Summary: If you would like to read all of the source quotes without wading through all of the "Critic's comments," "Apologetic rebuttals" and "Our Thoughts" sections, we present the critical web page as it would appear if only the source quotes were provided without any additional commentary. We also try to provide accurate references and direct links to the original source text rather than simply linking to other websites where you have to search for them.
"The witnesses' experiences may have only been visionary in nature"
MormonThink states...
"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?"
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.
"God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints"
MormonThink states...
"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."
Question: What did David Whitmer's associates say about his character?
Throughout Richmond, Missouri, the non-Mormons knew David Whitmer as an honest and trustworthy citizen
Throughout Richmond, Missouri, the non-Mormons knew David Whitmer as an honest and trustworthy citizen. When one anti-Mormon lectured in David’s hometown and branded David as disreputable, the local (non-Mormon) paper responded with “a spirited front-page editorial unsympathetic with Mormonism but insistent on ‘the forty six years of private citizenship on the part of David Whitmer, in Richmond, without stain or blemish.’” [1]
...The following year the editor penned a tribute on the eightieth birthday of David Whitmer, who “with no regrets for the past” still “reiterates that he saw the glory of the angel.”
This is the critical issue of the life of David Whitmer. During fifty years in non-Mormon society, he insisted with the fervor of his youth that he knew that the Book of Mormon was divinely revealed. Relatively few people in Richmond could wholly accept such testimony, but none doubted his intelligence or complete honesty. [2]
Another newspaper declared:
And no man can look at David Whitmer's face for a half-hour, while he charit[abl]y and modestly speaks of what he has seen, and then bodldly and earnestly confesses the faith that is in him, and say that he is a bigot or an enthusiast.[3]
Twenty two non-Mormon citizens signed the following statement, including, Mayor, county clerk, county treasurer, postmaster, revenue collector, county sheriff, two judges, two medical doctors, four bankers, two merchants, and two lawyers:
We the undersigned citizens of Richmond Ray CO Mo where David Whitmer Sr has resided since the year AD 1838, Certify that we have been long and intimately acquainted with him, and know him to be a man of the highest integrity, and of undoubted truth and veracity....[4]
Another said:
Mr. Whitmer is an old citizen of this town, and is known by every one here as a man of the highest honor, having resided here since the year 1838.[5]
Upon Whitmer's death, the local newspaper wrote:
He lived in Richmond about half a century, and we can say that no man ever lived here, who had among our people, more friends and fewer enemies. Honest, conscientious and upright in all his dealings, just in his estimate of men, and open, manly and frank in his treatment of all, he made lasting friends who loved him to the end.[6]
Events used to impugn David Whitmer's character
Document Containing the Correspondence, Orders, &C. in Relation to the Disturbances with the Mormons; And the Evidence Given Before the Hon. Austin A. King, Judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri, at the Court-House in Richmond, in a Criminal Court of Inquiry, Begun November 12, 1838, on the Trial of Joseph Smith, Jr., and Others, for High Treason and Other Crimes Against the State
Some have used other ways to try and impugn Whitmer's character and bring it into question. One such way is bringing up an 1838 petition signed by 83 Latter-day Saint men accusing David of various crimes[7]. Such incidents have been thoroughly addressed. Balanced context can be found in Latter-day Saint historian Alexander Baugh's PhD dissertation "A Call to Arms: The 1838 Mormon Defense of Northern Missouri. Neither Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, nor Hyrum Smith of the First Presidency signed the petition[8] The document was written by then-apostate Sampson Avard. More information can be found on him by reading Baugh's work.
"Such characters as McLellin, John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris, are too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them."
Some critics have used a December 1838 quote from the Prophet Joseph Smith to impugn the character of the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon. The above is the standard representation of this quote. Joseph Smith wrote to the Saints on 16 December 1838 to provide comfort to the Saints and update them on his current condition in Liberty Jail:
To the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Caldwell county, and all the Saints who are scattered abroad, who are persecuted, and made desolate, and who are afflicted in divers manners for Christ's sake and the Gospel's, by the hands of a cruel mob and the tyrannical disposition of the authorities of this state; and whose perils are greatly augmented by the wickedness and corruption of false brethren, greeting:
May grace, mercy, and the peace of God be and abide with you; and notwithstanding all your sufferings, we assure you that you have our prayers and fervent desires for your welfare, day and night. We believe that that God who seeth us in this solitary place, will hear our prayers, and reward you openly.
Know assuredly, dear brethren, that it is for the testimony of Jesus that we are in bonds and in prison. But we say unto you, that we consider that our condition is better (notwithstanding our sufferings) than that of those who have persecuted us, and smitten us, and borne false witness against us; and we most assuredly believe that those who do bear false witness against us, do seem to have a great triumph over us for the present. [9]
By this time, all of the three witnesses had fallen away from the Church after severe disagreements with Joseph Smith. This is why Joseph Smith published the comment in the letter—Joseph was angry with them:
Was it for committing adultery that we were assailed? We are aware that that false slander has gone abroad, for it has been reiterated in our ears. These are falsehoods also. Renegade "Mormon" dissenters are running through the world and spreading various foul and libelous reports against us, thinking thereby to gain the friendship of the world, because they know that we are not of the world, and that the world hates us; therefore they [the world] make a tool of these fellows [the dissenters]; and by them try to do all the injury they can, and after that they hate them worse than they do us, because they find them to be base traitors and sycophants.
Such characters God hates; we cannot love them. The world hates them, and we sometimes think that the devil ought to be ashamed of them.
We have heard that it is reported by some, that some of us should have said, that we not only dedicated our property, but our families also to the Lord; and Satan, taking advantage of this, has perverted it into licentiousness, such as a community of wives, which is an abomination in the sight of God.
When we consecrate our property to the Lord it is to administer to the wants of the poor and needy, for this is the law of God; it is not for the benefit of the rich, those who have no need; and when a man consecrates or dedicates his wife and children, he does not give them to his brother, or to his neighbor, for there is no such law: for the law of God is, Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife. He that looketh upon a woman to lust after her, has committed adultery already in his heart. Now for a man to consecrate his property, wife and children, to the Lord, is nothing more nor less than to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the widow and fatherless, the sick and afflicted, and do all he can to administer to their relief in their afflictions, and for him and his house to serve the Lord. In order to do this, he and all his house must be virtuous, and must shun the very appearance of evil.
[Page 231]
Now if any person has represented anything otherwise than what we now write, he or she is a liar, and has represented us falsely—and this is another manner of evil which is spoken against us falsely.[10]
It is on this page that we get the quote from Joseph referencing the men specifically. Notice how he states only that they are "mean" and nothing more:
And now, brethren, we say unto you—what more can we enumerate? Is not all manner of evil of every description spoken of us falsely, yea, we say unto you falsely. We have been misrepresented and misunderstood, and belied, and the purity and integrity and uprightness of our hearts have not been known—and it is through ignorance—yea, the very depths of ignorance is the cause of it; and not only ignorance, but on the part of some, gross wickedness and hypocrisy also; for some, by a long face and sanctimonious prayers, and very pious sermons, had power to lead the minds of the ignorant and unwary, and thereby obtain such influence that when we approached their iniquities the devil gained great advantage—would bring great trouble and sorrow upon our heads; and, in fine, we have waded through an ocean of tribulation and mean abuse, practiced upon us by the ill bred and the ignorant, such as Hinkle, Corrill, Phelps, Avard, Reed Peck, Cleminson, and various others, who are so very ignorant that they cannot appear respectable in any decent and civilized society, and whose eyes are full of adultery, and cannot cease from sin. Such characters as McLellin, John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris, are too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them. Marsh and "another," whose hearts are full of corruption, whose cloak of hypocrisy was not sufficient to shield them or to hold them up in the hour of trouble, who after having escaped the pollution of the world through the knowledge of their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, became again entangled and overcome—their latter end is worse than the first. But it has happened unto them according to the word of the Scripture: "The dog has returned to his vomit, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."[11]
"...has no other dumb ass to ride but David Whitmer...and his ass...brays out cursings instead of blessings..."
Another quote from Joseph Smith is used to impugn Whitmer's character. This comes from History of the Church, Vol. 3, Ch 15, p. 228. It is a letter from Joseph Smith while in Liberty Jail dated 16 December 1838:
But these men, like Balaam, being greedy for reward, sold us into the hands of those who loved them, for the world loves his own. I would remember William E. McLellin, who comes up to us as one of Job's comforters. God suffered such kind of beings to afflict Job—but it never entered into their hearts that Job would get out of it all. This poor man who professes to be much of a prophet, has no other dumb ass to ride but David Whitmer, [2] to forbid his madness when he goes up to curse Israel; and this ass not being of the same kind as Balaam's, therefore, the angel notwithstanding appeared unto him, yet he could not penetrate his understanding sufficiently, but that he prays out cursings instead of blessings. Poor ass! Whoever lives to see it, will see him and his rider perish like those who perished in the gain-saying of Korah, or after the same condemnation. Now as for these and the rest of their company, we will not presume to say that the world loves them; but we presume to say they love the world, and we classify them in the error of Balaam, and in the gain-sayings of Korah, and with the company of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.[12]
The footnote marked with a [2] in this quote reads thus:
In order to appreciate the allusions here made to David Whitmer it will be necessary to remember that William E. M'Lellin claimed that President Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet and himself sought to bring into existence a re-organized church with David Whitmer as the president thereof. See foot note in this volume at pages 31, 32.
