User:InProgress/Website reviews/W

FAIR Answers—back to home page

A FAIR Analysis of: MormonThink A work by author: Anonymous

A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page "The Witnesses"

FAIRMORMON'S VIEW OF THE CRITICS' CONCLUSIONS

The positions that this MormonThink article appears to take are the following:

• The witnesses may have only seen the plates in a vision, despite their repeated assertions that they saw them with their own eyes.
• Some witnesses only saw the plates when they were covered, although none of the three or eight witnesses are included in this group.
• The three witnesses did not all see the plates and the angel at the same time, although this is clearly taught in Church.
• Most of the witnesses left the Church (which is also clearly taught in Church), but for some reason failed to expose the scam.
• Many of the the witnesses had a falling out with Joseph Smith, yet for some reason they failed to expose the scam.
• That Joseph Smith at some point called the witnesses liars in matters unrelated to their view of the plates, yet for some reason they still failed to expose the scam.
• That the discovery of James Strang's Vorhee plates buried underground was somehow "extraordinary" on the same level as viewing an angel.
• That eyewitness testimony is not a reliable means to prove the occurrence of historical events, despite the fact that history is completely based upon such witness accounts.
• That the witnesses to the Book of Mormon should have been more vocal and been interviewed more often, in spite of the fact that they actually were.
• Oliver may have assisted Joseph in performing a deception, despite the fact that he never exposed the deception after he and Joseph had their falling out and Oliver left the Church.

FAIRMORMON'S RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING DATA

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The witnesses' experiences may have only been visionary in nature. There are many statements given by the witnesses that indicate they only saw the angel and the plates in a visionary experience. Why would people need to see real, physical plates in a vision or a real angel that was physically on the earth?

FairMormon commentary

• David Whitmer said this: "No, sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!" ^[1]
• And he said this: "'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." ^[2]
• Sounds like he was pretty definite, if you ask us.

Additional information

• Were the experiences of the witnesses spiritual or literal?—Some critics suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
There are also several statements saying that the only time they saw the plates was when the plates were covered in a cloth or tow frock.

FairMormon commentary

• Did you know that the "several statements" are all from William Smith, Joseph's brother, and that William was not one of the three or eight witnesses?
• Why does MormonThink falsely imply that the statement about the plates being covered applies to the witnesses, when it does not?
• As the MormonThink points out on the page, William Smith reported that he had handled and hefted the plates within a pillow case or tow frock and that he knew that his brother "translated the plates." William was not one of the witnesses, but he repeatedly reported having lifted the plates while they were covered.
• William made it clear in one of his statements that the family was not allowed to see the plates at first, but that Joseph later showed them to Hyrum, Joseph Sr., and Samuel Smith:

He then [after translating] showed the plates to my father and my brothers Hyrum and Samuel, who were witnesses to the truth of the book which was translated from them. I was permitted to lift them as they laid in a pillow-case; but not to see them [i.e., unlike the others who did see them as formal witnesses], as it was contrary to the commands he had received.^[3]

• Why does MormonThink not include this part of the same statement?
• In the same interviews, William also dismissed the Spalding manuscript story as nonsense. MormonThink talks a lot about the Spalding manuscript below. Why do they not use William's witness on that score?

Additional information

• Only handled when covered by a tow frock?—Some critics claim that the witnesses said they only handled the plates covered in a "tow frock." Critics do not reveal that this report is from William Smith, one of Joseph's brother who was not a Book of Mormon witness. They also fail to tell us that William insisted in the same statement that he was convinced Joseph was not lying about the plates. William also dismissed the Spalding hypothesis as nonsense, but critics do not mention that either. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The three witnesses did not all see the plates or angel at the same time. Only David Whitmer and perhaps Oliver Cowdery saw the angel together. Martin Harris removed himself from the group and did not see the angel until perhaps three days later (Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years Before the Mast, n.d., microfilm copy, p. 70-71).

FairMormon commentary

• Why is the fact that Martin's experience occurred later supposed to have meaning? This story is well documented in official Church sources.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
David Whitmer said "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them." So which statement was David Whitmer lying about or had been mistaken about? Either way he doesn't sound like a completely trustworthy witness.

