Witness For The Plates Vs. Witnesses For Resurrection

Calm · December 11, 2012

I'm going to have to go looking for it again, but a very interesting NAMI article gave an account of Martin Harris' last few months in Utah. His last known public testimony is a strange, rambling, vague list of opinions and the end is missing.

this article is quite in depth and may be the one you are thinking of:

http://mimobile.byu.edu/?m=5&table=jbms&vol=20&num=1&id=589

Hamilton Porter · December 11, 2012

Hamilton wrote:
This retort was just so clever that I am unable to refute it, not having a clue as to its point.

Ya see? The devil fused them chimp chromosomes 2a and 2b and put that it in us to make us think we monkeys. Evolution the trick of the devil. I ain't no money no no n no.

canard78 · December 11, 2012

this article is quite in depth and may be the one you are thinking of:
http://mimobile.byu.edu/?m=5&table=jbms&vol=20&num=1&id=589

That is exactly the one. Thank you. I couldn't think whether it was in JBMS, Insights or somewhere else.

I felt quite sorry for him while reading the middle section where he seems to have become a bit of a lonely old man dwelling on past glories.

It's nice to think he had a bit of a swansong in SLC at the very end.

Rob Bowman · December 11, 2012

mathonihah,

Hi there. You wrote:

The witnesses serve two important purposes in the divine scheme of things: (1) They fulfil the scriptural requirement that "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall all things be established". (2) They are the Lord's answer to unbelievers in judgment day; they cannot claim immunity from judgment on the grounds that they had no evidence.

I appreciate this intelligent comment. Here's my response.

The biblical requirement of two or three witnesses presupposes that the witnesses will give testimony that is credible. The 450 prophets of Baal and 400 prophets of Asherah (1 Kings 18:19) were all wrong. (I am of course not comparing Mormonism to Baalism.) Multiple witnesses are generally necessary but not sufficient to establish factual claims.
The testimonies of multiple human witnesses gain credibility when they are independent of one another, or at least not coordinated or controlled by one individual. In the case of the witnesses to the resurrection, Jesus was seen on many different occasions by individuals, small groups, and large groups; by both women and men; by his closest followers, skeptical family members, and one hostile opponent. No mortal arranged these encounters, which took place unannounced and generally surprised the witnesses. In the case of the witnesses to the gold plates, all but one (Martin Harris) were relatives of Joseph or of David Whitmer; all of them were already supporters of Joseph's work; the encounters took place only after nearly two years of refusing to allow anyone to see the plates even though they were supposedly in Joseph's possession; the witnesses saw the plates on just two occasions, both arranged and controlled by Joseph Smith; and their affidavits were composed for them by someone else (either Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery).
The person who is seeking to know the truth about the Book of Mormon must take into consideration all of the evidence, which includes but is not limited to the testimonies of the witnesses.
If two or three witnesses are required to establish the truth of a religiously important claim, it is curious that the event that Mormons regard as the most important event in history after Jesus' resurrection is known only from one witness. I refer of course to the First Vision, an event for which we have only Joseph Smith's testimony.
If I am wrong about Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon, it is not because I am an "unbeliever." I am a firm believer in Jesus Christ. I have no problem accepting the reality of miracles, visions, and divine revelations. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the evidence shows that Jesus did not appear to Joseph Smith and that the Book of Mormon was not translated from ancient scriptures written on gold plates.

Thanks again for your comment.

volgadon · December 11, 2012

all of them were already supporters of Joseph's work

So were most of the witnesses to the resurrection.

Rob Bowman · December 11, 2012

volgadon,

You wrote:

So were most of the witnesses to the resurrection.

Most but not all: Jesus' brothers were not, and of course Paul was not.

volgadon · December 11, 2012

volgadon,
You wrote:
Most but not all: Jesus' brothers were not, and of course Paul was not.

Yet Jesus' brothers were his relations. Paul is a strong witness, but so are the consequent apostasies of the three.

Rob Bowman · December 11, 2012

volgadon,

You wrote:

Yet Jesus' brothers were his relations. Paul is a strong witness, but so are the consequent apostasies of the three.

