Bom Witnesses: Vogel Responds To Apologists

[Dan Vogel]

For those interested, here is my long overdue response

"Book of Mormon Witnesses Revisited:

A Response to Richard L. Anderson, Stephen C. Harper,

Daniel C. Peterson, Richard L. Bushman, and Alan Goff"

]

Enjoy!

Edited March 16, 2012 by Dan Vogel

[cdowis]

http://signaturebook...ted/#witnesses Edited March 16, 2012 by cdowis

[wenglund]

The challenge here for most of us is in, 150 years or more after the fact, trying to understand, explain, and argue about the type of thing we may not have personally experienced (visions, seeing things with "spiritual eyes," etc.), using at times the statements and interactions of people who also may not have personally experienced such things, and did not experience that particular thing.

This challenge is made all the more difficult for people who not only haven't experienced the type of thing being argued, but who disbelieve in those types of things.

It is like trying to argue about the reality of colors with people who may not have seen colors and who may disbelieve the existence of colors.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cdowis]

Of course, the Testimony does not say the witnesses had an “unobstructed” view of the plates; that’s Anderson’s assumption. Nor does it say they turned the leaves, but instead ambiguously states that “as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands.” Conceivably the leaves could be turned even while under a cloth or in a sack, which Anderson admits is possible when he states in a footnote “Martin [Harris] spoke of handling the leaves of the plates, but possibly when the record was covered, as William and Emma Smith did.”⁷ Regardless, since the Testimony can accommodate either Anderson’s purely naturalistic reading or my spiritual-sight reading or even Palmer’s purely subjective reading, it begs the question to quote the Testimony as contradicting the subjectivists’ position. We saw how the naturalistic language of the Testimony of Three Witnesses led Anderson to make similar assumptions that were disproved by the subsequent statements of Harris and Whitmer, so Anderson is on shaky ground when he inserts his naturalistic assumptions into his reading of the Testimony of Eight Witnesses.

Now let's see the actual statement, without your commentary:

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

CHRISTIAN WHITMER, JACOB WHITMER, PETER WHITMER, JUN., JOHN WHITMER, HIRAM PAGE, JOSEPH SMITH, SEN., HYRUM SMITH, SAMUEL H. SMITH

1. Martin Harris was not one of the eight witnesses. His witness was based on a vision, so any quote from Harris is unrelated to the eight witness statement.

2. "has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold"

JS showed them the plates, so he was present at the time. The plates had the "appearance" of gold. Note that it does not say anything about gold plates, no gold Bible, but they are plainly giving an eyewitness statement of the plates.

They saw some plates which had the appearance of gold.

3. "we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship" Now, in the previous statement they gave an overall view of the plates, and now they give a detailed description of one or more of the plates -- they saw engravings, which had the appearance of curious workmanship. Again, they are making a statement as eyewitnesses.

Do you understand what "appearance" means, when given by a witness? This is not a repetition of what someone else told them

4. "as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands" Notice that they talked about the plates in a generic statement, and now they handled the individual leaves. It was not a block of metal, but individual leaves which had engravings.

5. Finally, "for we have seen and hefted", "(we) witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it." They saw the plates, they lie not and give their witness before God Himself.

Dan, I understand why you desperately claim that this statement is "ambiguous", that the plates were hidden under a cloth, why you would conflate the vision of the three witnesses. I really do understand.

Here are God fearing men of integrity and they swear before their Maker what they have seen - the plates, the individual leaves, the engravings.

You are the one on shaky ground, my friend. The more you try to explain it, the deeper the ditch you dig for yourself.

Edited March 16, 2012 by cdowis

[wenglund]

Be that as it may, the fundamental issue here is whether the golden plates physically existed or not.

With that in mind, it may be prudent to explore the question of what, if anything, was the intended purpose for which the three witnesses and eight witnesses were chosen. Were they chosen to witness to and testify of visions, and/or to "view things as they are" (D&C 5:11-18)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Dan Vogel]

Wade,

The challenge you describe exists for any historical topic, but I’ve seen you take a position many times.

