Three And Eight Witnesses

[pcarthew]

The one thing that stands out in my mind in all the reading both for and against the BOM, what impresses me more than anything else is the witnesses to the BOM. All remand remand true to their witness even some on their death bed reiterated their testimony (even one having his testimony printed in a pamphlet) for this great book. Nearly all witnesses at some time or another where severely disaffected with the church. Not one recanted their witness.

This to me is a miracle. The first thing you would do if you had been Oliver Cowdery after is excommunication from the church would be to discredit the BOM, the keystone of our religion. He was super annoyed with Joseph, but he could not deny what he new to be true and what he saw with his own eyes, and so for the others, could you imagine if it was all fabricated....they would be the first to discredit it, to hurt Joseph. No one never did deny their witness.

That carries more weight in my mind than and word comparison study ever will.

[why me]

All that you said above is true. We also need to remember that David Whitmer also had his testimony put on his tombstone. The critics have a great difficulty in coming to terms with the witnesses to the book of mormon. The most they can come up with is that they were afraid to divulge the truth for fear of their lives. So, they kept to their story.

 

But this would go against human nature. Someone would have given it up. We need to remember just how much suffering mormons were experiencing from mobs when the witnesses were still alive. To allow such suffering knowing that it is all a fraud would be a case of sociopathic or psychopathic behavior on the part of all the witnesses. And I just don't see them having such a personality disorder.

[Avatar4321]

I would also point out that Oliver had political aspirations and lost because of he wouldn't deny his testimony of the Book of Mormon.

 

And I know we've discussed this in the past, but Oliver and David shared many personal letters after they left the Church in which they discussed matters as if they actually had been authorized by angels. I know when Joseph was Martyred, Oliver speculated whether he should go to the saints since he was the designated Second Elder of the Church (he was unaware that Hyrum had since been given those keys. At least from my limited understanding).

 

I find the witnesses absolutely fascinating. Twelve witnesses for the Book of Mormon just like there were Twelve witnesses for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is not a coincidence.

[omni]

The one thing that stands out in my mind in all the reading both for and against the BOM, what impresses me more than anything else is the witnesses to the BOM. All remand remand true to their witness even some on their death bed reiterated their testimony (even one having his testimony printed in a pamphlet) for this great book. Nearly all witnesses at some time or another where severely disaffected with the church. Not one recanted their witness.

This to me is a miracle. The first thing you would do if you had been Oliver Cowdery after is excommunication from the church would be to discredit the BOM, the keystone of our religion. He was super annoyed with Joseph, but he could not deny what he new to be true and what he saw with his own eyes, and so for the others, could you imagine if it was all fabricated....they would be the first to discredit it, to hurt Joseph. No one never did deny their witness.

That carries more weight in my mind than and word comparison study ever will.

 

Do you also believe the eight witnesses that signed affidavits declaring that JS plagiarized the BoM from Solomon Spaulding's Manuscript Found.  Or what about the  witnesses (one of whom was Martin Harris) who signed affidavits saying they were there when Strang discovered the Voree Plates and held them in their hands before they were later "translated" through the power of God?

[thesometimesaint]

Do you also believe the eight witnesses that signed affidavits declaring that JS plagiarized the BoM from Solomon Spaulding's Manuscript Found.  Or what about the  witnesses (one of whom was Martin Harris) who signed affidavits saying they were there when Strang discovered the Voree Plates and held them in their hands before they were later "translated" through the power of God?

 

CFR

[why me]

Do you also believe the eight witnesses that signed affidavits declaring that JS plagiarized the BoM from Solomon Spaulding's Manuscript Found.  Or what about the  witnesses (one of whom was Martin Harris) who signed affidavits saying they were there when Strang discovered the Voree Plates and held them in their hands before they were later "translated" through the power of God?

