The Testimony of Three Witnesses

[Walden]

It's always interesting to me to see what critics offer up as their best shots against the Witnesses.

It's never been very good.

With witnesses like Cowdery, Whitmer and Harris, it doesn't take many shots.

[volgadon]

Here's another interesting fact about Sabbatai Sevi. In 1653, Sevi encountered a group of Jews who had with them an Egyptian artifact, a mysterious ancient text that nobody had previously been able to read. Sevi looked at the text and, Lo and Behold!, he found that it contained the writings of the biblical patriarch Abraham, which he alone was able to translate. He produced a partial translation of the text, finding in it a great deal that confirmed his unique theological ideas and verified his claims to have been chosen by God. News of this amazing discovery spread widely and was often cited by his supporters as proof that Sevi was, in fact, the Messiah, even after his death. It wasn't until generations later that the original document was examined and was found to be completely bogus.

Now does that remind you of anything?

Terry Moe, you are making this up. Ok, maybe you aren't making this up but simply posted out of ignorance, not knowing that your source was being less than honest.

You are thinking of the Vision of Rabbi Abraham.

This was purportedly discovered by Nathan of Gaza, not Shabetai, in 1665, not 1653. It was a leaf from a book, written in Hebrew, not something mysterious which nobody could read. Nop translation involved.

There are several conflicting accounts of its discovery. One account says that Nathan found the leaf amidst a volume called The Greater Wisdom of Solomon. Another states that Elijah commanded Nathan to go somewhere and find a book. Embellishments have him either finding it in the cave of Samuel, or digging at a certain spot in the gaza synagogue.

Perhaps the version you have muddled is a thirdhand account in which Shabetai takes a group of unbelieving rabbis to a sepulchre, has them dig and uncover an ancient parchmment written in Hebrew which reads that a son is born unto Mordechai Sevi and he will be the messiah of Israel.

Also, the R. Abraham of this vision is NOT Abraham the biblical patriarch, but a German sage of the 13th century AD!

Terry, you might have gotten away with it had you not run into someone who knows a thing or two about Shabetai Tzvi.

[volgadon]

With witnesses like Cowdery, Whitmer and Harris, it doesn't take many shots.

Yet all have failed to hit the target...

[Ariarates]

Yet all have failed to hit the target...

You are as generous with arguments as Daniel Peterson.

[Lamanite]

You keep looking at this from the same angle: it either literally happened or they must have been frauds. But you think they were not clever frauds so they must have been telling the truth. That is not sound logic. First of all, not all fraudsters are good ones, the gaols are full of bad ones. Second, your either/or dichotomy is false. I see no reason why these men could not have actually believed what they said. Moreover, as I explained in my first reply, the way they said it fits the bill: they saw these things by the power of God, not of man.

Hey, the hustle angle is a pretty good approach. It's simple and logical to me. Perhaps not for you. But I don't think anyone can or could make a very good case that they were hustlers.

Let's assume that my "either/or" dichotomy is false. On one hand we have the hustle. On the other hand it literally happened. I'll admit this approach is insufficient.

I'm trying to break this down.

1. We can assume they were hucksters, tricksters, and good for nothing hustlers. This option is nonsense. We would have to assume that they were so stupid they somehow convinced themselves that they would profit in money, power, or position. The probability of this scenario is minuscule, IMO. We could argue it of course but the large number of steps between making the "testimony" and reaping a reward of some sort is large and carries a low rate of return. I could pick random 10yr old's who wouldn't take 2:1 odds on this.

2. We can believe that an Angel really showed them some stuff and they all testified of the event and some ancillary details. Even less likely to have happened than the first. Except to the individual who inquires of God as to the truthfulness of their claims and receives an answer in the affirmative. This position rests completely on faith. Logic kind of goes out the window until after the trial of faith. Then it kind of all comes together. Cool for the believer and not so great for everyone else.

3. They shared a common delusion. They somehow "believe" they saw something that didn't really happen. This is even more stupid than any of the others unless Opium or Peyote was involved. If there were hallucinogenic drugs involved then cool, it's possible. If not, this scenario is beyond improbable.

I'm sure there are a couple of other scenario's.

If I wasn't a believer I could easily say, "I'm not sure what those guy's saw, but I think they believe they saw something. And the powerful testimony they left behind is impressive evidence indeed."

Big UP!