All of these matters must be put in context. Jesus' brothers were his relatives but were skeptical of Jesus before they saw him risen from the dead. Paul was not a relative and was vehemently opposed to the Christian message until he saw the risen Jesus. Mormonism has no one comparable to the apostle Paul. The later apostasy of the Three Witnesses may seem to make them strong witnesses to the Book of Mormon, but there are reasons to question this claim. For example, Harris's credibility as a witness is severely compromised by his enthusiasm for other religious claims incompatible with the LDS faith. It is quite plausible to maintain that Cowdery and Whitmer felt it necessary to distance themselves from Joseph Smith because of his later shenanigans while at the same time they did not wish to admit that they had been knowing parties to a deception from the very beginning.

why me · December 11, 2012

I'm going to have to go looking for it again, but a very interesting NAMI article gave an account of Martin Harris' last few months in Utah. His last known public testimony is a strange, rambling, vague list of opinions and the end is missing. The deathbed affirmation was far more pithy and succinct and witnessed & transcribed by a small group of people.
That doesn't invalidate his testimony, but I don't believe in the BoM because of a second hand transcription of what he said on his deathbed (particularly when it bears little resemblance to the last public testimony), instead I beleive the BoM because of a personal, spiritual experience. I find the 'evidence' and 'witnesses' for the BoM no more convincing than for the NT accounts. I guess God's not looking for us to follow evidence.

But then we have oliver cowdery and hiram page who also restated their testimony on their deathbeds. It just wasn't martin who gave it on his deathbed. And David Whitmer had his put on his tombstone.

Edited December 11, 2012 by why me

why me · December 11, 2012

For example, Harris's credibility as a witness is severely compromised by his enthusiasm for other religious claims incompatible with the LDS faith. It is quite plausible to maintain that Cowdery and Whitmer felt it necessary to distance themselves from Joseph Smith because of his later shenanigans while at the same time they did not wish to admit that they had been knowing parties to a deception from the very beginning.

Actually it wasn't because of shenanigans but rather because of disagreements with Joseph. Also, people close to martin do not seem to have the same worry that you do about martin. They seem to have found him very convincing:

Finally, in 1870, Martin’s desire to be reunited with his family in Utah resulted in a warm invitation from Brigham Young, a ticket for his passage, and an official escort from one of the Presidents of Seventy. A Utah interviewer of the 87-year-old man described him as “remarkably vigorous for one of his years, … his memory being very good” (Deseret News, 31 Aug. 1870). He was rebaptized, a common practice at that time, and spoke twice to audiences in this Tabernacle. We have no official report of what he said, but we can be sure of his central message since over 35 persons left similar personal accounts of what he told them during this period. One reported Martin saying, “It is not a mere belief, but is a matter of knowledge. I saw the plates and the inscriptions thereon. I saw the angel, and he showed them unto me” (quoted in Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 116).

When he reiterated his testimony of the Book of Mormon in the closing days of his life, Martin Harris declared, “I tell you of these things that you may tell others that what I have said is true, and I dare not deny it; I heard the voice of God commanding me to testify to the same” (quoted in Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 118).

Martin Harris died in Clarkston, Utah, in 1875, at age 92. His life is commemorated in the memorable pageant, Martin Harris: The Man Who Knew, produced each summer in Clarkston, Utah.

What do we learn from this example? (1) Witnesses are important, and the testimony of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon is impressive and reliable. (2) Happiness and spiritual progress lie in following the leaders of the Church. (3) There is hope for each of us, even if we have sinned and strayed from a favored position.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/05/the-witness-martin-harris

The Nehor · December 11, 2012

Ya see? The devil fused them chimp chromosomes 2a and 2b and put that it in us to make us think we monkeys. Evolution the trick of the devil. I ain't no money no no n no.

Speaking of chimps did you know that if there were an infinite number of you banging out posts on this board they would eventually write all of Shakespeare's plays?

volgadon · December 11, 2012

Speaking of chimps did you know that if there were an infinite number of you banging out posts on this board they would eventually write all of Shakespeare's plays?

AKA the internet.

Bill “Papa” Lee · December 11, 2012

You can show how relying on someone's word that a whole bunch of people saw Christ is hearsay, but to claim that they were ignorant peasants because they weren't technologically advanced enough to have signed affidavits is plain silly.

Very true...I think Adam knew as much as any man...it is our capacity (or in my case misspell) that determines intelligence.

Bill “Papa” Lee · December 11, 2012

volgadon,
You wrote:
Most but not all: Jesus' brothers were not, and of course Paul was not.