I believe that some of the strang witnesses recanted. And the others who signed affidavits that Joseph plagarized the book of mormon from the spaulding manuscripts are not credible. As with much from that time, people were either friends or enemies of the lds church. What makes the 11 witnesses special are the circumstances of being in and out of the church and yet, sticking to their testimonies. This is unusual. The strang movement disappeared rather quickly after the murder of strang. And that tells much. And if joseph plagarized the book of mormon, we would still need a manucript in joseph's hand of the book of mormon complete with rough drafts. No one saw him with a manucript when he translated the book of mormon.

[omni]

This is the written account of four of the witnesses who were there when the plates were uncovered.  Strang showed the plates to many others and even had them inspected by non-Mormons.

 

 

 

On the thirteenth day of September, 1845, we, Aaron Smith, Jirah B. Wheelan, James M. Van Nostrand, and Edward Whitcomb, assembled at the call of James J. Strang, who is by us and many others approved as a Prophet and Seer of God. He proceeded to inform us that it had been revealed to him in a vision that an account of an ancient people was buried in a hill south of White River bridge, near the east line of Walworth County; and leading us to an oak tree about one foot in diameter, told us that we would find it enclosed in a case of rude earthen ware under that tree at the depth of about three feet; requested us to dig it up, and charged us to so examine the ground that we should know we were not imposed upon, and that it had not been buried there since the tree grew. The tree was surrounded by a sward of deeply rooted grass, such as is usually found in the openings, and upon the most critical examination we could not discover any indication that it had ever been cut through or disturbed. 

We then dug up the tree, and continued to dig to the depth of about three feet, where we found a case of slightly baked clay containing three plates of brass. On one side of one is a landscape view of the south end of Gardner's prairie and the range of hills where they were dug. On another is a man with a crown on his head and a scepter in his hand, above is an eye before an upright line, below the sun and moon surrounded with twelve stars, at the bottom are twelve large stars from three of which pillars arise, and closely interspersed with them are seventy very small stars. The other four sides are very closely covered with what appear to be alphabetic characters, but in a language of which we have no knowledge. 

The case was found imbedded in indurated clay so closely fitting it that it broke in taking out, and the earth below the soil was so hard as to be dug with difficulty even with a pickax. Over the case was found a flat stone about one foot wide each way and three inches thick, which appeared to have undergone the action of fire, and fell in pieces after a few minutes exposure to the air. The digging extended in the clay about eighteen inches, there being two kinds of earth of different color and appearance above it. 

We examined as we dug all the way with the utmost care, and we say, with utmost confidence, that no part of the earth through which we dug exhibited any sign or indication that it had been moved or disturbed at any time previous. The roots of the tree stuck down on every side very closely, extending below the case, and closely interwoven with roots from other trees. None of them had been broken or cut away. No clay is found in the country like that of which the case is made. 

In fine, we found an alphabetic and pictorial record, carefully cased up, buried deep in the earth, covered with a flat stone, with an oak tree one foot in diameter growing over it, with every evidence that the sense can give that it has lain there as long as that tree has been growing. Strang took no part in the digging, but kept entirely away from before the first blow was struck till after the plates were taken out of the case; and the sole inducement to our digging was our faith in his statement as a Prophet of the Lord that a record would thus and there be found.

 

 

[omni]

cont...(due to problems with the quote function)

 

Here are some comments with regards to the Spalding witnesses:

 

"...he intended to trace their journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till their arrival in America, give an account of their arts, sciences, civilization, wars and contentions. In this way, he would give a satisfactory account of all of the old mounds, so common to this country.... Nephi and Lehi were by him represented as leading characters, when they first started for America. Their main object was to escape the judgments which they supposed were coming upon the old world. But no religious matter was introduced, as I now recollect."  -Oliver Smith

 

or this from wikipedia:  

 

Eight of the affidavits acquired by Hurlbut from Solomon Spalding's family and associates stated that there were similarities between the story and the Book of Mormon.^[9]

 

An example is the statement of Solomon Spalding's brother John, which declared that Spalding's manuscript "gave a detailed account of their journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till they arrived in America, under the command of NEPHI and LEHI. They afterwards had quarrels and contentions, and separated into two distinct nations, one of which he denominated Nephites and the other Lamanites." Spalding's widow told a similar story, and stated that "the names of Nephi and Lehi are yet fresh in my memory, as being the principal heroes of his tale."^[10]

 

It's not my intent defend James Strang or to promote the Spalding theory, but to show that signed statements from witnesses who never recant their story isn't necessarily the ironclad evidence that many believe it to be.

