Accounts from the Witnesses

[Danzo]

11 minutes ago, webbles said:

Oh, I know that Harris served a mission for the Strangites.  But it wasn't in 1837.  As your sources show, it was later in the 1840s.  The Burnett letter was about a meeting in 1838.  Harris had left the church, but he hadn't joined the Strangite yet because they didn't exist yet.

The conversation really illustrates why hearsay is so dangerous.  Even on the internet, people make mistakes and need to clarify what they mean.  If it can happen today on the internet, it could certainly happen 200 years ago. 

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, webbles said:

Oh, I know that Harris served a mission for the Strangites.  But it wasn't in 1837.  As your sources show, it was later in the 1840s.  The Burnett letter was about a meeting in 1838.  Harris had left the church, but he hadn't joined the Strangite yet because they didn't exist yet.

My bad, my brain said one thing, but my fingers wrote another.  I didn't even catch that after re-reading it with the sources. Thanks. 

[webbles]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

According to Wikipedia, "Harris's statement reportedly induced five influential members, including three apostles, to leave the church."  Can anyone verify this?

1837 and 1838 were hard on the church in Kirtland.  Harris's statements were probably in 1838 (the letter is dated in 1838).  Luke Johnson, Lyman Johnson, and John Boynton (all apostles) had been disfellowshipped in Sept 1837.  They were reinstated within a few months but then were excommunicated within a few months later.  Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer were also excommunicated in 1838.  Harris's statement might have been the final nail, but there was a lot happening already.

[OGHoosier]

33 minutes ago, pogi said:

Of course, David Whitmer wrote a rebuttal to the John Murphy interview stating that he did not  deny his testimony, but he never corrected anything else John Murphy said about the angel not having a shop and it being an "impression".

Here's what David Whitmer wrote in response:

Quote

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[s], 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.

"That testimony or any part thereof, which has so long since been published with that book" seems like a dead ringer for the published Testimony of the Three Witnesses that accompanies each copy of the Book of Mormon. That testimony is clear about "seeing", I think that's all the clarification Whitmer needs to give. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

24 minutes ago, Danzo said:

he conversation really illustrates why hearsay is so dangerous. 

Isn’t almost all the information we have on the witnesses classifiable as hearsay?

[rodheadlee]

26 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Isn’t almost all the information we have on the witnesses classifiable as hearsay?

Yeah, that's why you need your own Witness of the Holy Spirit for the truth of the these things. My Witness was undeniable. 

[webbles]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Isn’t almost all the information we have on the witnesses classifiable as hearsay?

I was curious how many statements we have that would be classified as first hand.

From the link from pogi, I count five for the 3 witnesses: The Testimony of Three Witnesses (I include this because the earliest copy is written by Oliver Cowdery), Letter From Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris First Letter to H. B. Emerson, Martin Harris Second Letter to H. B. Emerson, David Whitmer - An Address to All Believers in Christ.

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/evaluating-book-mormon-witnesses mentions four for the 8 witnesses: Hyrum Smith letter in 1839, John Whitmer's church history, John Whitmer in Messenger and Advocate March 1836, John Whitmer to Mark H. Forest.

https://witnessesofthebookofmormon.org/three-witnesses/oliver-cowdery/statements/ includes one more first hand statement from Oliver Cowdery: the first item in the 1848 section.  I'm not sure, though, if that is truly first hand because the source is from Andrew Jensen.

https://witnessesofthebookofmormon.org/three-witnesses/david-whitmer/statements/ has a bunch from David Whitmer in letter's that he wrote.  I think there are at least 10 new ones in there.

 

[Nevo]

11 hours ago, webbles said:

https://witnessesofthebookofmormon.org/three-witnesses/oliver-cowdery/statements/ includes one more first hand statement from Oliver Cowdery: the first item in the 1848 section.  I'm not sure, though, if that is truly first hand because the source is from Andrew Jensen.

