Bom Witnesses: Vogel Responds To Apologists

[cdowis]

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.

Harris said many things. Please give us his precise quote specifically about the experience of the eight witnesses (a natural experience) rather than his own experience in a vision.

I can then address your question.

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.

This does not change the nature of the experience.

For example, if we observe subatomic particles in a cloud chamber, the cloud chamber is a mechanism and does not change the reality of the experience. Only though the power of Divinity are the witnesses permitted to view the plates and to survive the event. Scientists are able to "view"the effects of quantum mechanics, but they must have the proper equipment AND training to observe those events.

Thus, an ordinary person such as myself would be unable to discern QM events without the proper preparation, and likewise the viewing of the plates in such intimate terms such as hefting them, looking at the engravings, etc without the spiritual preparation and the permission of Deity.

You really are hung up with the supernatural aspects of the testimony of the three, but the eight had a natural experience (after the proper preparation) as evidenced by their testimony.

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

I never said their testimony was hearsay.

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.

I have answered that question in detail in my previous post.

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.

You continue to conflate those two experiences -- Harris and Whitmer were in a vision with no justification, only that it answers the difficulty that you face to explain the experience of the eight witnesses.

Whatever floats your boat, but it is unconvincing both logically and scholarly.

[cdowis]

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.

Here is what they said, "as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands"

No ambiguity here, no ruffling of the leaves, they viewed the leaves, saw the engravings. All you offer us is your abdurant refusal to accept what they clearly tell us.

No angel, no divine voice, no vision. No mention here or elsewhere of spirit eyes. You have created your own fantasy account, as recorded in an antimormon comic book.

Please get back to us in another six months. Separate the facts from your fantasy.

Edited March 16, 2012 by cdowis

[Dan Vogel]

Jeremy,

Thanks for reading the essay and for your thoughtful response. However, I think you mischaracterize my effort as an automatic rejection of angels and gold plates. It is primarily an attempt to reconstruct the witnesses experiences based on a variety of sources, rather than relying solely on a superficial reading of their published Testimonies.

Your first line of argument that I de-contextualized the Testimonies by dismissing an angel as hallucination flies in the face of my discussion with Goff that states very plainly that he misconstrued my essay in just that way. My original essay only brought the issue up at the end as a possibility, not as an automatic conclusion. Do you deny that hallucination isn’t a possibility? And for those who deny BOM historicity isn’t hallucination a reasonable conclusion?

Again, hallucination wasn’t the purpose of either of my essays. The main point is determining from the sources the nature of those experiences, especially the eight witnesses. Was it completely naturalistic, or did it involve the supernatural?

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.

This interpretation is quite a stretch, Jeremy. He said the plates were shown unto him “by a supernatural power.” I can’t make your reading fit. Besides, this statement fits what Harris and the dissenters were saying in Kirtland.

You find it hard to believe JS could “induce” others to have visions, but it has happened. JS is not unique in that respect. However, again, that’s not the point of my essay.

Ford’s remembrance my be faulty in details, and by itself would be ignored, but its main theme is supported by other accounts. I only use it as evidence that issues surrounding the experience of the eight witnesses were more widely discussed during JS’s lifetime than apologists seem willing to admit.

I’m not re-contextualizing the simple affirmations. The point I was making is that they are ambiguous enough to fit either Anderson’s positions and are useless in resolving the issue. I quoted Booth for his reaction to reading the unpublished revelation (D&C 17), which promised the three witnesses a view of the plates by faith but instructed them to say they had seen them as JS had seen them, which wasn’t the case.

I thought your comments about naturalism and materialism were interesting. Not that I haven’t heard Mormonism characterized in that way, but I didn’t connect it to Goff’s stance.

I’m sorry that you and Peterson see me as in such negative terms, but I might think of you as “rigidly unwilling” to accept all the data and desperately clinging to superficial reading of a terribly flawed document. It’s somewhat arrogant to think that your arguments are of such certainty as to render my rejection of them as “dogmatic”.

Again, Jeremy, thanks for reading and commenting on my essay, even if you didn’t agree with me.

[wenglund]

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.

Dan, you de-crediblize your efforts as a hobbiest historian by being unwilling to reasonably acknowledge your limitations in addressing matters the type of which you not only haven't experienced, but disbelieve occur as others have stated. As a hobbiest historian, myself, I understand my limitations in this area since I haven't personally experienced visions.

Does this mean that you and I have no basis at all to argue the matter? No. What it means is that you and I can only disagree to a limited point, and this non-definitively, and that you and I ought to give deference to those who have experienced such things.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Dan Vogel]

Kevin G,

I’m sorry you feel an award-winning author who has studied the sources for more than thirty years isn’t worth your time.