And what of Paul's different accounts by Luke?

canard78 · December 12, 2012

Finally, in 1870, Martin’s desire to be reunited with his family in Utah resulted in a warm invitation from Brigham Young, a ticket for his passage, and an official escort from one of the Presidents of Seventy. A Utah interviewer of the 87-year-old man described him as “remarkably vigorous for one of his years, … his memory being very good” (Deseret News, 31 Aug. 1870). He was rebaptized, a common practice at that time, and spoke twice to audiences in this Tabernacle. We have no official report of what he said, but we can be sure of his central message since over 35 persons left similar personal accounts of what he told them during this period. One reported Martin saying, “It is not a mere belief, but is a matter of knowledge. I saw the plates and the inscriptions thereon. I saw the angel, and he showed them unto me” (quoted in Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 116).
This is incorrect. We do have a copy of one of his public addresses. The Ensign 1999 article was written long before the NAMI one so its author may have been unaware of the record (or found post-99). But the "we can be sure" is no more a historically reliable device than our critics use. We cannot be sure of something said without any evidence of it.
http://mimobile.byu.edu/?m=5&table=jbms&vol=20&num=1&id=589
It's in the last quarter of the article and bears little resemblance to what others recorded him saying more lucidly in private.
Church leaders worked incredibly hard to get Harris to Utah and he became a bit of a poster boy once he did. What's sure however is that there his no record anywhere of his denial of his testimony.
When he reiterated his testimony of the Book of Mormon in the closing days of his life, Martin Harris declared, “I tell you of these things that you may tell others that what I have said is true, and I dare not deny it; I heard the voice of God commanding me to testify to the same” (quoted in Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 118).
Martin Harris died in Clarkston, Utah, in 1875, at age 92. His life is commemorated in the memorable pageant, Martin Harris: The Man Who Knew, produced each summer in Clarkston, Utah.
What do we learn from this example? (1) Witnesses are important, and the testimony of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon is impressive and reliable. (2) Happiness and spiritual progress lie in following the leaders of the Church. (3) There is hope for each of us, even if we have sinned and strayed from a favored position.
http://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/05/the-witness-martin-harris
When I read Harris' story I find it difficult to see anything other than a lonely old man clinging onto the one thing that brought attention.
The absense of a denial from the witnesses is evidence of nothing more than that. We have conclusive proof that no witness categorically denied they saw the plates.
My testimony of the Book of Mormon bears no relationship to historical evidence. Including witnesses. For every evidence 'for' there are plenty 'against.'

canard78 · December 12, 2012

Finally, in 1870, Martin’s desire to be reunited with his family in Utah resulted in a warm invitation from Brigham Young, a ticket for his passage, and an official escort from one of the Presidents of Seventy. A Utah interviewer of the 87-year-old man described him as “remarkably vigorous for one of his years, … his memory being very good” (Deseret News, 31 Aug. 1870). He was rebaptized, a common practice at that time, and spoke twice to audiences in this Tabernacle. We have no official report of what he said, but we can be sure of his central message since over 35 persons left similar personal accounts of what he told them during this period. One reported Martin saying, “It is not a mere belief, but is a matter of knowledge. I saw the plates and the inscriptions thereon. I saw the angel, and he showed them unto me” (quoted in Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 116).
This is incorrect. We do have a copy of one of his public addresses. The Ensign 1999 article was written long before the NAMI one so its author may have been unaware of the record (or found post-99). But the "we can be sure" is no more a historically reliable device than our critics use. We cannot be sure of something said without any evidence of it.
http://mimobile.byu.edu/?m=5&table=jbms&vol=20&num=1&id=589
It's in the last quarter of the article and bears little resemblance to what others recorded him saying more lucidly in private.
Church leaders worked incredibly hard to get Harris to Utah and he became a bit of a poster boy once he did. What's sure however is that there his no record anywhere of his denial of his testimony.
When he reiterated his testimony of the Book of Mormon in the closing days of his life, Martin Harris declared, “I tell you of these things that you may tell others that what I have said is true, and I dare not deny it; I heard the voice of God commanding me to testify to the same” (quoted in Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 118).
Martin Harris died in Clarkston, Utah, in 1875, at age 92. His life is commemorated in the memorable pageant, Martin Harris: The Man Who Knew, produced each summer in Clarkston, Utah.
What do we learn from this example? (1) Witnesses are important, and the testimony of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon is impressive and reliable. (2) Happiness and spiritual progress lie in following the leaders of the Church. (3) There is hope for each of us, even if we have sinned and strayed from a favored position.
http://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/05/the-witness-martin-harris
When I read Harris' story I find it difficult to see anything other than a lonely old man clinging onto the one thing that brought attention.
The absence of a denial from the witnesses is evidence of nothing more than that. We have conclusive proof that no witness categorically denied they saw the plates.
My testimony of the Book of Mormon bears no relationship to historical evidence. Including witnesses. For every evidence 'for' there are plenty 'against.'

mathonihah · December 12, 2012

The biblical requirement of two or three witnesses presupposes that the witnesses will give testimony that is credible. The 450 prophets of Baal and 400 prophets of Asherah (1 Kings 18:19) were all wrong. (I am of course not comparing Mormonism to Baalism.) Multiple witnesses are generally necessary but not sufficient to establish factual claims.