That footnote on pages 31 and 32 reads:
It will be observed that the text is silent in relation to what action was taken respecting William E. McLellin, and the Far West Record is silent upon the subject also. In fact the minutes of the trial before the Bishop are not written in that record at all. It is known, however, from other sources that William E. McLellin was finally excommunicated from the Church at Far West. Thence forward he took an active part in the persecution of the Saints in Missouri, and at one time expressed the desire to do violence to the person of Joseph Smith, while the latter was confined in Liberty prison. Subsequently he attempted what he called a reorganization of the Church, and called upon David Whitmer to take the presidency thereof, claiming that he was ordained by Joseph Smith on the 8th of July, 1834, as his (the Prophet Joseph's) successor. The Prophet himself, according to the minutes of the High Council held in Far West, on the 15th of March, 1838, referred to his ordaining of David Whitmer in July, 1834, and this is the account of what he said:
"President Joseph Smith, Jun., gave a history of the ordination of David Whitmer which (ordination) was on conditions that he (Joseph Smith, Jun.,) did not live to God himself. President Joseph Smith, Jun., approved of the proceedings of the High Council after hearing the minutes of the former councils."—Far West Record, page 108.
The minutes of the councils here referred to, and which the Prophet approved, gave account of deposing David Whitmer from the local Presidency of the Church in Missouri.[13]
The context for Joseph's comments is clear. This quote begs the same questions as before:
Why would Joseph risk angering these men further if he knew that they could expose him?
Why didn't they expose him and instead go to their deathbeds (and in the case of Harris and Whitmer never returning to the Church) testifying that the work was true?
Pledging Loyalty to a Seeress who used a Black Seer Stone?
One critic claims that "During the summer of 1837, while in Kirtland, David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and Oliver pledged their new loyalty to a prophetess who used a black seer stone and danced herself into 'trances.'[14]"
The author's source is "Biographical Sketches, Lucy Mack Smith, p. 211-213". Following the source we read this:
At this time a certain young woman, who was living at David Whitmer’s, uttered a prophecy, which she said was given her, by looking through a black stone that she had found. This prophecy gave some altogether a new idea of things.
She said, the reason why one-third of the Church would turn away from Joseph, was because that he was in transgression himself; that he would fall from his office on account of the same; that David Whitmer, or Martin Harris would fill Joseph’s place; and that the one who did not succeed him, would be the Counsellor to the one that did.
This girl soon became an object of great attention among those who were disaffected. Dr. Williams, the ex-justice of the peace,became her scribe, and wrote her revelations for her.
Jared Carter, who lived in the same house with David Whitmer, soon imbibed the same spirit, and I was informed, that he said in one of their meetings, that he had power to raise “Joe Smith” to the highest heavens, or sink him down to the lowest hell.
Shortly after this, Jared came to our house, and I questioned him relative to what he had said concerning Joseph. Not having mentioned the matter to my husband, he did not understand what I meant at first; but after a little explanation, he warned Jared to repent of the injudicious course that he was taking, and speedily confess his sins to the Church, or the judgments of God would overtake him. Jared received this admonition, and acknowledging his fault, agreed to confess to the brethren, the first opportunity.
The next morning he was seized with a violent pain in his eyes, and continued in great distress for two days. On the evening of the second day, he arose from his bed, and, kneeling down, besought the Lord to heal him, covenanting to make a full confession to the Church at meeting the next Sunday.
Accordingly, the next Sabbath he arose and stated to the brethren that he had done wrong; and, asking their forgiveness, begged to be received again into their confidence. He did not, however, state what he had done that was wrong; nevertheless his confession was received, and he was forgiven.
But the rest of his party continued obstinate. They still held their secret meetings at David Whitmer’s, and when the young woman, who was their instructress, was through giving what revelations she intended for the evening, she would jump out of her chair and dance over the floor, boasting of her power, until she was perfectly exhausted. Her proselytes would also, in the most vehement manner, proclaim their purity and holiness, and the mighty power which they were going to have.
They made a standing appointment for meetings to be held every Thursday, by the pure Church in the house of the Lord.
They also circulated a paper, in order to ascertain how many would follow them, and it was found, that a great proportion of the Church were decidedly in favour of the new party.
In this spirit they went to Missouri, and contaminated the minds of many of the brethren against Joseph, in order to destroy his influence.
This made it more necessary than ever, to keep a strict guard at the houses of those who were the chief objects of their vengeance.
Whitmer had already become disgruntled with Church leadership at the time Kirtland Safety Society. It is not surprising that he would be interested in prophecies from someone predicting the downfall of the Church and his replacement in leadership. But there is no mention of him "pledging loyalty" to this supposed prophetess, there is no mention of her "dancing in trances", and, most interestingly, no mention of Martin Harris or Oliver Cowdery being in company of Whitmer. Thus the claim distorts the information greatly by trying to portray the three witnesses in a superstitious light. Yet two weren't there, there wasn't some sort of "magical" event going on besides the use of the black seer stone, and there is a plausible reason why Whitmer would be interested in this prophetess. This context yet again begs the same questions:
Conclusion
All of these incidences beg questions:
Why would Joseph risk angering these men further if he knew that they could expose him?
Why didn't they expose him and instead go to their deathbeds (and in the case of Harris and Whitmer never returning to the Church) testifying that the work was true?
Why did they always hold firm to their testimony to the Book of Mormon even when harassed by members of the Church and Joseph Smith himself after leaving it?
These are all, in the end, testaments to the strength and integrity of the witnesses in general and their integrity as witnesses to truth. They held true to their testimony even in the face of great temptation. That—in and of itself—is testimony to their reliability.
David Whitmer (1887): "We were in the spirit when we had the view...but we were in the body also"
David Whitmer helps clear up the “spiritual” vs. “natural” viewing of the plates. Responding to the interviewer who questioned Harris. Anthony Metcalf wrote:
In March 1887, I wrote a letter to David Whitmer, requesting him to explain to me the condition he was in when he saw the angel and the plates, from which the Book of Mormon is supposed to have been translated. In April, 1887, I received a letter from David Whitmer, dated on the second of that month, replying to my communication, from which I copy, verbatim, as follows:
‘In regards to my testimony to the visitation of the angel, who declared to us three witnesses that the Book of Mormon is true, I have this to say: Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time. Martin Harris, you say, called it ‘being in vision.’ We read in the Scriptures, Cornelius saw, in a vision, an angel of God, Daniel saw an angel in a vision, also in other places it states they saw an angel in the spirit. A bright light enveloped us where we were, that filled at noon day, and there in a vision, or in the spirit, we saw and heard just as it is stated in my testimony in the Book of Mormon. I am now passed eighty-two years old, and I have a brother, J. J. Snyder, to do my writing for me, at my dictation.[15]
David Whitmer (1884): "I saw with these eyes and I heard with these ears"
David Whitmer's response when asked if he "had been mistaken and had simply been moved upon by some mental disturbance, or hallucination, which had deceived them into thinking he saw the Personage, the Angel, the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the sword of Laban."
Whitmer was interviewed by Joseph Smith III, in the presence of others, not all of whom were disposed to believe his account. Significantly, he listed several items that he had seen, besides the golden plates:
Rather suggestively [Colonel Giles] asked if it might not have been possible that he, Mr. Whitmer, had been mistaken and had simply been moved upon by some mental disturbance, or hallucination, which had deceived them into thinking he saw the Personage, the Angel, the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the sword of Laban. How well and distinctly I remember the manner in which Elder Whitmer arose and drew himself up to his full height—a little over six feet—and said, in solemn and impressive tones: "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!"[16]
Question: Did David Whitmer ever deny his Book of Mormon witness because he thought that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet?
David Whitmer was very vocal about his testimony of the Book of Mormon up until the end of his life, even though he thought that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet
David Whitmer's gravestone, upon which is engraved his testimony of the Book of Mormon: "The record of the Jews and the record of the Nephites are one."
Throughout Richmond, Missouri, the non-Mormons knew David Whitmer as an honest and trustworthy citizen. When one anti-Mormon lectured in David’s hometown, branding David as disreputable, the local (non-Mormon) paper responded with “a spirited front-page editorial unsympathetic with Mormonism but insistent on ‘the forty six years of private citizenship on the part of David Whitmer, in Richmond, without stain or blemish.’”[17]
...The following year the editor penned a tribute on the eightieth birthday of David Whitmer, who “with no regrets for the past” still “reiterates that he saw the glory of the angel.”
This is the critical issue of the life of David Whitmer. During fifty years in non-Mormon society, he insisted with the fervor of his youth that he knew that the Book of Mormon was divinely revealed. Relatively few people in Richmond could wholly accept such testimony, but none doubted his intelligence or complete honesty.[18]
David Whitmer—like the other witnesses—had been charged with being deluded into thinking he had seen an angel and the plates. One observer remembers when David was such accused, and said:
How well and distinctly I remember the manner in which Elder Whitmer arose and drew himself up to his full height—a little over six feet—and said, in solemn and impressive tones: ‘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!’[19]
When another anti-Mormon published an article claiming that David had denied his testimony, David printed a “proclamation” testifying to the truth of the Book of Mormon and reiterating the fact that he had never denied that testimony. He wrote:
It is recorded in the American Cyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica, that I, David Whitmer, have denied my testimony as one of the Three Witnesses to the divinity of the Book of Mormon: and that the two other witnesses, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, denied their testimony to that book. I will say once more to all mankind, that I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof. I also testify to the world, that neither Oliver Cowdery nor Martin Harris ever at any time denied their testimony. They both died affirming the truth of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon.[20]
Apostate William E. McLellin wrote:
I saw him [David Whitmer] June 1879, and heard him bear his solemn testimony to the truth of the book—as sincerely and solemnly as when he bore it to me in Paris, Ill. in July 1831.[21]
Following Whitmer's death the Richmond Conservator wrote:
On Sunday evening before his death he called the family and his attending physician, Dr. George W. Buchanan, to his bedside and said, “Doctor do you consider that I am in my right mind?” to which the Doctor replied, “Yes, you are in your right mind, I have just had a conversation with you.” He then addressed himself to all present and said: “I want to give my dying testimony. You must be faithful in Christ. I want to say to you all that the Bible and the record of the Nephites, (The Book of Mormon) are true, so you can say that you have heard me bear my testimony on my death bed....
