Original Signed "testimony Of The Eight Witnesses"?

[ktchace]

What beautiful strong testimonies they had, their conviction was evident for sure.

[why me]

Correct. The entire printer's manuscript is in Oliver's handwriting, including the witness statements. This is the document that was taken to the printer. The original manuscript was mostly destroyed, including the witness statements (if they were there, they would have been at the end of the manscript, not the beginning).

 

Here's a statement from David Whitmer in 1881 reaffirming his testimony as it was printed in the Book of Mormon. This is found in "David Whitmer Proclamation, 19 March 1881," Early Mormon Documents 5:69 :

 

"That I have never at any time, denied that testimony or any part thereof, which has so long since been published with that book as one of the three witnesses.

Those who know me best, well know that I have adhered to that testimony.—

And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do now again affirm the truth of all my statement, as then made and published."

What is sad about all this is that some members are taken in by the critic arguments over the fact that we have only a printer's copy with the same handwriting. The members who are shocked by this don't seem to understand that the whole point is nonsensical since the witnesses never denied what was stated in the book of mormon about their testimony. They obviously knew that it was in the book of mormon.

 

The witnesses are a strong testimony of the truthfulness of the book of mormon.

[why me]

What beautiful strong testimonies they had, their conviction was evident for sure.

True. And this is the reason why critics of the church attempt to lessen their testimonies. But the critics have a difficult time in it but some members are taken in by critic interpretations whatever they may be. The 11 witnesses kept to their testimony at least in word and that says much about their experience.

 

Knowing the history of the lds church at that time, these 11 men would need to be psychopaths to allow so many people to suffer for a fraud. My guess is: they knew their experience was a true experience and could not deny the undeniable.

Edited February 26, 2014 by why me

[Wiki Wonka]

What beautiful strong testimonies they had, their conviction was evident for sure.

 

David Whitmer was particularly fierce about defending his testimony of the Book of Mormon, even though he disagreed with much of what Joseph Smith did later. In June of 1880, Whitmer was interviewed by a man name John Murphy. Murphy then published a letter in which he claimed that Whitmer said that his vision of the angel Moroni was simply "an impression." Murphy says that he asked Whitmer, “Then you had impressions as the Quaker when the spirit moves, or as a good Methodist in giving a happy experience, a feeling?” and that Whitmer responded “Just so,”

 

 

When Whitmer saw the letter to the editor from Murphy, he was very annoyed that he had been misrepresented. He published a "Proclamation" to refute it. This is found in "David Whitmer Proclamation, 19 March 1881," Early Mormon Documents 5:69 :

 

"Unto all Nations, Kindreds, tongues and people unto whom this present Shall come.

It having been represented by one John Murphy of Polo Mo. that I in a conversation with him last Summer, denied my testimony as one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon.

To the end therefore, that he may understand me now if he did not then, and that the world may know the truth, I wish now standing as it were, in the very sunset of life, and in the fear of God, once for all to make this public Statement;

That I have never at any time, denied that testimony or any part thereof, which has so long since been published with that book as one of the three witnesses.

Those who know me best, well know that I have adhered to that testimony.—

And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do now again affirm the truth of all my statement, as then made and published.

He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear; It was no Delusion. What is written is written, and he that readeth let him understand."

Edited February 26, 2014 by Wiki Wonka

[Wiki Wonka]

What is sad about all this is that some members are taken in by the critic arguments over the fact that we have only a printer's copy with the same handwriting. The members who are shocked by this don't seem to understand that the whole point is nonsensical since the witnesses never denied what was stated in the book of mormon about their testimony. They obviously knew that it was in the book of mormon.

 

The witnesses are a strong testimony of the truthfulness of the book of mormon.

 

Folks who use this argument seem to miss the fact that Oliver signed the printer's manuscript, and he was one of the three witnesses. So, one cannot claim that none of the witnesses signed.

[jkwilliams]

Folks who use this argument seem to miss the fact that Oliver signed the printer's manuscript, and he was one of the three witnesses. So, one cannot claim that none of the witnesses signed.

I don't see any reason to deny the testimony of the witnesses. The are part of the totality of evidence, but try as I might, I couldn't make the witness testimonies overcome the rest of the evidence. Of course, I have a bad attitude.

[ktchace]

I don't deny the testimonies of these witnesses, but how can you not question them? Where's the conviction? Testimony is just something someone says, words are cheap, just ask James Strang who also had witnesses to his translation of the Plates of Laban.

