believe.

Enough. I'm not here to bash the LDS Church nor to refute Mormonism. Every so often however I do have to reaffirm that I don't find this stuff easy to swallow. Sorry if I got your dander up.

[Thinking]

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.

This kind of sounds like the description of the Kinderhook plates.

One thing the Kinderhook hoax proved was that people in the 1800's can be fooled into believing something is ancient when it is not.

[ERayR]

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'.

Tell me, is one who has decided the BoM could not have come the way that Josheph Smith and the witnesses reported an impartial person?

[Rommelator]

Flameburns623:

Thank you for your post. It is good to where you are coming from. First, let me apologize if I came off too abrasive. Sometimes I let my zeal get the better of me and I become a little too passionate. It is just one of my many character flaws. I hope that that will not get in the way of some fine discussions.

Could someone define "CFR"

Cry for Reference. When someone makes an assertion about something without any documentation, someone might call for a CFR or Cry for Reference. This is a cry for documentation for the assertion and/or claim being made. In your case, you made some serious assertions about Joseph Smith's character without any documentation, thus my repeated CFRs.

I actually haven't read a lot of anti-Mormon material firsthand: some of the Tanner's stuff, the original publication by the descendant of Cowdery, the one who suggests (rather implausibly) that the BoM was written by Spaulding.

Wayne Cowdery was not a descendant of Oliver Cowdery. Oliver never had any children that lived past childhood, IIRC. The Browns, an LDS couple from Mesa, have a book about this wherein they expose Wayne Cowdrey. It is volume two in their 4 volume series of They Lie In Wait to Deceive. It can purchased here:

http://store.fairlds.org/prod/pTLIW02.html

As for the Tanners, LDS researchers have shown a number of flaws in their methodology and use of historical materials, among other things. See here:http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai188.html

(I'm referring to the book that was written sometime in the 1980's and has recently been republished and updated, apparently without improving on the original, if I am to judge by the discussion I heard about it on Issues, Etcetera, a Lutheran apologetics program that has since gone defunct)

See a review here:http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/pdf.php?fi...p;type=cmV2aWV3

And hope that I get respectful answers and responses when I do so.

I will try my best to do so.

I don't believe Joseph Smith had real encounters with God or with angels.

That's okay with me. I believe in agency for every mortal and religious freedom as well. We all have a God ordained right to believe what we want. I, however, respectfully disagree.

I don't believe he had plates, whether of gold or otherwise.

This is where we run into a snag. As I have tried to demonstrate, 8 other men all testified to their dying days (even after they became bitter ex-Mormons) that they handled those plates. Nothing visionary or supernatural about it. They plainly and matter of factly say that they lifted the plates, that they turned the leaves, etc. I strongly recommend you read a book by Richard L. Anderson entitled Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses. Heck, I have an extra copy and would not mind shipping it to you if you would like. It really is a great read.

Over and above that--we have at least somewhat better evidence for the accounts of the Bible than we have of the BoM.

There is, in my opinion, strong evidence for the Book of Mormon as an ancient record. I am the first to admit that in some respects the evidence for the Book of Mormon is not the same for the Bible. However, this comes not because of a fictional Book of Mormon, but simply because of the nature of archeology in Mesoamerica compared to the Middle East.

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

However, that nevertheless does not change the fact that there is evidence, especially in connecting the Book of Mormon and the ancient Near East. Allow me to give you some links.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.ph...cripts&id=1

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/booksmain.php

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

Really, there is a lot to discuss about this. If you can afford it or and are willing to get into some deep reading, Brant Gardner recently released a brand new commentary on the Book of Mormon that is very good. It is called Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon. It is 6 volumes, each one around $30.00 on the FAIR website. Really, it is some great reading.

