The Testimony of Three Witnesses

[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.

It's easy to dismiss the latter statements of Whitmer because he had everything to lose at that point. His remarks about the new revelation were not corroborated and reek of self serving motivations.

The Three witnesses testimony had almost zero angles and no benefit except to say they saw X and they proclaim it in unison and without equivocation. There is power in that whether one believes or not.

As for Fatima...I'm a really weird Mormon and as such I'm inclined to believe those little kids.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Doug the Hutt]

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

I haven't had nearly enough sugar or caffeine yet today. Could you elaborate on this a bit more?

[Daniel Peterson]

Regarding Anderson, the "emeritus professor of Church history and doctrine at BYU," yes, he is a great example of an impartial witness.

What on earth are you talking about?

Professor Anderson's writings on this subject aren't the testimonials of a "witness." They're the arguments of a scholar.

The way one refutes a scholar (as opposed to warning preliminarily of potential bias on his part) is not to question his motives -- that would be a classic instance of the ad hominem fallacy -- but to critique his evidence and/or his logic.

Obviously, being a professor of church history at BYU, one might have a slightly skewed view of the events that took place.

One might. Just as one might if one is an apostate or a hostile critic.

But that needs to be shown. If the view is "skewed," that "skewing" will appear in the evidence deployed, or in the way that evidence is deployed, or both.

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,

No such statement exists.

There is no statement in which a Witness denies seeing the plates with his physical eyes. Please be accurate.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=14&num=1&id=357

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.

They had received a heavenly witness of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, and they remained faithful to it, without exception, until their deaths.

They were not witnesses to the Church, but to the Book of Mormon.

Please be accurate. Accuracy and precision are everything in discussions of this sort.

[Uncertain]

It's easy to dismiss the latter statements of Whitmer because he had everything to lose at that point. His remarks about the new revelation were not corroborated and reek of self serving motivations.

The Three witnesses testimony had almost zero angles and no benefit except to say they saw X and they proclaim it in unison and without equivocation. There is power in that whether one believes or not.

As for Fatima...I'm a really weird Mormon and as such I'm inclined to believe those little kids.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Hi Lamanite

I do regard the witness testimony as good evidence of the supernatural. But with regards to the specific truth claims of Mormonism they are weak. The problem is these kinds of witness events are by no means unique. For example Catholicism has a rich tradition of similar events. Why should an objective observer believe the eight and three witnesses at the expense of the BOM witness like events of other faiths? And before you ask yes in many cases the witness events of other faiths do explicitly contradict LDS doctrine so they both can't be true.

If multiple honorable witnesses describe a car wreck in explicitly contradictory terms. It is probably safe to assume there really is a car wreck. But I am not sure I would depend on witness testimony to get the specifics of what exactly happened.

A common rebuttal to the witness events of other faiths is to affirm they are fully compatible with Mormonism. This is your implied argument above. In some cases this is true but in others it is very difficult to make this argument. For a specific example take the Fatima case under discussion. Here is some of the doctrine taught by the

Marian visitation. (I am certain our Catholics friends could do this far better than me I would encourage them to jump in if they view anything as inaccurate).

"

I remembered then to ask about two girls who had died recently. They were friends of mine and they used to come to my home to learn weaving with my eldest sister.

[Olavarria]

Hi Lamanite

I do regard the witness testimony as good evidence of the supernatural. But with regards to the specific truth claims of Mormonism they are weak. The problem is these kinds of witness events are by no means unique. For example Catholicism has a rich tradition of similar events. Why should an objective observer believe the eight and three witnesses at the expense of the BOM witness like events of other faiths? And before you ask yes in many cases the witness events of other faiths do explicitly contradict LDS doctrine so they both can't be true.

If multiple honorable witnesses describe a car wreck in explicitly contradictory terms. It is probably safe to assume there really is a car wreck. But I am not sure I would depend on witness testimony to get the specifics of what exactly happened.

A common rebuttal to the witness events of other faiths is to affirm they are fully compatible with Mormonism. This is your implied argument above. In some cases this is true but in others it is very difficult to make this argument. For a specific example take the Fatima case under discussion. Here is some of the doctrine taught by the

Marian visitation. (I am certain our Catholics friends could do this far better than me I would encourage them to jump in if they view anything as inaccurate).

"

I remembered then to ask about two girls who had died recently. They were friends of mine and they used to come to my home to learn weaving with my eldest sister.

[rongo]

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."

