Three And Eight Witnesses

[rongo]

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?" 

This reminded me of the contrast of one of the last actions I performed as a bishop.

 

I civilly married a couple with five kids so that the wife and some of the kids could be baptized (the kids were okay, of course, but part of preparing for baptismal worthiness was correcting their law of chastity issue). She is a solid convert, a hard-nosed Italian woman from the Bronx (it's fun hearing her talk, and the wedding reception was amazing ---- food and dancing!). She was introduced to the Church after a night of drinking with a friend. That night, she had a dream, and a man dressed in white under a tree beckoned to her, called her by name, and said, "My name is Joseph Smith. Everything is going to be all right." She felt an extreme calm and peace during and after waking from this dream. When she called her friend the next day, she told her that she had a strange dream the night before, and when she described it, her friend was really quiet and said "What did you say the man's name was?" When she repeated "Joseph Smith," she asked her if it would be okay if she brought over her bishop to talk to her (she was an inactive member). He was as incredulous as she was, and told her who Joseph Smith was and explained about the Church. They were right in the middle of moving to our town, and she showed up at church the next Sunday and asked how she could start the lessons with the missionaries.  She has remained a solid member, and there is nothing flaky or strange about her.

 

When I visited with her as her bishop prior to the marriage, I was fascinated by her story and asked her about it. She is adamant that she had never heard of anyone named Joseph Smith before, and that the name didn't ring a bell for her, but that she felt amazingly calm and peaceful when he assured her that everything would be all right. She is convinced that she had a dream where Joseph Smith spoke to her. 

[jkwilliams]

 

When I visited with her as her bishop prior to the marriage, I was fascinated by her story and asked her about it. She is adamant that she had never heard of anyone named Joseph Smith before, and that the name didn't ring a bell for her, but that she felt amazingly calm and peaceful when he assured her that everything would be all right. She is convinced that she had a dream where Joseph Smith spoke to her. 

 

I had a similar experience to that. One morning, although my companion and I had planned on working in a different part of town, we found ourselves heading back to a place we'd already "tracted out." It turned out we'd missed a single block of 4 houses. When we reached the fourth house, a man answered the door, and we began teaching the family. All through the discussions, when we would ask if they had questions, they would just say, "No, hermanos, we know what you're saying is true." After the second discussion, they committed to be baptized. Before the baptism, I asked the husband why he had accepted everything. He told me that his family had endured some hardships and tragedies and were at the end of their rope, so they had knelt as a family and prayed that God would send someone to help. We knocked on their door just a few minutes later. God must have wanted them in the LDS church.

[Paloma]

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?

 

Okay I see, Rongo.  Sorry for misunderstanding whom you were describing, and taking it to mean someone hearing about the restoration before having made  any sort of commitments to the Mormon faith.

 

And I want to make the point that it's the foundational events that have no credibility or value for me. 

 

Mormonism itself (perhaps completely irrationally and full of contradiction!) has great value to me (though admittedly, very little credibility) because of the close relationships I have with some LDS people.  I see their faith and commitment and because of my love and regard for them, I am interested in and even value what they treasure.

 

There's a lot within Mormonism that I admire, including a strong sense of community, and the devotion and obedient faith of its members.

 

I certainly don't and can't mock Mormonism, recognizing that my own non-LDS Christian faith could just as easily be held up for equal treatment.

 

(And yes, to answer your 2nd sentence above.  I do see how it would be strange for soon-to-be Mormons to be ambivalent about the spectacular claims... at least in a Western context.  I spent many years in Africa, and spectacular claims were not as noteworthy there, where stories of supernatural events and interventions abounded.)

Edited October 25, 2013 by Paloma

[rongo]

 

 

(And yes, to answer your 2nd sentence above.  I do see how it would be strange for soon-to-be Mormons to be ambivalent about the spectacular claims... at least in a Western context.  I spent many years in Africa, and spectacular claims were not as noteworthy there, where stories of supernatural events and interventions abounded.)

I can certainly see certain cultures being much more open to supernatural things than modern Western society (like Africa, as you note).

 

We taught a family of Russian immigrants with German names (they told me that they were descended from Germans taken captive by Catherine the Great), a mother, father, and two sons, who were baptized. Sister Detzel died of brain cancer before I returned home from my mission. Brother Detzel was a dentist in Russia, but unable to work in Germany when I knew him. He attended German classes that were offered through the government, and really strove to learn the language (we taught in German, and he translated into Russian for his family). His wife and sons wanted to be baptized before he did ---- he was the holdout. Finally, out of the blue, he told us that he was ready. When we asked what had brought this about, he said he had had a dream where he stood before a pool of pure, clear water. He knew in his dream that he would be completely cleansed if he bathed in the pure, clear water, and when he woke up, he took this as a sign that he and his family should be baptized. 