You might at least acknowledge that since we don't know what Reformed Egyptian might look like,

To the contrary, I just wrote about reformed Egyptian (remember the little "r" in reformed) on my blog that offers a link for further reading. See here:http://americantestament.blogspot.com/2008...d-egyptian.html

since we can't yet verify the locations of the cities of Zarahemla or of Moroni

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

And this:http://www.farms.byu.edu/publications/book...=&chapid=61

My initial entry into this thread was to point out that it doesn't require a lot of effort to dismiss the BoM.

If one understands the Book of Mormon and the evidence for its authenticity, then it becomes increasingly hard to dismiss, in my opinion.

Most non-LDS who have asked me about Mormonism over the years find the whole First Vision story, the story of the plates, etcetera, absolutely incredible. They cannot believe that anyone buys into that sort of stuff. It violates their conception of common sense.

But "common sense" may not always be right. "Common sense" told people the earth was the center of the universe. "Common sense" told people that the world was flat. I can see how at face value Mormonism seems too weird to be true, but as one begins to prayerfully study the message of the Restoration and the history behind it, then one walks away with a much deeper appreciation for it and it becomes more and more plausible as you keep studying. This is at least what happened with me.

But their initial reaction is rather confirmatory to what I said earlier: the story JS told is very difficult to take at face value, and the evidence for it seems mighty thin to most folks who are already somehow predisposed to believe.

Like I said, at face value maybe, but once you study it more and more, then it becomes much more clear and more and more plausible.

Enough. I'm not here to bash the LDS Church nor to refute Mormonism. Every so often however I do have to reaffirm that I don't find this stuff easy to swallow. Sorry if I got your dander up.

No problem. I enjoy the discussions. Good stuff! And, once again, sorry for being a little too bold in my previous thread.

This kind of sounds like the description of the Kinderhook plates.One thing the Kinderhook hoax proved was that people in the 1800's can be fooled into believing something is ancient when it is not.

Straw man alert!I am not claiming that the 8 Witnesses prove the plates were ancient, only that Joseph Smith had plates. Whether or not they were ancient (I obviously believe they were for a number of reasons, one being the 3 Witnesses) is a different story.

[ERayR]

Could someone define "CFR" I am familiar with the acronym only from political discussions whence it denotes "Council on Foreign Relations". I assume that is not what is being referenced here.

Romelator: I am not a professional scholar or academic; actually I am a security officer and a sometime bus driver. I do have a college degree--in sociology--but in this day and age that's sort of like saying, I'm Jethro Bodine and I has done gone plum' thru the Sixth Grade!

I also read a lot. I actually haven't read a lot of anti-Mormon material firsthand: some of the Tanner's stuff, the original publication by the descendant of Cowdery, the one who suggests (rather implausibly) that the BoM was written by Spaulding. (I'm referring to the book that was written sometime in the 1980's and has recently been republished and updated, apparently without improving on the original, if I am to judge by the discussion I heard about it on Issues, Etcetera, a Lutheran apologetics program that has since gone defunct). I also have looked at a lot of LDS promotional material--here on this site for example. Heck, I spent part of this evening re-watching the missionary film The Restoration. I've been reading the BoM and the D&C for the past couple of weeks, partly because of other threads which have raised interesting issues I wanted to review for myself.

Oh--I must confess to having heard a lot of anti-LDS stuff--my job nails me to isolated places frequently, places where my only companion is a radio. I listen to a lot of talk radio as a result, and some of that talk radio includes Christian talk radio. None of which will I pretend makes me academically qualified to lock horns with you at length on the subject of LDS origins. In a church that ordains 12 year-old boys to the priesthood, dubs 18 year-old men as 'elders', and widely scorns professional clergy in favor of a much more egalitarian 'priesthood of all believers'--I think I can raise issues and point out which ones are most meaningful to me. And hope that I get respectful answers and responses when I do so.

