The Testimony of Three Witnesses

[Palador]

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.

Because it is a red herring. The simple fact that the statements were made while the witnesses were alive and active in the church. There can be little doubt that they would have learned at some point what the statements were, and they had ample opportunity to change or even detract from that statement. Yet, they chose not to, even after they had left the church at some point.

The simple fact that they had known about the statement, and didn't change a thing about it makes the whole "true authorship" question moot and irrevelant. And thus, it came to pass that it turned into a red herring.

[Walden]

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.

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.

No such statement exists.

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

http://maxwellinstit...14&num=1&id=357

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.

I apologize for my reference to Anderson as a witness, and not a scholar (I've got the term "witness" on the brain with this thread). Though to argue that a scholar is not influenced by his world view, as you seem to be doing, seems, IMO, disingenuous. Reading his works that you linked, I have no problem critiqueing Anderson's evidence or logic. Like "apostates" and believers alike, Anderson appears to cherry-pick the quotes and claims that can be easily refuted, while ignoring others. He also seems to make inferences regarding relationships and motives that are just that, inferences.

Regarding your claim that "there is no statement in which a Witness denies seeing the plates with his physical eyes. Please be accurate,"...surely you jest. Though there is no written statement by the witnesses regarding their "spiritual eye" manner of witnessing the plates, you cannot be seriously claiming that there are no eyewitness accounts in which any of the 3 witnesses claimed to have seen the plates with anything other than their physical eyes?

Though you seem to take comfort in labeling former members apostates, this "apostate" does not have a goal of leading others out of the church. Whatever floats your boat is my opinion. However, I do have a goal of reaching a truthful conclusion regarding the often fantastical claims made by the leaders and members of the church, as they directly affect the relationship that I have with my LDS family.

[Lamanite]

...

You know how I keep trying to put things into a context that I understand, like my constant reference to hustlers and people trying to get over on others? That's because my life's experience tells me to look for these angles. It's just what I do.

Well, I think the Fatima visitation could have been little kids trying to fit a spiritual manifestation into a religious context they understood.

Big UP!

Lamanite

PS - See how we all start performing these incredible acrobatics to make these little factoids fit into our accepted paradigms. Kind of lame. Ad hoc reasoning...lol. We are all so objective and reasonable.

[Daniel Peterson]

Though to argue that a scholar is not influenced by his world view, as you seem to be doing, seems, IMO, disingenuous.

I'm not disingenuous, and I made no such argument.

All scholars are influenced by their worldviews, as are all non-scholars.

Reading his works that you linked, I have no problem critiqueing Anderson's evidence or logic.

Then you should compose a critique and publish it, so that others can critique your critique.

That's how it's done.

Regarding your claim that "there is no statement in which a Witness denies seeing the plates with his physical eyes. Please be accurate,"...surely you jest. Though there is no written statement by the witnesses regarding their "spiritual eye" manner of witnessing the plates, you cannot be seriously claiming that there are no eyewitness accounts in which any of the 3 witnesses claimed to have seen the plates with anything other than their physical eyes?

I do not jest.

Contrary to your assertion, there exists no statement from any of the Witnesses denying that he saw the plates with his physical eyes.

Please be accurate.

Though you seem to take comfort in labeling former members apostates, this "apostate" does not have a goal of leading others out of the church.

I take no "comfort" in labeling anybody an apostate, labeled no specific person an apostate, said nothing about whether or not you have a goal of leading others out of the Church, and, in fact, said nothing relevant about you at all.

[Mudcat]

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

I thought the thread was about the Testimony of Three Witnesses.

I don't feel I am being dismissive of their statements. Actually I put a little bit of my time into to trying to offer a face value interpretation of what was said and asked a question in that regards.

[Walden]

Contrary to your assertion, there exists no statement from any of the Witnesses denying that he saw the plates with his physical eyes.