On Monday morning he again called those present to his bedside, and told them that he had seen another vision which reconfirmed the divinity of the “Book of Mormon,” and said that he had seen Christ in the fullness of his glory and majesty, sitting upon his great white throne in heaven waiting to receive his children.[22]
The Richmond Democrat also added this comment:
Skeptics may laugh and scoff if they will, but no man can listen to Mr. Whitmer as he talks of his interview with the Angel of the Lord, without being most forcibly convinced that he has heard an honest man tell what he honestly believes to be true.[23]
David Whitmer (1881): "I do now again affirm the truth of all my statement, as then made and published"
David Whitmer:
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.[24]
David Whitmer reaffirmed his published testimony of the Book of Mormon
David Whitmer was the most long-lived witness, and we have by far the most material from him. He repeatedly referred to and endorsed the published witness statement.
I did see the Angel as it is recorded in my testimony in the Book of Mormon. The Book is true (italics in original, bold emphasis added).[25]
Mr. Whitmer turned his large, kind, but penetrating eyes upon me and, in a very pleasant and considerate, but firm and steady voice said: "Read the printed testimony of the three witnesses, which you will find on one of the front pages of the Book of Mormon--and I say to you that every word of it is true."[26]
[O]f course [I] would tell you about my vision of the Angel. You ask me if I saw the Angel when he brought the plates. I saw the angel when he brought the plates, and the Angel told us that we must bear testimony to the world, as contained in my testimony written in the Book of Mormon. Doubt not--sister--the Book of Mormon is the Word of God.[27]
Mr. Whitmer on being asked if he saw the angel, as stated in some accounts, opened the book and pointing to a section said, "there is my testimony. Read it; that tells all that is necessary for me to say about it. That contains the solemn testimony of myself and the other persons named."[28]
In June, 1829, the Lord called Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and myself as the three witnesses, to behold the vision of the Angel, as recorded in the fore part of the Book of Mormon, and to bear testimony to the world that the Book of Mormon is true. I was not called to bear testimony to the mission of Brother Joseph Smith any farther than his work of translating the Book of Mormon, as you can see by reading the testimony of us three witnesses.[29]
My testimony to the world is written concerning the Book of Mormon, and it is the same that I gave at first and it is the same as shall stand to my latest hour in life, linger with me in death and shine as Gospel Truth beyond the limits of life, among the Tribunals of Heaven, and [that] the Nations of the Earth will have known to[o] late the divine truth written on the pages of that book is the only sorrow of this servant of the Almighty Father.[30]
In answer to questions by the brethren he recited with graphic distinctness the scene in which he received the testimony he bore any years past and still bears to the Book of Mormon; and averred anew that the statement made by him as published in the book is true. No one who listens to him can doubt the sincerity and truthfulness of the man[31]
When Thomas B. Marsh, an excommunicated apostle, approached Whitmer and Cowdery to learn "the real truth" about the Book of Mormon (since they, like him, were now excommunicated and hostile to it) Marsh reported:
I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to his testimony as one of the witnesses of teh Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book. I asked him, if so, how did he not stand by Joseph? He answered, in the days when Joseph received the Book of Mormon, and brought it forth, he was a good man filled with the Holy Ghost, but he considered he had now fallen. I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.[32]
As you read my testimony given many years ago, so it stands as my own existence; the same as when I gave it, and so shall stand throughout the cycles of eternity.[33]
My testimony to the Book of Mormon is true and I am admonished neither to add to nor take from my testimony already appended to the Book. And if I should do so must be extremely guarded under the risk of being misunderstood.[34]
When it was published that Whitmer had denied his witness, he published the following:
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 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.[35]
Orson Pratt: "Did you see the Angel at this time?"
David Whitmer: "Yes, he stood before us. Martin Harris was not with us at this time. I don't think he saw all that we did, but our testimony as recorded in the Book of Mormon is strictly and absolutely true just as it is there written."[36]
We asked him if his testimony was the same now as it was at the time the Book of Mormon was published, regarding seeing the plates and the angel. He rose to his feet, stretched out his hands and said, "These hands handled the plates, these eyes saw the angel, and these ears heard his voice; and I know it was of God." That was the strongest testimony I ever heard, and I felt that he was telling the truth....[37]
He [David Whitmer] stated that the Book of Mormon was true, that his statement in connection with that of Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris was strictly correct, he had nothing to add to it, nor to diminish from it.[38]
"When we were first told to publish our statement, we felt sure the people would not believe it, for the Book told of a people who were refined and dwelt in large cities; but the Lord told us that He would make it known to the people, and people should discover the ruins of the lost cities and abundant evidence of the truth of what is written in the Book."[39]
"Mr Whitmer felt very indignant while speaking of certain statements published recently to the effect that he and Oliver Cowdery had denied their statement as published in the Book of Mormon. This he denounced as false in every particular. He said: "Oliver never wavered in his testimony, and when he was on his death bed, I was there, with many of his friends, until he passed away. He bore the same testimony on his dying bed that he had always borne through life, and earnestly called upon all to cleave to the truth revealed through the Prophet Joseph, and to serve the Lord. As for myself, I have never denied my testimony that is published in the Book of Mormon, for I know that God has revealed these things for the salvation of the children of men, and to Him belongs all the honor, the power and the glory."[40]
In June, 1829, [when] I [David Whitmer] saw the angel by the power of God, Joseph, Oliver and I were alone, and a light from heaven shone round us, and solemnity pervaded our minds. The angel appeared in the light, as near as that young man. [Within five or six feet - note in original] Between us and the angel there appeared a table, and there lay upon it the sword of Laban, the Ball of [sic] Directors, the Record, and Interpreters. The angel took the Record, and turned the leaves, and showed it to us by the power of God....My testimony in the Book of Mormon is true; I can't deviate from it.[41]
During our interview, Mr. Whitmer reiterated his testimony as given at the beginning of the Book of Mormon, saying that all he testified to there was true; that he had seen the plates and the Heavenly messenger, as he had stated.[42]
My testimony as published in connection with the Book of Mormon is true--And why Should men ask to know more in regard to all the particulars connected with that all Overshadowing truth--If they will not believe the three and 8 witnesses would they believe though one Should arise from the dead, testify to its truth again.[43]
I saw the angel as plainly as I see you; he was surrounded by the glory of God, which overshadowed us, and we heard his voice, and we saw the records of the Book of Mormon...My testimony is the same as at the beginning, as is true.[44]
Question: Did God tell David Whitmer to leave the Church and repudiate Mormonism?
God told David Whitmer to leave Far West one month after he had already been excommunicated from 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."[45]
and
In June, 1838, at Far West, Mo., a secret organization was formed, Doctor Avard being put in as the leader of the band; a certain oath was to be administered to all the brethren to bind them to support the heads of the church in everything they should teach. All who refused to take this oath were considered dissenters from the church, and certain things were to be done concerning these dissenters, by Dr. Avard's secret band. I make no farther statements now; but suffice it to say that my persecutions, for trying to show them their errors, became of such a nature that I had to leave the Latter Day Saints; and, as I rode on horseback out of Far West, in June, 1838, the voice of God from heaven spake to me as I have stated above.[46]
God did not tell Whitmer to repudiate Mormonism
The quotations cited by the critics are taken from a pamphlet written by David Whitmer near the end of his life. In this pamphlet, called An Address to All Believers in Christ, Whitmer strongly reiterates his testimony of the Book of Mormon and his experience seeing the angel as one of the three witnesses. He then goes on to outline in detail his disagreements with the church and with Joseph Smith, Jr. It was because of these disagreements that Whitmer was ultimately excommunicated. When God told him to leave Far West, he had not been a member of the Church for weeks. God did not tell Whitmer to repudiate Mormonism.
Whitmer's safety in Far West may have been at risk after his excommunication
However, since he remained among the Saints during the month after he was excommunicated, he was at potential risk of harm. Whitmer announced that "the voice of God" told him to "separate [him]self from among the Latter Day Saints" in June 1838, after the formation of Sampson Avard's secret vigilante group. David Whitmer had been excommunicated from the Church more than a month earlier, and his only continued association with the Saints was the fact that he was still living among them in Far West.
Whitmer was not instructed to leave the Church or "repudiate Mormonism," he was instructed (by God) to leave Far West after he was already excommunicated. This was arguably a very prudent course, both for Whitmer's safety and the integrity of the Restoration witnesses. Whitmer's witness of the Book of Mormon and seeing the angel is much more powerful since he forcefully maintained it even after he left the Church and disagreed with Joseph Smith.
Question: How can we accept David Whitmer as a valid Book of Mormon witness if God told him to leave the Saints?