I don't believe Joseph Smith had real encounters with God or with angels. I don't believe he had plates, whether of gold or otherwise. The story as he told it has too many zigs and too many zags for me to believe other than that he foisted a fraud for some reason or another. I happen to want to believe his motives for that fraud were good ones, even if I disagree with his methods. I do recollect from philosophy classes that one does NOT prove the validity of one belief system by holding up another to ridicule. Over and above that--we have at least somewhat better evidence for the accounts of the Bible than we have of the BoM. We at least know what Hebrew and Koine Greek are and we know where Jerusalem and the Sinai Desert are. You might at least acknowledge that since we don't know what Reformed Egyptian might look like, since we can't yet verify the locations of the cities of Zarahemla or of Moroni--the Bible has somewhat of an edge over the BoM.

My initial entry into this thread was to point out that it doesn't require a lot of effort to dismiss the BoM. Most non-LDS who have asked me about Mormonism over the years find the whole First Vision story, the story of the plates, etcetera, absolutely incredible. They cannot believe that anyone buys into that sort of stuff. It violates their conception of common sense. If you have grown up in Mormon Utah, or someplace where there is a significant preponderance of LDS--perhaps you don't encounter that so much.

My wife and daughter, and some of her friends watched The Restoration with me. Aside from finding the film boring, they found the whole story silly. I left my LDS Scriptures at my mom's house once for several months and she tried to read them. She found them tedious and said it sounded like someone was trying too hard to sound like the (King James) Bible. Of course--none of these folks are really interested in the subject, not really engaged by it. They'd probably find the Qu'ran or a film about the Buddha difficult as well. But their initial reaction is rather confirmatory to what I said earlier: the story JS told is very difficult to take at face value, and the evidence for it seems mighty thin to most folks who are already somehow predisposed to believe.

Enough. I'm not here to bash the LDS Church nor to refute Mormonism. Every so often however I do have to reaffirm that I don't find this stuff easy to swallow. Sorry if I got your dander up.

You are correct. Absolutly 100% correct. Itcertainly doesn't take much effort to dismiss the BoM. What takes effort is to study the book and the evidences and to give is an honest appraisal.

[Riptide]

The only way to verify the actual brass plates are to have credible, independent, no gain, no vested interested party's say for example the press. This of course did not happen. All of the witness were related in some manner, hardly credible.

Then of course there is this:

I have reflected long and deliberately upon the history of this church & weighed the evidence for & against it loth (sic) to give it up - but when I came to hear Martin Harris state in public that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver [Cowdery] nor David [Whitmer] & that the eight witnesses never saw them & hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it, the last pedestal gave way, in my view our foundation was sapped & the entire superstructure fell in heap of ruins. (Stephen Burnett letter to Lyman E. Johnson dated April 15, 1838. Typed transcript from Joseph Smith Papers, Letter book, April 20, 1837 - February 9, 1843, microfilm reel 2, pp. 64-66, LDS archives.)

[Riptide]

You are correct. Absolutly 100% correct. Itcertainly doesn't take much effort to dismiss the BoM. What takes effort is to study the book and the evidences and to give is an honest appraisal.

I think you need to define an honest appraisal. Do the LDS missionary's tell the prospective member during the first five lessons that the BoM has had numerous changes? Or that it was translated by a seer stone in a hat? Or that there entire quotes from the Bible with mistakes are in the BoM? How about JS used that same seer stone to engage in "looking Glass".

Is it honest to omit these from a prospective member? If you say yes it is milk before meat, then you are adding to the hurt and pain of 99% of the members who have left. If you are not telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth warts and all up front and personal, they you are a liar. The LDS church needs to understand, people are leaving, and they are leaving fast, I know many, and they have left for only one reason, they were lied to.

[Rommelator]

The only way to verify the actual brass plates are to have credible, independent, no gain, no vested interested party's say for example the press. This of course did not happen. All of the witness were related in some manner, hardly credible.

Then of course there is this:

To rely on the Burnett letter is very sketchy. Dr. Anderson covers it well in his book Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses.

Furthermore, to suggest that the witnesses cannot be reliable because they were related somehow to Joseph Smith, either as family or acquaintance, is an ad hominem attack. Look at their character individually, and you will see that each of them was honest and sincere his entire life.