This is *the* great strength of their testimonies. Given all threes

[Uncertain]

You might believe both?

Well since the Marian visitation teaches doctrine explicitly contradictory to LDS doctrine this might generate a good deal of cognitive dissonance. But heck knock yourself out .

But you might also have to conclude that one was from God, the other from Satan.

I dare say this is the path taken by many. So how do you decide which is from God and which from Satan? If you go strictly off of the complex of evidences surrounding each event Fatima is far more impressive and we should dismiss the BOM witnesses as deceived by Satan. We could of course just go off of whatever preexisting beliefs we may hold in which case Catholics will dismiss the BOM witnesses as from Satan and vice versa for LDS believers . In any case hopefully you can see why I don't view the BOM witness testimony as strong evidence for unique LDS truth claims. When sincere honorable eye witnesses contradict each other without some way to objectively sort among their competing claims selecting one particular set of witnesses as teaching the "Truth" is suspect and unwarranted.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Olavarria]

David Whitmer never fled the country into then-Mexico with the rest. Never got rebaptized like the Brighamite branch.

But he did have his own Whitmerite brand of Mormonism. Whitmer was a bit of a fundamentalist in the sense that he belived the 1830 edition of the BoM was perfect and rejected pretty much anythhing that came after 1831, like the office of highpriest. Why be so fanatical about 1830-esque Mormonism if he didnt belive it was true?

"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.'

I don't have a problem with that. Maybe DW was mistreated and mishandled by the high council. Maybe its because he was too much of a trouble maker. I dunno. The point is, personal revelation is personal and is not in anysense for the rest of the Church.

Martin Harris joined 5 churches before Mormonism.

It only proves that he was chronically dissatisfied seeker. A personality flaw, maybe.

He accepted James Jesse Strang as Prophet

Did he? MH claimed to have served a Strangite mission to England for the sole purpose of preaching the Book of Mormon. But even if he did accept Strang as a prophet, so what?

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.

So what? I think we're engaging in a bit of presentism when we assume that LDS in the 1840's saw "the church" the way we see it today, ie unfailable.

His pattern both before and after the Book of Mormon story shows him to be flaky and somehow he kept on following apostate religions one after the other.

Lets assume he was a flake and a follower of apostates, how is that different from Laman and Lemuel? Does their behavior indicate they didn't see an angel or hear the voice of God?

I don't know why we expect perfection from these people. What about knowing the BoM is true, will automatically lead you to knowing BY and the 12 are the successors of Joseph? Again, I see Martin Harris as someone who was a bit prideful(I have this disease too, hence why I recognize it) and mostly spiritually dissatisifed.

Frankley, I dont blame him. If I had seen and angel and the plates then Id be expecting big things too.

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."

Again, what does this have to do with anything? So Joseph may have discribed them as jerks who talked to an angel. Laman and Lemuel.....???

Why doesn't it seem odd that Joseph had the guts to excommunicate these guys? Heaven forbid Joseph knew they coudln't back down from their testimonies, because they are true.

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 by "solid" you mean "clones of Jesus Christ who never make mistakes".....geez.

Ahh yes, if you accept their witness then it is obvious that you don't read uncorrelated material, oh we scared and foolish mormon sheep. Give me a break

[rongo]

I dare say this is the path taken by many. So how do you decide which is from God and which from Satan? If you go strictly off of the complex of evidences surrounding each event Fatima is far more impressive and we should dismiss the BOM witnesses as deceived by Satan. We could of course just go off of whatever preexisting beliefs we may hold in which case Catholics will dismiss the BOM witnesses as from Satan and vice versa for LDS believers . In any case hopefully you can see why I don't view the BOM witness testimony as strong evidence for unique LDS truth claims. When sincere honorable eye witnesses contradict each other without some way to objectively sort among their competing claims selecting one particular set of witnesses as teaching the "Truth" is suspect and unwarranted.

And this is the grand crux of the matter. Our own individual spiritual witnesses and confirmation are ultimately where the rubber hits the road in sorting out competing witnesses. That is: even the witnesses' testimonies are secondary to our own personal testimonies.

And this is Mormonism's great strength: while people can differ as to which competing witness testimony "wins out," only Mormonism, as far as I know, actively exhorts people to seek a spiritual confirmation of things. Other, competing "witness testimony" items are presented by their advocates on a strictly "overwhelming, compelling" basis, sans an exhortation to ask God and seek and obtain confirmation from Him.

