What Did the Three Witnesses Actually See?

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

IMO,the witnesses saw what Joseph told them they saw.

You've got to be kidding me!

So, when Joseph was verbatim making up 2 Nephi 17, he was unhesitating and audacious enough to fake a prophecy that he would be able to dupe 3 idiots into claiming that they saw an angel and gold plates simply because he would tell them that they did, when they didn't? 

Edited January 27, 2020 by pogi

[stemelbow]

I thought Mary Whitmer's story was from her son.  And basically said some old stranger was walking around said something nice to her and then showed her the plates?  I think it's not included because it's not a very strong account.  No mention from her, even though it was said she told it many times.  

[stemelbow]

33 minutes ago, pogi said:

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

Because they lay hidden or under a cloth during the dictation.  Skousen's recent conclusion is interesting to add here.  If he's right then Joseph only thought he was translating the material off the plates, while the actual creative and cultural translation took place long before by someone other than Joseph.  

33 minutes ago, pogi said:

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. 

Its all guesswork I guess.  I mean it's possible Joseph needed the plates to think he wasn't making it up, but we'd never know.  That is if Joseph never got plates and yet came out with the BOM anyway, then I suppose that'd do away with your theory.  But since Joseph didn't use the plates the safest conclusion is they weren't of use.  

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Because they lay hidden or under a cloth during the dictation.  Skousen's recent conclusion is interesting to add here.  If he's right then Joseph only thought he was translating the material off the plates, while the actual creative and cultural translation took place long before by someone other than Joseph.  

Its all guesswork I guess.  I mean it's possible Joseph needed the plates to think he wasn't making it up, but we'd never know.  That is if Joseph never got plates and yet came out with the BOM anyway, then I suppose that'd do away with your theory.  But since Joseph didn't use the plates the safest conclusion is they weren't of use.  

Do you have any good reason to think Joseph didn't take out one plate at a time to translate it?  I've often imagined that when he looked into his hat he was looking at a plate through either the one seer stone or the two seer stones fastened together like spectacles, aka the Urim and Thummim.   That would mean that what was under the cloth was the bulk of the plates, with one of the plates taken out while he was using it.  Otherwise you would have a valid point... the plates didn't serve any purpose at all.

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Do you have any good reason to think Joseph didn't take out one plate at a time to translate it?  I've often imagined that when he looked into his hat he was looking at a plate through either the one seer stone or the two seer stones fastened together like spectacles, aka the Urim and Thummim.   That would mean that what was under the cloth was the bulk of the plates, with one of the plates taken out while he was using it.  Otherwise you would have a valid point... the plates didn't serve any purpose at all.

Who said Joseph took out a plate at a time?  Seems like a contradiction to all the stories told by the scribes who wrote the BoM.  

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Who said Joseph took out a plate at a time?  Seems like a contradiction to all the stories told by the scribes who wrote the BoM.  

Who said he didn't?  If he did how would that be a contradiction to what they said they saw?  I'm aware of them saying he looked into a hat to look at a seer stone but did anyone say he did not have a plate in the hat?  What if he did and they just didn't see it?

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Who said he didn't?  If he did how would that be a contradiction to what they said they saw?  I'm aware of them saying he looked into a hat to look at a seer stone but did anyone say he did not have a plate in the hat?  What if he did and they just didn't see it?

You certainly have a unique take.  I mean I see no evidence for it, but if it works for you...I mean more power to you.  

[JAHS]

42 minutes ago, pogi said:

59 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

IMO,the witnesses saw what Joseph told them they saw.

You've got to be kidding me!

So, when Joseph was verbatim making up 2 Nephi 17, he was unhesitating and audacious enough to fake a prophecy that he would be able to dupe 3 idiots into claiming that they saw an angel and gold plates simply because he would tell them that they did, when they didn't? 

Agreed. They either actually saw what they saw and took it to the grave not denying it, or they were in on the "hoax" and didn't see anything at all. A gang hallucination doesn't seem plausible. 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

You certainly have a unique take.  I mean I see no evidence for it, but if it works for you...I mean more power to you.  

I was just riffing off of your point that there would be no purpose for the plates if he didn't use them, at all.  If all he needed was a seer stone, or the Urim and Thummim, why bother with getting the plates?  Except that the Urim and Thummim were there with them and better to just get the whole lot rather than leave the plates behind.  I'm supposing the plates were in some kind of loose leaf notebook, with rings of some kind that could be separated so that as the original prophet wrote an additional plate they would add it to the collection.  And if able to add a plate then it would also be possible to take a plate out.  Just common sense.  We commonly say that he translated the plates by the gift and power of God, but if he didn't use the plates at all and instead only used the seer stone or Urim and Thummim while not even using the plates, why would we say he translated the plates?  I think that indicates that he used the plates somehow.