The notion that one has to experience a vision in order to discover whether one took place in the past is, of course, nonsense. We’re merely trying to decide what type of vision the three witnesses had and whether or not the eight saw the plates in a completely naturalistic way. The issue of vision vs. hallucination is related but not necessary to resolve before the first question can be answered. This was the point I was attempting to make with Goff at the end.

Whether or not I have experienced a vision won’t change the documents and the claims made by the witnesses.

Your task is to determine what the sources say with regard to the question at hand and which is the best explanation given our present information. Attacking me won’t help you do that.

[Bill Hamblin]

All you have to do is dismiss all the primary evidence that says exactly the opposite of Dan's theory, and then it makes perfect sense. For example, when a person says he saw the engravings, that means he didn't really see the engravings because they were under a cloth.

Edited March 16, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[KevinG]

I'm no religious scholar but I gotta admit hefting an object is a pretty convicing hallucination.

Incidently; I pretty much discount anyone who starts decribing religious experience (outside of a peote ceremony or rastafarian gathering) as hallucinatory.

[Dan Vogel]

Bill,

If you took the time to read my response, you would see that you are begging the question because you are citing sources that neglect to mention how they saw the plates or engravings.

[KevinG]

Does this type of reasoning work well with all religious experiences?

Prove to me the camp of Israel wasn't too drunk to notice Moses has just scribbled the commandments on some cardboard cutouts.

Scholarship is fun!

Edited March 16, 2012 by KevinG

[cdowis]

If you took the time to read my response, you would see that you are begging the question because you are citing sources that neglect to mention how they saw the plates or engravings.

It is unreasonable for us to do a detailed analysis of your article when you are very familiar with your own arguments and can give us a summary. Give us a summary, please, of the highlights or you can continue to criticize our comments with "you just don't understand my arguments."

I took one or two paragraphs and gave my analysis. Just respond, rather than telling us "read the whole thing -- I have already given you a detailed response" This forum is neither a scholastic journal nor a university graduate forum.

Edited March 16, 2012 by cdowis

[Dan Vogel]

Keven G,

If you take the time and read my response, you will see that my reconstruction includes the presence of an object in a box or covered with a cloth that is seen by spiritual sight or vision.

As to your second, comment: As I said to Wade, hallucination is a secondary issue. If once concludes all the witnesses saw the plates subjectively, the possibility of hallucination can be explored. In such case, my argument would be that if one concludes the BOM is not real history, it follows that there were no plates.

Are you saying that there is only one way to hallucinate?

[KevinG]

Keven G,

If you take the time and read my response, you will see that my reconstruction includes the presence of an object in a box or covered with a cloth that is seen by spiritual sight or vision.

As to your second, comment: As I said to Wade, hallucination is a secondary issue. If once concludes all the witnesses saw the plates subjectively, the possibility of hallucination can be explored. In such case, my argument would be that if one concludes the BOM is not real history, it follows that there were no plates.

I haven't read a bit of your thesis... The weaknesses pointed out in this discussion alone tell me its probably not worth the time.

Your reconstruction is hardly the actual experience. Are we not to take the words of the witnesses at face value? What actual contemporary evidence can you present that these witnesses were in fact lying or hallucinating? Was there a record of these men being prone to religious visions and hallucinations? Were they recorded as standing in a field of poppies? Throwing in all sorts of conjecture while discounting the actual evidence they did see and handle the plates is a lot of effort invested in what is in the end another run of the mill conspiracy theory.

Are you saying that there is only one way to hallucinate?

A great example of your reading too much into a single statement. I see a pattern here.

Edited March 16, 2012 by KevinG

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Well, it was a noble effort, but though I read every word, the essay failed to convince me that the perennial insistence on inserting a necessarily-subjective "spiritual-sight" or "mind vision" into the Testimony is based on anything but a rather desperate attempt to adhere to the unsupportable premise so aptly summarized by McMurrin's quip that "you don't get books from angels and translate them by miracles."