Your comments are a little all over the place. Let’s see if I can help you understand my position.

My argument with Anderson is that you can’t take the witnesses’ statements at face value, at least not the published Testimonies in the BOM, especially when there is evidence that changes the way they are read.

My essay isn’t about hallucination vs. real vision. It’s primarily concerned with determining the nature of their experiences. Was it naturalistic or was it visionary? And, yes, most of the witnesses had prior experiences with visions. That’s part of what attracted them to JS. Conspiracy theory would only be involved if I claimed they lied, which I don’t.

You say you see a pattern in my reading too much into what you say, but you are the one who said

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

And, in your last post, you said “were they recorded as standing in a field of poppies?” Would you consider this a pattern? Perhaps personal experience?

The only thing that will cause me to respond to your posts is indication that you actually read it. Thanks for your comments.

[Dan Vogel]

Bill,

I have no expectations about how the witnesses should have expressed themselves. I only know what they did say and how that relates to the issue at hand. The point is that we have evidence that the eight witnesses didn’t see the plates in the manner in which you have become accustomed to reading their published Testimony, and their Testimony isn’t worded in such a way as to disprove this evidence.

[LeSellers]

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

All mine know that my humility is the one of which I am proudest, and with good reason.

Lehi

[Dan Vogel]

Buzzard,

I didn’t say the witnesses were inaccurate, only ambiguous and perhaps misleading, that is, if we accept what Harris and the dissenters in Kirtland and Missouri were saying. Note that they could handle the plates through or under the cloth even if they were made out of tin. Their view of them, however, was spiritual under my reconstruction. Only days before the eight saw the plates, a revelation more or less said they could only be seen by faith (D&C 17).

[Dan Vogel]

Bill,

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

True. But how would they know it was different?

I touched on this in my original essay:

Collective or group hallucinations are known to have occurred in various settings outside Mormonism. The many appearances of the "Virgin Mary," often to multiple witnesses, for example. And the visionary experiences of many Shakers in Lebanon, New York, in the early 1840s, were not unlike the Book of Mormon witnesses. In one instance, eight Shakers signed an affidavit attesting that they saw along with Emily Babcock "the holy Angel standing upon the house-top . . . holding the Roll and Book." Group hallucinations have also been observed by modern investigators of the paranormal. In their 1975 book Apparitions, Celia Green and Charles McCreery of the Institute of Psychophysical Research, Oxford, England, state: "There are reports of groups numbering from two up to about eight people seeing the same apparition at the same time, but there are no well authenticated cases of groups much larger than this doing so."

A detailed exploration into the phenomena of group hallucination and the related subject of group psychology is beyond the scope of the present investigation, but the fact that small groups can be hypnotized and made to seemingly experience the same imaginary phenomena should be sufficient warning against the uncritical acceptance of group visionary experiences. Generally, the illusion of group hallucination is achieved through the following mechanisms: expectation, anticipation, suggestion, and cross-infection that can begin prior to the hallucination, operate during the experience, and continue to modify the memories of the participants long afterwards. Thus expectation and anticipation might operate in producing similar experiences for the various participants; communication between the participants during the hallucination, which can range from verbal description to subtle nuances in body language and facial expression, might facilitate similarity of experience--if there is a leader-follower dynamic operating, such as in hypnotist or spiritual guide situations, uniformity of experience is more easily achieved; and, like any human experience, visions or hallucinations are not immune from reconstructive memory and subsequent communication between the participants is likely to contaminate their individual accounts rather than clarify them. Assuming the experiences of the participants were not exact but only similar, subsequent conversations between the participants may not even bring out subtle differences. The phenomenon of group hallucination is less difficult to explain than to discover the principles operating in a given case since the subtleties of group psychology, which largely operate on an unconscious level, are difficult to recover from the participants themselves.

Regardless, the existence of documented group hallucinations should stand as a caution against the implied security of multiple witnesses in the published Testimonies of the three and eight witnesses. Yet as one moves away from the published Testimonies little can be produced to strengthen the case for multiple witnesses. In the claim of the three witnesses, for instance, the very concept of unity begins to break down when it is discovered that Harris experienced the vision separately. And because Cowdery left no firsthand account of his vision of the plates, and no reliable or substantial secondhand account exists, we lack the ability to compare his experience with Whitmer's. Our situation with the eight witnesses is no better. Owing to the rarity and vagueness of statements by the eight witnesses, mostly through secondhand sources, the opportunity for comparative analysis is also lacking in their case. Thus, ultimately, there is little substance behind the concept of unity implied in the published Testimonies.

