RicOlie_2 said:
David Whitmer later testified that he had been instructed by God to split off from the main LDS Church, so one must either pick and choose among his testimonies or join his sect (p. 54);
You have done this elsewhere, but here I will point out that you are succumbing to the either/or fallacy: either I must accept everything David Whitmer said was true, or I must accept none of it. Have you ever told a falsehood? So should I doubt everything you've ever said? David Whitmer was a man known to be of extremely good character, and when a periodical published late in his life that he had denied the Book of Mormon, he went to great lengths to rebut that claim and maintain his testimony, having numerous locals affirm his honesty. He continued, long after his membership in the main branch of the church had ended and until his dying day, that the Book of Mormon was true and that the plates from which they were translated were real. All his sense experienced the Book of Mormon. His split from the Church was likely based on a feeling he felt was from God rather than any kind of angelic witness, which is what his testimony of the plates included. He too felt Joseph was a fallen prophet for various reasons, I believe including polygamy as well as a failed financial institution called the Kirtland Safety Society.
Oliver Cowdery has a stronger case, but he was still a scribe and co-founder of Mormonism, so he could have easily been in cahoots with Joseph Smith in fabricating the Book of Mormon (p. 55);
In cahoots, even long after he had been excommunicated and bitter with Joseph? Not likely. Don't you think all these folks would have told somebody that they were lying?
Bear in mind, a further eight witnesses, most of whom left the Church, saw the plates, and not even with an "eye of faith," but rather simply, handling the plates physically.
Emma Smith, Joseph's wife, saw them wrapped in cloth, but never opened it, as she knew she wasn't supposed to. There was something wrapped there.
And David Whitmer's mother also claimed to have seen the plates by the hand of an angel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_witnesses#Another_witness
- James Strang split from the LDS Church, and though I don't know much about the history of that, it seems that most of the witnesses followed him. If they were duped by James, why not by Joseph (pp. 57-60)?;
James Strang's movement is surprisingly unknown among most members of my church. Sad because I find his movement very fascinating, more than any other splinter group. I have a few books on his church, including all scripture he ever published.
The witnesses left Joseph largely for his involvement in polygamy. The witnesses and others knew that Brigham Young and the Twelve Apostles, who succeeded Joseph immediately as a whole quorum, also practiced polygamy, and this was known among those who vocally opposed it. James Strang in his revelations denounced polygamy, and his prophethood was similar to Joseph's including translating plates and such. James later engaged in the practice himself, and had revelations and commentary that justified it, while removing that which denounced it.
- There exists no extant copy of the testimony of witnesses of the golden plates (in the oldest copy of it, the "signatures" are all written by the same hand), so there seems to be no conclusive evidence that the testimony was actually signed and agreed upon (p. 60);
Would they not have pointed that out themselves at some point if they felt the testimonies were not valid?
- The Testimony of Three Witnesses, which included Martin Harris, stated that they had beheld the plates and the engravings thereon, yet Martin Harris stated multiple other times that he had only seen them when covered with a cloth, and also that he had seen them with a spiritual eye. All three of those are very different things, and he seems not to have remembered what he saw. It appears he was making things up, and though he never retracted his statements, as far as I am aware (and from what I understand, left Joseph's church for James'), so it seems quite plausible that all the eyewitnesses were making it up (pp. 60-61);
Read Martin's own words rather than the pdf's author's and you'll see the great consistency, and not get hung up on phrases like "eye of faith," which match numerous other statements I've read in our scripture.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/1.11?lang=eng
James was literally very low on the totem pole until Joseph died, at which point he made his claims. Martin didn't feel he was leaving Joseph's church for James'; he felt he had already been kicked out of Joseph's church, and was rejoining under Joseph's valid successor. We believe Brigham Young was the true successor, and ultimately, so did Martin Harris. The succession question caused great difficulty for some time after the martyrof Joseph, and many did not know who the true successor would be for some time. Most ultimately did decide on Brigham.
- On the witnesses never retracting their eyewitness statements, see page 60 (although I take issue with the fact that he says none of the Marian apparitions were true ;));
Marian apparitions???
Read the link I provided earlier with Martin's words and you will see the consistency I am describing. Instead of reading those words with anti-Mormon's providing context for our behalf (how nice of them), reading them on one's own actually paints a pretty clear picture.
And pg. 60 includes one second hand account, which already calls it into question, and one a supposed direct quote from an anti-Mormon of the period, stating it was under a cloth. How does one know these men are the truthful ones, while the words of the leaders of my church are always brought into question by the author of that pdf? He seems to take all opponents at face value, and all Mormon quotes as automatically suspicious. Do you see the poor methodology?