FairMormon commentary

• Why can't they both be true? God spoke to the three witnesses, and God told David Whitmer to leave in order to avoid being harmed. After all, Whitmer was more valuable as a Book of Mormon witness the longer he lived.
• David Whitmer was already out of the Church when he was told to "separate himself." Does MormonThink give the impression that David was being told to leave the Church? Why isn't it clear that he was being told to leave the area where members of the Church (motivated by vigilantism) were plotting to harm him?
• If David had been killed by vigilante Mormons at this point, couldn't critics now claim that he had abandoned or would have abandoned his testimony? Wouldn't God want to prevent that?
• Wasn't Whitmer even more valuable as a Book of Mormon witness after he left the Church, because he still didn't deny seeing the angel and the plates when he could have exposed the entire "scam."
• Why did Whitmer have his testimony of the Book of Mormon engraved on his tombstone? It reads: "The record of the Jews and the record of the Nephites are one."

Additional information

• Did God tell David Whitmer to leave the Church?—David Whitmer, one of the Book of Mormon's Three Witnesses, said "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to "separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, should it be done unto them." Critics argues that if members accept Whitmer's witness of the Book of Mormon, then they must also accept that God wanted David to repudiate the Church as false. Critics distort the historical record to make it appear that David Whitmer left the Church because he was told to, when it fact he was excommunicated prior to claiming any revelation to do so. The command to leave, if it was a true revelation, involved David's physical safety and not his membership in the Church, which he had already renounced. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
All the witnesses had close ties to Joseph and his family. Some like Martin Harris had a substantial financial investment in the success of the Book of Mormon.

FairMormon commentary

• Why didn't Martin expose the Book of Mormon as a scam after he lost his investment?
• Why didn't Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and some of the eleven witnesses expose Joseph as a fraud after they left the Church?
• If they all knew together that it was a hoax, why didn't any one of them say anything?

Additional information

• Witnesses were "interested" and not to be trusted since they followed Joseph Smith—Critics claim that because the witnesses are "interested"—i.e., they were members of the Church and believers in Joseph's mission—they are therefore not reliable, since they cannot be "neutral" or "disinterested." (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
These men lived in the early 1800s and believed in magical things like many people did during that time period such as divining rods, second sight, magic, dreams, seer stones, etc. Some of the witnesses, especially Martin Harris, were easily swayed by tales of the supernatural, especially in a religious context.

FairMormon commentary

• Then why did Martin Harris have a tendency to test Joseph and look for proof—he took the characters to Anthon, he secretly switched Joseph's seer stone, and he wanted to show his wife and friends the 116 pages as "proof"? Sounds like Martin wanted something tangible, doesn't it?
• Why not acknowledge that Martin believed in hard proof, and sought it repeatedly? He was willing to entertain the idea of the supernatural, but then everyone was. But he didn't believe credulously—he insisted and sought proof. He wanted proof so badly that he insisted on being a witness!

Additional information

• Martin Harris repeatedly sought empirical proof—Critics claim that Martin Harris was a gullible believer in the supernatural. But, in fact, Martin repeatedly performed empirical tests to confirm Joseph Smith's claims. He came away convinced. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Many of the witnesses ended up leaving the church and following other leaders and religions such as James Strang, the Shakers, Methodists, etc. By 1847 not a single one of the surviving eleven witnesses was part of the LDS Church.

FairMormon commentary

• Why didn't any of the eleven witnesses expose the fraud after they left the Church? Think about it. What possible motivation could there have been to keep the secret? They weren't making any money off the Book of Mormon after all.

Additional information

• Eight witnesses—Critics have tried to argue that the Eight witnesses only claimed a 'spiritual' or 'visionary' view of the plates, not a literal, physical one. The witnesses left concrete statements regarding the physical nature of the plates. There were others besides the eleven who saw and felt the plates, and testified that they were real. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Of the witnesses that left the church, most believed that Joseph was at best a fallen prophet, the church changed its doctrines in error and changed revelations against God's will.