[wenglund]

Speaking of contextualizing, let me restate (with additions) what I said earlier:

The fundamental issue here is whether the golden plates physically existed or not and were in Joseph's possession.

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)?

What prompted the revelation linked above is, "Martin Harris has desired a witness at my hand, that you, my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., have got the plates of which you have testified and borne record that you have received of me;" (ibid. verse 1)

Joseph was instructed to tell Martin: "I, the Lord, am God, and have given these things [the plates] unto you, my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and have commanded you that you should stand as a witness of these things; And I have caused you that you should enter into a covenant with me, that you should not show them except to those persons to whom I commanded you..." (ibid. verses 2-3)

Evidently, the purpose for the three witnesses was, in part, to testify, along with Joseph, that Joseph did have the plates--i.e. the purpose was to fulfill the law of witnesses in regards to the physical existence of the plates. The law couldn't have been fulfilled except the three witnesses physically experienced the plates in the same way that Joseph had. A purely visionary experience would not suffice. The witnesses needed to "view things as they are," as the Lord commanded.

In short, Vogel's argument doesn't make much sense in terms of the reason behind having witnesses to begin with.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 16, 2012 by wenglund

[why me]

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"

http://signaturebook...sses-revisited/[/url]

Enjoy!

http://www.moroni10.com/witnesses/John_Whitmer.html

The 2nd account came from what was probably John Whitmer’s final interview before his death. It’s funny how all these witnesses who leave the church keep reaffirming their testimonies on their deathbed. What does that tell you? Anyway, this Q&A was published a few weeks after John’s death.

Q - I am aware that your name is affixed to the testimony in the Book of Mormon that you saw the plates?

A - It is so, and that testimony is true.

Q - Did you handle the plates with your hands?

A - I did so!

Q - Then they were a material substance?

A - Yes, as material as anything can be.

Q - Were they heavy to lift?

A - Yes, and as you know gold is a heavy metal: they were very heavy.

Q - How big were the leaves?

A - So far as I recollect, 8 by 6 or seven inches.

Q - Were the leaves thick?

A - Yes, just so thick, that characters could be engraven on both sides.

Q - How were the leaves joined together?

A - In three rings, each one in the shape of a D with the straight line towards the center.

Q - In what place did you see the plates?

A - In Joseph Smith’s house; he had them there.

Q - Did you see them covered with a cloth?

A - No. He handed them uncovered into our hands, and we turned the leaves sufficient to satisfy us.

It seems that john saw the plates and handled them without the cloth.

Edited March 16, 2012 by why me

[why me]

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.

John Whitmer claimed that he saw the plates without a cloth. He handled the plates. We would have to discount this statement by John if we went along with Dan.

[LDSToronto]

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.

This is that awkward moment where I feel I need to point out that this is the second time KevinG has walked into a discussion about a written article (the first being the Joanna Brooks thread) and made statements about the author or article without having read the article.

I don't think it's too much to ask that participants come to the table prepared to discuss the subject matter; it just seems to be good manners.

H.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

True. But how would they know it was different?

Because they were seeing the plates simultaneously and talked to each other about what they saw. It isn't that hard, really.

[Bill Hamblin]

I touched on this in my original essay:

Just because you talk about it doesn't mean you have come up with a coherent counter-explanation.

[Dan Vogel]

Dowis,

I know you know that I’m referring to Stephen Burnett’s report of Harris’s statement in Kirtland in 1838—it’s not our first rodeo together. Here it is for those who are interested:

I have reflected long and deliberately upon the history of this church & weighed the evidence for & against it--loth to give it up--but when I came to hear Martin Harris state in a public congregation that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver [Cowdery] nor David [Whitmer] & also that the eight witnesses never saw them [with their natural eyes] & hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it, the last pedestal gave way, in my view our foundations was sapped & the entire superstructure fell a heap of ruins, I therefore three week since in the Stone Chapel gave a full history of the church since I became acquainted with it, the false preaching & prophecying etc of Joseph [smith] together with the reasons why I took the course which I was resolved to do, and renounced the Book of Mormon with the whole scene of lying and deception practiced by J[oseph]. S[mith] & S[idney]. R[igdon] in this church, believ=ing as I verily do, that it is all a wicked deception palmed upon us unawares[.]

