What Did the Three Witnesses Actually See?

[JAHS]

Regarding the visit of the angel Moroni to Joseph Smith and the three witnesses, according to Joseph Smith's account of what happened:
"...an angel stood before us. In his hands he held the plates which we had been praying for these to have a view of, he turned over the leaves one by one, so that we could see them, and discover the engravings thereon distinctly."
Then the voice of the Lord said to them, “These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear” (History of the Church, 1:55).

The following painting depicts this experience:

Then there is the experience as recorded by David Whitmer in two places:
"We then kneeled down and prayed.  Joseph prayed.  We then got up and sat on the log and were talking, when all at once a light came down from above us and encircled us for quite a little distance around; and the angel stood before us.  He was dressed in white, and spoke and called me by name and said, “Blessed is he that keepeth His commandments.”  This is all that I heard the angel say.  A table was set before us and on it the records were placed.  The Records of the Nephites, from which the Book of Mormon was translated, the brass plates, the Ball of Directors, the record of Laban and the other plates.  While we were viewing them the voice of God spoke out of heaven saying that the Book was true and the translation correct. 
(“Letter from Elder W.H. Kelley,” Saints’ Herald (Plano, Ill.), March 1, 1882, p. 68, col. 3)

and 

"there appeared, as it were, a table with many records or plates upon it, besides the plates of the Book of Mormon, also the sword of Laban, the directors--i. e., the ball which Lehi had, and the interpreters. 
"David Whitmer Interview" (Millennial Star, vol. 40, nos. 49, 50, report of Pratt and Smith, is signed by them and bears date of Sept. 17, 1878.)

There are a few inconsistencies in the two reports where one includes the "record of Laban" instead of the sword of Laban. I would assume the record of Laban is the same as the brass plates so there may have been some kind of misrecording  of what he actually said.
There is the following painting by an unknown author that depicts his description:

Interesting however that Whitmer's description closely resembles that which they were promised by God in the D&C:

"Behold, I say unto you, that you must rely upon my word, which if you do with full purpose of heart, you shall have a view of the plates, and also of the breastplate, the sword of Laban, the Urim and Thummim, which were given to the brother of Jared upon the mount, when he talked with the Lord face to face, and the miraculous directors which were given to Lehi while in the wilderness, on the borders of the Red Sea.
And it is by your faith that you shall obtain a view of them, even by that faith which was had by the prophets of old.
And after that you have obtained faith, and have seen them with your eyes, you shall testify of them, by the power of God;" (D&C 17 1-3)

So did the angel Moroni only stand there holding the plates and show them to the witnesses or was there a table that had all those other things for their view as well, or could both have happened as seen in the second painting?  I understand that the paintings are only artists conceptions of what happened and may not represent what actually happened. But why does Joseph Smith's History of the Church leave out the part about the table and other things they were allowed to see? To me that would have been a very important part of the experience to include in the History of the Church publication. David Whitmer seems to be the only witness that mentions seeing the other things. 
 

Edited January 26, 2020 by JAHS

[juliann]

Mary Whitmer also was shown the plates by an angel. Why are you not including her?

[JAHS]

14 minutes ago, juliann said:

Mary Whitmer also was shown the plates by an angel. Why are you not including her?

Several people saw the plates. I am only referring to this particular event with Joseph Smith and the three witnesses that seems to be the main witnessing event (that included the angel Moroni) that the Church focuses on.

[mfbukowski]

53 minutes ago, juliann said:

Mary Whitmer also was shown the plates by an angel. Why are you not including her?

Oh my gosh

[SteveO]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my gosh

mfbukoeski, brother, you’re getting old...

You forgot to take your anti-white male, sexist, and misogyny pills this morning, didn’t you?

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

But why does Joseph Smith's History of the Church leave out the part about the table and other things they were allowed to see?

Perhaps because -- to paraphrase José Ortega y Gasset -- despite the literally infinite number of things that could be said, communication depends on leaving the vast majority of them unsaid?

Quote

David Whitmer seems to be the only witness that mentions seeing the other things. 

Another possibility, based on personal experience, is that David Whitmer was the only one to see those things. Considering the nature of visions, it is not difficult for the Lord to fully individualise the experience.