I don’t see how that relates to the witness of the Book of Mormon. There is nothing in the biblical account that suggests that they were testifying of anything, and certainly not of something tangible like the plates of the BoM. I don’t see that the comparison is applicable.

The testimonies of multiple human witnesses gain credibility when they are independent of one another, or at least not coordinated or controlled by one individual. In the case of the witnesses to the resurrection, Jesus was seen on many different occasions by individuals, small groups, and large groups; by both women and men; by his closest followers, skeptical family members, and one hostile opponent. No mortal arranged these encounters, which took place unannounced and generally surprised the witnesses. In the case of the witnesses to the gold plates, all but one (Martin Harris) were relatives of Joseph or of David Whitmer; all of them were already supporters of Joseph's work; the encounters took place only after nearly two years of refusing to allow anyone to see the plates even though they were supposedly in Joseph's possession; the witnesses saw the plates on just two occasions, both arranged and controlled by Joseph Smith; and their affidavits were composed for them by someone else (either Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery).
The person who is seeking to know the truth about the Book of Mormon must take into consideration all of the evidence, which includes but is not limited to the testimonies of the witnesses.

That kind of sounds like you are bringing excuses. The purpose of witnesses in spiritual matters is not to effect conviction, but to provide just enough credibility to urge further investigation. The witness that counts is the one that comes direct God. Nobody becomes a Mormon just because of the testimony of the three or eight witnesses. They will become Mormons when they receive the testimony of the Holy Ghost for themselves. But that testimony will not come unless it is sought. Therefore there must be some initial impetuous before one takes the thing seriously enough to even consider investigation. On judgement day, God is not going to say to those who had not believed in the message of the Restoration, “Why did you not obtain full conviction from the testimony of the witnesses?” He is going to say, “Wasn’t that enough for you to give it serious thought?” That is the purpose of the witness—to provide just enough credibility to urge you to investigate. And if you investigate, you have the promise of the Lord that you will obtain.

If two or three witnesses are required to establish the truth of a religiously important claim, it is curious that the event that Mormons regard as the most important event in history after Jesus' resurrection is known only from one witness. I refer of course to the First Vision, an event for which we have only Joseph Smith's testimony.

Not every spiritual manifestation requires witnesses. We have no independent witnesses to Paul’s vision when he was taken to the third heaven, and saw and heard things that were not lawful to be uttered (2 Cor. 12:2-4). Some things require witnesses, and some don’t.

If I am wrong about Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon, it is not because I am an "unbeliever." I am a firm believer in Jesus Christ. I have no problem accepting the reality of miracles, visions, and divine revelations. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the evidence shows that Jesus did not appear to Joseph Smith and that the Book of Mormon was not translated from ancient scriptures written on gold plates.

By “unbeliever” I meant unbeliever in the message of the Restoration. As for your conclusions, that is a matter for you do decide. I hope for your sakes that you are right. As for myself, I have no doubt that I am right.

canard78 · December 12, 2012

The witnesses serve two important purposes in the divine scheme of things: (1) They fulfil the scriptural requirement that "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall all things be established". (2) They are the Lord's answer to unbelievers in judgment day; they cannot claim immunity from judgment on the grounds that they had no evidence.

The only thing established is that 11 close friends and family said they saw the plates and never refuted that testimony.

If God had wanted to provide evidence to judge us against I'd like to think he'd provide more than that. A setting for the BoM might be a good thing, rather than have people chase across North & South America and even to the Malaysian peninsula. Every other canonised scripture has a location I can visit. Egypt, Canaan, Bethlehem, Nauvoo. I can't find Zarahemla on Google Earth.

I am not trying to disprove the Book of Mormon. But it's pretty clear that no unrefutable evidence for the Book of Mormon's divinity exists other than the words in the book itself and our personal interactions with Deity. I would imagine it was intended to be that way.

mathonihah · December 12, 2012

The only thing established is that 11 close friends and family said they saw the plates and never refuted that testimony.
If God had wanted to provide evidence to judge us against I'd like to think he'd provide more than that. A setting for the BoM might be a good thing, rather than have people chase across North & South America and even to the Malaysian peninsula. Every other canonised scripture has a location I can visit. Egypt, Canaan, Bethlehem, Nauvoo. I can't find Zarahemla on Google Earth.