While God would not force Whitmer to remain in the Church, He could take steps to ensure that Whitmer was safe from harm
It is claimed that if members accept Whitmer's witness of the Book of Mormon,[47] then they must also accept that God wanted David to repudiate the Church as false. Brent Metcalfe asserts the following:
Contemporary Mormons are left to confront Whitmer's challenge: believe that God confirmed the Book of Mormon translation and later instructed him to repudiate Mormonism or reject his testimony in toto. For Whitmer there was no distinction between the two experiences.[48]
Both Whitmer's experience as a witness and his prompting to leave Far West can be inspired of God
Believing Latter-day Saints have no trouble seeing both of Whitmer's revelatory experiences as inspired of God. While God would not force Whitmer to remain in the Church, He might well take steps to ensure that the Three Witnesses remained alive. In fact, Whitmer's fidelity to his testimony despite great disagreements with Joseph and the Church strengthen its force.
It is disingenuous for critics to imply Whitmer did not leave the Church until God "told him to."
Question: When did God tell David Whitmer to separate himself from the Latter-day Saints?
Whitmer claimed no revelation from God at the time that he was excommunicated
Whitmer's excommunication occurred on 13 April 1838.[49] Whitmer refused to appear at the council meeting that severed him from the Church; he wrote:
to spare you any further trouble I hereby withdraw from your fellowship and communion—choosing to seek a place among the meek and humble, where the revelations of heaven will be observed and the rights of men regarded.[50]
Whitmer here says that he will withdraw from the Church—this would have been an excellent opportunity for him to invoke a "revelation" telling him to leave the Church, but he did not. This is not surprising, since he does not report hearing the voice until June, at least six weeks later.
Thus, when he reports being told by God to "separate himself from among" the members of the Church, Whitmer was already out of the Church, but still living in Far West among members of the Church.
Whitmer's decision to leave Far West was a wise one, since it preserved his safety
Whitmer's decision to leave Far West was arguably a wise one. Tensions were high, and there were threats of violence against apostates (including Whitmer, who had been very prominent) from people like Sampson Avard.[51]
It was vital for the restoration that the Three Witnesses remain faithful to their testimonies of the Book of Mormon (which Whitmer did). Had Whitmer been killed in Far West in 1838, critics could forever after claim that he was a witness who would have recanted, but that he was killed by "the Mormons" to prevent him from speaking his mind.
Despite his disagreements with Joseph Smith and the Church, Whitmer maintained his testimony of the Book of Mormon
The decision to leave Far West—which Whitmer attributed to a divine voice—meant that Whitmer was kept safe. He lived longer than any witness, and never returned to the Church. Yet, he insisted to his death on the reality and truth of his statement as one of the Witnesses, and in the Book of Mormon's divine origin. And, the Saints (both those guilty of illegitimate violence, and the innocent who suffered because of their acts) did have it "done unto them" as they had plotted to do against Whitmer and other apostates: the Saints were eventually killed or driven from Missouri by violence.[52]
Question: Why did Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer accept Hiram Page's seer stone revelations as authoritative?
The Lord used this incident as a way to teach Oliver the proper order of revelation in the Church
This event is discussed in the Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual (2013):
In 1830, the Prophet Joseph Smith encountered a challenge because Church members did not understand the order of revelation in the Church. Hiram Page claimed to receive revelations for the Church through the medium of a special stone, and some Church members, including Oliver Cowdery, believed him. Shortly before a Church conference that was held on September 26, 1830, the Lord revealed truths that helped Oliver Cowdery and others understand the order of revelation in the Church.[53]
Oliver was actually directed by the Lord to correct Hiram Page in this matter. It was a "teaching moment" for Oliver:
11 And again, thou shalt take thy brother, Hiram Page, between him and thee alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me and that Satan deceiveth him;
12 For, behold, these things have not been appointed unto him, neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church contrary to the church covenants.
13 For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.
14 And thou shalt assist to settle all these things, according to the covenants of the church, before thou shalt take thy journey among the Lamanites. (D&C 28꞉11-14).
David Whitmer statements as one of the Three Witnesses
1831
Whitmar’s [sic] description of the Book of Mormon, differs entirely from that given by Harris; both of whom it would seem have been of late permitted, not only to see and handle it, but to examine its contents. Whitmar relates that he was led by Smith into an open field, on his father’s farm near Waterloo, when they found the book lying on the ground; Smith took it up and requested him to examine it, which he did for the space of half an hour or more, when he returned it to Smith, who placed it in its former position, alledging that the book was in the custody of another, intimating that some Divine agent would have it in safe keeping.“Gold Bible, No. 6,” The Reflector (Palmyra, New York) 2, no. 16 (19 March 1831), 126–27. off-site
"D[avid] Whitmer then arose and bore testimony to having seen an Holy Angel who had made known the truth of this record to him. [A]ll these strange things I pondered in my heart."[54]
1872
Elder J.J. Thayne returns from his mission. “He brought twenty-two persons back with him, [one of whom] is Mr. John Lefler, who, it will be remembered, inquired of Bishop Moon, while the latter was on his mission last year, concerning of the Book of Mormon, and to satisfy himself, he in company with Bro. Moon, visited Mr. David Whitmer, one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, and heard him bear testimony that he saw the angel of God and heard him declare that the plates were a divine record”[55]
1875
I have frequently placed it [the seer stone] to my eyes but could see nothing through it. I have seen Joseph, however, place it to his eyes and instantly read signs 160 miles distant and tell exactly what was transpiring there. When I went to Harmony after him he told me the names of every hotel at which I had stopped on the road, read the signs, and described various scenes without having ever received any information from me.[56]
And no man can look at David Whitmer's face for a half-hour, while he charit[abl]y and modestly speaks of what he has seen, and then bodldly and earnestly confesses the faith that is in him, and say that he is a bigot or an enthusiast.[57]
My testimony to the world is written concerning the Book of Mormon, and it is the same that I gave at first and it is the same as shall stand to my latest hour in life, linger with me in death and shine as Gospel Truth beyond the limits of life, among the Tribunals of Heaven, and [that] the Nations of the Earth will have known to[o] late the divine truth written on teh pages of that book is the only sorrow of this servant of the Almighty Father.[58]
1876
I personally heard him [David Whitmer] state in Jan. 1876 in his own house...in most positive language, that he did truly see in broad day light, a bright, and most beautiful being, an 'Angel from Heaven," who did hold in his hands the golden plates, which he turned over leaf by leaf, explaining the contents, here and there. He also described the size and general appearance of the plates....[59]
My testimony to the Book of Mormon is true and I am admonished neither to add to nor take from my testimony already appended to the Book. And if I should do so must be extremely guarded under the risk of being misunderstood.[60]
1877
Bro. David please relate your feelings in regard to the testimony of yours in the Book of Mormon, and the origin of the gospel through Joseph Smith. "Well as I know that the sun shines, so do I know that I was plowing one forenoon and I heard a voice and saw a personage who said, 'Blessed is the Lord and he that keepeth his commandments,' and the very next round Bro Joseph [Smith] and Oliver [Cowdery] came along and said, 'Come David and be on of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon'. We walked through a clearing and all sat on a log. It was about 11 a.m., when a light appeared and it grew brighter until an angel stoo before us and on the appearance of a table was laid the plates, urim and thummim, ball or director, sword of lab, etc., and a voice declared and bore record of the truth of the translation turning the leaves over, and thus the vision ended."[61]
1878
I was plowing in my field, when I heard a voice saying, 'Blessed is the name of the Lord and those that keep his commandments.' After I had plowed one more round, the prophet and Oliver Cowdery came along, and said, 'Come and be one of the witnesses.' We passed through a clearing and sat on a log. While there, a light appeared, which grew brighter, until an angel stood before them with the paltes and other things. The angel turned the leaves so that we could see the engravings, etc. We then heard a voice, saying that those things were true and that the translation was correct. This was about 11 o'clock a.m."[62]
David Whitmer interviewed by P. Wilhelm Poulson:
I--Martin Harris...gave a testimony in Salt Lake City Tabernacle that he saw the plates by [the] faith and power of God.
He--Martin Harris is correct....we saw it, and our testimony, which we give to the world, is true exactly as you read it, we saw by the gift and power of God. As we were praying the angel stood before us in his glory, and all those things were before us, as they were laid before us on a table, and we heard the testimony about hte plates, and we were commanded to bear that testimony to the world, and our testimony is true. And when the angel had finished his words, and shown us the paltes, one by one, which were to be translated, then the vision was closed at once, and exactly as it came even so did the sight disappear.
I--But those things which you saw were material things, how could they come and vanish away again?
He--It is the power of God. He does those things, and his angels know how to do it. It was wonderful to us, but it was by the power of God. He had appointed his angels to be the guardians of the plates and other things, and the angels knew how it was done.
I--Did the eight witnesses not handle the plates as a material substance?
He--We did not, but they did, because the faith of Joseph became so great that the angel, the guardian of the plates, gave the plates up to Joseph for a time, that those eight witnesses could see and handle them.[63]
David Whitmer interview by Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith:
Orson Pratt: "Do you remember what time you saw the plates?"
David Whitmer: "It was in June 1829, the very last part of the month, and the eight witnesses, I think, the next day. Joseph showed them the plates himself. We (the Three Witnesses) not only saw the plates of the book of Mormon, but the Brass Plates, the plates containing the record of the wickedness of the people of the world, and many other plates. THe fact is, it was just as though Joseph, Oliver and I were sitting right here on a log, when we were overshadowed by a light. It was not like the light of the sun, nor like that of a fire, but more glorious and beautiful. It extended away round us, I cannot tell how far, but in the midst of this light, immediately before us, about as far off as he sits (pointing to John C. Whitmer who was sitting 2 or 3 feet from him) there appeared, as it were, a table, with many records on it, besides the plates of the Book of Mormon; also the sword of Laban, the Directors (i.e. the ball which Lehi had) and the Interpreters. I saw them just as plain as I see this bed (striking his hand upon the bed beside him), and I heard the voice of the Lord as distinctly as I ever heard anything in my life declaring that they (the plates) were translated by the gift and power of God."[64]
Orson Pratt: "Did you see the Angel at this time?"