[ALarson]

I don't deny the testimonies of these witnesses, but how can you not question them? Where's the conviction? Testimony is just something someone says, words are cheap, just ask James Strang who also had witnesses to his translation of the Plates of Laban.

That's true.  I need to look this up, but how many of the witnesses stayed active in the church?  I know that all of the Whitmers left, is that correct?  I believe it was in Missouri that this separation took place and I'm not sure if any of them returned.

 

However, as far as I know, they never cancelled or denied the witness statement or it's validity.

Edited February 26, 2014 by ALarson

[ALarson]

Here's info on the 3 witnesses: 

 

The Three Witnesses were Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer, whose joint testimony, in conjunction with a separate statement by Eight Witnesses, has been printed with nearly every edition of the Book of Mormon since its first publication in 1830. All three witnesses eventually broke with Smith and were excommunicated from the church. In 1838, Joseph Smith called Cowdery, Harris, and Whitmer "too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them."  In 1839 Cowdery published a tract rejecting the Latter Day Saints and in 1840 become a member of the Methodist Protestant Church.  In later years, all three testified to the divine origin of the Book of Mormon and, at least near the end of their lives, all were members of one denomination or another of the Latter Day Saint movement. Harris and Cowdery rejoined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints shortly before their deaths, and Whitmer founded the Church of Christ (Whitmerite).

 

Edited February 26, 2014 by ALarson

[ALarson]

 And, the 8 witnesses (info on the Whitmers):

 

Christian Whitmer died in 1835 and his brother Peter Whitmer, Jr. died the following year. In 1838, the surviving Whitmers became estranged from Joseph Smith Jr. during a leadership struggle in Far West, Missouri, and all were excommunicated with other dissenters, never to rejoin Smith's church. None of the Eight Witnesses is known to have denied his testimony to the authenticity of Book of Mormon or the golden plates.

 

Edited February 26, 2014 by ALarson

[ktchace]

The key here might be that they didn't "deny it", ok I do like that they didn't, but how much credence do you ascribe to a group of mostly apostate testifiers? If we inserted a brief synopsis as to the eventualities of most of these witnesses in the BoM wouldn't that discredit them a little? I'm just saying we're getting a little soupy with regards to the fact they never denied it.

[why me]

I don't see any reason to deny the testimony of the witnesses. The are part of the totality of evidence, but try as I might, I couldn't make the witness testimonies overcome the rest of the evidence. Of course, I have a bad attitude.

I don't think that you have a bad attitude. However, there must be a reason why these witnesses could not retract their testimony or deny it. And to retell it on their death beds. To me, this speaks volumes. There there were heading off to meet their maker and giving their last testimony to friends and family about their experiences. Something extraordinary happened to them during that moment with the plates. Something that they couldn't forget or deny. And that does speak volumes.

[why me]

The key here might be that they didn't "deny it", ok I do like that they didn't, but how much credence do you ascribe to a group of mostly apostate testifiers? If we inserted a brief synopsis as to the eventualities of most of these witnesses in the BoM wouldn't that discredit them a little? I'm just saying we're getting a little soupy with regards to the fact they never denied it.

No, it wouldn't. But they were human beings going through their own issues. As we can see at this moment there are people who leave the church and then attack the church. It happened at Joseph's time too. But for these witnesses they could not do such a thing. They had a strong testimony of their experience with the book of mormon regardless of how they may have felt about joseph or with how they did life.

[why me]

The key here might be that they didn't "deny it", ok

Why put deny it in quotations? They didn't deny their testimony. No reason to put it in quotations. A fact is a fact.

[Gervin]

I don't think that you have a bad attitude. However, there must be a reason why these witnesses could not retract their testimony or deny it. And to retell it on their death beds. To me, this speaks volumes. There there were heading off to meet their maker and giving their last testimony to friends and family about their experiences. Something extraordinary happened to them during that moment with the plates. Something that they couldn't forget or deny. And that does speak volumes.

Interesting conjecture. The fact is, not eveyone on their deathbed is eager to throw their credibility or that of their families under the bus (or, horsecart, as it were).

[why me]

Interesting conjecture. The fact is, not eveyone on their deathbed is eager to throw their credibility or that of their families under the bus (or, horsecart, as it were).

How many people would want their families to live a lie? Look at oliver giving his final testimony to wife and child. Why do such a thing? How could a man allow his wife and daughter to live a lie? And we can ask the same for the other witnesses. And we need to remember that many mormons were suffering in the 30's and 40's and yet, these witnesses (the ones who were alive) continued to bear their testimony. All would have needed to be psychopaths to do such a thing.