I was followed by W[arren]. Parish[,]Luke Johnson & John Boynton all of who concurred with me, after we were done speaking M[artin] Harris arose & said he was sorry for any man who rejected the Book of Mormon for he knew it was true, he said he had hefted the plates repeatedly in a box with only a tablecloth or a handkerchief over them, but he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain. And said that he never should have told that the testimony of the eight [witnesses] was false, if it had not been picked out of [h]im but should have let it passed as it was--Now br[other] Johnson if you have any thing to say in favour of the Book of Mormon I should be glad to hear it. . . . [p. 64] . . . there are in Kirtland Esqrs [Cyrus] Smalling, [Joseph] Coe, [Martin] Harris and others who still believe the Book of Mormon &c but discard Joseph [smith] & Mr Coe proposed an investigation of the subject, and Parish took up on the negative, but I have not heard how they got along with it, I am well satisfied for myself that if the witnesses whose names are attached to the Book of Mormon never saw the plates as Martin [Harris] admits that there can be nothing brought to prove that any such thing ever existed for it is said on the 171 page of the book of covenants [D&C 17:5] that the three [witnesses] should testify that they had seen the plates even as J[oseph] S[mith] Jr & if they saw them spiritually or in vision with their eyes shut--J[oseph] S[mith] Jr never saw them any other light way & if so the plates were only visionary

-- Stephen Burnett to Lyman E. Johnson, 15 April 1838, Joseph Smith Letterbook (1837-43), 2:64-66, Joseph Smith Papers, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah.

How is it that you think the Testimonies are plain, but want to dance all around John Whitmer’s statement that the plates were shown him “by a supernatural power”? At least I’m not trying to make the Testimonies say something different. Your quantum physics metaphor is irrelevant.

You may think you have answered me but repeating the Testimony, and you may think you are not begging the question by asserting that it is plain about a naturalistic experience, but you have not. It is not plain, although clearly designed to mislead the casual reader. This is why Booth was disturbed when he read the revelation to the three that instructed them to say they saw the plates as JS had seen them, when they had not, and probably why Harris said the eight hesitated to sign the Testimony.

In my last response, I didn’t conflate the three and eight witnesses. I was responding to your argument that the eight said the saw the plates, gold, and engravings, so their view had to have been unobstructed and non-visionary. So I quoted the three saying the same things about seeing the plates in vision. In other words, your logic doesn’t follow.

Whatever floats your boat, but it is unconvincing both logically and scholarly.

How would you know? You don’t seem very knowledgeable about this subject.

[Dan Vogel]

Bill,

Just because you talk about it doesn't mean you have come up with a coherent counter-explanation.

Just because you can state the obvious doesn’t mean I haven’t.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Bill,

Just because you can state the obvious doesn’t mean I haven’t.

Doesn't mean you have either.

[Dan Vogel]

Bill,

Because they were seeing the plates simultaneously and talked to each other about what they saw. It isn't that hard, really.

Didn’t you read the quote I provided? Studies of group hallucination show that the unity is an illusion.

You are assuming unity without being able to document it. However, Abner Cole mentioned in 1831 that Harris and Whitmer seemed to have different descriptions of the plates, and David Whitmer said Harris didn’t see as much as he saw. Harris had a different vision than Cowdery and Whitmer, and Cowdery left no statement.

There is also the factor of preconditioning. JS was giving out descriptions of the angel and plates before the vision of the three. The revelation told the witnesses what would be seen (D&C 17). Whitmer claimed he saw the angel on the road between Harmony and Fayette. Indeed, a little man with a white beard. His mother said she saw the same angel near the barn. Then, Whitmer saw the angel again while plowing. Discussion of these things helped produce unity.

The eight witnesses probably were constrained by the physical presence of the object and knowledge of what the characters looked like. I think it’s significant that John Whitmer mentioned that the engravings were stained with black ink, much as he had seen in the Anthon transcript—parchment color with black ink.

[Dan Vogel]

Doesn't mean you have either.

Which makes it all the more silly for Bill to have started this pointless cycle.

[cdowis]

Dowis,

I know you know that I’m referring to Stephen Burnett’s report of Harris’s statement in Kirtland in 1838—it’s not our first rodeo together. Here it is for those who are interested:

How is it that you think the Testimonies are plain, but want to dance all around John Whitmer’s statement that the plates were shown him “by a supernatural power”? At least I’m not trying to make the Testimonies say something different. Your quantum physics metaphor is irrelevant.

What exactly did he mean that he was shown them "by a supernatural power." Specifically is he claiming that he saw them in a vision, or something else.

I know that you simply dismiss an argument when you cannot respond. My entire discussion about cloud chamber and QM is directed to answer that question. I won't waste my time in the future if you simply dismiss my argument with an arrogant wave of the hand.