You have an odd way of disputing my claim that any of the witnesses ever stated that they saw the plates with their spiritual eye and not their physical eyes. Heck, I found the acknowledged quotes using the FAIR board. So to answer your reframing of my statement, yes, you are correct, I already agreed that the witnesses never signed a statement saying that they witnessed the plates with anything other than their physical eyes.

Are you stating that there are no corroborating eyewitness accounts of people who claim that they heard any of the witnesses state that they saw the plates with their "spiritual eye" and not their physical eyes? That is what you seem to be inferring, I think.

[why me]

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.

To my knowledge no witness wrote in the first hand that their experiences were false. All however did confirm in their own hand that their experiences were true. And oliver gave his testimony when he was dying and also when he returned to the saints with his wife. Not something a fraudster would do.

But the dying testimonies are very convincing. And I do believe that martin, oliver and david did do that.

[why me]

You have an odd way of disputing my claim that any of the witnesses ever stated that they saw the plates with their spiritual eye and not their physical eyes. Heck, I found the acknowledged quotes using the FAIR board. So to answer your reframing of my statement, yes, you are correct, I already agreed that the witnesses never signed a statement saying that they witnessed the plates with anything other than their physical eyes.

Are you stating that there are no corroborating eyewitness accounts of people who claim that they heard any of the witnesses state that they saw the plates with their "spiritual eye" and not their physical eyes? That is what you seem to be inferring, I think.

How many times was martin asked about the plates? I would assume many. And I would assume he decribed the experience in various of ways. Now when Martin made that statement, it did not cause a scandal because martin muat have made the impression that he saw the plates. It is only now that critics attempt to make something of the comment. But at that time, it went over rather well.

[why me]

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

Moroni 10:4-5.

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

These witnesses must have been tight lipped. I am sure that their wives would have asked them questions over and over again and all that were married or married passed with flying colors. Also, usually wives have a way of finding out a lie. But none of the wives seemed to make a silver bullet statement that their husbands lied. And that says much too.

[why me]

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.

Maybe I'm stupid or sumthin but the witnesses would have had time to retract their statement attributed to them in the book of mormon.

[Lamanite]

Approaching this with "new eyes", It is still wonderfully fantastic that 3 guys are claiming to have seen what is in this testimony! And these same three guys are claiming it had something to do with God, some plates and an Angel. And they aren't speaking as individuals; they speak as three men united in voice and purpose. That carries depth and weight, IMO.

Now however we choose to dissect this testimony, we're still left with 3 guys who are pretty normal guys. No real reason to make this up. There isn't a rational motive that I can identify. They have everything to lose and almost nothing to gain.

Whether we are believers or not, I can't see why anyone would look at this and dismiss it without considering the incredible significance this testimony is. It is a powerful evidence. Now what type of evidence and what this evidence says... well that's for each individual to decide.

Then after admitting that this testimony carries weight, we can begin to interpret, rationalize, and ad hoc this thing till the cows come home.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Daniel Peterson]

You have an odd way of disputing my claim that any of the witnesses ever stated that they saw the plates with their spiritual eye and not their physical eyes.

What's odd about flatly contradicting it?

I can't think of any more direct way of disputing your claim.

None of the Witnesses ever stated that they saw the plates with their spiritual eyes and not their physical eyes.

There exists no such statement, signed or unsigned.

Heck, I found the acknowledged quotes using the FAIR board. So to answer your reframing of my statement, yes, you are correct, I already agreed that the witnesses never signed a statement saying that they witnessed the plates with anything other than their physical eyes.

Are you stating that there are no corroborating eyewitness accounts of people who claim that they heard any of the witnesses state that they saw the plates with their "spiritual eye" and not their physical eyes? That is what you seem to be inferring, I think.

I'm neither "inferring" nor implying it. I'm stating it, flat out.

On this, see the section at the end of Matthew Roper's essay "The Mythical 'Manuscript Found'" entitled "Book of Mormon Witnesses and the 'Eye of Faith.'"

[Terry Moe]

In the case of the three witnesses it seems fairly straight forward. 3 guys saw and heard something miraculous. We may not believe ourselves, but on the surface it seems legit.