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I mean it's possible Joseph needed the plates to think he wasn't making it up, but we'd never know.

You are right that we don't know for sure, that is why I caution against making blanket statements like "there was no use for the plates at all".

37 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But since Joseph didn't use the plates the safest conclusion is they weren't of use.  

 First, we don't know for certain that they were never used.  We do know that Joseph used the Nephite interpreters for the lost 116 pages, according to Emma. He very well could have used the plates at times in conjunction with those interpreters, but we don't have evidence for or against that. 

Second, I don't think that is a safe conclusion at all.  The fact that God prepared Joseph for 3 years to even receive the plates, that he was taught and prepared by Moroni, that he was given the plates at all, that many witnessed the plates even by angelic appearance, suggests that it is safe to conclude that they were of significant importance and use.  If they weren't of use, why all the hoopla by God and angels to prepare him to receive them?

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I was just riffing off of your point that there would be no purpose for the plates if he didn't use them, at all.  If all he needed was a seer stone, or the Urim and Thummim, why bother with getting the plates?  Except that the Urim and Thummim were there with them and better to just get the whole lot rather than leave the plates behind.  I'm supposing the plates were in some kind of loose leaf notebook, with rings of some kind that could be separated so that as the original prophet wrote an additional plate they would add it to the collection.  And if able to add a plate then it would also be possible to take a plate out.  Just common sense.  We commonly say that he translated the plates by the gift and power of God, but if he didn't use the plates at all and instead only used the seer stone or Urim and Thummim while not even using the plates, why would we say he translated the plates?  I think that indicates that he used the plates somehow.

It's a good question.  The evidence from the witnesses show he did not use the plates.  The evidence from scholarly analysis (Skousen's conclusion) shows he did not use them.  So its as if God tricked Joseph into thinking he actually translated the plates.  But if God tricked Joseph who else did God trick?  

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

You are right that we don't know for sure, that is why I caution against making blanket statements like "there was no use for the plates at all".

 First, we don't know for certain that they were never used.  We do know that Joseph used the Nephite interpreters for the lost 116 pages, according to Emma. He very well could have used the plates at times in conjunction with those interpreters, but we don't have evidence for or against that. 

Second, I don't think that is a safe conclusion at all.  The fact that God prepared Joseph for 3 years to even receive the plates, that he was taught and prepared by Moroni, that he was given the plates at all, that many witnessed the plates even by angelic appearance, suggests that it is safe to conclude that they were of significant importance and use.  If they weren't of use, why all the hoopla by God and angels to prepare him to receive them?

One your first point you continue to argue against any data points we have.  None of the data points suggest Joseph used the plates, so there's no reason to assume he did.  

Your second point is interest "The fact that God prepared Joseph for 3 years..."  How is that fact?  What data do we have to say God is in existence?  The arguments I"ve seen for God's existence are weak, at best, and silly or absurd most of the time.  It is odd we heard about Joseph getting visited by Moroni afterwards though.  It was during the same time he said he was dealing with spirits guarding hidden treasures, all while claiming that he could see buried treasure.  Added up his stories are interesting...no doubt, but they also are inconsistent and kind of silly.  

 

 

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's a good question.  The evidence from the witnesses show he did not use the plates.  The evidence from scholarly analysis (Skousen's conclusion) shows he did not use them. 

How so?  Did they specifically state Joseph did not use any of the plates?  If they didn't mention him using the plates it may have been only because they did not see him use them.  But maybe he did and they just did not see him use them,.

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So its as if God tricked Joseph into thinking he actually translated the plates.  But if God tricked Joseph who else did God trick?  

I see no good reason to jump to that conclusion or to ask that question based on what may be a false conclusion.

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

One your first point you continue to argue against any data points we have.  None of the data points suggest Joseph used the plates, so there's no reason to assume he did.  

After doing a little digging. It appears to me that there is good evidence that Joseph used the plates when translating with the Nephite interpreters:

Quote

 

Some accounts indicate that Joseph studied the characters on the plates...

The principal scribe, Oliver Cowdery, testified under oath in 1831 that Joseph Smith “found with the plates, from which he translated his book, two transparent stones, resembling glass, set in silver bows. That by looking through these, he was able to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters, which were engraven on the plates.”31 In the fall of 1830, Cowdery visited Union Village, Ohio, and spoke about the translation of the Book of Mormon. Soon thereafter, a village resident reported that the translation was accomplished by means of “two transparent stones in the form of spectacles thro which the translator looked on the engraving.”32

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng

 

 

It seems he did indeed use the plates during the translation of at least part of the 116 pages.