One can lecture endlessly on about "contextualizing" the Testimony of the witnesses, but the fact remains that dismissing the angel as a hallucination requires a rather audacious decontextualization. Goff is entirely correct that the "goal in [this, and innumerable other] essay about Book of Mormon witnesses is to deny any material or naturalistic witness of plates or angels," or, in other words, to "controvert Richard Anderson’s superficial reading of the published Testimony [...] that the angel was literally, physically, and objectively present."

That's all it is, and that's all it ever seems to be.

Of course the plates were shown to them through "spiritual eyes" "by a supernatural power." That'd be the angel. This does nothing to "suggest something other than a normal, physical experience." All Whitmer is saying is that he believes that if "supernatural" power was not available, Joseph would not have been led to the plates, and Whitmer therefore could not have seen them.

The critical viewpoint expressed in this essay perpetually insists on the presumed (yet insupportable) dichotomy between "physical experience" and "supernatural" or "spiritual" occurrences, despite the fact that one of Joseph Smith's explicitly-stated intentions was to do "many things to break down superstition" and dissolve the presumed tension between a materialist worldview and the visitations from the Heavens recorded by witnesses.

Despite repeated (and unsuccessful) attempts to evade the (accurate) charge of Brodie-esque psychologizing and mind-reading, if one is to believe in the argument presented in this paper, one has to "assume" that the experience was visionary, or that Joseph "induced" the witnesses to see things that weren't there (though how he was able to charismatically hypnotize them so effectively is, of course, never explained.)

When one insists on the "supernatural" or "clairvoyant" reading, one is indeed indulging in mind-reading, and the multiplication of "possible scenarios" is useless because of course one can come up with endless possibilities to explain away any historical event that are "not inconsistent with the subjectivist interpretation." What Harris "could have" done to straighten our Burnett more effectively is irrelevant to the historical question of what he did do.

Thomas Ford's tendentious (and admittedly "garbled") account cannot be dismissed out of hand because while the "details [...] may be inaccurate", nevertheless the "essence" of the account "contains an element of truth"? Sheesh. The "details" are exactly what is in question. Trying to extract some numinous "essence" from them is really an attempt to justify grasping at rather slender straws.

Of course it's possible to recontextualize the "simple affirmations or ambiguous statements that Whitmer had seen and handled the plates" as "not inconsistent with the subjectivist interpretation." As the paper itself notes, all experience is subjective. If I pick up a book, no one else can feel through my hands or experience what I am experiencing. Yet despite this experiential subjective relativism, the historical fact remains that I really did pick up the book. Booth's "suggestibility" hypothesis is of course a suggestion which is satisfying only if one is susceptible to suggestibility.

Yes, everything might be a hallucination, and we could all be living in the Matrix. Since it seems so desperately sought after, I, as a naive believer, hereby "acknowledge" that it's possible for the witnesses to have hallucinated. Since this acknowledgement of the mere possibility does absolutely nothing for either side of the debate, we are now free to move on.

(Though for the record, I disagree extremely strongly with Goff's characterization of "modernity"'s presupposition that material reality is all there is as merely "naive." As if materialism is a bad thing! Indeed, I think he's deeply guilty of inappropriate appropriation of traditional Christian apologetic, when in fact the D&C explicitly states that "materialism" is fundamentally correct, making Mormonism one of the very few modern "naturalistic" religions. I'm very frustrated, in fact, with the too-common Mormon apologetic that attempts to refute critics merely because of their "naturalistic assumptions", since as something of an amateur Mormon apologist myself, I nevertheless find more support for the truth-claims of Mormonism when "naturalistic assumptions" are privileged. But this is just part of a wider frustration with misleadingly sloppy terminology, and not isolated to this particular debate.)