This is ultimately Mormonism's trump card.

[rongo]

I don't have a problem with that. Maybe DW was mistreated and mishandled by the high council. Maybe its because he was too much of a trouble maker. I dunno. The point is, personal revelation is personal and is not in anysense for the rest of the Church.

What if God told David Whitmer to separate himself from the body of the Saints? Critics bring this up to try and make this claimed "voice of God" event conflict with his other one. I don't think they do. I'm comfortable with God telling David through personal revelation to separate himself from the Church.

[Olavarria]

Well since the Marian visitation teaches doctrine explicitly contradictory to LDS doctrine this might generate a good deal of cognitive dissonance. But heck knock yourself out .

Believe both in the sense, that a supernatural messenger was involved in both, as my second half of my reply should have indicated.

I dare say this is the path taken by many. So how do you decide which is from God and which from Satan?

Moroni 10:4-5.

If you go strictly off of the complex of evidences surrounding each event Fatima is far more impressive and we should dismiss the BOM witnesses as deceived by Satan. We could of course just go off of whatever preexisting beliefs we may hold in which case Catholics will dismiss the BOM witnesses as from Satan and vice versa for LDS believers . In any case hopefully you can see why I don't view the BOM witness testimony as strong evidence for unique LDS truth claims. When sincere honorable eye witnesses contradict each other without some way to objectively sort among their competing claims selecting one particular set of witnesses as teaching the "Truth" is suspect and unwarranted.

The 12 witnesses of the BoM(if you count Joseph) counts as evidence, not proof. In the end, Moroni's invitation seems to suggest that we should be more concerned about our own witness. I have a witness that the BoM is historiacl and truthful so that's all I need.

Im sure that sounds trite, but hey, thats how I am

[Olavarria]

What if God told David Whitmer to separate himself from the body of the Saints? Critics bring this up to try and make this claimed "voice of God" event conflict with his other one. I don't think they do. I'm comfortable with God telling David through personal revelation to separate himself from the Church.

Exactly, the problem with most criticisms about the restored gospel is that they're meant for shock value, based on the premise that prophets are infallible and that God is 100% understandable. God telling DW to separate himself from the Church is one thing,why He would say such a thing is something else.

[cinepro]

So does anyone know who actually wrote the testimonies of the 8 and 3 witnesses? Were all 11 men there during the writing of the testimonies and involved in the process? Or were they presented with a statement that they then signed?

Do we even know if the witnesses reviewed the statements before the Book of Mormon went to press?

Anyone?

[Daniel Peterson]

Do we even know if the witnesses reviewed the statements before the Book of Mormon went to press?

Anyone?

Oliver Cowdery certainly did.

Does it really make any difference? The question of the precise authorship of the statements has always seemed to me an irrelevant red herring. The Witnesses affirmed their testimonies on numerous well-documented occasions, not infrequently with specific reference to the printed statements.

[Uncertain]

And this is the grand crux of the matter. Our own individual spiritual witnesses and confirmation are ultimately where the rubber hits the road in sorting out competing witnesses. That is: even the witnesses' testimonies are secondary to our own personal testimonies.

And this is Mormonism's great strength: while people can differ as to which competing witness testimony "wins out," only Mormonism, as far as I know, actively exhorts people to seek a spiritual confirmation of things. Other, competing "witness testimony" items are presented by their advocates on a strictly "overwhelming, compelling" basis, sans an exhortation to ask God and seek and obtain confirmation from Him.

This is ultimately Mormonism's trump card.

First the debate is over the BOM witnesses not the validity of internal spiritual experiences.Given the competing BOM witness like events of other religions do you agree this greatly weakens the evidentiary strength of the BOM witnesses and if do not agree do you have an argument as to why not? And second it is not correct that Mormonism is the only religion that exhorts people to seek a spiritual confirmation. If anything the doctrine affirmed as true by personal spiritual experiences is even more contradictory than the doctrine taught in the more spectacular BOM witness like events. This has been debated numerous times on this board. And I don't want to derail this thread. Here is a link to one of the debates on LDS epistemology.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/35565-spiritual-experiences/page__st__120

I provide examples of other religions who advocate seeking a spiritual experience and who obtain results contradictory to LDS doctrine in post #139. If personal spiritual experience is your "trump" card I would suggest asking for a different set of cards .

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Uncertain]

Believe both in the sense, that a supernatural messenger was involved in both, as my second half of my reply should have indicated.

Hi Pedro,

Yes I should have caught that my apologies.