 

The Russians I met struck me as being more open to the supernatural than Germans, in general.

 

Also relevant to the topic of emphasizing foundational Mormon events: when we taught the third discussion, I remember wrestling with how to pronounce "John the Baptist." The correct Johannes der Täufer (toy-fer) sounds a lot like Teufel (toy-ful), which means "devil," and while his German was passable, I wondered if this would confuse him. I was tempted to purposely mispronounce it as "Taufer" (tau-fer), which technically doesn't mean anything, but the verb for "baptize or immerse" is taufen. I chose to just pronounce properly, and he did indeed recoil in shock when he thought that I told him that John the devil, as a resurrected angel, laid his hands on Joseph's head and gave him the Aaronic priesthood! 

 

We cleared it up, but they did find the thought of restoration through laying on of hands through angels to be thrilling and important.

[Paloma]

 

 

We cleared it up, but they did find the thought of restoration through laying on of hands through angels to be thrilling and important.

 

I enjoy hearing your reminiscences, Rongo!

 

And I was interested in what you said (though I didn't quote that part of your post) about the role of  Brother Detzel's dream in bringing him to a faith commitment.

 

There are many instances of dreams (in my experience, especially among Moslem folk) breaking into people's preconceptions and effecting a change of direction in their spiritual desires.  And, of course, we have many biblical examples of dreams playing a powerful role in peoples' lives.  

[Gervin]

There are many instances of dreams (in my experience, especially among Moslem folk) breaking into people's preconceptions and effecting a change of direction in their spiritual desires.  And, of course, we have many biblical examples of dreams playing a powerful role in peoples' lives.  

This has been noted and acted upon by EV missionaries for many years now (dreams relating to Christ, not Jos. Smith, obviously) and I've heard a number of first-hand accounts via my parents who served as missionaries in Israel.

[rongo]

 

 

There are many instances of dreams (in my experience, especially among Moslem folk) breaking into people's preconceptions and effecting a change of direction in their spiritual desires.  And, of course, we have many biblical examples of dreams playing a powerful role in peoples' lives.  

I think that most Western people today, even believers, are not culturally-encouraged or prepared to expect revelatory dreams. We dismiss them as how our brains rest and reset themselves through "crazy, unrelated thoughts" (some dreams undoubtedly are). I think when people expect and look for God to talk to them in dreams, then this happens much more frequently than when people don't think this is even possible or something that should be expected. 

 

I think another factor is our electronics-saturated environment. Before the advent of motion pictures (TV and movies), I think the "movies" in our heads were considered and regarded much more than today. I think our dreams today tend to closely resemble movies and TV, while dreams in the pre-TV/movies era were probably different (at least regarded as different). When we hear about dreams like Joseph Smith's grandfather's dream of the desolate forest, or Father Mason's dream about temple work (made an impact on young Wilford Woodruff), or Wilford Woodruff's dream on board a ship of Joseph Smith instructing him dressed in temple attire, etc., etc., ----- I think many today having such dreams would chalk them up to "crazy dream data dump" and not even ask if God or angels were talking to them through their dreams. 

[Calm]

I think another factor is our electronics-saturated environment. Before the advent of motion pictures (TV and movies), I think the "movies" in our heads were considered and regarded much more than today. I think our dreams today tend to closely resemble movies and TV, while dreams in the pre-TV/movies era were probably different (at least regarded as different). 

My dreams definitely used to be more dramatic and striking then they are now.  I have wondered if it might be in part because I read less fiction these days and stick more to nonfiction, thus not exercising my own imagination as much.

 

I have had a few what I would see as revelatory dreams, but they occurred in my twenties....and that has been awhile.

[rongo]

We were encouraged to challenge them to baptism before [the third discussion], anyway, which always seemed really weird to me.

We were "encouraged" to also in the mid 1990s ---- that was missionary "policy." 

 

Nobody in their right minds did it in Germany, though ---- much less using the recommended dialogue ("We are having a baptismal service on _______ . What time on that day is best for you?"). A German would have said, sarcastically, "If it's already scheduled, why are you asking me what time is best. Is it scheduled, or not?"

 

I wasn't comfortable committing people to baptism on the first discussion/meeting, but we really didn't do it (even though we were "supposed" to). Initiative and being led by the Spirit aren't just lip-service fuzzy terms ---- they are important. My impression is that South/Central American missionaries were under a lot more pressure to baptize quickly than European missionaries. Has this changed significantly since then?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

We were "encouraged" to also in the mid 1990s ---- that was missionary "policy." 

 

Nobody in their right minds did it in Germany, though ---- much less using the recommended dialogue ("We are having a baptismal service on _______ . What time on that day is best for you?"). A German would have said, sarcastically, "If it's already scheduled, why are you asking me what time is best. Is it scheduled, or not?"