FairMormon commentary

• Yes, they did, especially David Whitmer. So why didn't they simply deny that they ever saw an angel or the plates and blow the entire scam? Wouldn't that have made more sense?

Additional information

• Did the Book of Mormon witnesses ever recant?—Critics have tried to argue that some or all of the Witnesses recanted concerning their testimony. They were all faithful to their testimonies to the end of their lives, even though many of them had personal disagreements with Joseph Smith that caused them to leave the Church. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The witnesses, who have been heralded as good, honest, Abe Lincoln-type of men were later called liars, counterfeiters, thieves, etc. by Joseph Smith himself.

FairMormon commentary

• If Joseph was running a scam, why did he dare do this? Why did he attack these men's later behavior in the strongest terms, if he knew they had the means to ruin him by exposing the fraud of the Book of Mormon?
• Why didn't the witnesses turn around an denounce Joseph as a liar about the angel and the Book of Mormon plates?
• If the witnesses stuck to their story even when alienated from and attacked by Joseph, doesn't this strengthen their witness?
• Why does it seem like Joseph had no worries about these men denying their testimony? It seems like he knew they would feel bound to bear it, no matter what.

Additional information

• Did the Book of Mormon witnesses ever recant?—Critics have tried to argue that some or all of the Witnesses recanted concerning their testimony. They were all faithful to their testimonies to the end of their lives, even though many of them had personal disagreements with Joseph Smith that caused them to leave the Church. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The "testimony of the witnesses" is similar to testimonials which were commonly included in books etc. in those days to help spur sales. And of course, the BOM's producers originally intended to sell copies for $1.75 each.

FairMormon commentary

• So, if the point was simply to "spur sales" of the Book of Mormon, why did the witnesses stick to their testimonies until they died? They certainly weren't hoping to get any profits from the book by that time, right?
• Come to think of it, what was the financial motivation for all of the other witnesses with regard to sales of the Book of Mormon? Martin Harris was the only one invested in it.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
All three witnesses believed that God Himself had told them (through Joseph Smith) that they had been specially chosen to testify to the world that they had seen the angel and the plates –– if they had enough faith. Martin Harris was even told the exact words he must use: Joseph Smith said he had a revelation in which the Lord commanded Harris to say, “I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them.” And just to clinch the command, God threatened Martin Harris, saying, “But if he deny this he will break the covenant which he has before covenanted with me, and behold, he is condemned.” A personal promise (and a threat of condemnation) coming directly from God is bound to have a powerful influence on a person’s thinking!

FairMormon commentary

• So, are they implying that Martin deliberately lied about seeing the plates because he was afraid of being condemned by God?
• Why would Martin think that it was OK to break one of the ten commandments in order to avoid God's condemnation? Didn't the ten commandments come from God?
• Wouldn't Martin be more afraid of breaking the eight commandment to not bear "false witness?"
• Why did Martin "stay scared" of God after leaving the Church? Why did he keep preaching the Book of Mormon and bearing his witness even when with other religious groups (much to their irritation!)?
• Why would Martin believe these lines came from God unless he believed Joseph could really get revelation? Why would he fear the words of a false prophet more than the ten commandments, Bible, and his own reputation?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
There are seven witnesses that say Solomon Spalding was the author of the Book of Mormon. Seven people wrote affidavits testifying that they had read early drafts of the Book of Mormon by author Solomon Spalding. In some ways they are more credible than the BOM witnesses as they each wrote their own account instead of merely signing a prepared statement.