Moroni 10:4-5.

So for spectacular BOM witness like events Satan is free to deceive us but for internal spiritual experiences he is not? Why is this not special pleading whats the relevant difference?

The 12 witnesses of the BoM(if you count Joseph) counts as evidence, not proof. In the end, Moroni's invitation seems to suggest that we should be more concerned about our own witness. I have a witness that the BoM is historiacl and truthful so that's all I need.

Im sure that sounds trite, but hey, thats how I am

Well as I mentioned to Rongo I don't want to derail this thread into a debate concerning LDS epistemology. So I will ask you the same question I asked him. Given the competing BOM witness like events of other religions do you agree this greatly weakens the evidentiary strength of the BOM witnesses and if do not agree do you have an argument as to why not?

[wenglund]

folks,

How do you folks define a "strong witness"?

How would you define a "weak witness"?

To me, the Three Witness may be considered "weak" in the sense that their witness alone isn't sufficient to engerder faith within me, but also "strong" in the sense that it is a link in a long chain of spiritual evidences.

That having been said, I like Sione's point about a hustler being the best judge of whether something is a hustle or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Doug the Hutt]

This is *the* great strength of their testimonies. Given all threes

[Ariarates]

only Mormonism, as far as I know, actively exhorts people to seek a spiritual confirmation of things. (...) This is ultimately Mormonism's trump card.

Edit: already addressed by poster Uncertain.

[Ariarates]

Does it really make any difference? The question of the precise authorship of the statements has always seemed to me an irrelevant red herring.

Yes, it does make a difference. Witness statements are supposed to be statements from the witnesses. I notice that the question of authorship has been repeatedly raised in this thread, ignored for a long time and is now dismissed as a red herring.

If it's not known who the author(s) of the witness statements are, why not just say so? If it is known, why not just say who the author(s) is/are, especially since it apparently is irrelevant?

[cinepro]

Oliver Cowdery certainly did.

Does it really make any difference? The question of the precise authorship of the statements has always seemed to me an irrelevant red herring. The Witnesses affirmed their testimonies on numerous well-documented occasions, not infrequently with specific reference to the printed statements.

My question was more from curiosity than anything having to do fish.

In other words, it wasn't for herring, it was just for the halibut.

[Mudcat]

Before an attempt is made to dismiss the witnesses. I think it is well worth examining what they actually are testifying to. I mean they all signed off on this statement, but what does the statement declare?

Here is my face value reading of it, for whatever that is worth.

THE TESTIMONY OF THREE WITNESSES

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken.

Bold mine, this statement seems to be saying that they have seen the plates "through the grace of God". What does that mean exactly, it seems ambiguous? It could be understood that the instrument of their seeing the plates was God's grace, God's grace seems to be a spiritual element not a physical one, so it could be understood that the plates were seen of the witnesses in a spiritual sense as opposed to physically viewing them.

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.

This is fairly ambiguous as well. What is God's voice, in context? Was this the audible voice of God, was it an angel from God, or if they were operating under the a priori notion that Joseph Smith was a Prophet, if so, it could be a reference to Joseph Smith saying this to them and the witnesses attributing it to God (a thus saith the Lord moment I suppose). Of course their are other permutations.

And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man.

I think this statement buttresses the possibility of a vision of the plates, rather than physical appearance of the plates.

And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.

What basis did they determine that this entity was an angel of God? There is no evidence in the testimony that this spirit was given any test like handshaking, as is advised in D&C 129. I am aware D&C 129 wasn't in place at this point.

However, I think it is worth noting that taking the evidence of the testimony unto itself. The statement that this entity was "an angel of God", is assumptive and lacks verification on the part of the witnesses. The same could be said of the plates, in the testimony there seems to be no evidence of the witnesses physically handling the plates.

And it is marvelous in our eyes. 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. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Oliver Cowdery

David Whitmer

Martin Harris

The only comment here is that the "voice of the Lord" could mean a number of things. A literal voice, the voice of the angel, possibly even the voice of Joseph Smith as a Prophet of God.

Taking the testimony at face value. Three men seem to agree that what they believe was an angel of God came down from heaven and displayed the plates to them. Elements related to God's voice are ambiguous to some degree. The witnesses rationale for knowing this being was an angel are not in evidence.

Since we don't have any good evidence internal to their testimony about the nature of this being...other than a simple declaration that it was "an angel of God", I suppose my question would be.