David Whitmer: "Yes, he stood before us. Martin Harris was not with us at this time. I don't think he saw all that we did, but our testimony as recorded in the Book of Mormon is strictly and absolutely true just as it is there written."[65]
When the question was asked David Whitmer if he and the other witnesses did not subscribe their own names to the respective testimonies, he replied that they did. Then he was asked, :'Where are the original documents?' That he did not know, but supposed Oliver had copied them, but this was an exact copy. Someone suggested that he ought to certify to it, he being the only witness left, but the lawyer, Mr. David C. Whitmer, son of Jacob, thought he had better take time to reflect about it. [Whitmer had in his possession the printer's manuscript of the Book of Mormon copied mainly by Oliver Cowdery, not the Original Manuscript.][66]
1879
"I have heard the same from the mouth of Father Whitmer, more than once; and every time I ever heard him tell the particulars of that glorious scene, he always told it just the same; and as far as I have ever heard, from reliable witnesses, he has always told the same story--"straight as a nail."[67]
As you read my testimony given many years ago, so it stands as my own existence; the same as when I gave it, and so shall stand throughout the cycles of eternity.[68]
1881
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 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.[69]
"Did you see the angel?"
"Yes; he stood before us [Whitmer, Joseph, and Oliver]. Our testimony as recorded in the Book of Mormon is absolutely true, just as it is written there."[70]
At that time Mr. Whitmer saw the tablet, gazed with awe on the celestial messenger, heard him speak and say: 'BLessed is the Lord and he that keeps His commandments;" and then, as he held the plates and turned them over with his hands, so that they could be plainly visible, a voice that seemed to fill all space, musical as the sighing of a wind through the forest, was heard, saying: "What you see is true: testify to the same." And Oliver Cowdrey and David Whitmer, standing there, felt, as the white garments of the angel faded from their vision and the heavenly voice still rang in their ears, that it was no delusion--that it was a fact; and they so recorded it. In a day or two after the same spirit appeared to Martin Harris while he was in company with Smith, and told him also to bear witness to its truth, which he did, as can be seen in the book. Harris described the visitant to Whitmer, who recognized it as the same that he and Cowdrey had seen.[71]
1882
"I was plowing in the field one morning, and Joseph and Oliver came along with a revelation stating that I was to be one of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon. I got over the fence and we went out into the woods, near by, and sat down on a log and talked awhile. We then kneeled down and prayed. Joseph prayed. We then got up and sat on the log and were talking, when all at once a light came down from above us and encircled us for quite a little distance around; and the angel stood before us. He was dressed in white, and spoke and called me by name and said 'Blessed is he that keepeth His commandments.' This is all that I heard the angel say. A table was set before us and on it the records were placed....While we were viewing them the voice of God spoke out of heaven saying that the Book was true and the translation correct."
We then asked him, "Do you remember the peculiar sensation experienced upon that occasion?" He answered very slowly and definitely.
"Yes; I remember it very distinctly; and I never think of it, from that day to this but what that same spirit is present with me."
"How did you know it was the voice of God?"
"We knew it was the voice of God. I knew it was the voice of God just as well as I knew any thing."[72]
We asked him if his testimony was the same now as it was at the time the Book of Mormon was published, regarding seeing the plates and the angel. He rose to his feet, stretched out his hands and said, "These hands handled the plates, these eyes saw the angel, and these ears heard his voice; and I know it was of God."
"That was the strongest testimony I ever heard, and I felt that he was telling the truth...."[73]
In answer to questions by the brethren he recited with graphic distinctness the scene in which he received the testimony he bore any years past and still bears to the Book of Mormon; and averred anew that the statement made by him as published in the book is true. No one who listens to him can doubt the sincerity and truthfulness of the man[74]
My testimony as published in connection with the Book of Mormon is true--And why Should men ask to know more in regard to all the particulars connected with that all Overshadowing truth--If they will not believe the three and 8 witnesses would they believe though one Should arise from the dead, testify to its truth again.[75]
1883
"I have been visited by thousands of people, believers and unbelievers, men and ladies of all degrees, sometimes as many as 15 in one day, and have never failed in my testimony. And they will know some day that my testimony is true....I heard the voice of the Angel just as stated in said Book, and the engravings on the plates were shown to us, and we were commanded to bear record of them; and if they are not true, then there is no truth, and if there is no truth there is no God; f there is no God then there is no existence. But there is a God, and I know it.
"When we were first told to publish our statement, we felt sure the people would not believe it, for the Book told of a people who were refined and dwelt in large cities; but the Lord told us that He would make it known to the people, and people should discover the ruins of the lost cities and abundant evidence of the truth of what is written in the Book."[76]
Persons may attempt to describe the presentation of the plates as shown to himself and other witnesses, but there was a glory attending it that no one could describe, no human tongue could tell the glorious scenes that were presented to them. Joseph Smith was there and Oliver Cowdery and himself--Martin Harris did not come as expected, but they were shown to him a short time after."[77]
1884
David Whitmer's response when asked if he "had been mistaken and had simply been moved upon by some mental disturbance, or hallucination, which had deceived them into thinking he saw the Personage, the Angel, the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the sword of Laban."
Whitmer was interviewed by Joseph Smith III, in the presence of others, not all of whom were disposed to believe his account. Significantly, he listed several items that he had seen, besides the golden plates:
Rather suggestively [Colonel Giles] asked if it might not have been possible that he, Mr. Whitmer, had been mistaken and had simply been moved upon by some mental disturbance, or hallucination, which had deceived them into thinking he saw the Personage, the Angel, the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the sword of Laban. How well and distinctly I remember the manner in which Elder Whitmer arose and drew himself up to his full height—a little over six feet—and said, in solemn and impressive tones: "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!"[78]
I saw the angel as plainly as I see you; he was surrounded by the glory of God, which overshadowed us, and we heard his voice, and we saw the records of the Book of Mormon...My testimony is the same as at the beginning, as is true.[79]
"Mr Whitmer felt very indignant while speaking of certain statements published recently to the effect that he and Oliver Cowdery had denied their statement as published in the Book of Mormon. This he denounced as false in every particular. He said: "Oliver never wavered in his testimony, and when he was on his death bed, I was there, with many of his friends, until he passed away. He bore the same testimony on his dying bed thathe had always borne through life, and earnestly called upon all to cleave to the truth revealed through the Prophet Joseph, and to serve the Lord. As for myself, I have never denied my testimony that is published in the Book of Mormon, for I know that God has revealed these things for the salvation of the children of men, and to Him belongs all the honor, the power and the glory."[80]
He was plowing when Joseph and Oliver came to him and the former told him that he was chosen to be one of the three witnesses to whom the angel would show the plates. He also told him that the Lord had promised to make this manifest and now was the time.
They went out and sat upon a log conversing upon the things to be revealed when they were surrounded by a glorious light which overshadowed them. A glorious personage appeared and he showed to them the plates....Human language could not, he said, describe heavenly things and that which they saw. The language of the angel was: Blessed is he taht believed and remaineth faitful to the end. He had his hours of darkness and trial and difficulty, but however dark upon other things[,] that had ever been a bright scene in his mind and he had never wavered in regard to it; he had testified fearlessly always of it, even when his life was threatened. Martin Harris was not with them at the time that he and Oliver saw the angel, but he and Joseph afterwards saw the same, and he thus became a witness also.[81]
In June, 1829, [when] I [David Whitmer] saw the angel by the power of God, Joseph, Oliver and I were alone, and a light from heaven shone round us, and solemnity pervaded our minds. The angel appeared in the light, as near as that young man. [Within five or six feet - note in original] Between us and the angel there appeared a table, and there lay upon it the sword of Laban, the Ball of [sic] Directors, the REcord, and Interpreters. The angel took the Record, and turned the leaves, and showed it to us by the power of God....My testimony in the Book of Mormon is true; I can't deviate from it.[82]
Mr. Whitmer on being asked if he saw the angel, as stated in some accuonts, opened the book and pointing to a section said, "there is my testimony. Read it; that tells all that is necessary for me to say about it. That contains the solemn testimony of myself and the other persons named."[83]
I saw this apparition [the angel] myself and gazed with awe on the celestial messenger and heard him say, "Blessed is the Lord and he that keeps his commandments." Then, as he held the plates and turned them over with his hands so that we could see them plainly, a voice that seemed to fill all space was heard, saying: 'What you see is true. Testify to the same." Oliver Cowdrey and I, standing there, felt, as the white garments of the angel faded from view, that we had received a message from God, and we have so recorded it. Two or three days later the same angel appeared to Martin Harris while he was in company with [Joseph] Smith, and placed the same injunction upon him. He described the sight and his sensations to me, and they corresponded exactly with what I had seen and heard.[84]
I did see the angel of God, and was commanded to testify of these things, and they are true.[85]
Mr. Whitmer turned his large, kind, but penetrating eyes upon me and, in a very pleasant and considerate, but firm and steady voice said: 'Read the printed testimony of the three witnesses, which you will find on one of the front pages of the Book of Mormon--and I say to you that every word of it is true.[86]
1886
Now, as eight years ago, he [Whitmer] says "As I live and stand upon the earth so sure did I see the angel who stood before us. While we were sitting upon a log (that is Joseph and I and Oliver Cowdery) we were talking when a bright light began to shine around us. It grew bright and brighter until an angel stood before us. A table [was] in front of him on which was the [gold] plates and the other plates, the sword of Laban, ball or compass, etc. The plates were shown [to] us [and the] leaves turned over. A portion of them were sealed. We also heard a voice commanding us to bear a testimony of these things to the world....[87]
I asked him if the table, which the angel brought, and upon which the plates lay when he viewed them was a tangible one, and he said that he did not touch it, it had the semblance of a table. The then ex=plained that he saw the plates and with his natural eyes, but he had to be prepared for it--that he and the other witnesses were overshadowed by the power of God and a halo of brightness indescribable.[88]
1887
David bore his testimony of standing in the presence of the angel....
