Dismissing History

[Rommelator]

On John W's blog, the following comment was made by a poster in regard to the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon plates.

"Eye-witnesses are notoriously unreliable."

John himself wrote:

"But I am reminded of the unreliable nature of eyewitness testimony."

If that be the case, and we can wave off eyewitnesses by saying, "well, they are unreliable" then can we dismiss all of those "witnesses" who E. D. Howe and Co. interviewed in 1834? What about Henry Caswall and the whole "Greek Psalter" incident?

Can we safely dismiss those who had negative things to say about Joseph Smith, just like the critics want to dismiss those who said positive things in favor for Joseph Smith?

Or should we follow the sound historiographical and methodological approach and take varying historical eyewitness testimony and judge each on a case by case standard, evaluting in historical context the quote or writings of these witnesses, whoever they be.

This is a problem I see with some critics. They want to pull the "well, eyewitnesses are unreliable" card when it comes to things like the Witnesses to the plates, but have no problem using any eyewitness who had something to say something negative or damaging to Joseph Smith.

As Richard Bushman put it:

"In this sense, believing historians are more inclined to be true to the basic sources than unbelieving ones."

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/books/?b...&chapid=180

[e=mc2]

LOL! Interesting way to put things ROmmelator!

[Zakuska]

Can we safely dismiss those who had negative things to say about Joseph Smith, just like the critics want to dismiss those who said positive things in favor for Joseph Smith?

But of course not... the Critics eye-witnesses are uninpeachable.

[John Williams]

On John W's blog, the following comment was made by a poster in regard to the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon plates.

"Eye-witnesses are notoriously unreliable."

John himself wrote:

"But I am reminded of the unreliable nature of eyewitness testimony."

If that be the case, and we can wave off eyewitnesses by saying, "well, they are unreliable" then can we dismiss all of those "witnesses" who E. D. Howe and Co. interviewed in 1834? What about Henry Caswall and the whole "Greek Psalter" incident?

Can we safely dismiss those who had negative things to say about Joseph Smith, just like the critics want to dismiss those who said positive things in favor for Joseph Smith?

Or should we follow the sound historiographical and methodological approach and take varying historical eyewitness testimony and judge each on a case by case standard, evaluting in historical context the quote or writings of these witnesses, whoever they be.

This is a problem I see with some critics. They want to pull the "well, eyewitnesses are unreliable" card when it comes to things like the Witnesses to the plates, but have no problem using any eyewitness who had something to say something negative or damaging to Joseph Smith.

As Richard Bushman put it:

"In this sense, believing historians are more inclined to be true to the basic sources than unbelieving ones."

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/books/?b...&chapid=180

Yes, witnesses are unreliable. Does saying so make one a hypocrite? I've never considered the Caswell incident verified, as there is only his word for it. Nor have I ever posted anything about the Howe affidavits. I happen to believe that the witnesses did see something, though I've said many times that their testimony is of little probative value in determining whether the Book of Mormon is true. Of course, the point I was making was that we are expected to take certain witnesses at face value but reject others. Seems like you made the same point I did. Imagine that.

[smac97]

My question is this: In terms of gathering data relevant to historiographic analysis of events of long ago (before pictures, audio/video, etc.), exactly what are we supposed to go on when we jettison "eyewitness testimony?"

-Smac

[Rommelator]

Does saying so make one a hypocrite?

Of course not. But if one is going to dismiss some eyewitnesses and not others based on this standard, then there is a problem.

For example, John, you make a big deal out of the witnesses purporting that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon, saying that this is one of the reasons you can no longer believe in Mormonism and that this shows fraud on Joseph Smith's part, and yet use the "eyewitnesses are unreliable" card to dismiss their testimony of the plates and the angel.

Why is this?

[John Williams]

Of course not. But if one is going to dismiss some eyewitnesses and not others based on this standard, then there is a problem. For example, John, you make a big deal out of the witnesses purporting that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon, saying that this is one of the reasons you can no longer believe in Mormonism and that this shows fraud on Joseph Smith's part, and yet use the "eyewitnesses are unreliable" card to dismiss their testimony of the plates and the angel.Why is this?

I have never said the witnesses to the plates didn't see what they said they saw. I believe they did, as I said in my previous post. If I have ever waved off the witnesses, I'd like to know where it was. I also believe the witnesses who said that the Book of Mormon was translated in the method you describe.I made the same point you are making on my blog, and I'll make it again here: it's not helpful to expect us to believe witnesses on one occasion and dismiss them on others.

My question is this: In terms of gathering data relevant to historiographic analysis of events of long ago (before pictures, audio/video, etc.), exactly what are we supposed to go on when we jettison "eyewitness testimony?"-Smac

Uh, that's my point exactly, smac. Why Rommelator insists I'm making the exact opposite point is beyond me.