[Billy]

Look at their character individually (8 witnesses), and you will see that each of them was honest and sincere his entire life.

Do you accept these mens honest and sincere statements about the James Strang sect?

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

David Whitmer

One of the three witnesses of the Book of Mormon. One of six original members of the church. President of the church in Missouri, 1834. Addressed throughout the D&C. A high priest in Far West, Missouri, 1838. Hiram Page wrote to James Strang in early 1846 indicating that David Whitmer, John Whitmer, and Hiram Page received a tract about his succession claims and â??read it with joy and gladness,â? and â??all the witnesses of the Book of Mormon living in that region received the news with gladness,â? and addressed James Strang â??as a prophet of God to tell them what to do.â? In a second letter from April 1847, they also invited James Strang to come to Missouri and get the â??church records, and manuscript revelations.â?

Jacob Whitmer

One of the eight witnesses to the Book of Mormon, 1830. Jacob Whitmer owned a Book of Commandments. A high priest in Far West, Missouri, 1838. Hiram Page wrote to James Strang in early 1846 indicating that he, along with David Whitmer and John Whitmer, received a tract about his succession claims and that they â??could not rest till they had gone and communicated the glad news to their brother [Jacob Whitmer] who lived at some distance,â? and â??all the witnesses of the Book of Mormon living in that region received the news with gladness,â? and addressed James Strang â??as a prophet of God to tell them what to do.â? In a second letter from April 1847, they also invited James Strang to come to Missouri and get the â??church records, and manuscript revelations.â?

John Whitmer

One of the eight witnesses to the Book of Mormon, 1830. Scribe for translation of Book of Mormon. Baptized by Oliver Cowdery, 1830. Addressed throughout the D&C. Designated by revelation to keep a sacred history of the church (D&C 69), as the first official church historian, 1831. Scribe for revelations of Joseph Smith, and draft of Book of Commandments. Assistant president of the church in Missouri, 1834. Edited the Messenger and Advocate, 1835-1837. Helped purchase Far West, Missouri. As the church historian, he said that Joseph Smith appointed James Strang as his successor. Hiram Page wrote to James Strang in early 1846 indicating that David Whitmer, John Whitmer, and Hiram Page received a tract about his succession claims and â??read it with joy and gladness,â? and â??all the witnesses of the Book of Mormon living in that region received the news with gladness,â? and addressed James Strang â??as a prophet of God to tell them what to do.â? In a second letter from April 1847, they also invited James Strang to come to Missouri and get the â??church records, and manuscript revelations.â? John Whitmer wrote in his manuscript history: â??God, knowing all things, prepared a man whom he visited by an angel of God and showed him where there were some ancient record hid, and also put in his heart to desire of faith to grant him power to establish a stake to Zion in Wisconsin Territory, whose name is James J. Strang. Now at first Smith was unfavorably disposed to grant him this request, but being troubled in spirit and knowing from the things that were staring him in the face that his days must soon be closed, therefore he enquired of the Lord and behold the Lord said â??Appoint James J. Strang a prophet, seer and revelator unto my Church, for thou shalt thereby do a mention thy cup is bitter, etc.â?? Shortly after the appointment of James Strang, the mob gathered and took by stratagem Joseph and Hyrum Smith and conveyed them to Carthage, the seat of justice in and for the county of Hancock as if to try them by the law of the land for their crimes, they murdered them and thus the Lordâ??s anointed fell by the brutal hand of man and they are gone the way of all the earth and James Strang reigns in the place of Smith, the author and proprietor of the Book of Mormon.â?

Martin Harris

Funded the printing of the first Book of Mormon. One of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon. Baptized, 1830. Walked with Joseph Smith from Kirtland, Ohio, to Western Missouri. Appointed to choose the first quorum of twelve apostles. Mentioned throughout the D&C. Sustained James Strang at a conference in Kirtland, Ohio, and became a member of the high council of the stake at Kirtland, organized by James Strang, 1846. Went on a mission to England to preach for James Strang, 1846-1847. Thrown in jail in England for preaching about James Strang.