 

I wasn't comfortable committing people to baptism on the first discussion/meeting, but we really didn't do it (even though we were "supposed" to). Initiative and being led by the Spirit aren't just lip-service fuzzy terms ---- they are important. My impression is that South/Central American missionaries were under a lot more pressure to baptize quickly than European missionaries. Has this changed significantly since then?

Ugh I remember that wording. I did not use it once. I thought it really was not a good way to ask people. Towards the end of my mission in '99 we were asked to commit people on the first discussion. I also never once did that. People in WV just did not respond to things that quickly. I mean one could argue that I lacked faith. I guess? I think I tend to view my self as a realist. "What would I do if I was asked to be baptised on a first meeting". I would say no.

[webbles]

We were "encouraged" to also in the mid 1990s ---- that was missionary "policy." 

 

Nobody in their right minds did it in Germany, though ---- much less using the recommended dialogue ("We are having a baptismal service on _______ . What time on that day is best for you?"). A German would have said, sarcastically, "If it's already scheduled, why are you asking me what time is best. Is it scheduled, or not?"

 

I wasn't comfortable committing people to baptism on the first discussion/meeting, but we really didn't do it (even though we were "supposed" to). Initiative and being led by the Spirit aren't just lip-service fuzzy terms ---- they are important. My impression is that South/Central American missionaries were under a lot more pressure to baptize quickly than European missionaries. Has this changed significantly since then?

Serving in Brazil, we asked if they would like to be baptized on the first lesson.  I actually liked doing that.  It wasn't to pressure people into getting baptized.  It was winnowing down the amount of investigators/discussions to the small group that actually cared.  Otherwise, you would be talking with everyone and wouldn't have any time to actually teach.

[canard78]

If you read his history as an attorney, his credibility was already in question by claiming that he saw a vision from God. He could have done some damage control by exclaiming that Joseph Smith had deceived him. He had plenty of opportunities to do so.

Finally, a fundamental rule of a conspiracy is to have as few members as possibility. Here we have at least eleven witnesses who remained true to the "conspiracy" to the very end, even after leaving the church, after the death of Joseph Smith, and giving witness on their deathbed.

With this cloud of witnesses -- not only one event, but multiple divine events, JS accomplished what no person has ever done, save Jesus Christ himself.

Seeing visions wasn't entirely uncommon in that era. He claimed to have seen many visions. Probably more than any other except Joseph. He was assistant president, transcribed and co-published the Book of Mormon and became one of the thought leaders through his various publications. If he was a fraud then there would have been a lot of blood on his hands. An admission he might not have ever wanted to make.

I agree that having 11 witnesses strengthens the case (despite their proximity to Joseph).

The gold plates and their witnesses are a useful bit of a tangible obstacle to me entirely embracing the "inspired but modern" perspective on the BoM origins. The plates are too solid to be figments of a spiritual/imaginative mind (or 11 others).

I can't reconcile and accept Joseph as a fraud and so the plates are one of the things that would make him one if all the 11 ever saw were some painted tin sheets wrapped in a blanket.

I recognise I'm arguing myself in a circle. I'm like a tethered goat. I suppose my insistence that Joseph was sincere is the stake that I keep circling around. The implications leave questions I can't dismiss. I don't like the implications that come with being "untethered" by concluding he was a fraud.

[pcarthew]

Seeing visions wasn't entirely uncommon in that era. He claimed to have seen many visions. Probably more than any other except Joseph. He was assistant president, transcribed and co-published the Book of Mormon and became one of the thought leaders through his various publications. If he was a fraud then there would have been a lot of blood on his hands. An admission he might not have ever wanted to make.

I agree that having 11 witnesses strengthens the case (despite their proximity to Joseph).

The gold plates and their witnesses are a useful bit of a tangible obstacle to me entirely embracing the "inspired but modern" perspective on the BoM origins. The plates are too solid to be figments of a spiritual/imaginative mind (or 11 others).

I can't reconcile and accept Joseph as a fraud and so the plates are one of the things that would make him one if all the 11 ever saw were some painted tin sheets wrapped in a blanket.

I recognise I'm arguing myself in a circle. I'm like a tethered goat. I suppose my insistence that Joseph was sincere is the stake that I keep circling around. The implications leave questions I can't dismiss. I don't like the implications that come with being "untethered" by concluding he was a fraud.

Interestingly the doctrine that Christ taught himself " in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established". Also interestingly the Saviour met with his eleven so they could witness his resurrected body, despite there close proximity to him too, bothers and cousins amongst them. Those who share some of his sacred moments, including the last supper and the garden of Gethsemane. Their testimonies and witness never denied and stand today. They could be just as easily accused of being subjective and protective of their reputations too. But we believe their testimonies as vital to the resurrected Christ. Just as the eleven are to the BOM. The eleven witnesses are rarely talked about by anti's as with only a small amount of investigation it becomes so very clear that they remained unchanged and did actually never recant them. They worth reading, fasting, praying and pondering over as they included under the direction of Christ himself. Edited October 26, 2013 by pcarthew

[thesometimesaint]

The vast majority of dreams are just dreams. On rare occasions it is something more.