Then come the mental gymnastics that involve, magic, money, group dynamics, shared delusions et al. It's just too much.

If I didn't believe, I could at least say "It appears that they believe they saw something which can be agreed upon by the individuals and as a group. Pretty compelling." And just be done with it.

Let me thank you again for starting this thread. We're getting a lot of good and intelligent discussion here and I have no doubt that you're a honest seeker of the truth. However, in this post you seem to be misinterpreting what others are saying. Also in a later post you present a list of three possibilities: that the witnesses were conspiring to tell lies, were crazy/on drugs, or were telling the truth. Obviously this closely resembles the famous "liar, lunatic, or lord" argument made by C. S. Lewis in defense of Christ's divinity. As a Christian I certainly see the appeal of that argument, yet it is not logically airtight.

The basic response to that argument is the one made by Fr. Benedict Groeschel, perhaps the 20th centuries greatest expert on religious visions and miracles; he investigated a great many such events personally. He said plainly that we must give up the argument that those who see or hear things which don't exist must be insane. It's entirely possible for smart, honest, mentally healthy people to firmly believe they had a certain experience, and be wrong. Why is this the case? Simply because we humans are fallible. That is the first fact at the basis of Christian faith: that we are all fallen. We make mistakes. Our observations, our experiences, our memories are shaped by a lot of different factors. We certain have the ability to experience reality, yet social, cultural, and psychological factors do play tricks on us. All of this is well documented.

One excellent proof of this is the Asch Conformity Experiment.

It was basically an experiment to test whether people would be willing to believe something opposite to what was right in front of their eyes, and the answer is that many were. A group of five was presented with a simple picture such as three colored lines where the red line was clearly the longest. Four members of the group were advised beforehand to insist on something incorrect, such as the red line being shorter than the black line. Lastly the subject of the experiment was asked which line was longest, and often went along with the incorrect answer even when the right answer was directly in front of his or her eyes. This demonstrates the power of group dynamics, as do plenty of other experiments. So when I talk about "group dynamics" and "shared delusions", I am not presenting something far-fetched or off-the-wall. I am talking about a phenomenon that occurs all the time, in normal and healthy people. All of us, if we truly examined ourselves, would have to acknowledge that we've been lead into believing false things by others, even perhaps to believe that we've witnessed something which we didn't actually witness. The ability of the brain to construct false memories is a documented, scientific fact.

So when discussing the three witnesses, we are not given a three-way choice between conspiracy, insanity, and truth. We can acknowledge that they were not crazy. (Though as we've already seen they did reach a certain level of gullibility.) But Joseph Smith was a man who was very, very good and getting people to believe false things. In his early days he claimed that his magic seer stone would locate treasures and a group of farmers paid him hansomely as a result. Later he founded The Kirtland Safety Society Bank and duped a great many people into exchanging real money for bogus bank bills. This man was clearly an expert con artist. He was very good at manipulating people, pushing their buttons, and getting them to believe things which should ordinarily have produced skepticism. Hence it is not far-fetched or absurd to suggest that he used the same manipulation techniques on the three witnesses. As I already showed, many religious leaders throughout history have done the same at various times in history. Having all three join together to produce a clear written statement is unusual but certainly not unheard of. For instance, there was a case in Spain where 32 people signed sworn statements testifying that they had seen Saint Juan Macias perform a multiplication of food in the same manner as Jesus.

[Lamanite]

I'm glad you're enjoy the thread. Classical reasoning an logic often lay outside of my reach, so I often have to take things very very very slow. I also have a very unique world view as a result of who i was and where/how I grew up. I also like to speak in specifics as opposed to hypotheticals. Forgive me in advance as this insistence can get irritating. It is by no means an absolute though.

There is a lot I want to discuss from your post. But lets start with Asch.

Is it your assertion that the idea of group conformity as it applies to the length of lines can be extended to circumscribe the testimony and experiences of the three witnesses?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Daniel Peterson]

Joseph Smith was a man who was very, very good and getting people to believe false things. . . . This man was clearly an expert con artist.