[Thinking]

Straw man alert! I am not claiming that the 8 Witnesses prove the plates were ancient, only that Joseph Smith had plates.

Yes, I understand. In your original post you said:

How do you explain the 8 Witnesses? Let us leave the 3 Witnesses out of the picture for now and only focus on the 8 Witnesses. How do you explain, if Joseph Smith never had any plates, how these men gave distinct details, all of which agree with each other, about the plates if there were none ever there? And how do you explain that to their dying days they affirmed that they saw and handled those plates? Even after becoming bitter apostates they affirmed that they handled the plates. How do you account for this?

If Joseph Smith really had plates, there are two possibilities.

1. The plates were genuine.

2. The plates were not genuine.

Either way, the 8 witnesses would have testified to feeling and seeing something. I cited the Kinderhook hoax to show that it was possible in the 1800's to have plates that were not genuine.

[auteur55]

I agree the testimony of the 8 witnesss isn't impressive on it's own. People were easily fooled back them. But put in conjunction with the testimony of the 3 witness's and it starts to become more impressive. The Strang plates and the kinderhook plates didn't have the privledge of being attested to by the appearance of angels. A major part of the puzzle when it comes to the BOM.

It may be tempting to discredit the 8 by trudging out Kinderhook and Strang but the differences between the situations are massive.

[Rommelator]

Do you accept these mens honest and sincere statements about the James Strang sect?

Sure, why not? Who am I to question the personal religious convictions of someone else? However, IIRC, all of these men later renounced Strang and went their own ways. Martin Harris, for example, came back to Utah and rejoined the Church. David and Jacob left and lived in Richmond for the rest of their lives and John Whitmer left and moved to Missouri until his death. Do I care who they associated themselves with after their careers in the Church ended? Not really. All I care about is that they affirmed to seeing and handling the plates to their dying day.

[John Williams]

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.

This is such a worn-out strawman it hardly bears comment.

1. No library of esoteric books was necessary, let alone having them memorized.

2. Joseph did hunt for treasure with Josiah Stowell. Are you suggesting he didn't?

Either way, given that these activities were spread out over several years (roughly 1825-1829), even if your strawman were close to the critics' position, Joseph would have had plenty of time. Of course, nobody is saying what you're rolling your eyes at.

[Rommelator]

2. Joseph did hunt for treasure with Josiah Stowell. Are you suggesting he didn't?

No. A poster, I think it was John Larsen, suggested that Joseph Smith somehow could have had the time to make some plates. I responded with some sarcasm as you see above. But that is the key here, John, SARCASM.

Either way, given that these activities were spread out over several years (roughly 1825-1829), even if your strawman were close to the critics' position, Joseph would have had plenty of time.

Really? So you accept Dan Vogel's ad hoc "tin plates" theory? Furthermore, could you explain how Joseph Smith made these plates? Or, if someone made it for him:

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?

[John Williams]

No. A poster, I think it was John Larsen, suggested that Joseph Smith somehow could have had the time to make some plates. I responded with some sarcasm as you see above. But that is the key here, John, SARCASM.

Yep, sarcasm about a point that no one is making.

Really? So you accept Dan Vogel's ad hoc "tin plates" theory? Furthermore, could you explain how Joseph Smith made these plates? Or, if someone made it for him:

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?

You said yourself that Joseph had some plates. Clearly the witnesses thought so. Who cares where, when, how, and by whom they were made? It's simply immaterial to the discussion here. Some sort of plates apparently existed. What they are evidence for is the issue (that seemed to be your point in the OP), not their provenance. However, it certainly wouldn't have been impossible for Joseph Smith to have made or had someone make the plates over a period of roughly 5 years.

[Daniel Peterson]

People were easily fooled back them.

A quibble, but, from a historian, a heartfelt one:

There is no justification for assuming that the generations before us were fools, or that foolishness ended when we were born.