Lamanite

[volgadon]

You are as generous with arguments as Daniel Peterson.

I responded in kind to Pratcatt's statement.

[Daniel Peterson]

I see no particular reason to argue this one here. There's not really much to engage here. I've spoken and written on the Witnesses, I think the dismissals of them are strikingly weak (when they're not, essentially, reliant upon just-so stories), and, when I decide to write more about the Witnesses, it will probably be in the form of a book (or two).

The Witness testimonies are quite strong enough to justify faith. They also allow room for those who are really determined to reject them to do so. I think that's as it's supposed to be.

[Lamanite]

I see no particular reason to argue this one here. There's not really much to engage here. I've spoken and written on the Witnesses, I think the dismissals of them are strikingly weak (when they're not, essentially, reliant upon just-so stories), and, when I decide to write more about the Witnesses, it will probably be in the form of a book (or two).

The Witness testimonies are quite strong enough to justify faith. They also allow room for those who are really determined to reject them to do so. I think that's as it's supposed to be.

Do you know how their testimony was written and redacted?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Ariarates]

1. We can assume they were hucksters, tricksters, and good for nothing hustlers. This option is nonsense. We would have to assume that they were so stupid they somehow convinced themselves that they would profit in money, power, or position. The probability of this scenario is minuscule, IMO. We could argue it of course but the large number of steps between making the "testimony" and reaping a reward of some sort is large and carries a low rate of return. I could pick random 10yr old's who wouldn't take 2:1 odds on this.

I don't believe they were hustlers. That said, I don't get your logic. Do hustlers only hustle if their chances of success are above some threshold level? I don't think so. Moreover, if you think of Ron Hubbard, there is nothing inherently stupid about convincing yourself that you can profit in money, power or position from a religious fraud.

I'm sure there are a couple of other scenario's.

I agree, the most obvious one being the scenario described in the testimony itself: that through the power of God, they testify of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, that it's true and marvelous and came forth by the power and gift of God.

An excellent statement of faith, a testimony. Just not a witness statement by modern standards but it doesn't need to be since it was written in 1829/30.

[Ariarates]

3. They shared a common delusion. They somehow "believe" they saw something that didn't really happen. This is even more stupid than any of the others unless Opium or Peyote was involved. If there were hallucinogenic drugs involved then cool, it's possible. If not, this scenario is beyond improbable.

This actually happens quite often, and even without drugs. In my country it was suggested in the 1980s that there were sex-dungeons under a particular kindergarten where toddlers were horribly abused. The testimonies of the children were remarkably similar and quite detailed in their descriptions of the dungeon. It became obvious, though, that the interrogators/therapists planted these memories but not all parents were convinced of this and kept appealing the case. There were digs under the kindergarten which revealed no dungeons. At one point army fighter planes flew over with very advanced infrared cameras but they too didn't find any dungeons. They were simply not there. But to this day, a number of parents is convinced that they exist. It's not beyond improbable, it's an everyday mass-psychological occurrence.

[John Larsen]

I see no particular reason to argue this one here. There's not really much to engage here. I've spoken and written on the Witnesses, I think the dismissals of them are strikingly weak (when they're not, essentially, reliant upon just-so stories), and, when I decide to write more about the Witnesses, it will probably be in the form of a book (or two).

The Witness testimonies are quite strong enough to justify faith. They also allow room for those who are really determined to reject them to do so. I think that's as it's supposed to be.

I wholeheartedly agree. There is no reason to discuss this topic at all. I too have spoken and written about the witnesses several times. The useful reliance on their testimony has been dismantled again and again. Why the apologists must parade this old chestnut, I will never know.

Sorry, I've got to run, I've got a phone call with my publisher, I then have a board meeting with 2 local charities (the rascals simply will not let me resign!) and I have to accept a community achievement award. On top of that tomorrow I have a lecture that I still haven't prepared for. Whatever will I do? I hope it will turn out well, as usual.

[Lamanite]

I don't believe they were hustlers. That said, I don't get your logic. Do hustlers only hustle if their chances of success are above some threshold level? I don't think so. Moreover, if you think of Ron Hubbard, there is nothing inherently stupid about convincing yourself that you can profit in money, power or position from a religious fraud.

As a hustler you only "grind" when the payoff is real. If the odds of success are lower than even money you look for another hustle. I don't know what country your from, but in most places the maxim is, "if it don't make dollars it don't make sense."