Not first hand. The source is Reuben Miller's journal: https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/22222322-f4fe-41e3-aa86-bfc54b94df92/0/14?lang=eng 

[pogi]

15 hours ago, Danzo said:

The conversation really illustrates why hearsay is so dangerous.  Even on the internet, people make mistakes and need to clarify what they mean.  If it can happen today on the internet, it could certainly happen 200 years ago. 

I definitely understand why we should use caution with hearsay, but neither should it be tossed out all together.  It can be very valuable when weighed together with all evidence.  
The church and apologists use hearsay all the time as evidence to support their points of view.  To oppenly accept hearsay that supports one’s point of view and dismiss/condemn all other hearsay as “dangerous” is itself “dangerous”.

Edited March 7, 2024 by pogi

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

To oppenly accept hearsay that supports one’s point of view and dismiss/condemn all other hearsay as “dangerous” is itself “dangerous”.

I believe Danzo is urging caution with all hearsay rather than accepting what he likes and discarding the rest.

Explosives are very dangerous and also very useful when used with appropriate caution.

Edited March 7, 2024 by Calm

[pogi]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe Danzo is urging caution with all hearsay rather than accepting what he likes and discarding the rest.

Explosives are very dangerous and also very useful when used with appropriate caution.

I hope so.  It comes across as dismissive though when I have never seen him  stress so much danger about hearsay that was being used to support the narrative he believes in.  
 

I think we all understand that hearsay should be viewed with caution, repeating that over and over without discussing the specifics of why this specific statement may or may not be valuable again, comes off as dismissive and not helpful in evaluating the evidence.  I am trying to contextualize the comment and understand the events and individuals and motives etc. surrounding it, looking into potential corroborating statements that confirm the meeting and individuals involved, results etc.  Of course there is the chance of honest miscommunication, and that is why I am trying to evaluate the bigger picture and other evidences without just accepting the statement outright.  I think I am showing cation. 

Edited March 7, 2024 by pogi

[pogi]

On 3/4/2024 at 7:38 PM, webbles said:

For me, the 3 witnesses are terrible proof of the existence of the plates.  The 8 witnesses are better proof of the existence of the plates along with the other people who interacted with the physical plates.  Martin Harris straddles the two groups since he appears to have had physical interactions with the plates (while apparently covered up) outside of the 3 witness experience.

I agree with this, but am also curious about it given the emphasis that the church and scriptures place on the 3 as to how the word will be "established".   Only half of the canonized scripture and revelations which speak of witnesses to the plates even mention the other witnesses.

No mention of the other witnesses:

Quote

Ether 5:2-4

And behold, ye may be privileged that ye may shew the plates unto those who shall assist to bring forth this work; and unto three shall they be shewn by the power of God; wherefore, they shall know of a surety that these things are true. And in the mouth of three witnesses shall these things be established.

Quote

 

D&C 5

11 And in addition to your testimony, the testimony of three of my servants, whom I shall call and ordain, unto whom I will show these things, and they shall go forth with my words that are given through you.

12 Yea, they shall know of a surety that these things are true, for from heaven will I declare it unto them.

13 I will give them power that they may behold and view these things as they are;

14 And to none else will I grant this power, to receive this same testimony among this generation, in this the beginning of the rising up and the coming forth of my church out of the wilderness—clear as the moon, and fair as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners.

15 And the testimony of three witnesses will I send forth of my word.

 

3 witnesses again are primarily emphasized in these passages.  In all of these scriptures God states that "by the words of three" his words will be established.  The other witnesses are a seeming afterthought barely worth mentioning.

Quote

2 Nephi 27: 12-14
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 three witnesses 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. And there is none 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:

Quote

2 Nephi 11:3
wherefore, I will send their words forth unto my children, to prove unto them that my words are true. Wherefore, by the words of three, God hath said, I will establish my word. Nevertheless, God sendeth more witnesses; and he proveth all his words.