FairMormon commentary

• Do you find it amazing that so many of Joseph's neighbors had "recently" been reading the Book of Mormon when ex-Mormon Dr. Philastus Hurlbut stopped by to interview them?
• By the way, these people said that they had been reading the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith, not "the Book of Mormon by author Solomon Spalding".
• Did you ever wonder why the unfinished Spalding manuscript doesn't resemble the Book of Mormon? It is published. You can actually read it. It doesn't contain the Book of Mormon names "Nephi" and "Lehi" that the "witnesses" said they did. Would you like to read what the "witnesses" actually said?
• Do you think that maybe ex-Mormon Dr. Phiastus Hurlbut "helped" the Spalding "witnesses" with their testimonies, which coincidentally all sound so similar?
• Given that some of those providing affidavits couldn't even sign their names, then how is it that they were reading the Book of Mormon? Don't you think this might make them vulnerable to having Hurlbut or others influence what they wrote? The three and eight witnesses could all read.
• Do you wonder why, even though Eber D. Howe had the Spalding manuscript in his possession when including the Spalding affidavits in Mormonism Unvailed, that he chose not to use it because it didn't actually support the story given in the affidavits?
• Is it simply convenient that Howe "lost" the actual Spalding manuscript after including the Spalding affidavits in his anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed and it was not discovered again until years later?

Additional information

• The Hurlbut Spalding affidavits—Joseph's neighbors claimed that Joseph had copied the Spalding manuscript (Link)

• Spalding manuscript—Critics claim that Joseph Smith either plagiarized or relied upon a manuscript by Solomon Spaulding to write the Book of Mormon. There is a small group of critics who hold to the theory that the production of the Book of Mormon was a conspiracy involving Sidney Rigdon, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and others. These critics search for links between Spalding and Rigdon. Joseph Smith is assumed to have been Rigdon's pawn. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Here's the detailed accounts of several James Strang witnesses that seem very similar to the BOM witnesses: Testimony of Witnesses to the Voree Plates

FairMormon commentary

• What is so extraordinary about this story? Seeing an angel is extraordinary, digging up some fake plates is not very extraordinary.
• Don't you find it extremely coincidental that the whole "buried plates" story is somewhat similar to Joseph Smith's story, years after the Book of Mormon was published?
• The Voree witnesses say nothing about angelic messengers and witnesses—if this sort of thing is so easy to fake, why didn't Strang work the same effect on his followers?
• Why did none of Joseph Smith's witnesses recant—even at severe persecution and ridicule, and even when leaving the Church—while some of Strang's recanted under far less pressure?

Additional information

• Strangite parallels—Critics claim that break-off sects like James Strang's produced eyewitnesses of buried records, so Joseph's ability to do so is neither surprising nor persuasive. The Strangite witnesses were not all faithful, and some recanted and described the nature of the fraud perpetuated by Strang. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
On November 5, 1975, seven men witnessed a spacecraft from another world hovering silently between tall pines in the Apache-Sitgreaves National forest of north-eastern Arizona. One of those men, Travis Walton, became an unwilling captive of an alien race when the other men fled in fear.

FairMormon commentary

• We have a result of Joseph's efforts - the Book of Mormon itself. Show us the tangible evidence of alien abduction.
• We're comparing seeing space aliens with the Book of Mormon witnesses?? Really?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Obviously both sets of witnesses cannot be correct. At least one set, possibly both sets, of witnesses were either lying or were mistaken or deceived. Which group is to be believed or are they both in error? We're not saying we believe the Spalding witnesses over the Book of Mormon witnesses, but it proves the point that just because a group of people claims something extraordinary happened to them, it doesn't make it so.

FairMormon commentary

• The Spalding witnesses didn't claim that anything "extraordinary" happened to them - they claimed that Spalding had read them a manuscript. What's so extraordinary about that?
• Seeing an angel is extraordinary—hearing a manuscript read is not.
• Why not mention that all of these Spalding witnesses testimonies came through Dr. Phiastus Hurlbut, and that they were published in the first true anti-Mormon work, Mormonism Unvailed, by Eber D. Howe?
• Why not mention that the Spalding manuscript was in Howe's possession, but he didn't use it because it bore no resemblance to the Book of Mormon? And that it was lost for years only to turn up later, and that it can be read today and that it still doesn't resemble the Book of Mormon?

Additional information

• The Hurlbut affidavits—Many of Joseph Smith’s friends and neighbors signed affidavits that accused him and his family of being lazy, indolent, undependable treasure-seekers. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
There are many, many reported witnesses to UFOs, Bigfoot, the Lochness Monster, Abominable Snowman, alien abductions, gurus with magic powers,psychics, etc. There are literally hundreds of thousands of witnesses to these amazing phenomena. Should they be believed as well?