This is your presupposition. You shouldn't assume it's shared by everybody here.

I deny it, for one.

[Lamanite]

But Joseph Smith was a man who was very, very good and getting people to believe false things. In his early days he claimed that his magic seer stone would locate treasures and a group of farmers paid him hansomely as a result. Later he founded The Kirtland Safety Society Bank and duped a great many people into exchanging real money for bogus bank bills. This man was clearly an expert con artist. He was very good at manipulating people, pushing their buttons, and getting them to believe things which should ordinarily have produced skepticism. Hence it is not far-fetched or absurd to suggest that he used the same manipulation techniques on the three witnesses.

This is probably one of the best arguments against the witnesses. I'm going to take a step away from my TBM status and just wander around inside the issue for a min.

There are like 5 different hustles you're ascribing to Joseph. Almost impossible. And I think Joseph falls outside of the boundaries of a normal con-artist. I think he really believed what he was saying. But whatever his motivation, we have to take a look at how he could convince 3 men that they saw something they most assuredly did not.

However good a con man is-- fear, love, money, or power are usually an insufficient stimulus to produce the type of psychic change necessary to fabricate an experience of this magnitude. And it definitely doesn't last once the dream is gone.

On the surface Joseph seemed like a really stupid con man to me. He was really bad at it. He was motivating but he played his angles all wrong. He was always screwing his "re up." No residual income. Always breaking down his "paper." Really bad. Whatever the case he personally never had the power, money, fear, love or allegiance to bring about the absolutely fantastic production of the testimony of the three witnesses, (at least at that time.)

Big UP!

Lamanite

I will now replace my TBM hat.

[cinepro]

This is probably one of the best arguments against the witnesses. I'm going to take a step away from my TBM status and just wander around inside the issue for a min.

There are like 5 different hustles you're ascribing to Joseph. Almost impossible. And I think Joseph falls outside of the boundaries of a normal con-artist. I think he really believed what he was saying. But whatever his motivation, we have to take a look at how he could convince 3 men that they saw something they most assuredly did not.

However good a con man is-- fear, love, money, or power are usually an insufficient stimulus to produce the type of psychic change necessary to fabricate an experience of this magnitude. And it definitely doesn't last once the dream is gone.

On the surface Joseph seemed like a really stupid con man to me. He was really bad at it. He was motivating but he played his angles all wrong. He was always screwing his "re up." No residual income. Always breaking down his "paper." Really bad. Whatever the case he personally never had the power, money, fear, love or allegiance to bring about the absolutely fantastic production of the testimony of the three witnesses, (at least at that time.)

Big UP!

Lamanite

I will now replace my TBM hat.

I'll too step away from my TBM frame of mind and suggest another perspective...

One thing to think about is the circumstances under which the 3 witnesses saw the angel and plates.

Section 5 is one of my favorite sections in the D&C for this very reason. It very plainly shows the Lord (and/or Joseph Smith) slapping Martin Harris for his strong desire to actually see the plates, and maneuvering him into a position to be more "open" to seeing the plates.

The relevant verses start at v.23:

Doctrine and Covenants Section 5:

23 And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness

24 Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see.

25 And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.

26 And I the Lord command him, my servant Martin Harris, that he shall say no more unto them concerning these things, except he shall say: I have seen them, and they have been shown unto me by the power of God; and these are the words which he shall say.

27 But if he deny this he will break the covenant which he has before covenanted with me, and behold, he is condemned.

Either way, that's a classic setup. God is promising Martin that he will get to see the plates if he "humbles" himself. So if he doesn't see the plates, then that is obviously proof that he didn't humble himself sufficiently, because God wouldn't lie, right? It couldn't be that Joseph was fooling him or anything like that. No, it's Martin's fault.

And then after Martin has seen whatever it is God is going to show him, these are the exact words he should say, because after all he might not know what to say after God had actually shown him the plates. Better write it out for him just in case. And don't say anything more than this exact thing which I have told you (which, if you don't say, means you're not humble).