I know a little about Hubbard but not enough to accept the parallel.

"I agree, the most obvious one being the scenario described in the testimony itself: that through the power of God, they testify of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, that it's true and marvelous and came forth by the power and gift of God.

An excellent statement of faith, a testimony. Just not a witness statement by modern standards but it doesn't need to be since it was written in 1829/30.

Statement of faith- yes.

The language of the statement is rather unique for a typical "testimony" of that time period. Three men from various backgrounds coming together in a unified voice to make a declaration none of which would ever renounce. It is also unique that the language implies a shared religious experience by 3 men. Not one man with no witnesses. 2 men and a third making claims to the same spiritual manifestation. Two shared and 1 individual. I believe someone on this thread wanted this mixture. This attestation is profound from my vantage point, and it captured my interest long before I was a believer. Yes, there is something special about this testimony.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Mortal Man]

I see no particular reason to argue this one here. There's not really much to engage here. I've spoken and written on the Witnesses

Have you ever read The Old Man and the Sea?

[Daniel Peterson]

I wholeheartedly agree. There is no reason to discuss this topic at all. I too have spoken and written about the witnesses several times. The useful reliance on their testimony has been dismantled again and again. Why the apologists must parade this old chestnut, I will never know.

Can you supply some references to your writing on the topic?

[Doug the Hutt]

folks,

How do you folks define a "strong witness"?

How would you define a "weak witness"?

Would you apply those definitions in a court of law, completely removed from the Church/your faith? Do you have other expectations of witnesses in court?

What were the circumstances for the three witness' manifestations? What documents exist that can flesh this out for us (especially first hand accounts)?

Did they all huddle together and take turns praying? How long did they pray? Was it immediate or was it a series of hours? Did they take 15 minute breaks every 2 hours? Did they eat or drink during this time? Did they approach the situation while fasting? Are there non-LDS examples in the history of the world of people hallucinating while fasting/praying/intensely focusing on their spiritualism? Are people more or less susceptible to being influenced by spiritual leaders during long periods of fasting and praying?

Did Joseph lead them in describing the vision?

IIRC Martin had to remove himself from the others and after several hours of focusing, praying, fighting with his own inner doubts he finally came back to the others and said that he'd seen the plates. I've read somewhere that later in life he also claimed to see Jesse James Strang's ancient record. I've also read that he testified in court under oath that the vision was seen with his "spiritual eyes", not like looking at a pencil or anything physical. Seems that Martin also joined 5 churches after he joined the Church of Christ/Church of Latter Day Saints. Why would he do that if he'd *really* had a real angel fly down and really show him real gold plates describing a real extinct people who really were Christians before it, just like the supposed total apostasy in the Old World, also apostatized into barbarism that managed to utterly erase Christianity from the New World circa 400 AD?

[Daniel Peterson]

Regarding some of Doug the Hutt's points, Richard Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses is always relevant. But I would also particularly recommend Professor Anderson's "Attempts to Redefine the Experience of the Eight Witnesses."

[Walden]

Yet all have failed to hit the target...

Please, if Cowdery, Harris and Whitmer had been witnesses against the church instead of for the church, the apologists on this board would have an easy time destroying the credibility of their claims.

Doug the Hutt makes the point clearly that if the testimony of these men were subjected to a court of law, and you were on the jury considering that testimony, would you not (as an impartial juror) have trouble with the circumstances in which this testimony arised, and more importantly, in the credibility of the witnesses, considering their previous and later actions?

If you remove your own interests, and base your decision regarding the witnesses credibility on the facts of their testimony (both at the time of the witness to the plates, as well as their later statements), their character, and their actions, I think that it would be hard to argue for their credibility.

[volgadon]

Please, if Cowdery, Harris and Whitmer had been witnesses against the church instead of for the church, the apologists on this board would have an easy time destroying the credibility of their claims.

Doug the Hutt makes the point clearly that if the testimony of these men were subjected to a court of law, and you were on the jury considering that testimony, would you not (as an impartial juror) have trouble with the circumstances in which this testimony arised, and more importantly, in the credibility of the witnesses, considering their previous and later actions?

If you remove your own interests, and base your decision regarding the witnesses credibility on the facts of their testimony (both at the time of the witness to the plates, as well as their later statements), their character, and their actions, I think that it would be hard to argue for their credibility.