 

 

[cinepro]

I don't read too many anti-mormon books so I haven't seen everything that's out there, but this book did more to damage my faith in the 11 witnesses than just about anything else I've read:

 

The Invisible Gorilla

Edited October 23, 2013 by cinepro

[omni]

I believe that some of the strang witnesses recanted. 

 

 

Are you referring to Aaron Smith?  You're right in a sense that he eventually renounced Strang as a prophet, but he always remained firm in his testimony of the plates.  Hmmm...that sounds familiar.

 

 

And the others who signed affidavits that Joseph plagarized the book of mormon from the spaulding manuscripts are not credible. 

 

 

Like Aaron Wright who was a Justice of the Peace?  The witnesses had no connection to Mormonism and wouldn't have benefited from these statements.

 

What makes the 11 witnesses special are the circumstances of being in and out of the church and yet, sticking to their testimonies. This is unusual. 

 

 

 

So the fact that all eleven witnesses eventually left the church makes their judgement more credible?  

 

The strang movement disappeared rather quickly after the murder of strang. And that tells much. 

 

 

Actually the Strangites still exist, although relatively small in numbers.  The church has never been bigger than it is today, yet 99.9% of the Earth's population doesn't believe in it...should that tell us much?

Edited October 23, 2013 by omni

[why me]

cont...(due to problems with the quote function)

 

Here are some comments with regards to the Spalding witnesses:

 

"...he intended to trace their journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till their arrival in America, give an account of their arts, sciences, civilization, wars and contentions. In this way, he would give a satisfactory account of all of the old mounds, so common to this country.... Nephi and Lehi were by him represented as leading characters, when they first started for America. Their main object was to escape the judgments which they supposed were coming upon the old world. But no religious matter was introduced, as I now recollect."  -Oliver Smith

 

or this from wikipedia:  

 

Eight of the affidavits acquired by Hurlbut from Solomon Spalding's family and associates stated that there were similarities between the story and the Book of Mormon.^[9]

 

An example is the statement of Solomon Spalding's brother John, which declared that Spalding's manuscript "gave a detailed account of their journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till they arrived in America, under the command of NEPHI and LEHI. They afterwards had quarrels and contentions, and separated into two distinct nations, one of which he denominated Nephites and the other Lamanites." Spalding's widow told a similar story, and stated that "the names of Nephi and Lehi are yet fresh in my memory, as being the principal heroes of his tale."^[10]

 

It's not my intent defend James Strang or to promote the Spalding theory, but to show that signed statements from witnesses who never recant their story isn't necessarily the ironclad evidence that many believe it to be.

I think that we would need to look at each situation and make a reflective judgement. For example, with the 11 witnesses, they were asked constantly about their experience by individuals. And even some of the witnesses on their deathbeds by sons and daughters and wives. And on their deathbed they confirmed their testimonies. So, something unique happened to them. And that makes their case rather strong. And with david, he wished his testimony to be placed on his tombstone.

[why me]

Are you referring to Aaron Smith?  You're right in a sense that he eventually renounced Strang as a prophet, but he always remained firm in his testimony of the plates.  Hmmm...that sounds familiar.

 

 

 

Like Aaron Wright who was a Justice of the Peace?  The witnesses had no connection to Mormonism and wouldn't have benefited from these statements.

 

 

 

So the fact that all eleven witnesses eventually left the church makes their judgement more credible?  

 

 

Actually the Strangites still exist, although relatively small in numbers.  The church has never been bigger than it is today, yet 99.9% of the Earth's population doesn't believe in it...should that tell us much?