If any of us had a friend or relative in Martin Harris's position, and they had someone telling them stuff like this, we would do everything in our power to get them away from this person. I've always considered it a miracle that Joseph Smith just happened to end up living a mile from the Hill Cumorah and the Gold Plates, but the greater miracle was that he ended up living near someone like Martin Harris.

[Walden]

What's odd about flatly contradicting it?

I can't think of any more direct way of disputing your claim.

None of the Witnesses ever stated that they saw the plates with their spiritual eyes and not their physical eyes.

There exists no such statement, signed or unsigned.

I'm neither "inferring" nor implying it. I'm stating it, flat out.

On this, see the section at the end of Matthew Roper's essay "The Mythical 'Manuscript Found'" entitled "Book of Mormon Witnesses and the 'Eye of Faith.'"

If "none of the Witnesses ever stated that they saw the plates with their spiritual eyes and not their physical eyes", than John Gilbert, one of the printers of the BofM, must have been remiss when he recounted the following convsersation he had with Martin Harris...."I said to [Harris], "Martin, did you see those plates with your naked eyes? Martin looked down for an instant, raised his eyes up, and said, "No, I saw them with a spiritual eye."

Yes, you can spin it to relate to scripture references or visionary realities, etc., as Matt Roper does in his essay. But the fact is that it was recorded by Gilbert that Martin made this statement, so it is not so cut and dry that "none of the Witnesses ever stated that they saw the plates with their spiritual eyes and not their physical eyes," as you state

[Lamanite]

If any of us had a friend or relative in Martin Harris's position, and they had someone telling them stuff like this, we would do everything in our power to get them away from this person. I've always considered it a miracle that Joseph Smith just happened to end up living a mile from the Hill Cumorah and the Gold Plates, but the greater miracle was that he ended up living near someone like Martin Harris.

It's really kind of funny that some of us believe that a 2000 yr old Jew who resurrected himself appeared to a farm boy in upstate NY along with a corporeal Heavenly Father. And then sent a messenger in the form of an Indian angel (casino Indian not 7-11 Indian) and some gold plates.

I do think Martin Harris manipulation is plausible. I just can't see a Harris, Whitmer, Cowdery group manipulation.

Big UP!

Lamanite- TBM hat back on. (someone's going to contact my Bishop pretty soon.)

[volgadon]

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

[Ariarates]

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

That was my point all along. The testimony of the three witnesses would not be considered a witness statement by modern standards.

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

Feeling a bit paranoid? I never said, nor implied any such thing. I merely noted that the question was repeatedly raised and repeatedly ignored in this thread and, finally, dismissed.

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.

There, was that so difficult? Thank you for the info.

[Daniel Peterson]

That was my point all along. The testimony of the three witnesses would not be considered a witness statement by modern standards.

The standards of the modern U.S. courtroom are not the standards of historical writing.

If historians were bound by the artificial standards of the courtroom, very little historical writing would ever get done.

Feeling a bit paranoid?

Not even slightly.

Why do you feel the need to insinuate mental illness?

There, was that so difficult?

I experienced no difficulty whatever, and never said anything to suggest otherwise.

Why do you feel impelled to suggest, falsely, that I found it "difficult"?

[Lamanite]

The standards of the modern U.S. courtroom are not the standards of historical writing.

I always wonder why critics so often appeal to this standard in this particular instance? Is it the word "testimony" perhaps.

Curious,

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Ariarates]

I always wonder why critics so often appeal to this standard in this particular instance? Is it the word "testimony" perhaps.

I can only speak for myself and I primariliy reacted to your OP where you stated that this testimony is a "rational expression of certitude". I think it is an honest expression of faith.

[Ariarates]

Why do you feel the need to insinuate mental illness?

(...)

I experienced no difficulty whatever, and never said anything to suggest otherwise.

Why do you feel impelled to suggest, falsely, that I found it "difficult"?

Dude, feel free to pull this kind of stuff on your students but I'm not impressed.