[Bee Eff]

I personally view all the LDS history from it's inception to the end of polygamy with a grain of salt. The LDS are/were probably biased in their records, and the government of the time was one of our biggest detractors. Where was there an unbiased record at that time? I don't find the early history of the LDS Church to be particularly persuasive to either side of the debate because I have yet to see a record from that time that could unequivicably be stated to be unbiased.

I appreciate and believe the LDS accounts, because I am LDS. I would believe the other accounts if I were not. It's an ugly mess of a historical record imo.

[Rommelator]

I have never said the witnesses to the plates didn't see what they said they saw. I believe they did, as I said in my previous post. If I have ever waved off the witnesses, I'd like to know where it was. I also believe the witnesses who said that the Book of Mormon was translated in the method you describe.I made the same point you are making on my blog, and I'll make it again here: it's not helpful to expect us to believe witnesses on one occasion and dismiss them on others.

So you do accept the witnesses when they said the saw an angel and saw the plates? Or the 8 Witnesses who said the handled the plates?

Then why the following?

I happen to believe that the witnesses did see something, though I've said many times that their testimony is of little probative value in determining whether the Book of Mormon is true.

Interesting. So you do accept the witnesses, but think that there testimony is "of little probative value in determining whether the Book of Mormon is true."

If I have ever waved off the witnesses, I'd like to know where it was.

Maybe when you quoted Mark Twain's sarcastic comments on your blog in relation to the 8 Witnesses?

On your blog you write:

"Three of them said that an angel showed them the plates. If they said it, it must be so.

And yet I, a skeptic, am not convinced."

And yet here you write:

"I have never said the witnesses to the plates didn't see what they said they saw. I believe they did."

On your blog you write:

"But I am reminded of the unreliable nature of eyewitness testimony. You never really do know what people see, as individual perspective is so different."

Yet here you write:

"I have never said the witnesses to the plates didn't see what they said they saw. I believe they did."

???

[John Williams]

So you do accept the witnesses when they said the saw an angel and saw the plates? Or the 8 Witnesses who said the handled the plates?

Then why the following?

Interesting. So you do accept the witnesses, but think that there testimony is "of little probative value in determining whether the Book of Mormon is true."

Maybe when you quoted Mark Twain's sarcastic comments on your blog in relation to the 8 Witnesses?

On your blog you write:

"Three of them said that an angel showed them the plates. If they said it, it must be so.

And yet I, a skeptic, am not convinced."

And yet here you write:

"I have never said the witnesses to the plates didn't see what they said they saw. I believe they did."

On your blog you write:

"But I am reminded of the unreliable nature of eyewitness testimony. You never really do know what people see, as individual perspective is so different."

Yet here you write:

"I have never said the witnesses to the plates didn't see what they said they saw. I believe they did."

???

This is what happens when you write at 6 in the morning and in a hurry. Not one of my more coherent posts.

I am not convinced that the Book of Mormon is true, but I do believe the witnesses saw something. I think they did believe it was an angel with ancient plates.

[Rommelator]

I am not convinced that the Book of Mormon is true, but I do believe the witnesses saw something. I think they did believe it was an angel with ancient plates.

Thanks for the clarification, but I still have some questions.

"I do believe the witnesses saw something."

What do you mean by this? Do you fall into the "Joseph Smith hypnotized them" camp with Brodie or what?

Forgive my candor, but I think the "they saw something" is the ultimate cop out with the witnesses. You can use that excuse for anything that contradicts your views.

Would you be willing to concede that this "something" is an angel or at least a being of light as they reported? If not, then what is this "something" that they saw and, coming back to the OP, why do you doubt that the witnesses really saw what they reported they saw and yet accept what they reported as the translation method?

[John Williams]

Thanks for the clarification, but I still have some questions.

"I do believe the witnesses saw something."

What do you mean by this? Do you fall into the "Joseph Smith hypnotized them" camp with Brodie or what?

Forgive my candor, but I think the "they saw something" is the ultimate cop out with the witnesses. You can use that excuse for anything that contradicts your views.

Would you be willing to concede that this "something" is an angel or at least a being of light as they reported? If not, then what is this "something" that they saw and, coming back to the OP, why do you doubt that the witnesses really saw what they reported they saw and yet accept what they reported as the translation method?

They said they saw plates and an angel. That I can accept. They go on to say that they know the record is ancient and the translation is correct. That is something they simply could not have known, so no, I don't accept that. But I don't doubt that they saw what they reported. What I have trouble with is the conclusion that seeing plates and an angel (whatever that entails) automatically means it's all true.

[Rommelator]

They go on to say that they know the record is ancient and the translation is correct. That is something they simply could not have known, so no, I don't accept that.