It's time to put the comparison to strang out of its misery:

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705374177/The-story-behind-James-Strang-and-his-sect.html

 

Though little remembered today, James Jesse Strang campaigned seriously to lead the LDS Church after Joseph Smith's 1844 assassination.

When the general membership rejected the obscure new convert's claim that a secret letter had appointed him as Joseph Smith's successor, Strang started his own sect, ultimately headquartered on Beaver Island, Mich. Like Joseph, he eventually claimed to have translated ancient metal plates and provided 11 corroborating eyewitnesses.

By 1856, when he himself was murdered, he had several thousand followers, including members of Joseph Smith's family, former apostles and Book of Mormon witnesses.

That some Book of Mormon witnesses credited Strang argues for their sincerity, incidentally: Had they been knowing perpetrators of a fraud with Joseph Smith, they would likely have been far more skeptical of Strang.

But does the fact that Strang had witnesses like Joseph's mean that, for consistency's sake, modern believers in Mormonism must either accept Strang's claims or reject both Joseph and Strang?

No. Because the two sets of witnesses and their experiences were very different.

The two sets of inscribed plates that Strang claimed to have found in Wisconsin and Michigan beginning in 1845 almost certainly existed. Milo Quaife's early, standard biography of Strang reflects that, while Strang's angelic visitations "may have had only a subjective existence in the brain of the man who reported them, the metallic plates possessed a very material objective reality."

And they were almost certainly forgeries.

The first set, the three "Voree" or "Rajah Manchou" plates, were dug up by four "witnesses" whom Strang had taken to the plates' burial place. Illustrated and inscribed on both sides, the Rajah Manchou plates were roughly 1.5 by 2.75 inches in size — small enough to fit in the palm of a hand or to carry in a pocket.

Among the many who saw them was Stephen Post, who reported that they were brass and, indeed, that they resembled the French brass used in familiar kitchen kettles. "With all the faith & confidence that I could exercise," he wrote, "all that I could realize was that Strang made the plates himself, or at least that it was possible that he made them." One source reports that most of the four witnesses to the Rajah Manchou plates ultimately repudiated their testimonies.

The 18 "Plates of Laban," likewise of brass and each about 7.5 by 9 inches, were first mentioned in 1849 and were seen by seven witnesses in 1851. These witnesses' testimony was published as a preface to "The Book of the Law of the Lord," which Strang said he derived from the "Plates of Laban." (He appears to have begun the "translation" at least as early as April 1849. An 84-page version appeared in 1851; by 1856, it had reached 350 pages.) Strang's witnesses report seeing the plates, but mention nothing miraculous. Nor did Strang supply any additional supporting testimony comparable to that of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon.

One of the witnesses to the "Plates of Laban," Samuel P. Bacon, eventually denied the inspiration of Strang's movement and denounced it as mere "human invention." Another, Samuel Graham, later claimed that he had actually assisted Strang in the creation of the plates.

"We can hardly escape the conclusion," writes Quaife, "that Strang knowingly fabricated and planted them for the purpose of duping his credulous followers" and, accordingly, that "Strang's prophetic career was a false and impudent imposture." A more recent biographer, Roger Van Noord, concludes that "based on the evidence, it is probable that Strang — or someone under his direction — manufactured the letter of appointment and the brass plates to support his claim to be a prophet and to sell land at Voree. If this scenario is correct, Strang's advocacy of himself as a prophet was more than suspect, but no psychological delusion."

Thus, Strang's plates were much less numerous than those of the Book of Mormon, his witnesses saw nothing supernatural and his translation required the better part of a decade rather than a little more than two months. (Quite unlike the semi-literate Joseph Smith, Strang was well-read. He had been an editor and lawyer before his involvement with Mormonism.) Perhaps most strikingly, unlike the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, some (at least) of Strang's witnesses later denied their testimonies.

The contrasts work very much in Joseph Smith's favor.

 

Thank you Dan Peterson.