[JAHS]

13 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Another possibility, based on personal experience, is that David Whitmer was the only one to see those things. Considering the nature of visions, it is not difficult for the Lord to fully individualise the experience.

I had thought about that also, but such an idea tends to make it less than a real experience for all of them. If they were going to be witnesses they should be witnesses to all of it as it states in the D&C 17 scripture.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, JAHS said:

So did the angel Moroni only stand there holding the plates and show them to the witnesses or was there a table that had all those other things for their view as well, or could both have happened as seen in the second painting?  I understand that the paintings are only artists conceptions of what happened and may not represent what actually happened. But why does Joseph Smith's History of the Church leave out the part about the table and other things they were allowed to see? To me that would have been a very important part of the experience to include in the History of the Church publication. David Whitmer seems to be the only witness that mentions seeing the other things. 
 

I would say that the witness as published was written to accord with the central and essential witness of the book as prescribed in  2 Nephi 17:12-13:

12 Wherefore, at that day when the book shall be delivered unto the man of whom I have spoken, the book shall be hid from the eyes of the world, that the eyes of none shall behold it save it be that ^athree ^bwitnesses shall behold it, by the power of God, besides him to whom the book shall be delivered; and they shall testify to the truth of the book and the things therein.

13 And there is ^anone other which shall view it, save it be a few according to the will of God, to bear testimony of his word unto the children of men; for the Lord God hath said that the words of the faithful should speak as if it were ^bfrom the dead.

So the most comprehensive account is probably fairly accurate, but the signed testimony focuses on the book as commanded.

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Perhaps because -- to paraphrase José Ortega y Gasset -- despite the literally infinite number of things that could be said, communication depends on leaving the vast majority of them unsaid?

Which is why they say, "a picture paints a thousand words".  So those LDS artists had better get things right!

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

I had thought about that also, but such an idea tends to make it less than a real experience for all of them. If they were going to be witnesses they should be witnesses to all of it as it states in the D&C 17 scripture.

I think it accords with D&C 17:1-3 as well as 2 Nephi 17:1-3 as follows:

1 Behold, I say unto you, that you must rely upon my word, which if you do with full purpose of heart, you shall have a ^aview of the ^bplates, and also of the ^cbreastplate, the ^dsword of Laban, the ^eUrim and Thummim, which were given to the ^fbrother of Jared upon the mount, when he talked with the Lord ^gface to face, and the ^hmiraculous directors which were given to Lehi while in the wilderness, on the borders of the ⁱRed Sea.

2 And it is by your faith that you shall obtain a view of them [the plates], even by that faith which was had by the prophets of old.

3 And after that you have obtained faith, and have seen them with your eyes, you shall ^atestify of them [the plates], by the power of God;

They are to testify of the plates, though they also saw the other things. I noticed a comment about "record" vs. "sword" and I think it could have been a mistake in recording as pointed out, or copying (reading) from the handwritten, where "rec" can easily be mistaken for "sw" depending on eyesight, penmanship, dysgraphia, inattentiveness, etc.

Edited January 27, 2020 by CV75

[blueglass]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think it accords with D&C 17:1-3 as well as 2 Nephi 17:1-3 as follows:

1 Behold, I say unto you, that you must rely upon my word, which if you do with full purpose of heart, you shall have a ^aview of the ^bplates, and also of the ^cbreastplate, the ^dsword of Laban, the ^eUrim and Thummim, which were given to the ^fbrother of Jared upon the mount, when he talked with the Lord ^gface to face, and the ^hmiraculous directors which were given to Lehi while in the wilderness, on the borders of the ⁱRed Sea.

2 And it is by your faith that you shall obtain a view of them [the plates], even by that faith which was had by the prophets of old.

3 And after that you have obtained faith, and have seen them with your eyes, you shall ^atestify of them [the plates], by the power of God;

They are to testify of the plates, though they also saw the other things. I noticed a comment about "record" vs. "sword" and I think it could have been a mistake in recording as pointed out, or copying (reading) from the handwritten, where "rec" can easily be mistaken for "sw" depending on eyesight, penmanship, dysgraphia, inattentiveness, etc.

Don Bradley writes about how a comparison can be drawn between the stone box with the sacred artifacts plates, sword of laban, urim and thummim and the artifacts contained in the ark of the covenant with the stone tablets, rod of Aaron, sword of Goliath, pot of manna and so forth. 

