Accounts from the Witnesses

[webbles]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

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.

Interesting.  I find the testimonies to be pretty strong evidence.  I guess it depends on what we are using the testimonies for.  For me, the 3 witnesses are strong testimony that Joseph did translate the Book of Mormon.  They aren't a good testament that he translated them from physical plates.  The 8 witnesses, on the other hand, are a strong testimony that there were physical plates (along with the few people who interacted with the plates).

Now, whether the plates that the 8 witnesses saw were ancient plates that contained the Book of Mormon, that is unknown.  Even the 8 witnesses didn't know that.  At least one of them (John Whitmer) said that he didn't know if the Book of Mormon was true or not.

[pogi]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

Interesting.  I find the testimonies to be pretty strong evidence.  I guess it depends on what we are using the testimonies for.  For me, the 3 witnesses are strong testimony that Joseph did translate the Book of Mormon.  They aren't a good testament that he translated them from physical plates. 

I finished watching a documentary a few weeks ago called Holy Hell.  It is a pretty fascinating look into a little cult with a gay speedo wearing guru who handpicked special witnesses of sorts to a transcendental experience of God in the purest form called "the knowing" .  The individuals who were selected testify of an incredibly powerful mind-bending and heightened spiritual state/experience similar to being on psychedelics without the influence of any drugs.  Even after disillusionment and leaving the cult, and after coming to understand the dude was a complete fraud who sexual abused many of the other male members, they never denied the powerful spiritual experience of being witnesses to "the knowing".   They had to believe before they could experience it.  There was a craving to be selected of God for the experience, and it required spiritual preparation.

That makes me wonder.  What did they experience?  Was it not real to them?  Should be considered "strong evidence" for us that their spiritual experience means what they thought it meant to them?

What about the 8 Shaker eye witnesses to the angel and the Roll and Book?  Are they all "good evidence" for their claims about the Roll and Book that was published?  There are so many other spiritual visions and testimonies that people never denied in their lives.  For me, they are all intriguing curiosities.  How can we explain these experiences when we know that at least one of them was a complete fraud, yet the experiences were never denied?  I believe that they all had some sort of spiritual experience, but I also can't believe they are all good evidence that they mean what they think they mean.  For me, their testimony that an angel told them that the translation was performed by the power of God and that it is a correct translation, is no stronger evidence than if someone told me that the spirit bore witness to them of the same thing.  Why would it be different type of evidence?  The fact that they all claim to see the same thing, (although they didn't write down their individual experiences of what they saw and what was said, but had it dictated, then signed it), is a little more intriguing, but the same is claimed, again, with the 8 shaker witnesses, as well as others such as the Lady of Fatima vision.  They were even told the limits of what they should say about the experience before they saw it.  

Quote

 

The 8 witnesses, on the other hand, are a strong testimony that there were physical plates (along with the few people who interacted with the plates).

Now, whether the plates that the 8 witnesses saw were ancient plates that contained the Book of Mormon, that is unknown.  Even the 8 witnesses didn't know that.  At least one of them (John Whitmer) said that he didn't know if the Book of Mormon was true or not.

 

I agree that there is strong evidence that some sort of plates existed.  I haven't researched the 8 yet enough yet to form a strong opinion one way or another.  I still have to read your links and do some more research.  But I also have at least some reason to believe (though it be hearsay, but from multiple sources) that they only saw them with spiritual eyes.  The conflicting language may be due to the conflation of spiritual with physical sight, I don't know.  There is also reason to believe that Joseph only saw and translated the plates using spiritual sight.  The revelation I mentioned earlier states that the 3 witnesses will see the plates as Joseph has seen them, by "faith" and "the power of God".  Well, I have strong reason to believe that the 3 witnesses didn't see physical plates, so what does that say of Joseph?  And what then does that say about the 8?   There are a lot of really complicating factors that don't make the evidence extremely straight forward, in my view.

Edited March 8, 2024 by pogi

[webbles]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

I finished watching a documentary a few weeks ago called Holy Hell.  It is a pretty fascinating look into a little cult with a gay speedo wearing guru who handpicked special witnesses of sorts to a transcendental experience of God in the purest form called "the knowing" .  The individuals who were selected testify of an incredibly powerful mind-bending and heightened spiritual state/experience similar to being on psychedelics without the influence of any drugs.  Even after disillusionment and leaving the cult, and after coming to understand the dude was a complete fraud who sexual abused many of the other male members, they never denied the powerful spiritual experience of being witnesses to "the knowing".   They had to believe before they could experience it.  There was a craving to be selected of God for the experience, and it required spiritual preparation.

That makes me wonder.  What did they experience?  Was it not real to them?  Should be considered "strong evidence" for us that their spiritual experience means what they thought it meant to them?