Here's a relevant paragraph from my "Editor's Introductionâ??Not So Easily Dismissed: Some Facts for Which Counterexplanations of the Book of Mormon Will Need to Account," in FARMS Review 17/2 (2005):

Moreover, it strikes me as amusing that the witnesses, a group of early nineteenth-century farmers who spent their lives rising at sunrise, pulling up stumps, clearing rocks, plowing fields, sowing seeds, carefully nurturing crops, raising livestock, milking cows, digging wells, building cabins, raising barns, harvesting their own food, bartering (in an often cashless economy) for what they could not produce themselves, wearing clothes made from plant fibers and skins, anxiously watching the seasons, and walking or riding animals out under the weather until they retired to their beds shortly after sunset in "a world lit only by fire," are being portrayed as estranged from everyday empirical reality by people whose lives, like mine, consist to a large extent of staring at computer and television screens in artificially air-conditioned and artificially lit homes and offices, clothed in synthetic fibers, commuting between the two in enclosed and air-conditioned mechanical vehicles while they listen to the radio, chat on their cell phones, and fiddle with their iPodsâ??all of whose inner workings are largely mysterious to themâ??who buy their prepackaged food (with little or no regard for the time or the season) by means of plastic cards and electronic financial transfers from artificially illuminated and air-conditioned supermarkets enmeshed in international distribution networks of which they know virtually nothing, the rhythms of whose daily lives are largely unaffected by the rising and setting of the sun.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...qpid=1208456340

[Rommelator]

You said yourself that Joseph had some plates. Clearly the witnesses thought so. Who cares where, when, how, and by whom they were made?

If you are going to suggest fraud on Joseph Smith's part, that is, he did not receive the plates from an angel but simply made them, then I am dying to know how he got said plates.

I can easily tell you how Joseph got plates if he indeed got them from and angel. If you suggest otherwise, then the burden of proof rests on you to show me how. Hey, I am just trying to follow the atheist maxim here of "Astonishing claims require astonishing evidence" or whatever.

What they are evidence for is the issue (that seemed to be your point in the OP), not their provenance.

I agree. However, and we can discuss this on a different thread maybe, the fact that Joseph had plates shows they came from somewhere. If we believe they are ancient, as I do, then I would be happy to tell you how Joseph got them, etc. If they are modern, then I am all ears as to you explaining how Joseph made them, etc.

However, it certainly wouldn't have been impossible for Joseph Smith to have made or had someone make the plates over a period of roughly 5 years.

No, not impossible, but very unlikely and highly improbable.

[Thinking]

Hey, I am just trying to follow the atheist maxim here of "Astonishing claims require astonishing evidence" or whatever.

You're mixing things up. The astonishing claim is that he got them from an angel, not that he made them.

[thesometimesaint]

Thinking:

JS did not get the plates from an angel. JS dug them out of the ground.

Now, HOW JS knew where to dig is another question.

[Thinking]

JS did not get the plates from an angel. JS dug them out of the ground.

JSH 1:59

On the twenty-second day of September, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven, having gone as usual at the end of another year to the place where they were deposited, the same heavenly messenger delivered them up to me...

Now, HOW JS knew where to dig is another question.

The 8 witnesses only testify that he had plates, not that he dug them out of the ground.

[All-Seeing Eye]

But, most importantly, tell that to 13 million Latter-day Saints who have all gained a testimony in the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel.

CFR for the claim that there are 13 million Latter-day Saints WHO HAVE GAINED A TESTIMONY.

[thesometimesaint]

Thinking:

JS took tools with him. So I don't think Moroni physically handed the plates to Joseph. But in a sense of the word. If I show someone where something is. Then I have delivered it unto them.

I said nothing about the eight witnesses. But THE TESTIMONY OF EIGHT WITNESSES

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: 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. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

Christian Whitmer

Jacob Whitmer

Peter Whitmer, Jun

John Whitmer

Hiram Page

Joseph Smith, Sen

Hyrum Smith

Samuel H. Smith