Why is it presented that the 3 witnesses shall establish the word?  Why is their testimony presented as being more valuable as evidence to the world of these things, when I agree that the 8 witnesses seem to be greater evidence as to their existence?

There are numerous other examples of people having miraculous visions, including the shakers (8 witnesses, and dozens of others), so why so much emphasis on the 3 when their testimony seems to be no better that any other testimony of other visions from other faiths?

I am only asking out of curiosity, not to prove anything. 

Quote

We, the undersigned, hereby testify, that we saw the holy Angel standing upon the house-top, as mentioned in the foregoing declaration, holding the Roll and Book.

BETSEY BOOTHE.
LOUISA CHAMBERLAIN.
CATY DE WITT.
LAURA ANN JACOBS.
SARAH MARIA LEWIS.
SARAH ANN SPENCER.
LUCINDA MCDONIELS.
MARIA HEDRICK.

 

Edited March 7, 2024 by pogi

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I hope so.  It comes across as dismissive though when I have never seen him  stress so much danger about hearsay that was being used to support the narrative he believes in.  

I don't believe I have posted much on the narrative I believe in when it comes to this subject. Maybe you are confusing me with another person.

 

 

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I don't believe I have posted much on the narrative I believe in when it comes to this subject. Maybe you are confusing me with another person.

There have been several links which include hearsay to support the narrative you believe in.   I didn't here any "danger" warnings about those.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I think we all understand that hearsay should be viewed with caution, repeating that over and over without discussing the specifics of why this specific statement may or may not be valuable again, comes off as dismissive and not helpful in evaluating the evidence.  I am trying to contextualize the comment and understand the events and individuals and motives etc. surrounding it, looking into potential corroborating statements that confirm the meeting and individuals involved, results etc.  Of course there is the chance of honest miscommunication, and that is why I am trying to evaluate the bigger picture and other evidences without just accepting the statement outright.  I think I am showing cation. 

I mentioned above that I really haven't posted much on the actual topic and I figured I owed you an actual opinion on the topic at hand so I will say the following.

It is probably impossible to know exactly what Martin Harris Experienced.   The only one who really knows is martin Harris.  Most of the rest is speculation.  Whether by you, By Stephen Burnett or others. When one speculates about what is really unknowable one usually reveals more about oneself than about one is speculating about.   The Bolded portion above sort of demonstrate part of what I am referring to.  The purpose of this discussion doesn't really seem to be about trying to understand Historical figures but trying to Judge them. 

What did he really see?

How did he see what he really saw?

Is he Trustworthy?

 

The answers to the first two questions are unknowable

As to the third question, I feel he is really beyond our Judgement.

 

Instead of Judgement, I feel the best way to approach history is with a sense of Curiosity rather than Judgement.  Approached that way, I find Martin Harris, like most of us. was a complicated man filled with contradictions and ambiguity.  Someone who made good choices and not so good choices.   

If you want to know about the reality of the plates, you probably need to talk to your Heavenly Father.  Martin Harris will probably not help you much. 

[Danzo]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

There have been several links which include hearsay to support the narrative you believe in.   I didn't here any "danger" warnings about those.

The problem is that you really didn't know what I believed in.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

There have been several links which include hearsay to support the narrative you believe in.   I didn't here any "danger" warnings about those.

Haven’t there been quite a few examples of hearsay early on that also supported narratives that Danzo didn’t believe in?

[Danzo]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Haven’t there been quite a few examples of hearsay early on that also supported narratives that Danzo didn’t believe in?

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to go over all threads and comment on them. I only commented on the Hearsay because I have some training on hearsay and wanted to comment on why it can be unreliable.  I certainly don't have the time to go through all threads and evaluate them on the evidentiary strengths.  I like to believe I have a life. 

[pogi]

29 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I mentioned above that I really haven't posted much on the actual topic and I figured I owed you an actual opinion on the topic at hand so I will say the following.