27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Your second point is interest "The fact that God prepared Joseph for 3 years..."  How is that fact?  What data do we have to say God is in existence?  The arguments I"ve seen for God's existence are weak, at best, and silly or absurd most of the time.  It is odd we heard about Joseph getting visited by Moroni afterwards though.  It was during the same time he said he was dealing with spirits guarding hidden treasures, all while claiming that he could see buried treasure.  Added up his stories are interesting...no doubt, but they also are inconsistent and kind of silly.  

We have at least 4 witnesses to Moroni and the gold plates.  You can deny the evidence if you want, but we have their testimonies.    

[stemelbow]

37 minutes ago, pogi said:

After doing a little digging. It appears to me that there is good evidence that Joseph used the plates when translating with the Nephite interpreters:

 

It seems he did indeed use the plates during the translation of at least part of the 116 pages.

Ok.  I won't get into that.  It's fine.  So for parts of the book we don't have Joseph used the plates, perhaps.  But for the parts we do have JOseph did not use the plates.  If so, it seems to me the plates were not a useful item at all.  

37 minutes ago, pogi said:

We have at least 4 witnesses to Moroni and the gold plates.  You can deny the evidence if you want, but we have their testimonies.    

Evidence?  Ok.  But I object to saying it's fact.  

[Calm]

On 1/26/2020 at 1:39 PM, JAHS said:

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.

Mary appears to be one of the few and the only one outside the better known three that had the experience of seeing the plates with the assurance of an angel, which is why some have named her the Fourth Witness. 
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/witnesses-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

Another calls her the twelfth:

https://www.deseret.com/platform/amp/2013/7/18/20522674/mary-whitmer-12th-witness-to-the-book-of-mormon

https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/mary-whitmer-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

Edited January 27, 2020 by Calm

[pogi]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Ok.  I won't get into that.  It's fine.  So for parts of the book we don't have Joseph used the plates, perhaps.  But for the parts we do have JOseph did not use the plates.  If so, it seems to me the plates were not a useful item at all.  

I thought I responded to this already, but I am not seeing it...weird!

Again, you can't say definitively and absolutely that the "plates were not a useful item at all", for reasons that I have already mentioned.  We may not have the 116 pages, but that experience of learning with the plates may have been critical to translate without the plates, giving us what we have now.  

Edited January 27, 2020 by pogi

[2BizE]

I’m pretty sure they didn’t see the plates with their physical eyes, but rather in a vision or dream.  Joseph smith called out what he was saying and asked if they saw the same thing.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, 2BizE said:

I’m pretty sure they didn’t see the plates with their physical eyes, but rather in a vision or dream.  Joseph smith called out what he was saying and asked if they saw the same thing.

And your evidence this occurred?

[CV75]

6 hours ago, JAHS said:

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. 

Maybe the other two witnesses and Joseph were more exact or enlightened in understanding what the Lord expected, or so impressed with the book that the other items were not important enough to them to dwell on.

[2BizE]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

And your evidence this occurred?

“We accordingly joined in prayer, and ultimately obtained our desires, for before we had yet finished, the same vision was opened to our view, at least it was again opened to me,"  page 55.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/volume-1-chapter-6

 

[JAHS]

27 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

I’m pretty sure they didn’t see the plates with their physical eyes, but rather in a vision or dream.  Joseph smith called out what he was saying and asked if they saw the same thing.

The record states:
"Upon this, our second failure, Martin Harris proposed that he should withdraw himself from us, believing, as he expressed himself, that his presence was the cause of our not obtaining what we wished for. He accordingly with drew from us, and we knelt down again, and had not been many minutes engaged in prayer, when presently we beheld a light above us in the air, of exceeding brightness; and behold, an angel stood before us. In his hands he held the plates which we had been praying for these to have a view of."

Beholding a light above them in the air means that they had to physically turn their heads upward to see this light, which to me makes it something more than just seeing in a dream in their own minds or imagination, but an actual visitation. 

[mnn727]

"Gospel by paintings"  will always leave questions.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 1/26/2020 at 11:13 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

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.

Yes. There's even a name for it these days: "the outrage culture."

[Hamba Tuhan]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes. There's even a name for it these days: "the outrage culture."

This is the second time this week that someone has linked one of my posts to an American cultural/political issue. I'm OK if that's what people want to do, but it seems a bit weird to me, and in this case especially, I don't think that's what I was talking about.