David said to Mrs S[tevenson], "My testimony as found in the Book of Mormon is verily true and I cannot deny it." "I know," he said, "that the Book of Mormon is as true as the Bible." He relates seeing a messenger while plowing who said "Blessed is the name of the Lord and thehy who keep his Commandments." Soon after Joseph Smith and O[liver] Cowdery came along. David tied his team to the fence. The three were about 40 rods from his father's. While sitting on a log and angel appeared in the midst of a brightness that preceeded him. ON a table in front of him was the ball or compass...sword of Laban, Urim and Thummim or INterpreters. Also the plates, which was shown to them and they were commanded to bear testimony of these things, and he said as he lived those things were true. He fired up with zeal."[89]
In June, 1829, the Lord called Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and myself as the three witnesses, to behold the vision of the Angel, as recorded in the fore part of the Book of Mormon, and to bear testimony to the world that the Book of Mormon is true. I was not called to bear testimony to the mission of Brother Joseph Smith any farther than his work of translating the Book of Mormon, as you can see by reading the testimony of us three witnesses.[90]
[O]f course [I] would tell you about my vision of the Angel. You ask me if I saw the Angel when he brought the plates. I saw the angel when he brought the plates, and the Angel told us that we must bear testimony to the world, as contained in my testimony written int he Book of Mormon. Doubt not--sister--the Book of Mormon is the Word of God.[91]
I did see the Angel as it is recorded in my testimony in the Book of Mormon. The Book is true (emphasis in original).[92]
1888
In regards to my testimony to the visitation of the angel, who declared to us three witnesses that the Book of Mormon is true, I have this to say: Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time. Martin Harris, you say, called it "being in vision." We read in the Scriptures, Cornelius saw, in a vision, an angel of God, Daniel saw an angel in a vision, also in other places it states they saw an angel in the spirit. A bright light enveloped us where we were, that filled [the woods as] at noon day, and there in a vision or in the spirit, we saw and heard just as it is stated in my testimony in the Book of Mormon.[93]
He [David Whitmer] stated that the Book of Mormon was true, that his statement in connection with that of Oliver COwdery and Martin Harris was strictly correct, he had nothing to add to it, nor to diminish from it.[94]
?Date
During our interview, Mr. Whitmer reiterated his testimony as given at the beginning of the Book of Mormon, saying that all he testified to there was true; that he had seen the plates and the Heavenly messenger, as he had stated.[95]
Throughout Richmond, Missouri, the non-Mormons knew David Whitmer as an honest and trustworthy citizen. When one anti-Mormon lectured in David’s hometown, branding David as disreputable, the local (non-Mormon) paper responded with “a spirited front-page editorial unsympathetic with Mormonism but insistent on ‘the forty six years of private citizenship on the part of David Whitmer, in Richmond, without stain or blemish.’”[96]
...The following year the editor penned a tribute on the eightieth birthday of David Whitmer, who “with no regrets for the past” still “reiterates that he saw the glory of the angel.”
This is the critical issue of the life of David Whitmer. During fifty years in non-Mormon society, he insisted with the fervor of his youth that he knew that the Book of Mormon was divinely revealed. Relatively few people in Richmond could wholly accept such testimony, but none doubted his intelligence or complete honesty.[97]
When another anti-Mormon published an article claiming that David had denied his testimony, David printed a “proclamation” testifying to the truth of the Book of Mormon and reiterating the fact that he had never denied that testimony. He wrote:
It is recorded in the American Cyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica, that I, David Whitmer, have denied my testimony as one of the Three Witnesses to the divinity of the Book of Mormon: and that the two other witnesses, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, denied their testimony to that book. I will say once more to all mankind, that I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof. I also testify to the world, that neither Oliver Cowdery nor Martin Harris ever at any time denied their testimony. They both died affirming the truth of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon.[98]
Apostate William E. McLellin wrote:
I saw him [David Whitmer] June 1879, and heard him bear his solemn testimony to the truth of the book—as sincerely and solemnly as when he bore it to me in Paris, Ill. in July 1831.[99]
Following Whitmer's death the Richmond Conservator wrote:
On Sunday evening before his death he called the family and his attending physician, Dr. George W. Buchanan, to his bedside and said, “Doctor do you consider that I am in my right mind?” to which the Doctor replied, “Yes, you are in your right mind, I have just had a conversation with you.” He then addressed himself to all present and said: “I want to give my dying testimony. You must be faithful in Christ. I want to say to you all that the Bible and the record of the Nephites, (The Book of Mormon) are true, so you can say that you have heard me bear my testimony on my death bed....
On Monday morning he again called those present to his bedside, and told them that he had seen another vision which reconfirmed the divinity of the “Book of Mormon,” and said that he had seen Christ in the fullness of his glory and majesty, sitting upon his great white throne in heaven waiting to receive his children.[100]
The Richmond Democrat also added this comment:
Skeptics may laugh and scoff if they will, but no man can listen to Mr. Whitmer as he talks of his interview with the Angel of the Lord, without being most forcibly convinced that he has heard an honest man tell what he honestly believes to be true.[101]
After talking as he did, so fully and freely he said "I have been asked if we saw those things with our natural eyes. Of course they were our natural eyes There is no doubt that our eyes were prepared for the sight, but they were our natural eyes nevertheless."
I asked him if the table was a tangible one, and he said it appeared to be, but they did not touch it.[102]
The thing which impressed me most of all was, as we stood beside the grave of Oliver Cowdery the other Witness, who had come back into the Church before his death, and [David Whitmer] in describing Oliver[']s action, when bearing his testimony, said to the people in his room, placing his hands like this upon his head, saying 'I know teh Gospel to be true and upon this head has Peter[,] James and John laid their hands and confer[r]ed the Holy Melchisedic Priesthood.' [103]
When Martin Harris came back to them [Joseph, Oliver, and David Whitmer], they knew he had also seen the angel, because his face was radiant and he declared he had received the testimony. David Whitmer told me they knew he had also seen the vision which they had, because he explained what they had themselves seen.[104]
"All the witnesses had close ties to Joseph and his family"
MormonThink states...
"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 Response
Question: Were the Book of Mormon witnesses not neutral because they were members of the Church and believers in Joseph's mission?
The witnesses did not believe they had seen plates because they believed in the restoration; they believed in the restoration because they had seen plates
It is claimed 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."
The critics have the sequence reversed: the witnesses did not believe they had seen plates because they believed in the restoration; they believed in the restoration because they had seen plates. It would be a strange witness if realizing the Joseph had actual plates and divine aid to translate them did not compel them to become members of the restored gospel.
As Pratt points out above, the Book of Mormon is something about which one cannot be neutral or disinterested—if one is convinced that it is what it claims to be, then this requires action.
Given that many witnesses were subsequently disaffected from Joseph Smith and the Church (some permanently), and yet never denied their witness, this attack has been robbed of much of whatever force it previously had. The disaffected witnesses had many reasons to be "interested" in denouncing Joseph Smith and the faith he founded. Yet, they did not—this argues for the reality of their experience and the sincerity of their witness despite any beliefs they had when they first gave it.
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?
Parley P. Pratt replied to this assertion, which was frequently the main means of dismissing the witnesses in early anti-Mormon writing:
Mr. L. complains of all the witnesses to the Book of Mormon being interested witnesses; that is, they are all followers of, and believers in, that system. But, I enquire, who would be a disinterested witness? If all Christendom were to see the original document, and be convinced of its truth, they would all see the original document, and be convinced of its truth, they would all be as much interested in it as those who first witnessed it. The Lord never chose a disinterested witness of his resurrection or any other truth. Would Mr. L. have a witness who would say the thing is true to be sure, but does not concern me, I purpose never to obey it myself, but to go down to hell, for the sake of giving others a disinterested testimony of its truth? But after all, the first witnesses to the Book of Mormon were not members of this church when they gave their testimony; for there was no such church in existence until some time after their testimony had been published.[105]
"Some of the witnesses, especially Martin Harris, were easily swayed by tales of the supernatural, especially in a religious context"
MormonThink states...
"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."
John Whitmer (1876): "I have never heard that any one of the three or eight witnesses ever denied the testimony that they have borne to the Book as published in the first edition of the Book of Mormon"
In 1876, John Whitmer, one of the Eight Witnesses, wrote a lengthy letter to Mark Forscutt, which included the following:
Oliver Cowdery lived in Richmond, Mo., some 40 miles from here, at the time of his death. I went to see him and was with him for some days previous to his demise. I have never heard him deny the truth of his testimony of the Book of Mormon under any circumstances whatever. . . . Neither do I believe that he would have denied, at the peril of his life; so firm was he that he could not be made to deny what he has affirmed to be a divine revelation from God. . . .