It is probably impossible to know exactly what Martin Harris Experienced.   The only one who really knows is martin Harris.  Most of the rest is speculation.  Whether by you, By Stephen Burnett or others. When one speculates about what is really unknowable one usually reveals more about oneself than about one is speculating about.   The Bolded portion above sort of demonstrate part of what I am referring to.  The purpose of this discussion doesn't really seem to be about trying to understand Historical figures but trying to Judge them. 

What did he really see?

How did he see what he really saw?

Is he Trustworthy?

 

The answers to the first two questions are unknowable

As to the third question, I feel he is really beyond our Judgement.

 

Instead of Judgement, I feel the best way to approach history is with a sense of Curiosity rather than Judgement.  Approached that way, I find Martin Harris, like most of us. was a complicated man filled with contradictions and ambiguity.  Someone who made good choices and not so good choices.   

If you want to know about the reality of the plates, you probably need to talk to your Heavenly Father.  Martin Harris will probably not help you much. 

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that because so much is unknowable the witnesses are essentially worthless as witnesses and should be taken as a mere "curiosity"? 

I agree it is impossible to know "exactly" what Harris experienced.  But the very purpose of their testimony is to establish their experience as evidence to the plates.  It is therefore presented as evidence to evaluate/judge.  When witnesses are presented as evidence to establish truth, it is our job to weigh (judge) the validity of their word - that is the point of their testimonies.  We must weigh for ourselves how strong the evidence is.  Taking all evidence and statements together help create a better picture (not "exact") of what actually happened and to establish the strength of the evidence.

The church and apologists have spent no small amount of ink in establishing the trustworthiness and integrity of these men, aka judging them (which I might add is often contrary to the judgments of their contemporary Saints, including Joseph Smith who gave pretty brutal character assassinations of them).  The witnesses are often used as key evidence for reasonable belief.  Do you take issue with that given that it is mostly "unknowable", and is a judgment of these individuals? 

 

 

Edited March 7, 2024 by pogi

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Haven’t there been quite a few examples of hearsay early on that also supported narratives that Danzo didn’t believe in?

Not before Burnett, that I can see.

[webbles]

45 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree with this, but am also curious about it given the emphasis that the church and scriptures place on the 3 as to how the word will be "established".   Only half of the canonized scripture and revelations which speak of witnesses to the plates even mention the other witnesses.

No mention of the other witnesses:

3 witnesses again are primarily emphasized in these passages.  In all of these scriptures God states that "by the words of three" his words will be established.  The other witnesses are a seeming afterthought barely worth mentioning.

Why is it presented that the 3 witnesses shall establish the word?  Why is their testimony presented as being more valuable as evidence to the world of these things, when I agree that the 8 witnesses seem to be greater evidence as to their existence?

There are numerous other examples of people having miraculous visions, including the shakers (8 witnesses, and dozens of others), so why so much emphasis on the 3 when their testimony seems to be no better that any other testimony of other visions from other faiths?

I am only asking out of curiosity, not to prove anything. 

 

The 3 witnesses are the witnesses of the validity of the Book of Mormon.  They are the ones who can testify that God said it was correctly translated.  They are the ones who can testify that angels were involved.  They do "establish" the word.  The 8 witnesses only tell us that Joseph Smith had plates.  They can't testify that he translated those plates correctly.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that because so much is unknowable the witnesses are essentially worthless as witnesses and should be taken as a mere "curiosity"? 

I think it is a very interesting curiosity, but I don't think one can rely on them to establish the truth of the Book of Mormon.  Even if they saw plates, what does that mean, no one disputes the existance of say the Popol Vul, or even its authenticity, but no here is saying their life was changed by reading it.

Even if they saw what they thought was an angel, what does that prove?  Maybe it was Hermes, Maybe it was someone dressed like an angel?

 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

But the very purpose of their testimony is to establish their experience as evidence to the plates.  It is therefore presented as evidence to evaluate/judge.  When witnesses are presented as evidence to establish truth, it is our job to weigh (judge) the validity of their word - that is the point of their testimonies.