Edited February 26, 2014 by why me

[ktchace]

Quotes as to emphasize, or over emphasize here. I know it is a fact, never implied otherwise. I've just often wondered why the extent of their testimony mostly revolves around "the fact" (like that?) that they never denied it.

[why me]

Quotes as to emphasize, or over emphasize here. I know it is a fact, never implied otherwise. I've just often wondered why the extent of their testimony mostly revolves around "the fact" (like that?) that they never denied it.

What else could it depend on? We have no witnesses to the bible. We have no witnesses to the narratives in the bible---only what the writers said. But with the book of mormon we have 11 people directly involved in seeing the plates or handling the plates. And of course, we also have sidney denying that he wrote the book of mormon on his deathbed in front of his son. Poor sidney was asked over and over again about authorship. Whatever happened at this time, it certainly was extraordinary. Imagine the saints listening to oliver bearing his testimony when he returned to the fold. It must have been amazing. Not to mention just how many times he was asked by the members individually when he returned and he was preparing to go off to england to be a missionary. That also speaks volumes.

[ALarson]

Quotes as to emphasize, or over emphasize here. I know it is a fact, never implied otherwise. I've just often wondered why the extent of their testimony mostly revolves around "the fact" (like that?) that they never denied it.

But then many of them left the church.  It seems they were able to separate their testimony of the Book of Mormon from their testimony of the church (overall).  Of course a couple of them did return to the church before their deaths.

[ktchace]

I'm not anti witnesses but I have struggled a little with the fact that their monumental experiences did not lead them to more of a profound devotion to the church.

[Gervin]

How many people would want their families to live a lie?

How many people have ever lied?

 

 

Look at oliver giving his final testimony to wife and child. Why do such a thing? How could a man allow his wife and daughter to live a lie?

What is better; to live a lie in the hope that it is never exposed, or expose the lie to the immediate detriment to wife and offspring and your name, in perpetuity?  Can you even conceive of such a scenario without attributing it to the witnesses?

 

And we can ask the same for the other witnesses. And we need to remember that many mormons were suffering in the 30's and 40's and yet, these witnesses (the ones who were alive) continued to bear their testimony.

Maybe they believed they saw and handled pre-celestially-returned plates.  Maybe they saw no value in causing their name to be called into question. 

 

All would have needed to be psychopaths to do such a thing.

Hyberbole noted.

 

 

Edited February 26, 2014 by Gervin

[Anteojito]

I don't see any reason to deny the testimony of the witnesses. The are part of the totality of evidence, but try as I might, I couldn't make the witness testimonies overcome the rest of the evidence. Of course, I have a bad attitude.

Same here. I don't think the truth or lack thereof of the BOM hangs on the testimony of the eight witnesses. 

[why me]

 

 

 

 

What is better; to live a lie in the hope that it is never exposed, or expose the lie to the immediate detriment to wife and offspring and your name, in perpetuity?  Can you even conceive of such a scenario without attributing it to the witnesses?

 

 

 

Hyberbole noted.

 

 

I see no benefit in allowing family members to live a lie. Oliver had opportunities to expose the lie when he left the church. In fact, all the witnesses had the opportunity to expose the lie, if there was a lie. But none did. What does it say about men who know it is all a lie but still allow people to suffer because of the lie? Many lived to see the persecution of the saints...the deaths that were experienced on the trek to utah, the persecution of the saints in Missouri and Ohio etc. And yet, they allowed the lie to continue. And their families? Lying on their deathbeds?

 

What should one call such men if not psychopaths? No emotion for the suffering...only attempting to save their own reputation...I see no hyperbole.

 

However, if it wasn't a lie, it would be understandable why they could not deny it.

[why me]

Same here. I don't think the truth or lack thereof of the BOM hangs on the testimony of the eight witnesses. 

But it does. If only saw Joseph saw the plates, the faith claims of the church would be weak. And many people would be exclaiming why didn't joseph get witnesses of the plates. What was he hiding?

 

Such is the skepticism of the human being.

[Tacenda]

But it does. If only saw Joseph saw the plates, the faith claims of the church would be weak. And many people would be exclaiming why didn't joseph get witnesses of the plates. What was he hiding?

Such is the skepticism of the human being.

Why would God take the plates and leave the Dead Sea Scrolls? Or not take the Papyri either?