[rongo]

The vast majority of dreams are just dreams. On rare occasions it is something more.

For the most part, yes. I think people who expect or feel they are very possible receive more prophetic dreams than those who think that the *vast* majority of dreams are just dreams.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not much of a freudian. Most times a cigar is just a cigar.

[rongo]

I'm not talking about symbolism. Sounds like your dreams are just dreams, in your experience.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not talking about symbolism. Sounds like your dreams are just dreams, in your experience.

 

Most of them are. The average person has about 4-6 dreams per night. On a rare occasion it is something else.

Edited October 26, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Capitalis]

Enjoyed reading about the experiences back on page 4!

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

 

Then you have scarcely, if at all, grasped what I'm saying.

 

If you have 11 men testifying with formal documentation that they saw the Book of Mormon record, three of whom had their experience attended by divine angelophony, it cannot be so easily explained away as hallucination or intentional fraud on the part of Joseph Smith. I don't deny that it's the book that converts (or, to express it more correctly, the Spirit manifesting the truthfulness of the book), but given such information as the witnesses' testimonies,  a truth seeker might more easily feel motivated to read the book and seek such a spiritual manifestation. Otherwise, he might be dissuaded from even making the attempt.

 

 

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

 

I've already tried to explain this as best I can -- the Austin Farrer quote does it more even more concisely and clearly -- and if you're still not getting it, I lack the ambition (or time, or energy) to pursue this conversation further.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Then you have scarcely, if at all, grasped what I'm saying.

 

If you have 11 men testifying with formal documentation that the saw the Book of Mormon record, three of whom had their experience attended by divine angelophony, it cannot be so easily explained away as hallucination or intentional fraud on the part of Joseph Smith.

I don't think I've ever heard the word "angelophony" before.

That's just it. I don't "explain away" the Book of Mormon based on the witness testimony.

I don't deny that it's the book that converts (or, to express it more correctly, the Spirit manifesting the truthfulness of the book), but given such information as the witnesses' testimonies,  a truth seeker might more easily feel motivated to read the book and seek such a spiritual manifestation. Otherwise, he might be dissuaded from even making the attempt.

Maybe so, though I can't say that I've ever met anyone who was motivated to read the book based on the witness testimony, even in part.

 

I've already tried to explain this as best I can -- the Austin Farrer quote does it more even more concisely and clearly -- and if you're still not getting it, I lack the ambition (or time, or energy) to pursue this conversation further.

I think I understand what you're trying to say, Scott. Sorry to have frustrated or annoyed you.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think I've ever heard the word "angelophony" before.

 

I may have seen it first on this board. I know I didn't coin it. It appears to be a legitimate term.

 

That's just it. I don't "explain away" the Book of Mormon based on the witness testimony.

 

Didn't say you did. But others might. And have.

 

Maybe so, though I can't say that I've ever met anyone who was motivated to read the book based on the witness testimony, even in part.

 

I'm saying it's not so much that one is motivated thereby. It's more that the efforts of detractors are neutralized to the point that one can then feel more at ease in going to the Lord in prayer to seek a spiritual witness.

 

 

I think I understand what you're trying to say, Scott. Sorry to have frustrated or annoyed you.

 

No worries.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Angelophany, not angelophony, Scott. 

[canard78]

Angelophany, not angelophony, Scott.

The latter is also legitimate. You just have to call 1800-Dial-An-Angel to experience it.

Edited October 29, 2013 by canard78

[jkwilliams]

I recognise I'm arguing myself in a circle. I'm like a tethered goat. I suppose my insistence that Joseph was sincere is the stake that I keep circling around. The implications leave questions I can't dismiss. I don't like the implications that come with being "untethered" by concluding he was a fraud.

FWIW, I see Joseph Smith pretty simply as an example of the human capacity to rationalize. Years ago Dale Broadhurst and I were talking about this very issue, though it was a discussion about Joseph and Sidney Rigdon working together. I said that some things make sense if he were a conscious fraud, and others seem more understandable if he were really sincere. I said I couldn't quite figure out what Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were doing. Dale replied: "They were doing two things at once: they were building up the kingdom of God on earth, and they were running a scam."

At the time that answer was baffling to me, but after pondering it a lot, I have come to agree with Dale. On some level they knew that they were making it up as they went, but at the same time they rationalized that what they were doing would establish the kingdom of God on earth. To this day, that is the only explanation I can think of that explains everything.