What good external evidence is there that this being was an angel from God?

[Daniel Peterson]

Yes, it does make a difference. Witness statements are supposed to be statements from the witnesses. I notice that the question of authorship has been repeatedly raised in this thread, ignored for a long time and is now dismissed as a red herring.

The Mormon hive mind moves slowly, but it moves. We are one.

I say it's a red herring, and I stand by that. The Witnesses reaffirmed their testimonies many times, often with specific reference to the printed statements.

If there is any daylight between the Witnesses and the published statements, it's up to you to demonstrate it.

Your apparent requirement that the testimonies be in the handwriting of the Witnesses themselves, or something of that sort, might be reasonable under the conditions of a contemporary courtroom, but it is very seldom satisfied in historiography, and particularly in pre-modern historiography. Still, we don't throw historical testimony out on that score.

If it's not known who the author(s) of the witness statements are, why not just say so? If it is known, why not just say who the author(s) is/are, especially since it apparently is irrelevant?

I certainly appreciate your unfounded insinuation that I'm hiding something, or not being forthcoming. That's always helpful. Not to mention charming.

The portion of the Original Manuscript that contains the Witness testimonies is not extant. The relevant part of the Printer's Manuscript is extant, and is in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery.

[Walden]

And this is the grand crux of the matter. Our own individual spiritual witnesses and confirmation are ultimately where the rubber hits the road in sorting out competing witnesses. That is: even the witnesses' testimonies are secondary to our own personal testimonies.

And this is Mormonism's great strength: while people can differ as to which competing witness testimony "wins out," only Mormonism, as far as I know, actively exhorts people to seek a spiritual confirmation of things. Other, competing "witness testimony" items are presented by their advocates on a strictly "overwhelming, compelling" basis, sans an exhortation to ask God and seek and obtain confirmation from Him.

This is ultimately Mormonism's trump card.

A trump card? What about those who seek a spiritual confirmation, using the manner prescribed by the LDS church, but do not receive a spiritual witness to it's truthfulness? That right there would be a trump card for the opposition.

[Daniel Peterson]

Before an attempt is made to dismiss the witnesses. I think it is well worth examining what they actually are testifying to. I mean they all signed off on this statement, but what does the statement declare?

Here is my face value reading of it, for whatever that is worth.

Bold mine, this statement seems to be saying that they have seen the plates "through the grace of God". What does that mean exactly, it seems ambiguous? It could be understood that the instrument of their seeing the plates was God's grace, God's grace seems to be a spiritual element not a physical one, so it could be understood that the plates were seen of the witnesses in a spiritual sense as opposed to physically viewing them.

This is fairly ambiguous as well. What is God's voice, in context? Was this the audible voice of God, was it an angel from God, or if they were operating under the a priori notion that Joseph Smith was a Prophet, then it be a reference to Joseph Smith saying this to them himself and the witnesses attributing it to God. Of course their are other permutations.

I think this statement buttresses the possibility of a vision of the plates, rather than physical appearance of the plates.

What basis did they determine that this entity was an angel of God? There is no evidence in the testimony that this spirit was given any test like handshaking, as is advised in D&C 129. However, D&C 129 wasn't in place at this point.

However, I think it is worth noting that taking the evidence of the testimony unto itself. The statement that this entity was "an angel of God", is assumptive and lacks verification on the part of the witnesses. The same could be said of the plates, in the testimony there seems to be no evidence of the witnesses physically handling the plates.

The only comment here is that the "voice of the Lord" could mean a number of things. A literal voice, the voice of the angel, possibly even the voice of Joseph Smith as a Prophet of God.

Taking the testimony at face value. Three men seem to agree that what they believe was an angel of God came down from heaven and displayed the plates to them. Elements related to God's voice are ambiguous to some degree. The witnesses rationale for knowing this being was an angel are not in evidence.

Since we don't have any good evidence internal to their testimony about the nature of this being...other than a simple declaration that it was "an angel of God", I suppose my question would be.

What good external evidence is there that this being was an angel from God?

The Witnesses made numerous statements about the nature of what they saw and heard.

These are well treated in Richard Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, and many such statements from one of the Witnesses are gathered in Lyndon Cook's collection of David Whitmer Interviews.

As is very well documented, the various Witnesses claimed, for decades, to have seen the plates with their real eyes, to have heard a real voice (of God), to have seen a real angel, and etc.

There's really little point in discussing the Witnesses if their actual statements are to be dismissed or ignored.