- The summary in the conclusion about the eyewitnesses is also something I'd like you to address, if you don't cover it in your answer to the above.
Oh, is that all you hope for :P
Jeremy T Runnells (I finally looked up his name again) said:
Conclusion:
1. “The Witnesses never recanted or denied their testimonies”:
? Neither did James Strang’s witnesses; even after they were excommunicated
from the church and estranged from Strang.
Untrue. One of Strang's witnesses did deny his testimony, and I believe admitted to helping fabricate James' plates.
Neither did dozens of Joseph
Smith’s neighbors and peers who swore and signed affidavits on Joseph and
his family’s characters.
Not sure what character attributes Runnells is bringing into question, but they were known to be good people.
Neither did many of the Shaker witnesses who signed
affidavits that they saw an angel on the roof top holding the “Sacred Roll and
Book” written by founder Ann Lee.
Does this make the witnesses to the Book of Mormon untrue? No. Is it possible one group is telling the truth and another not? Is it possible both have true messages, had true visitations, even if not all their belief systems are compatible? At this point I'm not well informed on this book or those testimonies, but I'm curious what those witnesses said and if it is as impressive.
Same goes with the thousands of people
over the centuries who claimed their entire lives to have seen the Virgin Mary
and pointing to their experience as evidence that Catholicism is true.
So is he saying they're lying as well? Do you believe those people are lying? Does seeing spiritual things make other spiritual things untrue?
There are also thousands of witnesses who never recanted their testimonies of
seeing UFO’s, Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, Abominable Snowman,
Aliens, and so on.
These are not spiritual in nature and not good comparisons.
It doesn’t mean anything. People can believe in false things their entire lives
and never recant. Just because they never denied or recanted does not follow
that their experience and claims are true or that reality matches to what their
perceived experience was.
This statement is true. However, if they saw the same thing at the same time, it makes it a lot harder to refute.
2. Problems:
? In discussing the witnesses, we should not overlook the primary accounts of
the events they testified to. The official statements published in the Book of
Mormon are not dated, signed (we have no record with their signatures
except for Oliver’s), nor is a specific location given for where the events
occurred. These are not eleven legally sworn affidavits but rather simple
statements pre-written by Joseph Smith with claims of having been signed by
three men and another by eight.
No one said it had to be a legal document. Clearly the witnesses accepted it as their valid testimonies. "Pre-written"? This is not known at all, but merely an assumption. And if we don't have the original testimonies, how do we know that they were not signed by the original witnesses? The earliest copy is the printer's manuscript, the first copy of the original manuscript, written by Oliver Cowdery to be given to the printer for publishing. He signed it as he signed for the other witnesses. At least his testimony has the original signature, as if this somehow makes a spiritual thing binding on the US government or something.
? All of the Book of Mormon witnesses, excepting Martin Harris, were related
by blood or marriage either with the Smiths or Whitmers.
Oliver Cowdery
(married to Elizabeth Ann Whitmer and cousin to Joseph Smith), Hiram Page
(married to Catherine Whitmer), and the five Whitmers were related by
marriage. Of course, Hyrum Smith, Samuel Smith, and Joseph Smith Sr. were
Joseph’s brothers and father.
Mark Twain made light of this obvious problem:
“…I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had
testified.” – Roughing It, p.107-115
And? The Whitmers weren't related to Joseph, so what does a relation to David Whitmer matter? Others who were not related also witnessed and related other miracles. This does not prove anything, although if one casts enough reason to doubt (i.e. implying there must be some bias), eventually it will stick.
? Within eight years, all of the Three Witnesses were excommunicated from the
Church. This is what Joseph Smith said about them in 1838:
“Such characters as…John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery,
and Martin Harris, are too mean to mention; and we had liked to
have forgotten them.” – History of the Church Vol. 3, Ch. 15, p. 232
This is what First Counselor of the First Presidency and once close associate
Sidney Rigdon had to say about Oliver Cowdery:
“…a lying, thieving, counterfeiting man who was ‘united with a
gang of counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and blacklegs in the deepest
dye, to deceive, cheat, and defraud the saints out of their property,
by every art and stratagem which wickedness could invent…”
– February 15, 1841 Letter and Testimony, p.6-963
What does it say about the witnesses and their characters if even the Prophet
and his counselor in the First Presidency thought they were questionable?
Gosh, I don't think I have time to address everything, especially since I don't know everything, but clearly there were hurt feelings. Yet neither side denounced the honesty of the other in the matter of the Book of Mormon.