Even were they witnesses against the church, it would be a strong testimony, precisely because of their later history.

[Daniel Peterson]

Please, if Cowdery, Harris and Whitmer had been witnesses against the church instead of for the church, the apologists on this board would have an easy time destroying the credibility of their claims.

Doug the Hutt makes the point clearly that if the testimony of these men were subjected to a court of law, and you were on the jury considering that testimony, would you not (as an impartial juror) have trouble with the circumstances in which this testimony arised, and more importantly, in the credibility of the witnesses, considering their previous and later actions?

If you remove your own interests, and base your decision regarding the witnesses credibility on the facts of their testimony (both at the time of the witness to the plates, as well as their later statements), their character, and their actions, I think that it would be hard to argue for their credibility.

This is all, I think, pure baseless assertion, and false. Their testimony is very strong, and highly credible.

I might note, too, that Professor Anderson (the premiere authority on the Witnesses) knows something about the rules of legal evidence. He has a Ph.D. in history from Berkeley, but also has a law degree from Harvard.

[John Larsen]

This is all, I think, pure baseless assertion, and false. Their testimony is very strong, and highly credible.

I might note, too, that Professor Anderson (the premiere authority on the Witnesses) knows something about the rules of legal evidence. He has a Ph.D. in history from Berkeley, but also has a law degree from Harvard.

I wonder what Dr. Anderson would have to say about the 6 Bosnian witnesses from Medjugorje? How would their testimony square with the rules of legal evidence?

[Doug the Hutt]

Even were they witnesses against the church, it would be a strong testimony, precisely because of their later history.

Not really sure what you mean here.

David Whitmer never fled the country into then-Mexico with the rest. Never got rebaptized like the Brighamite branch. This clip from Wikipedia describes how David thought he was getting revelations from God *condemning* Joseph's church --

"Whitmer used his position as one of the Three Witnesses to condemn Joseph Smith's church. "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon," wrote Whitmer, "if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so it should be done unto them.'"^[11]"

http://en.wikipedia....i/David_Whitmer

Martin Harris joined 5 churches before Mormonism. He accepted James Jesse Strang as Prophet after Joseph died. By 1847 he was following David Whitmer. 1851 Harris was following another Mormon spliter group (Bishop). 1855 he was following William Smith. Next up was Martin following the Shakers. 1856 Martin decided to follow the Mormons in Utah. His pattern both before and after the Book of Mormon story (~that-my-teacher-tells-to-me-dunt-dunt-~) shows him to be flaky and somehow he kept on following apostate religions one after the other. Reminds me of the scene in Life of Brian (you know -- the story of a young Jewish boy born in the manger next to Jesus) where Brian is accosted by followers into the mountain and the one guy played by John Cleese insists to Brian that he is the Messiah: "...I say you are Lord, and I should know -- I've followed a few."

http://en.wikipedia....r_Day_Saints%29

(clip from Life of Brian - don't watch this if you're easily offended)

Oliver Cowdery http://en.wikipedia..../Oliver_Cowdery

I also found it odd that Joseph on the one hand used the three witness's testimony of gold plates on the one hand to support his case but then bad-mouthed them on the other when he called them "too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them."

Solid witnesses? I guess they're solid as long as you don't look at everything else they said, did, etc. As long as your knowledge of the three are carefully groomed and handed to you in milky-white General Conference talks then it's easy to count on them but becomes problematic when you take a broader view.

If they were solid witnesses against the Church? There's millions of people who are solid witnesses against the Church. What would they have to say that apologists couldn't easily poo-poo? Apologists would just lump them in with Howe and Law -- label them "antis", poison the well by saying their writings are full of lies and therefore no faithful person would even examine anything they produced. I guess I'd have to understand what you mean (hypothetical as it were).

[Lamanite]

Forget all the legalese.

If one guy came up to me and said he saw some angels and a gold bible, I'd probably dismiss him. Like I did with Mormonism when I began searching.

If three guys came up to me and shared something similar to the testimony of three witnesses, I'd probably be like, "damn that's a trip. I can't argue with a shared event that's bolstered by support of each other statements." I may choose not to believe, but that disbelief doesn't lessen the affect their testimony has on me. Especially when after looking into it they are 3 normal guys with nothing to gain.