I have never heard that any one of the three or eight witnesses ever denied the testimony that they have borne to the Book as published in the first edition of the Book of Mormon. There are only two of the witnesses to that book now living, to wit., David Whitmer, one of the three, and John Wh[itmer], one of the eight. Our names have gone forth to all nations, tongues and people as a divine revelation from God. And it will bring to pass the designs of God according to the declaration therein contained.[106]
John Whitmer's character
"Mr. [John] Whitmer is considered a truthful, honest and law abiding citizen by this community, and consequently, his appointment [to preach] drew out a large audience. Mr. Whitmer stated that he had often handled the identical golden plates which Mr. Smith received from the angel...."[107]
Question: Did the witnesses to the Book of Mormon realize that they would be ridiculed and not believed?
The witnesses were not naive
They knew that they would not be believed by many, and would suffer ridicule or personal/professional costs. Despite this, they stuck to their claims.
David Whitmer recalled:
"When we were first told to publish our statement, we felt sure the people would not believe it, for the Book told of a people who were refined and dwelt in large cities; but the Lord told us that He would make it known to the people, and people should discover the ruins of the lost cities and abundant evidence of the truth of what is written in the Book."[108]
Question: What might the witnesses to the Book of Mormon have gained if they had denied their testimonies?
The witnesses had much to gain by denying their experiences
Martin Harris noted that he would have been well-paid if he was willing to deny his witness:
A few hours before his death and when he was so weak and enfeebled that he was unable to recognize me or anyone, and knew not to whom he was speaking, I asked him if he did not feel that there was an element at least, of fraudulence and deception in the things that were written and told of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and he replied as he had always done so many, many times in my hearing the same spirit he always manifested when enjoying health and vigor and said: ‘The Book of Mormon is no fake. I know what I know. I have seen what I have seen and I have heard what I have heard. I have seen the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon is written. An angel appeared to me and others and testified to the truthfulness of the record, and had I been willing to have perjured myself and sworn falsely to the testimony I now bear I could have been a rich man, but I could not have testified other than I have done and am now doing for these things are true.[109]
One non-member noted that the excommunicated Oliver Cowdery would have been the editor of a Democratic Party newspaper, "but was dropped on the discovery that he was one of the seven founders of Mormonism."[110] Cowdery would have been advantaged to have denied his witness, but did not. Later, in 1848, an opposing political party opposed Cowdery's Democratic candidacy partly because he was "one of the three witnesses to the discovery of the Golden Plates, or Mormon Bible, by Joe Smith."[111] Richard Anderson noted that citations from the Book of Mormon were then used as "the basis of personal sarcasm against Cowdery."[112] Again, Oliver would have been advantaged to distance himself from his testimony and witness, but did not.
Question: Did the witnesses disagree with their testimony after it was printed in the Book of Mormon?
The witnesses never refuted their testimony in the Book of Mormon. In fact, David Whitmer even affirmed it "as then made and published"
It is claimed that no document exists of the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses which contain their actual signatures, and that this somehow invalidates their testimonies as printed in the Book of Mormon, and that the witnesses statements in the Book of Mormon manuscript are written and signed only by Oliver Cowdery.
The claim that the witnesses somehow didn't agree with their testimony as it was printed in the Book of Mormon during the entire period of their lives is nonsense.
The printer's manuscript of the Book of Mormon is entirely in Oliver Cowdery's handwriting, including the witness statements
The printer's manuscript is a copy of the original Book of Mormon manuscript. This copy was made by Oliver Cowdery and taken to the printer. Therefore, the entire document is in Oliver's handwriting. The original manuscript was placed in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House.[113] Years later, it was removed and found to have been mostly destroyed by water damage. As a result of this, we do not have the portion of the original Book of Mormon manuscript containing the witness statements. It should be noted that in the 1830 Book of Mormon, the witness statements were included at the end of the book, rather than at the front as they are today.
Question: Did the witnesses make clear statements regarding their testimonies?
The witnesses made very clear statements regarding their testimonies
We will let the Three Witnesses speak for themselves on this issue. In each case, they made statements confirming their testimonies near the end of their lives.
David Whitmer affirms his testimony in 1881 as it is printed in the Book of Mormon years after he left the Church:
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.[114]
Oliver Cowdery in 1829, shortly after his experience as a witness:
It was a clear, open beautiful day, far from any inhabitants, in a remote field, at the time we saw the record, of which it has been spoken, brought and laid before us, by an angel, arrayed in glorious light, [who] ascend [descended I suppose] out of the midst of heaven. Now if this is human juggling—judge ye. [115]
Oliver Cowdery in 1848, years after he left the Church:
I wrote, with my own pen, the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph, as he translated it by the gift and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or as it is called by the book, Holy Interpreters. I beheld with my eyes, and handled with my hands, the gold plates from which it was transcribed. I also saw with my eyes and handled with my hands the Holy Interpreters. That book is true. [116]
Martin Harris, right before his death:
The Book of Mormon is no fake. I know what I know. I have seen what I have seen and I have heard what I have heard. I have seen the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon is written. An angel appeared to me and others and testified to the truthfulness of the record, and had I been willing to have perjured myself and sworn falsely to the testimony I now bear I could have been a rich man, but I could not have testified other than I have done and am now doing for these things are true. [117]
Richard Anderson: All eleven Book of Mormon witnesses publicly reaffirmed their testimony as printed
Richard Anderson described multiple accounts of all the Witnesses bearing testimony and reaffirming their published testimony:[118]
The three Smiths who formally gave their names as seeing and handling the plates were the Prophet's father, Joseph Smith, Sr.; the Prophet's older brother, Hyrum; and his immediately younger brother, Samuel Harrison. They sometimes joined the other Book of Mormon witnesses to reaffirm their testimony printed in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon regarding lifting and turning the leaves of the plates. After quoting the published statements of the Three and Eight Witnesses, and describing the experience of the latter group, Lucy Smith relates, "The ensuing evening, we held a meeting, in which all the witnesses bore testimony to the facts as stated above."[119] Two years later, in the period of dynamic preaching of the early elders, a conference was held near Cleveland, Ohio, remembered by Luke Johnson as follows: "At this conference the eleven witnesses to the Book of Mormon, with uplifted hands, bore their solemn testimony to the truth of that book, as did also the Prophet Joseph."[120]
Question: Does Doctrine and Covenants 5 stipulate that there be only three witnesses to the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated?
Introduction to Criticism
Readers of the Doctrine and Covenants have become puzzled by a verse that, at first blush, stipulates that there be only three witnesses to the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. The text reads as follows:
10 But this generation shall have my word through you;
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.
This may cause some stress for readers since there were at least 24 (and perhaps more) formal and informal witnesses to the gold plates--each with different experiences to recount.
This article will examine this criticism and another, closely-related criticism. Upon a closer reading of the text of the revelation, the concern should be eliminated.
Response to Criticism
The Actual Experiences of the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon Plates
First, we should reacquaint ourselves with what each of the formal and informal witnesses to the gold plates actually said (as far as such can be documented) about their experience.
There are the Three Witnesses—including David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris; and there are the Eight Witnesses--including Joseph Smith Sr., Hyrum Smith, Samuel H. Smith, Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer Jr., John Whitmer, and Hiram Page. Additionally, there are several informal witnesses--people who either saw, felt, and/or hefted the plates but were not required to give their names in a formal statement testifying to the plates’ reality. These witnesses include people such as Emma Smith, Lucy Mack Smith, Katharine Smith, Mary Mussellman Whitmer, Josiah Stowell, Alvah Beaman, Joseph Knight Sr., Luke Johnson, Harrison Burgess, Lucy Harris, Joseph McKune Sr., and Lyman Johnson.
The testimony of the Three Witnesses, as printed in every edition of the Book of Mormon since its publication, reads as follows:
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.
So the Three Witnesses:
Saw an angel come down from heaven and lay the plates before them
Saw the plates
Saw the engravings on the plates.
Heard the voice of God declare that the plates were translated by His gift and power.
Heard the Lord command them to testify of the Book of Mormon’s divinity.
The testimony of the Eight Witnesses, as printed in every edition of the Book of Mormon since its publication, reads as follows:
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.