Edited March 16, 2012 by cdowis

[why me]

Dowis,

I know you know that I’m referring to Stephen Burnett’s report of Harris’s statement in Kirtland in 1838—it’s not our first rodeo together. Here it is for those who are interested:

How is it that you think the Testimonies are plain, but want to dance all around John Whitmer’s statement that the plates were shown him “by a supernatural power”? At least I’m not trying to make the Testimonies say something different. Your quantum physics metaphor is irrelevant.

You may think you have answered me but repeating the Testimony, and you may think you are not begging the question by asserting that it is plain about a naturalistic experience, but you have not. It is not plain, although clearly designed to mislead the casual reader. This is why Booth was disturbed when he read the revelation to the three that instructed them to say they saw the plates as JS had seen them, when they had not, and probably why Harris said the eight hesitated to sign the Testimony.

In my last response, I didn’t conflate the three and eight witnesses. I was responding to your argument that the eight said the saw the plates, gold, and engravings, so their view had to have been unobstructed and non-visionary. So I quoted the three saying the same things about seeing the plates in vision. In other words, your logic doesn’t follow.

How would you know? You don’t seem very knowledgeable about this subject.

http://www.moroni10.com/witnesses/John_Whitmer.html

There are two notable times that John Whitmer defended his testimony of seeing the plates, after leaving the church. The first was on April 5, 1835, when he was accompanying 8 of a group of 50 men who had sworn to not eat or drink until they had murdered “Joe” Smith. In other words, he was with a bunch of guys slightly hostile to the church. The 8 of them approached Theodore Turley, an elder in the church. They handed Elder Turley a revelation of Joseph Smith’s that they were convinced would never happen. They taunted him claiming this was proof that Joseph was a false prophet and demanded that he denounce the church once the revelation had passed without fulfillment. Turley scoffed at them defending the revelation then turned to John Whitmer and said,

“There are many things published that they say are true, and again turn around and say they are false?" Whitmer, asked, "Do you hint at me?" Elder Turley said, "If the cap fits you, wear it; all I know is that you have published to the world that an angel did present those plates to Joseph Smith." John replied: "I now say, I handled those plates; there were fine engravings on both sides. I handled them." Then he described in the presence of these bitter enemies how the plates were fastened and he said, "They were shown to me by a supernatural power.

[why me]

The eight witnesses probably were constrained by the physical presence of the object and knowledge of what the characters looked like. I think it’s significant that John Whitmer mentioned that the engravings were stained with black ink, much as he had seen in the Anthon transcript—parchment color with black ink.

Let me try this again:

Q - I am aware that your name is affixed to the testimony in the Book of Mormon that you saw the plates?

A - It is so, and that testimony is true.

Q - Did you handle the plates with your hands?

A - I did so!

Q - Then they were a material substance?

A - Yes, as material as anything can be.

Q - Were they heavy to lift?

A - Yes, and as you know gold is a heavy metal: they were very heavy.

Q - How big were the leaves?

A - So far as I recollect, 8 by 6 or seven inches.

Q - Were the leaves thick?

A - Yes, just so thick, that characters could be engraven on both sides.

Q - How were the leaves joined together?

A - In three rings, each one in the shape of a D with the straight line towards the center.

Q - In what place did you see the plates?

A - In Joseph Smith’s house; he had them there.

Q - Did you see them covered with a cloth?

A - No. He handed them uncovered into our hands, and we turned the leaves sufficient to satisfy us.

http://www.moroni10.com/witnesses/John_Whitmer.html

[why me]

The eight witnesses probably were constrained by the physical presence of the object and knowledge of what the characters looked like. I think it’s significant that John Whitmer mentioned that the engravings were stained with black ink, much as he had seen in the Anthon transcript—parchment color with black ink.

What we have from many of the witnesses are deathbed testimonies of their experiences. Testimonies that were given before they met their maker. No one denied their experience and all stressed the truthfulness of the experience.

Do we have a first hand account of what you claim Whitmer said or wrote? Or is it from a second hand source.

[Dan Vogel]

Wade,

Dan, you de-crediblize your efforts as a hobbiest historian by being unwilling to reasonably acknowledge your limitations in addressing matters the type of which you not only haven't experienced, but disbelieve occur as others have stated. As a hobbiest historian, myself, I understand my limitations in this area since I haven't personally experienced visions.

Does this mean that you and I have no basis at all to argue the matter? No. What it means is that you and I can only disagree to a limited point, and this non-definitively, and that you and I ought to give deference to those who have experienced such things.

Your suggestion that any random person claiming visionary experience trumps a historian, hobbyist or otherwise, is ludicrous. Please tell us on what grounds can such a person better assess and analyze historical sources?