FairMormon commentary

• Have any UFO's, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, the Abominable Snowman, aliens, gurus or psychics produced a work comparable to the Book of Mormon?
• Does it sound like someone here is throwing every oddball thing they can at the witnesses and hoping that something "sticks?"

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Just because three witnesses signed a statement saying they saw an angel, doesn't mean it really happened.

Author's source(s)

• None, of course. This is pure speculation in contradiction to what the witnesses themselves stated.

FairMormon commentary

• Why then did these men put their reputations for the rest of their lives on the line by doing so...and by never denying it despite each one having a falling out with Joseph Smith. Think about that.
• That's the conclusion? To simply call the witnesses liars because you can't account for the numerous times that they reaffirmed their testimony?

Additional information

• What was the character of the witnesses?—Critics charge that the witnesses cannot be trusted, or are unreliable, because they were unstable personalities, prone to enthusiasm and exaggeration. Evidence amply demonstrates that the formal witnesses of the Book of Mormon were men of good character and reputation, and were recognized as such by contemporary non-Mormons. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Faithful members would likely come up with explanations to counter these claims like the 3+8 witnesses signed a single statement because they so strongly agreed with their unified experience. However this comparison shows some of the inherent weaknesses of the using just witnesses to prove historical events. This also underscores the weaknesses in the BOM process to obtain witnesses to verify the BOM.

FairMormon commentary

• A witness is "One who can give a firsthand account of something seen, heard, or experienced." That's what they did. That's what witnesses do. That's why they call them "witnesses," because they witnessed the events that they are relating as part of history.
• What does MormonThink all history is based on? First person witnesses. People witness history, and they leave behind documents: journals, government records, art, etc. If you get rid of witnesses, then there's hardly any such thing as "history" at all. It is only very recently that we have things like photographs or video—and even these are records made by witnesses at the time.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Why should we believe all the Book of Mormon witnesses over the sworn affidavits of over dozens of unrelated townspeople?

FairMormon commentary

• Were any of these dozens of unrelated townspeople there when the angel was present? How would they know?
• Why are you comparing the witnesses to the plates to the Hurlbut-Howe affidavits anyway? One group said they saw the plates (and some an angel), the other group said that they heard a manuscript read.
• Why is it that when we try to verify matters in the affidavits that we can verify, they aren't confirmed? For example, those who wrote the affidavits claimed that the Spalding manuscript matched the Book of Mormon—but it doesn't, and even anti-Mormons abandoned this argument more than a century ago. So, why should we uncritically accept those claims in the affidavits that we can't verify?

Additional information

• Rejection of the Spaulding theory by critics of the Book of Mormon—Many critics of the Book of Mormon reject the Spaulding theory as unworkable. If Mormonism's most prominent critics find the Spalding theory unworkable, then what motivates those who tenuously hold to this theory and continue to pursue it? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
None of the witnesses should have been related to Joseph or each other. Most of the witnesses were either related or good friends. Having unrelated people as witnesses would be far more effective than using your brothers and father.

FairMormon commentary

• Why should Joseph go off and find a bunch of total strangers to witness such a miracle? Wouldn't he want to have his family and friends share the experience? After all, he had not been allowed to show them the plates for many months.
• Who would you rather share such an amazing experience with? Your brother, or some total stranger who doubts everything you say?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The witnesses should not have already been eager believers. There should have been some skeptics.

FairMormon commentary

• Why would an angel show up for skeptics? Are these men then supposed to immediately convert and risk their reputations by declaring to the world that they saw an angel?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
There should have been no financial motive. Martin Harris mortgaged his farm and invested at least $3,000 of his own money into printing the Book of Mormon, so of course he had incentive to 'promote' the book.

FairMormon commentary

• Show how was the Book of Mormon supposed to get published? Was a printer supposed to magically do the work for free?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Each of the witnesses should each have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a prepared statement written by Joseph. If the prepared document wasn't 100% accurate many people would simply sign it anyway as it would be too much of a hassle to have it completely rewritten by hand - especially in the 1800s.