The point is, even from a completely naturalistic standpoint, it is the testimonies of the disillusioned Burnett and Parrish that are truly ambiguous; while one can take their statements at face value, that is just as circular as Anderson's attempt to dismiss them as reinterpretations. Certainly their testimonies do not decisively confirm or deny either critical or apologetic assumptions. It's fittingly ironic, then, that contending that Anderson has "no evidence for his ad hoc conspiracy theory and no reason to postulate one other than his need to explain away multiple witnesses" is exactly the kind of idiosyncratic question-begging eisegesis that this essay indulges in.

In the end, the quote from Peterson is still the best conclusion:

"Rigidly unwilling to accept the testimony of the witnesses at face value, [this essay] invents an unevidenced and rather implausible pseudofact in order to salvage [this] rejection of their claims. [...] Dogmatically committed to [this] position, [the essay] is willing to resort to what seem to me painfully obvious ad hoc just-so stories in order to eliminate evidence that challenges [the critical] position."

Edited March 16, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Dan Vogel]

Dowis,

Harris wasn’t one of the eight, but what better secondhand testimony could there be? You seem to imply that he was either lying or mistaken about the eight witnesses. I don’t see either alternative as reasonable.

To quote from the published Testimony of Eight Witnesses is to beg the question. John Whitmer’s statement that the plates were shown to him “by a supernatural power” modifies how the testimony is read. The fact that the testimony can be read in different ways shows that it is ambiguous. Hence the need for additional insight from sources which are more explicit.

You are arguing in circles when you assume the witnesses saw the plates and engravings with natural sight rather than spiritual sight.

Do you understand what "appearance" means, when given by a witness? This is not a repetition of what someone else told them

I never said their testimony was hearsay.

"as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands" Notice that they talked about the plates in a generic statement, and now they handled the individual leaves. It was not a block of metal, but individual leaves which had engravings.

It doesn’t say they handled the individual leaves or turned the pages. The phrase they use is awkward and ambiguous. But it would be possible to turn the leaves of plates either through the cloth or under the cloth as William Smith and Emma did when the ruffled the leaves.

Swearing that they had seen the plates doesn’t imply that they were uncovered or that they saw them with natural eyes any more than the three witnesses swear to the same thing. The Testimony of Three Witnesses says “we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates ... we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon.” But from subsequent statements by Whimter and Harris, we know this was a very spiritual and subjective experience.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

If you took the time to read my response, you would see that you are begging the question because you are citing sources that neglect to mention how they saw the plates or engravings.

The fact that they didn't use the magic words you think they should have used to describe their experience does not demonstrate that the words they did use to describe their experience can mean whatever you want them to mean.

[Buzzard]

"Awkward and ambigous"? It seems straightforward to me. There were multiple leaves, they handled them-plural. The fact that they were using formal language to describe an event that would have been sacred to them doesn't mean that they were innacurate in their description.

[Bill Hamblin]

By the way, it is physiologically impossible for two different people to have the same hallucination.

[KevinG]

By the way, it is physiologically impossible for two different people to have the same hallucination.

I dunno... my wife and kids think I'm a handsome man.

[volgadon]

I dunno... my wife and kids think I'm a handsome man.

THere is a difference between hallucination and courtesy.

[Bill Hamblin]

I dunno... my wife and kids think I'm a handsome man.

It is psychologically possible for two people to tell the same lie.

[KevinG]

It is psychologically possible for two people to tell the same lie.

Ouch- point to Bill.

[KevinG]

THere is a difference between hallucination and courtesy.

Et tu Volgadon?

[LeSellers]

By the way, it is physiologically impossible for two different people to have the same hallucination.

I dunno... my wife and kids think I'm a handsome man.

THere is a difference between hallucination and courtesy.

And there is also self-imposed delusion.

None of which applies to the Book of Mormon Witnesses: they saw the plates, and three of them saw the angel. They heard the voice of God attest to the truthfulness (not the accuracy, a slightly different issue) of the translation.

That's what they said, and that's what they meant.

Lehi

[volgadon]

Et tu Volgadon?

All my friends and family know my charming inclination to perfidy, one of my best character-traits.