Three And Eight Witnesses

[Mystery Meat]

Thanks for that. If I understand you right, it was more unloading a burden from Joseph Smith than an important pillar of testimony, though it is an enhancement to you personally. Is that it?

 

I think it does both effectively: it was a sign from a loving God for Joseph the Prophet and it was a sign of a loving God to those who have received a spiritual witness of the Book's divinity. I am included in that latter group. It does strengthen my testimony, but my testimony did not start with the witnesses nor is it based on the witnesses.

[Scott Lloyd]

We are asked to read the Book of Mormon and pray about it, witnesses or not. I doubt very many people receive a testimony of the Book of Mormon because of the witnesses, but I could be wrong.

I'm not being contrary, but just mulling this over in my mind. As much effort goes into supporting or discrediting the witnesses, I'm just not sure how important they are in the end.

The witnesses are important for the same reason that defense of the Church against criticism is important. The testimony of the witnesses is important for the same reason that the testimony of others is important to us as we seek to gain or strengthen our own testimony.

 

In short, they serve to keep the playing field level or, to use another metaphor, to keep the ground free of noxious weeds so that the seed of faith can take root, sprout and grow. They help preserve a motivation for someone to do as you say above, to "read the Book of Mormon and pray about it."

 

There is a statement from Austin Farrer that Daniel Peterson is fond of quoting that is applicable here:

 

Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief.  What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned.  Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.

 

 

Edited October 24, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

In short, they serve to keep the playing field level or, to use another metaphor, to keep the ground free of noxious weeds so that the seed of faith can take root, sprout and grow. They help preserve a motivation for someone to do as you say above, to "read the Book of Mormon and pray about it."

My job is to steal all the rakes before you have a chance to get the weeds out.

[savedbygrace]

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.

I agree with your observations. I feel, based on nothing more than what I have seen through my life that self preservation is a strong emotion. If in admitting to something, such as your part in a deceit, that will reflect back on your self, such as is suggested above, then you would probably not do it, even if you wish to bring someone down. It is likely that you would be brought down too, something that could affect the rest of your future. To put this into a 19th century context, avoidance of scandal was extremely important, and could result in a person becoming a social outcast, or laughing stock, and affect future aspirations especially political ones. So I don't find the OPs  postion convincing. As for lying on a death bed if you have been doing this for a lifetime, why would you admit it to your family? Admitting that your life has been a lie, and especially if the result of the deceit many lost their homes and lives and caused terrible suffering. Could you admit that you were too cowardly to step out and expose the deceit, that you watched these things happen and did nothing? Could you admit that to your loved ones?  And what if you did? What would your family do with such information? Rush out and tell the world that your husband or father was part of a fraud? Or might you think, what good would it do now? No-one wants the memory of their dead loved ones to be besmirched, and what effect might that have on the family in 19th century America.  These are just some thoughts, based on no-ones writings, just my own, I don't think I would be brave enough to admit that i had been part of a deceit, I think my self centred, desire to preserve my reputation might win out. When examining my conscience before God, the thing I dread most is having to admit to a lie, because at the base of all lies is self, and pride, and embarrassment, and admitting that through my weakness I aligned myself with the father of all lies

[Scott Lloyd]

My job is to steal all the rakes before you have a chance to get the weeds out.

I thought you didn't cop to being anti-Mormon.

[jkwilliams]

I thought you didn't cop to being anti-Mormon.

I don't "cop" to it, but I've been told that I'm the worst kind of anti-Mormon there is.

 

Life's too short to worry about what other people believe.

[why me]

 As for lying on a death bed if you have been doing this for a lifetime, why would you admit it to your family? Admitting that your life has been a lie, and especially if the result of the deceit many lost their homes and lives and caused terrible suffering. Could you admit that you were too cowardly to step out and expose the deceit, that you watched these things happen and did nothing? Could you admit that to your loved ones?  And what if you did?

And yet, when some of these witnesses faced the firing squad and were told to admit it was a fraud or they would be shot, they chose to be shot. Amazing. Of course, they weren't shot but the threat was there. David answered the firing squad with a loud prayer. So, you think that all of these witnesses who went to their deathbeds with their testimonies on their lips were doing it for their reputation? So, they lie to their sons and daughters to preserve their reputation? We need to remember that they were out of the church. Yes, I could admit that it was a fraud on my deathbed in front of my children. Why would I want them to believe a lie? And if I were god fearing as these witnesses were, I would want to make it right before I arrived at the pearly gates. We are dealing with 11 people. And some did come back to the fold.

 

I think that you are stretching it a bit.

Edited October 24, 2013 by why me

[savedbygrace]

And yet, when some of these witnesses faced the firing squad and were told to admit it was a fraud or they would be shot, they chose to be shot. Amazing. Of course, they weren't shot but the threat was there. David answered the firing squad with a loud prayer. So, you think that all of these witnesses who went to their deathbeds with their testimonies on their lips were doing it for their reputation? So, they lie to their sons and daughters to preserve their reputation? We need to remember that they were out of the church. Yes, I could admit that it was a fraud on my deathbed in front of my children. Why would I want them to believe a lie? And if I were god fearing as these witnesses were, I would want to make it right before I arrived at the pearly gates. We are dealing with 11 people. And some did come back to the fold.