FairMormon commentary

• Really? Would it really have been "too much of a hassle" to completely rewrite one paragraph of text consisting of only 300 words?
• If you were going to be inaccurately quoted in a book for which you hoped to sell hundreds of copies, wouldn't you have taken the time to insist that either the paragraph be rewritten or take the time to write your own version of it?
• Oliver Cowdery rewrote almost the entire manuscript of the Book of Mormon (the "printer's manuscript") so they would always have a copy of the translation in their possession. How likely is he to be put off from rewriting a 300 word document that he's going to sign as a solemn witness?
• Were people "in the 1800s" really less concerned with the accuracy of their signed statements than we are now? Think about it.
• If this was true, why didn't the witnesses complain about it, especially later when they were alienated from Joseph Smith? Instead, they consistently referred people to their statement and affirmed its accuracy.
• Remember that Joseph needed Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris to act as scribes for the Book of Mormon (and David Whitmer helped a bit too). How likely is it that Joseph sat down and wrote out the statement for them to sign? Isn't it more likely that one or more was involved in at least acting as scribe, and that they may have even participated in drafting it? Oliver Cowdery would help draft some sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, for example.
• Where's MormonThink's evidence that Joseph wrote the statement with no input from the witnesses?
• Does it seem like MormonThink is grasping at straws?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The witnesses should have been much more detailed about this amazing event. What did the angel look like? What exactly did he say? How did he speak? There are almost no details provided which can be analyzed and compared. If each witness had simply written their own account and provided significant details then their individual testimonies could corroborate each other.

FairMormon commentary

• There are many later accounts by the witnesses that corroborate each other. Yet, MormonThink does not mention these, or consider that to increase the witnesses' credibility. Isn't this a double standard?
• If there were lots of details in the printed edition of the Book of Mormon, wouldn't MormonThink just turn around and claim that this close match was evidence of collusion? Or, they could always claim (without evidence) that Joseph wrote or dictated all the statements. It's easy to find "reasons" to dismiss evidence you don't want to accept.
• Does it seem like MormonThink is impossible to satisfy, no matter what evidence is presented?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The witnesses should have been interviewed independently immediately after going public. They should have been interviewed the same way police do with witnesses to crimes or that investigators do with UFO cases. Ask questions to see if their stories match; How was the angel dressed? How tall was he? How did he speak?, etc.

FairMormon commentary

• And, if these things matched, would MormonThink be convinced?
• The Mormons are not to be blamed because the non-believing townfolk in Joseph's area didn't interview the witnesses the way MormonThink believes they should have been.
• If the interviews matched, couldn't MormonThink just use that as evidence that Joseph and the witnesses had conspired together to concoct a story? And, if the witnesses had different perspectives, wouldn't that be used as evidence they were making it up?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The witnesses should not have used subjective language and say strange things like comparing seeing the plates with seeing a city through a mountain or using spiritual eyes instead of their natural eyes to view physical plates

FairMormon commentary

• Why not? How can anyone not describe their own experience in "subjective language?"
• The word "subjective" means "Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world." How can one describe one's own experience in anything other than subjective terms?

Additional information

• "Eye of Faith" and "Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris—Martin Harris frequently told people that he did not see the golden plates and the angel with his natural eyes but rather with “spiritual eyes” or the “eye of faith.” (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The witnesses should not have been gullible people that believed in things like 'second sight', divining rods, finding treasure by placing a rock in a hat, etc. That the Three Witnesses were a gullible sort is illustrated by an incident in July, 1837. Joseph had left on a five-week missionary tour to Canada, only to find on his return that all three of the Witnesses had joined a faction opposing him. This faction rallied around a young girl who claimed to be a seeress by virtue of a black stone in which she read the future. David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and Oliver Cowdery all pledged her their loyalty, and Frederick G. Williams, formerly Joseph's First Counselor, became her scribe. The girl seeress would dance herself into a state of exhaustion, fall to the floor, and burst forth with revelations. (See Lucy Smith: Biographical Sketches, pp. 211-213).