That's just a normal guys perspective.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

Not really sure what you mean here.

David Whitmer never fled the country into then-Mexico with the rest. Never got rebaptized like the Brighamite branch. This clip from Wikipedia describes how David thought he was getting revelations from God *condemning* Joseph's church --

"Whitmer used his position as one of the Three Witnesses to condemn Joseph Smith's church. "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon," wrote Whitmer, "if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so it should be done unto them.'"^[11]"

http://en.wikipedia....i/David_Whitmer

Martin Harris joined 5 churches before Mormonism. He accepted James Jesse Strang as Prophet after Joseph died. By 1847 he was following David Whitmer. 1851 Harris was following another Mormon spliter group (Bishop). 1855 he was following William Smith. Next up was Martin following the Shakers. 1856 Martin decided to follow the Mormons in Utah. His pattern both before and after the Book of Mormon story (~that-my-teacher-tells-to-me-dunt-dunt-~) shows him to be flaky and somehow he kept on following apostate religions one after the other. Reminds me of the scene in Life of Brian (you know -- the story of a young Jewish boy born in the manger next to Jesus) where Brian is accosted by followers into the mountain and the one guy played by John Cleese insists to Brian that he is the Messiah: "...I say you are Lord, and I should know -- I've followed a few."

http://en.wikipedia....r_Day_Saints%29

(don't watch this if you're easily offended)

Oliver Cowdery http://en.wikipedia..../Oliver_Cowdery

I also found it odd that Joseph on the one hand used the three witness's testimony of gold plates on the one hand to support his case but then bad-mouthed them on the other when he called them "too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them."

Solid witnesses? I guess they're solid as long as you don't look at everything else they said, did, etc. As long as your knowledge of the three are carefully groomed and handed to you in milky-white General Conference talks then it's easy to count on them but becomes problematic when you take a broader view.

If they were solid witnesses against the Church? There's millions of people who are solid witnesses against the Church. What would they have to say that apologists couldn't easily poo-poo? Apologists would just lump them in with Howe and Law -- label them "antis", poison the well by saying their writings are full of lies and therefore no faithful person would even examine anything they produced. I guess I'd have to understand what you mean (hypothetical as it were).

Here is where the hustle begins. Whitmer had to mitigate his apostasy and had no future except to disavow or proclaim a some new revelation. You've got to start to see the angles man.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Doug the Hutt]

Forget all the legalese.

If one guy came up to me and said he saw some angels and a gold bible, I'd probably dismiss him. Like I did with Mormonism when I began searching.

If three guys came up to me and shared something similar to the testimony of three witnesses, I'd probably be like, "damn that's a trip. I can't argue with a shared event that's bolstered by support of each other statements." I may choose not to believe, but that disbelief doesn't lessen the affect their testimony has on me. Especially when after looking into it they are 3 normal guys with nothing to gain.

That's just a normal guys perspective.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Keep that train of thought --

Are you willing to therefore accept the testimony of a group of people with like statements? What if the message from that group is "believe in God, pray to the Virgin Mary and be Catholic"?

http://en.wikipedia...._of_F%C3%A1tima

I can't see the justification for cherry-picking one testimony but rejecting or ignoring other testimonies, other than that it appeals to a confirmation bias.

[Walden]

This is all, I think, pure baseless assertion, and false. Their testimony is very strong, and highly credible.

I might note, too, that Professor Anderson (the premiere authority on the Witnesses) knows something about the rules of legal evidence. He has a Ph.D. in history from Berkeley, but also has a law degree from Harvard.

Well, then I guess we have different interpretations of what constitutes "credibility" and strong testimony.

Regarding Anderson, the "emeritus professor of Church history and doctrine at BYU," yes, he is a great example of an impartial witness. The point of my previous post was to point out that if you remove "your own interests" than I think that the evidence surrounding the character of the three witnesses and their credibility would be very suspect. Obviously, being a professor of church history at BYU, one might have a slightly skewed view of the events that took place.

Regarding Volgadon's comment that, "Even were they witnesses against the church, it would be a strong testimony, precisely because of their later history,"....you mean the history that included statements in which at least one of the witnesses admitted seeing the plates with his "spiritual eyes" and not with his physical eyes, or the history where all of the witnesses at some point left the church to which they had received a heavenly witness of its truthfulness. Yes, that is quite a history of cohesive testimony.