Edited October 23, 2013 by why me

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The one thing that stands out in my mind in all the reading both for and against the BOM, what impresses me more than anything else is the witnesses to the BOM. All remand remand true to their witness even some on their death bed reiterated their testimony (even one having his testimony printed in a pamphlet) for this great book. Nearly all witnesses at some time or another where severely disaffected with the church. Not one recanted their witness.

This to me is a miracle. The first thing you would do if you had been Oliver Cowdery after is excommunication from the church would be to discredit the BOM, the keystone of our religion. He was super annoyed with Joseph, but he could not deny what he new to be true and what he saw with his own eyes, and so for the others, could you imagine if it was all fabricated....they would be the first to discredit it, to hurt Joseph. No one never did deny their witness.

That carries more weight in my mind than and word comparison study ever will.

This was because they feared more for their souls, despite what anger they had over being excommunicated. Two of the three witnesses returned and went west with the Saints. God chose men of integrity to bear witness to the truth of the BoM...Joseph did not choose them, God brought them to the gospel in the first place, he knew there souls and knew they were men of honor.

[pcarthew]

I don't read too many anti-mormon books so I haven't seen everything that's out there, but this book did more to damage my faith in the 11 witnesses than just about anything else I've read:

 

The Invisible Gorilla

Try if you have the time to read this http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/I00021-Book_of_Mormon_Witnesses.html

[savedbygrace]

Is it reasonable to suppose that the witnesses never retracted their testimonies because they would loose their credibility? In doing that wouldn't they be admitting their part in deceit?

[Vookman]

Among the amazing inventions of Joseph Smith lost to the ages was his creation of Mass Hypnosis.  While certain people, such as Mezmer, had shown it possible to get a single person susceptible to suggestion through the use of a light or other means prior to 1840, mass hypnosis of groups is really Joseph's specialty and he is at least 100 years ahead of the competition.

 

One must ask the question, Why, if Joseph could trick people into thinking they see angels and golden plates, that he doesn't have people dropping all of their money at his home, or better yet, standing up to physically defend him from assault, fraudulent charges or martyrdom?  It is really hard to enjoy spending other people's money when you are dead.

 

No, I think the great mysteries are how did Joseph invent spray painting for Vogel's tin plates, how did he hypnotize a dozen people (which includes a woman who says she say the plates shown to her by an angel when Joseph was not around), and how did he plagiarize from the Bible in 2nd Nephi when he would not have one available for his use until 3-months after completing the translation of the plates?  Minor mystery is how did he buy about 100-pounds of tin or lead plates without anyone stepping forward during the Hurlbut interviews to acknowledge they sold it to him?

 

The fact no witness ever denied their testimony, and that out of several hundred interviews we have, only two can be tenuously twisted to maybe mean their was a hallucination on the part of the witnesses, means that before we go crazy with other assertions of source texts or fabrications, the witnesses statements must be credibly dismissed.  Sorry, but their statements, both the official ones and their individual statements, all speak of a very solid, physical and actual experience.

[AndyDnom]

The OP seems to know exactly what Oliver Cowdery would or wouldn't do in certain situations. I'm not sure the OP would accept similar analysis from an anti mormon claiming to know what was going on inside the head of Joseph Smith or some other character in early mormon history.

[why me]

Is it reasonable to suppose that the witnesses never retracted their testimonies because they would loose their credibility? In doing that wouldn't they be admitting their part in deceit?

However, when asked on their deathbeds about the validity of their testimony, they did not retract but reaffirmed their testimonies. What kind of individual would lie to their sons, daughters, and wives on their deathbed about such a thing as this? They would need to be the worse cases in psychopathy, especially when we put the suffering of the saints in Missouri and Nauvoo. And yet, they kept with their testimonies.

[Calm]

The OP seems to know exactly what Oliver Cowdery would or wouldn't do in certain situations. I'm not sure the OP would accept similar analysis from an anti mormon claiming to know what was going on inside the head of Joseph Smith or some other character in early mormon history.