 

I think that you are stretching it a bit.

 You are possibly right, I am only describing some of my thoughts, thanks for the references.

[toon]

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

 

There was an episode in This American Life about Emir Kamenica, who tells his story as an isolated high school student who had just immigrated to the United States, plagiarized some story, his teacher know of the plagiarism, took note of his talent and sacrificed her job to get him into a private school, where he then went on to Harvard, a PhD, and a professorship at the University of Chicago.  They tracked down that teacher, and it turns out this his recollection was nowhere close to hers or even to other verifiable facts.  Yet he refused to believe that he might have been wrong.

 

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/504/transcript

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't "cop" to it, but I've been told that I'm the worst kind of anti-Mormon there is.

 

Life's too short to worry about what other people believe.

Then why bother stealing the rakes?

[jkwilliams]

Then why bother stealing the rakes?

 

Because I'm evil?

[Scott Lloyd]

Because I'm evil?

What do you think of my point about why the testimonies of the 11 witnesses are important? You replied to my post but didn't really address it.

 

ETA:

 

If you have no response, that's fine. I'm just curious.

Edited October 24, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

The FAIR link interestingly enough failed to mention anything about the witnesses statements regarding Spalding that were published in Mormonism Unveiled and were never recanted.

 

 

 

There is a huge difference between the 11 and the Spaulding witnesses.

 

B.H. Roberts completely eviscerated the Spaulding witness statements in his response to Theodore Schroeder, which was the effective death of the Spaulding theories. They were demolished to such an extent that the fact that nobody recanted the testimonies (they were all dead by then, of course) doesn't really matter ---- or interest anyone. It was clear to anyone other than a few holdouts that the witnesses (heavily helped by P. Hurlbut) made it up. 

 

Even critics who think the 11 witnesses are laughable don't find them to be ridiculous even close to the same degree that the Spaulding witnesses were discredited. Critics still see the need to tread lightly in undermining confidence in them, and have to grapple with realities connected with them that Hurlbut's witnesses don't have in their favor.

Edited October 24, 2013 by rongo

[jkwilliams]

The witnesses are important for the same reason that defense of the Church against criticism is important. The testimony of the witnesses is important for the same reason that the testimony of others is important to us as we seek to gain or strengthen our own testimony.

 

In short, they serve to keep the playing field level or, to use another metaphor, to keep the ground free of noxious weeds so that the seed of faith can take root, sprout and grow. They help preserve a motivation for someone to do as you say above, to "read the Book of Mormon and pray about it."

I'm left wondering how they contribute to leveling the playing field. I can sort of see how their testimony might spur people to gain their own testimonies, but again, it's the book that does that, at least that's what I was always taught.

 

There is a statement from Austin Farrer that Daniel Peterson is fond of quoting that is applicable here:

I'm still left with the question as to how the witness testimony contributes to rational argument.

[rongo]

I'm left wondering how they contribute to leveling the playing field. I can sort of see how their testimony might spur people to gain their own testimonies, but again, it's the book that does that, at least that's what I was always taught.

 

I'm still left with the question as to how the witness testimony contributes to rational argument.

I think the Austin Farrer statement is very applicable: the witnesses contribute heavily to fostering a climate where inquisitive people can begin to seriously consider the book's claims --- from a standpoint that all of this supernatural stuff might have happened. See, it isn't *just* "the book" --- people have to have credible reasons to even consider the possibility of the book's coming forth in the first place. I think the witnesses should be emphasized more than they are (as a bishop, I gave departing missionaries a copy of Richard Lloyd Anderson's "Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses"). 

 

Unfortunately, today, most people hear missionaries tell about resurrected angels restoring keys, and don't really consider what they were just told (that is, when missionaries emphasize such things. For years, when I have gone out with the missionaries, I find they are less apt to draw attention to such things. Unfortunately ---- I think this is a big mistake). When people hear about the foundational events of the Restoration and don't have any reaction (which is usually), I feel like shaking them and saying, "Do you understand what we just said? Resurrected angels came down and laid real hands on them! You should be either really excited or really angry about such a claim!" How did people in Bolivia typically react?

 

I think this is our biggest problem with retention right now --- there is a difference between convincing people to be baptized (happens all the time), and true commitment and conversion. Many people are baptized who are ambivalent about the sensational claims, and these same people are ambivalent about the Church and the gospel (it doesn't "get them out of bed in the morning").

 

What does this have to do with the witnesses? I think people who consider them and their testimony and value it are much more likely to be solid, unshakeable members than those who are ambivalent or uninterested enough to really consider them.

[jkwilliams]

I think the Austin Farrer statement is very applicable: the witnesses contribute heavily to fostering a climate where inquisitive people can begin to seriously consider the book's claims --- from a standpoint that all of this supernatural stuff might have happened. See, it isn't *just* "the book" --- people have to have credible reasons to even consider the possibility of the book's coming forth in the first place. I think the witnesses should be emphasized more than they are (as a bishop, I gave departing missionaries a copy of Richard Lloyd Anderson's "Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses"). 