FairMormon commentary

• Martin Harris was considered a wealthy man. How did he get that way if he was so gullible?
• Did the witnesses remain convinced that the girl was a prophet? Did they dedicate the rest of their lives to insisting that her experience was legitimate?
• By 1837, the witnesses were all opposed to and alienated against Joseph Smith. This incident illustrates that beautifully--so, why did they not follow up and finish off Joseph's destruction by admitting to the fraud?
• Members of the Church would not be surprised that those who apostatize can come to believe all sorts of absurd things to explain and justify their unbelief--MormonThink is, in fact, a good example of that phenomenon. This does not impact the truthfulness of the witnesses' accounts--in fact, it increases them since they would have been highly motivated to find a way to explain away what they had seen. But they did not.

Additional information

• Did the Book of Mormon witnesses ever recant?—Critics have tried to argue that some or all of the Witnesses recanted concerning their testimony. They were all faithful to their testimonies to the end of their lives, even though many of them had personal disagreements with Joseph Smith that caused them to leave the Church. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
All of the witness should have been much more vocal and been interviewed much more often. There are very few interviews done with the witnesses that provide any additional information or corroboration of their statements. You would think that these people, after seeing such a magnificent sight, would spend their time testifying to the world about their experience instead of largely just signing a prepared statement and avoiding interviews by the media. Only three of the eight witnesses made separate statements that they had handled the plates. They were Joseph's two brothers, Hyrum and Samuel, and John Whitmer.

FairMormon commentary

• What? You mean they didn't? There are many testimonies and statements of the witnesses—especially David Whitmer.
• So, are we supposed to believe that these men would simply put their lives on hold for the next 50 years or so and just continue talking about their experience endlessly?
• They gave all the detail that there was to be had—what more are you looking for? There are only so many ways to describe an angel and a set of plates.
• Who said that they avoided interviews with "the media" (a 20th-century term if there ever was one). There are well-documented interviews with some of the witnesses in "the media." (See, for example, Lyndon Cook (editor), David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness (Orem, Utah: Grandin Books, 1991).)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
And of course it would have helped had all the witnesses remained loyal to the Church for the rest of their lives instead of having most of them abandon it later on. It doesn't make much sense to leave the one, true Church of God if you have really received an indisputable witness that it was true. Why would these people risk being cast in Outer Darkness for all eternity for denying what they KNEW to be true unless they maybe had some doubts or knew it really wasn't true?

FairMormon commentary

• If the witnesses did not really see what they claimed to have seen, then why did they not expose the deception when they had their fallings out with Joseph Smith and the Church? Why didn't a single witness expose the sham?
• Why not correctly state that the witnesses were not witnesses of the "one, true Church of God?" They were witnesses to the angel and the existence of the gold plates. That is all. They never denied their witness.
• Isn't it more persuasive to be alienated from Joseph Smith and the Church, and yet continue to insist that you'd seen the plates (and, for the three, the angel)?
• If the witnesses had all remained faithful for their entire lives, wouldn't MormonThink now be claiming that they had a "vested interest" in sticking to their story?
• Do you get the feeling that MormonThink wants to get rid of the witnesses however they can—even if the arguments contradict each other, and even if the complaints don't make sense?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
It's also quite possible that Oliver was in on a deception with Joseph, assuming the BOM story isn't true. If so, he could have helped convince the others that they were seeing experiencing something not real, like the second-sight experiences many people had at the time.

FairMormon commentary

• If Oliver was "in on a deception" with Joseph, then why didn't he expose the deception after he had his falling out with Joseph?
• Why did Oliver continue to hold to his story of being a witness of the plates?
• Why didn't Oliver denounce the statement signed by him in every copy of the Book of Mormon?

== Notes ==

1. [note] Interview with Joseph Smith III et al. (Richmond, Missouri, July 1884), originally published in The Saints' Herald (28 January 1936). Also quoted in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), p. 88.
2. [note] David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1887.
3. [note]  William B. Smith, William Smith on Mormonism (Lamoni, Iowa: Herald Steam Book and Job Office, 1883), 5-19, emphasis added. Reproduced in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 1:497.