I think he is referring to what OC actually did and not mindreading....he did expressed himself to be dissatisfied with JS at times, left the Church, etc and yet never during his lifetime is known to have recanted on his testimony.

 

If you mean this "he could not deny what he [k]new to be true and what he saw with his own eyes", I suspect this is his summary of this comment:

 

I wrote, with my own pen, the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph, as he translated it by the gift and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or as it is called by the book, Holy Interpreters. I beheld with my eyes, and handled with my hands, the gold plates from which it was transcribed. I also saw with my eyes and handled with my hands the Holy Interpreters. That book is true. ...It contains the everlasting gospel, and came forth to the children of men in fulfillment of the revelations of John, where he says he saw an angel come with the everlasting gospel to preach to every nation, kindred, tongue and people. It contains principles of salvation; and if you, my hearers, will walk by its light and obey its precepts, you will be saved with an everlasting salvation in the kingdom of God on high.

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Recant

[pcarthew]

The OP seems to know exactly what Oliver Cowdery would or wouldn't do in certain situations. I'm not sure the OP would accept similar analysis from an anti mormon claiming to know what was going on inside the head of Joseph Smith or some other character in early mormon history.

Oliver accused and was angered at Joseph Smith over many things, he was openly critical and apostate in his comments towards the prophet....but not his witness of his testimony of the BOM. He did not go even close to recanting this. You would imagine in his apostate state he would have used anything in his power to hurt the prophet.

You have no idea how much Anti-Mormon literature I have not just read, but have closely studied...there is one common theme amongst all the anti literature, they offer nothing in the place of what they are trying to destroy. There is mocking and and often hate in much of it, it always finishes in empty hollow rhetoric. As I studied it very closely I found on thousands of occasions outright misrepresentation of the truth, massively out of context quotes and often quotes made often 20-50 years after events. Interestingly even those who disapproved of the prophet and his religion, who had actual contact and interaction with him, more often than not found him to be of very high integrity. Some of the most critical are those who had third and fourth hand accounts, or those who had known him and had gone apostate, I would find it very hard to believe they would be impeccably objective. Yet anti's use statements from these type of people as absolute objective fact.

Read the Joseph Smith papers, these are unchanged original papers Joseph and others close to him authored. If anyone truly wishes to understand him, these would be fair documents to help understand who he was, even if you are not a believer, to the unbiased researcher they are an invaluable source to the objective mind.

[pcarthew]

I think he is referring to what OC actually did and not mindreading....he did expressed himself to be dissatisfied with JS at times, left the Church, etc and yet never during his lifetime is known to have recanted on his testimony.

 

If you mean this "he could not deny what he [k]new to be true and what he saw with his own eyes", I suspect this is his summary of this comment:

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Recant

Thank you Calmoriah

[savedbygrace]

However, when asked on their deathbeds about the validity of their testimony, they did not retract but reaffirmed their testimonies. What kind of individual would lie to their sons, daughters, and wives on their deathbed about such a thing as this? They would need to be the worse cases in psychopathy, especially when we put the suffering of the saints in Missouri and Nauvoo. And yet, they kept with their testimonies.

[savedbygrace]

Why Me, CFR please

[why me]

Why Me, CFR please

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

 

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/people/oliver_cowdery.html

 

Oliver's wife, Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery (1815-1892), had known him when he was taking dictation during the translation of the Book of Mormon, before their marriage. Said she of his lifelong commitment: "He always without one doubt…affirmed the divinity and truth of the Book of Mormon" (Anderson, 1981, p. 63). This confidence stood the test of persecution, poverty, loss of status, failing health, and the tragic deaths of five of his six children. Dying at forty-three, Oliver was surrounded by family members who told how he reaffirmed the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the restored priesthood—and voiced total trust in Christ. Just before rejoining the Church, he penned his inner hopes to fellow witness David Whitmer: "Let the Lord vindicate our characters, and cause our testimony to shine, and then will men be saved in his kingdom" (Oliver Cowdery to David Whitmer, July 28, 1847, Ensign of Liberty, 1:92).