 

Unfortunately, today, most people hear missionaries tell about resurrected angels restoring keys, and don't really consider what they were just told (that is, when missionaries emphasize such things. For years, when I have gone out with the missionaries, I find they are less apt to draw attention to such things. Unfortunately ---- I think this is a big mistake). When people hear about the foundational events of the Restoration and don't have any reaction (which is usually), I feel like shaking them and saying, "Do you understand what we just said? Resurrected angels came down and laid real hands on them! You should be either really excited or really angry about such a claim!" How did people in Bolivia typically react?

 

I think this is our biggest problem with retention right now --- there is a difference between convincing people to be baptized (happens all the time), and true commitment and conversion. Many people are baptized who are ambivalent about the sensational claims, and these same people are ambivalent about the Church and the gospel (it doesn't "get them out of bed in the morning").

 

What does this have to do with the witnesses? I think people who consider them and their testimony and value it are much more likely to be solid, unshakeable members than those who are ambivalent or uninterested enough to really consider them.

How did Bolivians react? They were interested in the visit of Moroni and the gold plates, but because it was the third discussion, we'd usually already talked about a lot before we got to the witnesses. I don't remember it being a very big deal to them.

We were encouraged to challenge them to baptism before then, anyway, which always seemed really weird to me.

[cdowis]

I'm just not sure what, if anything, it tells us about the authenticity of the Book of Mormon translation.

 

The three witnesses said that the "voice" told them it was translated correctly.  It is a matter of historical record.

[savedbygrace]

How did Bolivians react? They were interested in the visit of Moroni and the gold plates, but because it was the third discussion, we'd usually already talked about a lot before we got to the witnesses. I don't remember it being a very big deal to them.

We were encouraged to challenge them to baptism before then, anyway, which always seemed really weird to me.

[savedbygrace]

I was challenged to be baptised at the first meeting with the missionaries

Edited October 25, 2013 by savedbygrace

[Avatar4321]

I agree that we don't emphasize the witnesses as much as we should. The Lord provided 12 witnesses for the Book of Mormon for a reason. We should appreciate that and use them.

 

And we should also remember that we can likewise become witnesses as they were.

[thesometimesaint]

We are asked to read the Book of Mormon and pray about it, witnesses or not. I doubt very many people receive a testimony of the Book of Mormon because of the witnesses, but I could be wrong.

I'm not being contrary, but just mulling this over in my mind. As much effort goes into supporting or discrediting the witnesses, I'm just not sure how important they are in the end.

 

The witnesses didn't ask us the pray to God for the answer. They are describing what they experienced. We can either believe or not believe their claims. The truth claims of the BoM are a different subject.

[Paloma]

When people hear about the foundational events of the Restoration and don't have any reaction (which is usually), I feel like shaking them and saying, "Do you understand what we just said? Resurrected angels came down and laid real hands on them! You should be either really excited or really angry about such a claim!"

 

You would have felt like shaking me, Rongo.  And I understand that from your point of view.  How could something so absolutely momentous and meaningful (to you) not draw forth some strong reaction?

 

The fact is that people like me (for whom the restoration happenings have no credibililty, meaning or value) tend to respond as respectfully as possible with polite listening but no response.

 

The irony is that someone much more likely to have a strong response (of anger, which was one of your expected reactions above where you said "either really excited or really angry") is someone who has left their former faith in Mormonism, having found it not "true" or believable after having invested time, devotion and money to it.

 

And yet, typically, the strong emotional responses coming from ex-Mormons are not anticipated or understood.

[rongo]

You would have felt like shaking me, Rongo.  And I understand that from your point of view.  How could something so absolutely momentous and meaningful (to you) not draw forth some strong reaction?

 

The fact is that people like me (for whom the restoration happenings have no credibililty, meaning or value) tend to respond as respectfully as possible with polite listening but no response.

 

But you don't believe any of it, and you aren't a Mormon, Paloma. I'm talking about people who say they believe it and agree to be baptized ---- not people like you "for whom [Mormonism has] no credibility, meaning or value."

 

Do you agree that it is strange for soon-to-be Mormons to be ambivalent about the spectacular claims?

Edited October 25, 2013 by rongo

[jkwilliams]

But you don't believe any of it, and you aren't a Mormon, Paloma. I'm talking about people who say they believe it and agree to be baptized ---- not people like you "for whom [Mormonism has] no credibility, meaning or value."

 

Do you agree that it is strange for soon-to-be Mormons to be ambivalent about the spectacular claims?

 

Not in my mission it wouldn't have been. A good number of people I interviewed when I was a DL and ZL couldn't answer the question, "Who is Joseph Smith?" So, I'd tell the missionaries these people weren't ready for baptism, and they'd go to the branch president or bishop and get approval for the baptism.

[rongo]

That would bother me, too. I don't know how I would have felt about a Central/South American mission (realizing, of course, that not everybody was like that).

Edited October 25, 2013 by rongo