Evidence is not proof, Personally I would not rely on a bunch of long dead individuals to tell me about what religion to join.  The value of their testimony is that it can motive some to ask God.   The testimony serves as an invitation.  It serves little purpose to put them on trial (especially when they and everyone they knew have long been dead).

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Taking all evidence and statements together help create a better picture (not "exact") of what actually happened and to establish the strength of the evidence.

Taking all the evidence and statements does help us create  a better picture, however much of the evidence creates a picture of the person presenting it (Stephen Burnett in this case) than of Martin Harris.  It does very little strengthen the testimony.   Remember these quotes all take place many years after the events being witnessed.  Memories fade, things are described differently many years after because peoples life circumstances change and people see things differently after much reflection. 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The church and apologists have spent no small amount of ink in establishing the trustworthiness and integrity of these men, aka judging them (which I might add is often contrary to the judgments of their contemporary Saints, including Joseph Smith who gave pretty brutal character assassinations of them).  The witnesses are often used as key evidence for reasonable belief.  Do you take issue with that given that it is mostly "unknowable", and is a judgment of these individuals? 

Church hasn't done no such thing (Anthropomorphizing the church annoys me) however many members of the church including yourself have spent a lot of time and annoyed many electrons writing and trying to judge these men.  I personally find little value in judging long dead people.  I prefer to get to know them instead.  Joseph smith had good things to say about Martin Harris as well as bad things to say about him. I find good things and bad things to say about Martin Harris and I find good things ad bad things to say about Joseph Smith (Even the God had bad things to say about Joseph Smith). 

People are complicated.  Simply turning them into a tool for judging a present day religion takes away their humanity, in my opinion. 

 

 

Edited March 7, 2024 by Danzo

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Not before Burnett, that I can see.

Don't take my comments too seriously.  I really don't have the time to go through everything on each thread.  I was just interested in a discussion about the nature of hearsay. 

[pogi]

45 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think it is a very interesting curiosity, but I don't think one can rely on them to establish the truth of the Book of Mormon.  Even if they saw plates, what does that mean, no one disputes the existance of say the Popol Vul, or even its authenticity, but no here is saying their life was changed by reading it.

Even if they saw what they thought was an angel, what does that prove?  Maybe it was Hermes, Maybe it was someone dressed like an angel?

 

Evidence is not proof, Personally I would not rely on a bunch of long dead individuals to tell me about what religion to join.  The value of their testimony is that it can motive some to ask God.   The testimony serves as an invitation.  It serves little purpose to put them on trial (especially when they and everyone they knew have long been dead).

Taking all the evidence and statements does help us create  a better picture, however much of the evidence creates a picture of the person presenting it (Stephen Burnett in this case) than of Martin Harris.  It does very little strengthen the testimony.   Remember these quotes all take place many years after the events being witnessed.  Memories fade, things are described differently many years after because peoples life circumstances change and people see things differently after much reflection. 

Church hasn't done no such thing (Anthropomorphizing the church annoys me) however many members of the church including yourself have spent a lot of time and annoyed many electrons writing and trying to judge these men.  I personally find little value in judging long dead people.  I prefer to get to know them instead.  Joseph smith had good things to say about Martin Harris as well as bad things to say about him. I find good things and bad things to say about Martin Harris and I find good things ad bad things to say about Joseph Smith (Even the God had bad things to say about Joseph Smith). 

People are complicated.  Simply turning them into a tool for judging a present day religion takes away their humanity, in my opinion.

I have never really studied the witnesses accounts much before now.  I have relied on the narrative the church has presented (if that is anthropomorphizing "the church", I am sorry but we all do it, even you). 