But why did they say this?

"And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true...Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things."

So, if you grant that an angel appeared to them, why preclude that the angel or God couldn't have testified that the work was true?

[John Williams]

But why did they say this?

"And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true."

So, if you grant that an angel appeared to them, why preclude that the angel couldn't have testified that the work was true?

The angel declared it to them, and they believed. What's to preclude?

[Rommelator]

The angel declared it to them, and they believed. What's to preclude?

Well, you'd think that an angel from God, who wrote a part of and preserved the record, testified of his own record, etc. would be credible.

Really John, I don't know what more you want. You already grant than an angel appeared to them. Why not also grant that the angel who preserved the record, who witnessed the events of the record in his lifetime, who buried the plates, etc, testified of the truthfulness of the record and the translation?

[John Williams]

Well, you'd think that an angel from God, who wrote a part of and preserved the record, testified of his own record, etc. would be credible.

Really John, I don't know what more you want. You already grant than an angel appeared to them. Why not also grant that the angel who preserved the record, who witnessed the events of the record in his lifetime, who buried the plates, etc, testified of the truthfulness of the record and the translation?

It all comes down to this: the record that the angel said was true turns out not to be true. What am I supposed to do with that?

What do I want? I want it to be true. That's not too much to ask.

[Rommelator]

the record that the angel said was true turns out not to be true.

So, a real Nephite named Moroni, who wrote a part of the record, who lived in the times of the record, who witnesses first hand some of the events recorded in the record, appears and testifies of what happened, and yet the Book of Mormon is not true because of ___________?

Wow. I really am speechless.

[John Williams]

So, a real Nephite named Moroni, who wrote a part of the record, who lived in the times of the record, who witnesses first hand some of the events recorded in the record, appears and testifies of what happened, and yet the Book of Mormon is not true because of ___________?

Wow. I really am speechless.

I said they believed they saw an angel who told them the book was true. There's quite a leap from that to what you're saying above.

And yeah, life would be much easier for me if the book were true. Sigh.

[Rommelator]

I said they believed they saw an angel who told them the book was true.

You also said that you "can accept" that claim.

Now are you saying you can't?

[jwhitlock]

They said they saw plates and an angel. That I can accept. They go on to say that they know the record is ancient and the translation is correct. That is something they simply could not have known, so no, I don't accept that. But I don't doubt that they saw what they reported. What I have trouble with is the conclusion that seeing plates and an angel (whatever that entails) automatically means it's all true.

Gee, John. Do the "minor" inaccuracies in the way you portray things not bother you at all?

When you say "that they know the record is ancient", when what they really said was "all of which has the appearance of ancient work", are you really trying to be deceptive, or are you just really, really sloppy?

And when you assert "that they know... the translation is correct" and that they "simply could not have known", do the actual words of the witnesses, which were; "And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true.", do you really think that your over-simplification in order to make your point is really going to fly? They are, after all, basing their claim on a spiritual experience. They make no claim to "knowing that the translation is correct" by their own intellect, which was the impression you were trying to give.

What's the purpose in misrepresenting something, which we can easily go and look up, in order to make your point?

[cksalmon]

So, a real Nephite named Moroni, who wrote a part of the record, who lived in the times of the record, who witnesses first hand some of the events recorded in the record, appears and testifies of what happened, and yet the Book of Mormon is not true because of ___________?

Wow. I really am speechless.

Well, I can't speak for John, but I don't think he's affirming the following:

(1) A real Nephite angel named Moroni appeared and testified with "first hand [knowledge that] some of the events recorded in the record" of BoM are true.

Goodness. I certainly don't believe that.

And, if John did believe that, I suspect he'd still be a faithful Mormon.

cks

[John Williams]

You also said that you "can accept" that claim.

Now are you saying you can't?

No, I can accept that they saw what they believed was an angel who told them the book was true. I'm not sure what's so difficult to grasp about that.

Do I believe that the angel they saw was a resurrected Nephite named Moroni who wrote on gold plates that Joseph Smith translated? Obviously, no, I don't.

[ttribe]

No, I can accept that they saw what they believed was an angel who told them the book was true. I'm not sure what's so difficult to grasp about that.

Do I believe that the angel they saw was a resurrected Nephite named Moroni who wrote on gold plates that Joseph Smith translated? Obviously, no, I don't.

Then what/who was it?

[Rommelator]

No, I can accept that they saw what they believed was an angel who told them the book was true. I'm not sure what's so difficult to grasp about that.

Do I believe that the angel they saw was a resurrected Nephite named Moroni who wrote on gold plates that Joseph Smith translated? Obviously, no, I don't.

Okay. Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't understanding your position, so I appreciate the clarification.

[John Williams]

Then what/who was it?

I don't know.