? As mentioned in the above “Polygamy/Polyandry” section, Joseph was able
to influence and convince many of the 31 witnesses to lie and perjure in a
sworn affidavit that Joseph was not a polygamist. Is it outside the realm of
possibility that Joseph was also able to influence or manipulate the
experiences of his own magical thinking treasure digging family and friends
as witnesses? Mormon men who already believed in second sight and who
already believed that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God?
Poor comparisons, as I pointed out earlier to you. If I were having an affair but appeared honest, I could easily convince my friends to sign an affidavit for me. But the witnesses to the plates actually claim to be witnesses, not just merely testaments of character.
? If the Prophet Joseph Smith could get duped with the Kinderhook Plates
thinking that the 19th century fake plates were a legitimate record of a
“descendent of Ham,” how is having gullible guys like Martin Harris handling
the covered gold plates going to prove anything?
There is no evidence that Joseph Smith actually thought anything of those plates. William Clayton, who was Joseph Smith's secretary, recorded that Joseph had in the first person, but Joseph never made any claim or publication himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinderhook_plates#Smith.27s_response
Is it possible that he was recording what Joseph actually said? Possibly. However, I refer you to the following:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Forgeries_related_to_Mormonism/Joseph_Smith_and_the_Kinderhook_Plates
? James Strang’s claims and Voree Plates Witnesses are distinctive and more
impressive compared to the Book of Mormon Witnesses:
? All of Strang’s witnesses were not related to one another through blood
or marriage like the Book of Mormon Witnesses were.
? Some of the witnesses were not members of Strang’s church.
? The Voree Plates were displayed in a museum for both members and
non-members to view and examine.
? Strang provided 4 witnesses who testified that on his instructions, they
actually dug the plates up for Strang while he waited for them to do
so. They confirmed that the ground looked previously undisturbed.
? The Shakers and Ann Lee:
The Shakers felt that "Christ has made his second appearance on earth, in a
chosen female known by the name of Ann Lee, and acknowledged by us as 64
our Blessed Mother in the work of redemption" (Sacred Roll and Book, p.358). The
Shakers, of course, did not believe in the Book of Mormon, but they had a
book entitled A Holy, Sacred and Divine Roll and Book; From the Lord God of
Heaven, to the Inhabitants of Earth.
More than 60 individuals gave testimony to the Sacred Roll and Book, which
was published in 1843. Although not all of them mention angels appearing,
some of them tell of many angels visiting them. One woman told of eight
different visions.
Here is the testimony statement:
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.
Joseph Smith only had three witnesses who claimed to see an angel. The
Shakers, however, had a large number of witnesses who claimed they saw
angels and the Sacred Roll and Book. There are over a hundred pages of
testimony from "Living Witnesses." The evidence seems to show that Martin
Harris accepted the Sacred Roll and Book as a divine revelation. Clark
Braden stated: "Harris declared repeatedly that he had as much evidence for
a Shaker book he had as for the Book of Mormon" (The Braden and Kelly Debate,
p.173).
Why should we believe the Book of Mormon witnesses but not the Shakers
witnesses? What are we to make of the reported Martin Harris comment that
he had as much evidence for the Shaker book he had as for the Book of
Mormon?
In light of the James Strang/Voree Plates witnesses, the fact that all of the Book of Mormon
Witnesses – except Martin Harris – were related to either Joseph Smith or David Whitmer,
along with the fact that all of the witnesses were treasure hunters who believed in second sight,
and in light of their superstitions and reputations…why would anyone gamble with their lives in
believing in a book based on anything these men said or claimed or what’s written on the
testimonies of the Witnesses page in the Book of Mormon? 65
The mistake that is made by 21st century Mormons is that they’re seeing the Book of Mormon
Witnesses as empirical, rational, nineteenth-century men instead of the nineteenth-century
magical thinking, superstitious, and treasure digging men they were. They have ignored the
peculiarities of their worldview, and by so doing, they misunderstand their experiences as
witnesses.
Ric_Olie2 said:
Take your time answering me, and don't feel like you have to answer me all at once. I expect that some things you have a ready answer or set of links for, but I can wait for anything you want to spend a bit more time explaining. If you already explained something earlier in the thread, and I've forgotten about it, then link me to your post to save you some time.
I look forward to your responses.
I don't have time to answer the whole conclusion section, nor would it do much good. Obviously the author is a critic and latches onto information that supports his bias, while I latch onto information that is not. However, his methods are very flawed in many cases, and I wouldn't place my trust in much of what he says. But as I said before, if you cast enough doubt, some of it will stick.