What about the 8 Shaker eye witnesses to the angel and the Roll and Book?  Are they all "good evidence" for their claims about the Roll and Book that was published?  There are so many other spiritual visions and testimonies that people never denied in their lives.  For me, they are all intriguing curiosities.  How can we explain these experiences when we know that at least one of them was a complete fraud, yet the experiences were never denied?  I believe that they all had some sort of spiritual experience, but I also can't believe they are all good evidence that they mean what they think they mean.  For me, their testimony that an angel told them that the translation was performed by the power of God and that it is a correct translation, is no stronger evidence than if someone told me that the spirit bore witness to them of the same thing.  Why would it be different type of evidence?  The fact that they all claim to see the same thing, (although they didn't write down their individual experiences of what they saw and what was said, but had it dictated, then signed it), is a little more intriguing, but the same is claimed, again, with the 8 shaker witnesses, as well as others such as the Lady of Fatima vision.  They were even told the limits of what they should say about the experience before they saw it.  

When I say the 3 witnesses are strong testimony, I'm not talking about comparing against other visionary or spiritual experiences.  I'm talking about comparing against things that are supposed to be visionary or spiritual and that don't have this type of witness.  For example, the Voree plates and the Book of the Law of the Lord from James Strang has witnesses but they are similar to the 8 witnesses.  None of them testify that James Strang correctly translated either the Voree plates or the Book of the Law of the Lord.  Without that testimony, the only person who can say that Book of the Law of the Lord was translated correctly is James Strang and that is really weak.  Joseph Smith, on the other hand, has the 3 witnesses.

The Shaker witnesses are kind of similar to the 3 witnesses.  First, there were a lot of witnesses to the Roll and Book.  You mention 8 but there were actually closer to 100.  The testimonies start on page 291 ( https://archive.org/details/holysacreddivine00stew/page/290/mode/2up ) and go to page 387.  The 8 witnesses you mention are on page 304.  I read a few samples of them and they all mention angelic visitation.  The reason why I don't believe in the Roll and Book isn't because I've dis-proven those witnesses but because the Shakers only accepted the Roll and Book for a few years.  It stopped being scripture within a generation.

13 hours ago, pogi said:

I agree that there is strong evidence that some sort of plates existed.  I haven't researched the 8 yet enough yet to form a strong opinion one way or another.  I still have to read your links and do some more research.  But I also have at least some reason to believe (though it be hearsay, but from multiple sources) that they only saw them with spiritual eyes.  The conflicting language may be due to the conflation of spiritual with physical sight, I don't know.  There is also reason to believe that Joseph only saw and translated the plates using spiritual sight.  The revelation I mentioned earlier states that the 3 witnesses will see the plates as Joseph has seen them, by "faith" and "the power of God".  Well, I have strong reason to believe that the 3 witnesses didn't see physical plates, so what does that say of Joseph?  And what then does that say about the 8?   There are a lot of really complicating factors that don't make the evidence extremely straight forward, in my view.

I'd like to see what the sources are that say that the 8 witnesses saw with spiritual eyes or it was visionary.  The ones I know of are Turley's account, Burnett's account, a story that Thomas Ford told, and Joshua Davis's account.

Joshua Davis said:

Quote

I, with my own eyes, saw the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated, and I also saw an angel who witnessed to the truth of the Book of Mormon.

That's pretty easy to say that those are two events.

Thomas Ford's story is:

Quote

It is related that the prophet's early followers were anxious to see the plates; the prophet had always given out that they could not be seen by the carnal eye, but must be spiritually discerned; that the power to see them depended upon faith, and was the gift of God, to be obtained by fasting, prayer, mortification of the flesh, and exercises of the spirit; that so soon as he could see the evidences of a strong and lively faith in any of his followers, they should be gratified in their holy curiosity. He set them to continual prayer, and other spiritual exercises, to acquire this lively faith by means of which the hidden things of God could be spiritually discerned; and at last, when he could delay them no longer, he assembled them in a room, and produced a box, which he said contained the precious treasure. The lid opened; the witnesses peeped into it, but making no discovery, for the box was empty, they said, “Brother Joseph, we do not see the plates.” The prophet answered them, “O ye of little faith! how long will God bear with this wicked and perverse generation? Down on your knees, brethren, every one of you, and pray God for the forgiveness of your sins, and for a holy and living faith which cometh down from heaven.” The disciples dropped to their knees, and began to pray in the fervency of their spirit, supplicating God for more than two hours with fanatical earnestness; at the end of which time, looking again into the box, they were now persuaded that they saw the plates.

I don't see how that event is talking about the 8 witnesses.  It sounds much more like the 3 witnesses.

 

I'm not sure how you can say that Joseph only saw the plates using spiritual sight.  I know you quoted D&C 17 but logically, it doesn't make sense.  There was something physical.  Too many people talk about it outside of the two witness events.  What ever that physical thing was, someone made it.  If it wasn't a real ancient record, then Joseph either made it or had someone else to make it.  At that point, he definitely saw it.  So, if everyone is making things up, then Joseph definitely saw it.