 

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_Witnesses

 

The testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses balance the supernatural and the natural, the one stressing the angel and heavenly voice, the other the existence of a tangible record on gold plates. To the end of their lives, each of the Three said he had seen the plates, and each of the Eight insisted that he had handled them. Most of the Eight and all of the Three Witnesses reiterated their Book of Mormon testimonies just before death. Together with Joseph Smith they fulfill Nephi's prophecy: "They shall testify to the truth of the book and the things therein" (2 Ne. 27:12).

 

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/08/the-whitmers-a-family-that-nourished-the-church

 

Christian Whitmer was threatened at gunpoint and Hiram Page was severely beaten during these mobbings,¹⁹ but the family faith did not weaken under persecution. David Whitmer, along with other leading Mormons, was herded into Independence Square “at the point of a bayonet.” The mob’s leader threatened his Mormon prisoners with “instant death unless they denied the Book of Mormon and confessed it to be a fraud.” The clicks of guns being cocked backed up his ultimatum, but the special witness to the Book of Mormon met that challenge dramatically: “David Whitmer, hereupon, lifted up his hands and bore witness that the Book of Mormon was the Word of God. The mob then let them go.”²⁰ Years later David recalled the episode: “The testimony I gave to that mob made them fear and tremble, and I escaped from them.”

 

Amazing. And not very well known.

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Recant

 

Following his death the Richmond Conservator wrote:

On Sunday evening before his death he called the family and his attending physician, Dr. George W. Buchanan, to his bedside and said, “Doctor do you consider that I am in my right mind?” to which the Doctor replied, “Yes, you are in your right mind, I have just had a conversation with you.” He then addressed himself to all present and said: “I want to give my dying testimony. You must be faithful in Christ. I want to say to you all that the Bible and the record of the Nephites, (The Book of Mormon) are true, so you can say that you have heard me bear my testimony on my death bed....    

[canard78]

The one thing that stands out in my mind in all the reading both for and against the BOM, what impresses me more than anything else is the witnesses to the BOM. All remand remand true to their witness even some on their death bed reiterated their testimony (even one having his testimony printed in a pamphlet) for this great book. Nearly all witnesses at some time or another where severely disaffected with the church. Not one recanted their witness.

This to me is a miracle. The first thing you would do if you had been Oliver Cowdery after is excommunication from the church would be to discredit the BOM, the keystone of our religion. He was super annoyed with Joseph, but he could not deny what he new to be true and what he saw with his own eyes, and so for the others, could you imagine if it was all fabricated....they would be the first to discredit it, to hurt Joseph. No one never did deny their witness.

That carries more weight in my mind than and word comparison study ever will.

 

Probably your second paragraph should read "The first thing I would do if I had been Oliver Cowdery after is excommunication from the church would be to discredit the BOM..." How can you know what Oliver would have done? 

 

I'm not saying Oliver was a liar and he may well have seen the gold plates. But if he didn't then there are many reasons why he might not have discredited the book. If he'd discredited the book he would have discredited himself.

 

For example, a man and woman are married. The man has an affair but never mentions it to his wife. Some years later his wife leaves him for another man and they divorce. Despite this the man never admits to the affair, even though it had no bearing on the causes of the divorce. Despite his wife hurting him and him having the chance to hurt her back by saying he'd had an affair earlier he chooses to keep it quiet in order to not discredit himself. He walks away with his integrity intact and with the support of his friends. 

 

If Oliver hadn't seen the plates/angel/John the Baptist/Peter, James and John/the Lord/Elijah/a vision of the other plates in the mountain etc etc and then went on to say he had lied about it all for 10 years it would not have solely destroyed Joseph's reputation. It would have destroyed Oliver's.

 

If there were no plates then what is the probability that 8 men would either be deceived about thinking they had seen them or willing to lie about seeing them? Well... if there were no plates then the probability is '1' because that would have been what happened. Given we don't know for certain whether the plates existed or not then we have to take it all on faith.