(A bit of a tangent about anthropomorphizing the church: When things are presented in official church capacity, as in official church history, manuals, etc. it is perfectly appropriate to say "the church...".     What annoys me is when people complain about anthropomorphizing the church when the church is accused of something potentially negative, so as to protect the institution from any and all blame by using human shields, but when people give credit to "the church" for humanitarian work etc., I don't see you complaining about anthropomorphize and suggesting "no, the church didn't do that good thing, some people in the church did...".   By that tactic, the church is protected from all blame in your mind, but deserves all credit.  That annoys me.  I see the same behavior with complaints about "hearsay".  That annoys me.)

Back to the topic on hand - the more I study this issue, the more complex and muddy I find it to be.  Things don't seem to be as I have gathered from what/how it has been presented to me by "the church".  There is more room to question and see things from different perspectives than I previously imagined.  Given the magical thinking of the time and culture, often conflating second sight experience with natural sight, and considering the dozens of first and second hand accounts that seem to conflate spiritual sight with natural sight, I am left to question what any of the witnesses actually saw.   I am coming to the conclusion that alignes more with your views here that it is more of a curiosity and that not much can be deduced from it, and I don't think the testimonies are as strong as evidence as "the church" would have us believe.

Quote

Simply turning them into a tool for judging a present day religion takes away their humanity, in my opinion.

That is kind of what they signed up for, isn't it?  By becoming "witnesses", they agreed to become a "tool" for the church.  And that is how they have been used by the church and critics alike.

Edited March 7, 2024 by pogi

[Danzo]

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have never really studied the witnesses accounts much before now.  I have relied on the narrative the church has presented (if that is anthropomorphizing "the church", I am sorry but we all do it, even you). 

(A bit of a tangent about anthropomorphizing the church: When things are presented in official church capacity, as in official church history, manuals, etc. it is perfectly appropriate to say "the church...".     What annoys me is when people complain about anthropomorphizing the church when the church is accused of something potentially negative, so as to protect the institution from any and all blame by using human shields, but when people give credit to "the church" for humanitarian work etc., I don't see you complaining about anthropomorphize and suggesting "no, the church didn't do that good thing, some people in the church did...".   By that tactic, the church is protected from all blame in your mind, but deserves all credit.  That annoys me.  I see the same behavior with complaints about "hearsay".  That annoys me.)

Back to the topic on hand - the more I study this issue, the more complex and muddy I find it to be.  Things don't seem to be as I have gathered from what/how it has been presented to me by "the church".  There is more room to question and see things from different perspectives than I previously imagined.  Given the magical thinking of the time and culture, often conflating second sight experience with natural sight, and considering the dozens of first and second hand accounts that seem to conflate spiritual sight with natural sight, I am left to question what any of the witnesses actually saw.   I am coming to the conclusion that alignes more with your views here that it is more of a curiosity and that not much can be deduced from it, and I don't think the testimonies are as strong as evidence as "the church" would have us believe.

That is kind of what they signed up for, isn't it?  By becoming "witnesses", they agreed to become a "tool" for the church.  And that is how they have been used by the church and critics alike.

The other day, I gave a lesson in priesthood about the need to stop relying on the cartoon version of the book of Mormon. (You know the one I am talking about0.  Its not that the cartoon version is wrong (although, in some parts it probably is) its that the cartoon version is overly simplified.  There is just a lot more depth in the book of Mormon that is explained in the cartoon version that you don't get unless you read it more carefully.   the same seem to apply here to "the Church Says" version of the three witnesses.  Members, Leaders, apologists and critics and publications have said many things at many different times about the three witnesses, many contradictory.   This is normal.  These men were complicated, like all of us. 

As for evidence,  the three witness made a statement.  I personally believe that the witnesses believed the statement that was made at the time it was made.  They also seem to continue to believe that statement, but like with all statements, there is more to the story than the statement and we don't know and never will know the story to our satisfaction.  Let the statement speak for itself. They experienced something.  The statement is one way to describe what they experienced, and there could be other ways to describe it.

Its not all that important to me because I have received my own witness of the book of Mormon, and it really never came from the three witnesses' statement.   I could find out they were all smoking weed at the time and it wouldn't really change what I know.