[blueglass]

5 hours ago, JAHS said:

Interesting however that Whitmer's description closely resembles that which they were promised by God in the D&C:

"Behold, I say unto you, that you must rely upon my word, which if you do with full purpose of heart, you shall have a view of the plates, and also of the breastplate, the sword of Laban, the Urim and Thummim, which were given to the brother of Jared upon the mount, when he talked with the Lord face to face, and the miraculous directors which were given to Lehi while in the wilderness, on the borders of the Red Sea.
And it is by your faith that you shall obtain a view of them, even by that faith which was had by the prophets of old.
And after that you have obtained faith, and have seen them with your eyes, you shall testify of them, by the power of God;" (D&C 17 1-3)

So did the angel Moroni only stand there holding the plates and show them to the witnesses or was there a table that had all those other things for their view as well, or could both have happened as seen in the second painting?  I understand that the paintings are only artists conceptions of what happened and may not represent what actually happened. But why does Joseph Smith's History of the Church leave out the part about the table and other things they were allowed to see? To me that would have been a very important part of the experience to include in the History of the Church publication. David Whitmer seems to be the only witness that mentions seeing the other things. 
 

Maybe David whitmer had more faith so he saw more things in the vision? 

[hearserve]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

Maybe David whitmer had more faith so he saw more things in the vision? 

Does that mean Nephi had more faith than Lehi because he saw the filthiness in the river and Lehi didn't?

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, hearserve said:

2 hours ago, blueglass said:

Maybe David whitmer had more faith so he saw more things in the vision? 

Does that mean Nephi had more faith than Lehi because he saw the filthiness in the river and Lehi didn't?

Or did David Whitmer have more faith than Joseph Smith? Not sure there is an answer to my OP but thinking someone might find more information about it.

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Which is why they say, "a picture paints a thousand words".  So those LDS artists had better get things right!

Which means what exactly, in this case?

[InCognitus]

27 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Which is why they say, "a picture paints a thousand words".  So those LDS artists had better get things right!

Which means what exactly, in this case?

I was just making a general comment (somewhat in jest) about how our perceptions are shaped by gospel art and there have been some criticisms in the past about what some people said they were led to believe in the church all because of art.  

But relating to this specific topic, there are two different illustrations shown in the OP,  the first one just shows the angel, the plates, and the three witnesses, and the second one includes the same things but also includes the table, the breastplate, the sword of Laban, and the Urim and Thummim.  A person could reasonably describe the second illustration by simply saying "it is a depiction of the three witnesses seeing the angel of God and the gold plates", and that person would be right.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

49 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I was just making a general comment (somewhat in jest) ...

Yeah, the whole 'gospel art' thing strikes me, once again, as something that plays well only with people who haven't spent much time dealing with historical illustrations outside of a religious context or even thinking much about the discipline and history of historical representation, let alone the broader field of semiotics.

We used to have an Israeli poster on this board who liked to point out that what we consider to be Biblical dress simply doesn't match the textiles we find in burials in the Holy Land, but of course we just keep using the familiar images because they have come to represent (not replicate!) Biblical dress, and therefore other depictions wouldn't look Biblical to us.

But there are people, it seems, so in need of a reason to feel betrayal, outrage or disaffection that they will grab hold of any passing criticism and ride it right over the cliff of determined unbelief.

[JAHS]

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

I would say that the witness as published was written to accord with the central and essential witness of the book as prescribed in  2 Nephi 17:12-13:

12 Wherefore, at that day when the book shall be delivered unto the man of whom I have spoken, the book shall be hid from the eyes of the world, that the eyes of none shall behold it save it be that ^athree ^bwitnesses shall behold it, by the power of God, besides him to whom the book shall be delivered; and they shall testify to the truth of the book and the things therein.

13 And there is ^anone other which shall view it, save it be a few according to the will of God, to bear testimony of his word unto the children of men; for the Lord God hath said that the words of the faithful should speak as if it were ^bfrom the dead.

So the most comprehensive account is probably fairly accurate, but the signed testimony focuses on the book as commanded.

This is probably a good explanation. It is just strange that the other two witnesses and Joseph Smith did not mention the other things that the angel showed them in any other journals or writings or history of the church.
However, given that the D&C 17:1 revelation said that they would see all those things, they most likely did see them but for some reason didn't write about it anywhere. 