That is not a testimony, that is a fact. If God had proved the truth of the Book of Mormon as a matter of fact, you would have no reason to "believe" anything, because you already knew it as a matter of fact. It was not God't intention to "prove" the Book of Mormon as a matter of fact, but to provide sufficient witness that you might believe.

canard78 · December 12, 2012

That is not a testimony, that is a fact. If God had proved the truth of the Book of Mormon as a matter of fact, you would have no reason to "believe" anything, because you already knew it as a matter of fact. It was not God't intention to "prove" the Book of Mormon as a matter of fact, but to provide sufficient witness that you might believe.

That is not correct and it frustrates me that it gets trotted out so often. Having a geographic location would not make miracles, visions and theological teaching facts.

I can visit the sacred grove, that doesn't make the first vision a fact.

I can visit Kirkland, that doesn't make the Elijah vision a fact.

I can visit Canaan and Egypt, that doesn't make Abraham's vision a fact.

I can visit Bethlehem, that doesn't make the immaculate conception a fact.

Etc etc.

Calm · December 12, 2012

The only thing established is that 11 close friends and family said they saw the plates and never refuted that testimony.
If God had wanted to provide evidence to judge us against I'd like to think he'd provide more than that. A setting for the BoM might be a good thing, rather than have people chase across North & South America and even to the Malaysian peninsula. Every other canonised scripture has a location I can visit. Egypt, Canaan, Bethlehem, Nauvoo. I can't find Zarahemla on Google Earth.

What is stopping you from visiting Jerusalem or Nahom?

canard78 · December 12, 2012

What is stopping you from visiting Jerusalem or Nahom?

Indeed, or even hill cumorah where the plates were buried. But the majority of the book of mormon has nothing to do with those areas. If God wanted witnesses to trigger interest, a locatable Zarahemla would be a good one.

$Nathair/|\$ · December 12, 2012

What is stopping you from visiting Jerusalem or Nahom?

Or Shazer, the Valley of Lemuel, or Bountiful?

The Nehor · December 12, 2012

What is stopping you from visiting Jerusalem or Nahom?

Probably visa issues.

canard78 · December 12, 2012

Or Shazer, the Valley of Lemuel, or Bountiful?

FWIW I consider the Jerusalem, NHM and east to Bountiful stuff to be pretty cool.

But here's where we start potentially tying ourselves up in knots. (And this isn't directed solely at you, it's also as an additional response to Mathonihah and to LDS in general).

On the one hand we often say that we can't have a physical location for Zarahemla else we'd have facts and God wants faith.

On the other we say that no, no, we do have known locations: Jerusalem and " a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood ©onvenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New York..." (JSH 1:51), which some presume to be be Cumorah (D&C 128:20 And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the book to be revealed.)... But not the Cumorah of Mormon 6 else that would make no sense. In fact Midgely over at MI even calls that bad science to think so.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/defending-the-king-and-his-kingdom/ (fn 21)

Beyond that we have a list of possible Arabian peninsula locations by following the directions in 1 Nep and find some cool parallels that could also simply be 'the last pocket you look in.'

If I wanted to (or could get the Visa Nehor ) I could spend a month tracing from location to the next to follow the footsteps of Jesus.

Or I could stand in the place/town where every single section of the D&C was revealed.

So we simply can't say that having the rest of the BoM geography verfiable would bring the world rushing to our door with no faith needed. That is an arguement with no validity.

If a Zarahemla location is important, why not ask the prophet?

If a Zarahemla location is unimportant, why spend so many $1000s in the Indiana Jones style quest to find it.

In the end, neither 11 questionable witnesses nor fun conjecture about a burial ground and oasis in Arabia provide any reason to even consider the Book of Mormon a book worth opening. I open it and consume it because of the words inside it, the lessons it teaches about Christ and the meaningful experiences I have had in connection with it that I have been taught and choose to attribute to an interaction with Deity.

Sign In

Witness For The Plates Vs. Witnesses For Resurrection

Recommended Posts

Calm

Hamilton Porter

canard78

Rob Bowman

volgadon

Rob Bowman

volgadon

Rob Bowman

why me

why me

The Nehor

volgadon

Bill “Papa” Lee

Bill “Papa” Lee

canard78

canard78

mathonihah

canard78

mathonihah

canard78

Calm

canard78

Nathair/|\

The Nehor

canard78

Recently Browsing 0 members

Similar Content

Lessons Learned from a Young Lady Who is Wise Beyond Her Years

Can Angels Eat? 1 2 3

Thomas's Bum Rap

The Church's New Easter Video

The Necessity Of Jesus' Death

Activity

Browse