[stemelbow]

The differing accounts suggests dreams by different people come out differently, and multiple dreams about the same thing by one person also provides conflicting stories.  

BUt the biggest issue with the witnesses is there was no use for the plates at all.  The "translation" happened without the plates.  Now with the latest from Royal Skousen one wonders even more what the plates might be.  If the story of the BoM was written in English long before Joseph Smith and then just dictated to him, and seeing as the story doesn't fit in many ways, to the land and place it proposes, it's not wonder Skousen has concluded the book was written in Early Modern era.  The non-literal translation by someone other than Joseph makes the whole Witness testimony thing meaningless if, seeing as the plates weren't used, it wasn't meaningless already.  

[JAHS]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The differing accounts suggests dreams by different people come out differently, and multiple dreams about the same thing by one person also provides conflicting stories.  

BUt the biggest issue with the witnesses is there was no use for the plates at all.  The "translation" happened without the plates.  Now with the latest from Royal Skousen one wonders even more what the plates might be.  If the story of the BoM was written in English long before Joseph Smith and then just dictated to him, and seeing as the story doesn't fit in many ways, to the land and place it proposes, it's not wonder Skousen has concluded the book was written in Early Modern era.  The non-literal translation by someone other than Joseph makes the whole Witness testimony thing meaningless if, seeing as the plates weren't used, it wasn't meaningless already.  

And what about the 8 witnesses who saw the plates and handled them. If they are telling the truth we know that at least some kind of plates existed that convinced them of their reality.
"has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship" 

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, JAHS said:

And what about the 8 witnesses who saw the plates and handled them. If they are telling the truth we know that at least some kind of plates existed that convinced them of their reality.
"has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship" 

I have no issue saying plates existed.  

[Ahab]

What Did the Three Witnesses Actually See?  

I believe they probably saw what they said they saw, and I don't see any good reason to doubt their testimonies even though I am aware of the theoretical possibility that they could have been bearing a false witness.  I don't place a lot of importance on what they said they saw, though, because, even if those 3 people did see those things, what I'd want to know, if I didn't already know it, is whether or not what they saw was from those people who actually had them or made them anciently on the American continent, such as whether the writings on the plates were really inspired by God, and if that sword of Laban they saw was actually the sword Nephi used to cut off the head of Laban, as he said he did.  I mean, even if I had seen that angel as he showed me those plates, what I'd really want to know was whether or not those plates were actually written by Nephi and his descendants.  I mean, like, really?  And that was the actual sword of Laban, that became the sword of Nephi and some of his descendants?   I mean like I'd be saying Hello Angel.  Oh, and you're Moroni, right?  Wow!  And were those really the plates Nephi and his descendants wrote, including Mormon and Moroni, I mean, you, too? And then I'd be like, wow, that's amazing! I can hardly believe it!

Edited January 27, 2020 by Ahab

[pogi]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

BUt the biggest issue with the witnesses is there was no use for the plates at all.  The "translation" happened without the plates.  

How do you know that there was no use for the plates?

While they eventually were not required for translation through faith, they may have been required to help develop that faith necessary for translation - to see, feel, and handle the source may have been critical in helping convince Joseph that he himself wasn't the source (making it all up).  The same is true for us.  The witnesses to the plates help convince us that Joseph was not the source.  His spiritual talents evolved through the process.  At first he was dependent upon the plates and translators, and then on seer stones, and later he required no physical aid to receive revelation at all.  

As a rock climber, I kind of view the plates like climbing ropes for Joseph.  While not necessary to climb a rock, they gave him confidence to try. After developing enough confidence and skill, the ropes just get in the way for many climbers.  However, the ropes were necessary and critical in evolving to the confidence and skill level of a free-climber. Most free-climbers probably would not have even started rock climbing at all if ropes and harnesses were not invented.  They would not have had enough confidence in themselves to develop that skill to free themselves from the rope. 

Edited January 27, 2020 by pogi

[Jeanne]

I haven't read all of this thread.  IMO,the witnesses saw what Joseph told them they saw.

[Jeanne]

22 hours ago, juliann said:

Mary Whitmer also was shown the plates by an angel. Why are you not including her?

My bad.  I didn't know that.  Thank you and it is very interesting.