So the Eight Witnesses:
Had Joseph Smith show them the plates
Handled, saw, and hefted the leaves from the plates
Saw the engravings on the plates
The informal witnesses’ experiences are as follows:
Emma Smith felt the plates through a cloth as she moved them around the house while cleaning and doing other chores.[121]
Katherine Smith felt the plates through a cloth as she moved them around the house.[122]
William Smith, Joseph Smith's younger brother, testified in June 1884 that when Joseph first brought the plates home, that "[Joseph's family] handled them and could tell what they were. They were not quite as large as this Bible. Could tell whether they were round or square. Could raise the leaves this way [he raises a few leaves of the Bible before him]. One could easily tell that they were not a stone, hewn out to deceive, or even a block of wood. Being a mixture of gold and copper, they were much heavier than stone, and very much heavier than wood."[123] He also stated in 1883 that he saw Joseph bring the plates home from the hill wrapped in a tow frock. According to him, they weighed about 60 pounds.[124]
Josiah Stowell “caught a glimpse of their corner as the covering slipped off when Joseph handed them to him[.]”[125] Stowell said the plates “resembled a stone of a greenish caste,” which is consistent with the plates being made of a copper alloy which had oxidized.[126]
Alvah Beaman “heard the metallic clinking of the plates as he helped move them around in [a] wooden chest[.]”[127]
Mary Whitmer “saw both the plates and the angel. Her experience is interesting because, even though it includes the divine messenger, even he is portrayed in rather ordinary terms. He shows up as a man while she is out milking cows, he shows her the record, and then he is gone.”[128]
Joseph Knight Sr. was among those at the Smith home when Joseph first retrieved the plates in 1827. According to William Smith, those present were allowed to feel and heft the plates.[129]
According to Brigham Young in 1859, Luke Johnson, in a “vision of his mind,” saw that “the angel of God came and laid the plates before him, and he saw and handled them, and saw the angel, and conversed with him as he would with one of his friends.”[130] John D. Lee visited Luke in 1846 and “asked him if the statement he signed about seeing the angel and the plates was true, if he did see the plates from which the Book of Mormon was printed or translated.” According to Lee, Johnson said it was true.[131]
According to Lucy Mack Smith, Lucy Harris, Martin Harris's wife, saw the angel and plates. “She said that a personage had appeared to her the night before and said to her that inasmuch as she had disputed the servant of the Lord, said that his word was not to be believed, and asked him many improper questions, she had done that which was not right in the sight of God. Then he said, ‘Behold, here are the plates, look upon them and believe.’”[132] According to Martin Harris in an 1859 interview with Joel Tiffany, Lucy also had the opportunity to lift the plates while contained in a glass box.[133] Martin appears to have affirmed the same in a conference address he gave in 1870 in Salt Lake City.[134]
According to that same interview of Martin Harris done by Tiffany, Martin's daughter Lucy Harris was with her mother and Lucy Mack Smith when she had the experience of lifting the plates while contained in a glass box.[135]
Harrison Burgess reported that in July 1832, he had “a glorious personage clothed in white stood before [him] and exhibited to [his] view the plates from which the Book of Mormon was taken.”[136]
According to his granddaughter Mehitable Smith Many Doolittle, Joseph McKune Sr. once felt the plates. An 1887 newspaper article reported that she said that “[w]hile [McKune] was upon his farm he had the Mormon Bible. Whether he professed to find it before or after marriage Mrs. Doolittle does not remember. Her grandfather was once privileged to take in his hands a pillow-case in which the supposed saintly treasure was wrapped, and to feel through the cloth that it had leaves. From the size and the weight of the book, Mr. McKune supposed that in dimensions it closely resembled an ordinary Bible in the print of those days.”[137]
Lyman Johnson and Orson Pratt embarked on a missionary journey in February 1832.[138] On 8 February 1832, they stopped at the home of Benjamin Stokely, in Cool Spring Township, Mercer County, Pennsylvania. “According to Stokely, Lyman testified that an angel had personally shown him the Book of Mormon plates, the same as the witnesses to the Book of Mormon.”[139] In Stokely’s own words, “An angel brought the Mormonite Bible and laid it before him (the speaker); he therefore knows these things to be true.” Of Pratt and Johnson, Stokely wrote, “They appeared to have very little learning, to be sincere in all they said. They had good manners — had been well raised — were decent and unassuming in every thing I saw, or heard them say.”[140] In the 1880s, Edward Tullidge interviewed Lorin Farr, who by that time had served as the mayor of Ogden, Utah about his early life. Among other things, Farr recalled hearing the gospel preached by Orson Pratt and Lyman Johnson for the very first time, when he was eleven years old. It was in the spring of 1832: “Lyman Johnson arose and delivered one of the most powerful testimonies pertaining to the mission of Joseph Smith and the great work of the last days, that Lorin ever heard. [Lyman] also said that he knew the Book of Mormon was true, for he had seen an angel and he had made this known unto him.”[141] When Lyman Johnson preached in Dalton, Coos County, New Hampshire, in July 1835, the eighteen-year-old Ethan Barrows was in the audience and listening carefully. In the “Journal of Ethan Barrows,” Journal of History 15 (January 1922): 36, written around 1892, Barrows reported that “He said that an holy angel had ministered with him and had shown him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated, and commanded him to testify to all the world that it was true.”
Tying the Experiences of the Various Witnesses to Doctrine & Covenants 5
Now, response becomes quite simple. Reviewing the experiences of each of the various witnesses, it can be seen that none of them received "the same witness" as that of the Three Witnesses. Let's quote the most relevant part of the passage in question and bold the most important parts of that passage:
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
The Three Witnesses heard the voice of God declare unto them that the translation of the Book of Mormon was done by his gift and power. None of the other witnesses received "this same testimony." That is how one may reconcile the passage with the presence of other types of witnesses to the Book of Mormon plates.
Introduction to Criticism #2
There is a related criticism to this one. It is claimed that the original revelation that was later edited and incorporated into the Doctrine and Covenants is much less open to the existence of other witnesses to the Book of Mormon plates.
yea & the testimony of three of my Servants shall go forth with my word unto this Generation yea three shall Know of A surety that those things are true for I will give them power that they may Behold & vew these things as they are & to none else will I grant this power among this Generation & the testimony of three Witnesses will I send forth & my word[.][142]
One can quickly see that the original revelation omits the phrases "for from heaven will I declare it unto them" and "to receive this same testimony." Thus, fitting the experiences of the other witnesses into the origins of the Book of Mormon may become trickier.
The revelation is dated March 1829. The translation of the Book of Mormon took place between late April 1829 to June 1829.[143] The translation actually commenced with Mosiah being translated first, getting all the way to Moroni, then going back to 1 Nephi, and finishing with Words of Mormon.[144] There are three passages in the Book of Mormon that refer to the witnesses of the Book of Mormon: Ether 5:2–4, 2 Nephi 11:3, and 2 Nephi 27:12–14.
Ether 5:2–4 reads:
2 And behold, ye may be privileged that ye may show the plates unto those who shall assist to bring forth this work;
3 And unto three shall they be shown by the power of God; wherefore they shall know of a surety that these things are true.
4 And in the mouth of three witnesses shall these things be established; and the testimony of three, and this work, in the which shall be shown forth the power of God and also his word, of which the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost bear record—and all this shall stand as a testimony against the world at the last day.
2 Nephi 11:3 reads:
And my brother, Jacob, also has seen him as I have seen him; 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.
2 Nephi 27:12–14 reads:
12 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.
13 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; for the Lord God hath said that the words of the faithful should speak as if it were from the dead.
14 Wherefore, the Lord God will proceed to bring forth the words of the book; and in the mouth of as many witnesses as seemeth him good will he establish his word; and wo be unto him that rejecteth the word of God!
Given the timeline for translation, Joseph would have received D&C 5 in March 1829, then translated Ether, and then translated 2 Nephi. Reading the passages in that order and looking at the explicit flow of ideas, one might surmise that Joseph Smith at first believed that only three people were going to see the Book of Mormon plates and then, over time, revised his plan to include more witnesses to the Book of Mormon plates.
Response to Criticism #2
Focus on the Phrases "my word unto this Generation" and "Behold & [view] these things as they are"
To respond to this criticism, one can easily fit the uniqueness of the experience of the Three Witnesses in particular into the phrase "[the Lord's] word unto this Generation". The Lord's word unto this generation was the declaration in his own voice to the Three Witnesses that the Book of Mormon was translated by his gift and power through Joseph Smith and that the Book of Mormon should go to the ends of the earth with the witnesses declaring it to those ends. Knowing that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God was the Three Witnesses' opportunity to "Behold & [view] these things as they are" as promised in the original draft of the revelation.
Interpret "three" in Ether 5 not as stipulating that only three shall see the plates by the power of God, but that three as a set will be given the opportunity to see the plates together and act as formal witnesses to God's work through the Book of Mormon
This doesn't entirely resolve the criticism because it may appear to some that Ether 5 is saying that only three witnesses will see the plates. Ether 5 says that the plates will be shown unto three. But this three does not need to be interpreted to mean that only three will see the plates by the power of God. Indeed, it seems more likely that it just means that three witnesses will receive a unique testimony from God and, following God's law of witnesses that two or three shall establish his words,[145] hear a declaration from God's own voice that the Book of Mormon was translated by his gift and power and that the Book of Mormon should be declared to the ends of the earth; that they should formally act as a set of three that receive the same declaration from God's voice and testify of that declaration to all people.
Look again at verse 2: "And behold, ye may be privileged that ye may show the plates unto those who shall assist to bring forth this work". That's open language. It seems like viewing the plates is open to anyone who assists in bringing forth the work. That can include the eight witnesses and the informal witnesses.
Then there's verse 3: "And unto three shall they be shown by the power of God; wherefore they shall know of a surety that these things are true." How do they know of a surety? The original manuscript of Doctrine & Covenants 5 above says that it's because God will give the three witnesses his word unto this generation that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God.
Close out with verse 4: "And in the mouth of three witnesses shall these things be established; and the testimony of three, and this work, in the which shall be shown forth the power of God and also his word, of which the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost bear record—and all this shall stand as a testimony against the world at the last day." Some might take that initial 'And in the mouth of three witnesses shall these things be established' as clarifying that only three shall be given power to establish God's word. But that initial statement just echoes the stipulations of Deuteronomy, 2 Corinthians, Timothy, and even Doctrine and Covenants 6 that God establishes his word by the testimony of two or three witnesses. It's not saying that only three shall see the plates. It's saying that a group of three will be given the same testimony that the Book of Mormon is divine from God's own voice and formally represent a fulfillment of the requirement that God's word be established by two or three witnesses. Relevantly, that seems to be how 2 Nephi 11:3 treats this passage in Ether.
William Owen (skeptical account): "Ten persons say they have seen them and hefted them, three declare that an angel of God appeared to them and showed them to them"
A skeptical account from a reader in 1831 demonstrates that the witnesses' contemporaries understood the experience to be a literal one:
The plates from which Smith, the author translates his book are said to be in his possession. Ten persons say they have seen them and hefted them, three declare that an angel of God appeared to them and showed them to them, and told them that God had given Smith power to be able to read them, understand them, and translate them. The names of those persons are signed to the certificates in the book.[146]
Question: Is someone unreliable because they practiced "treasure hunting" and believed in the use of seer stones to find lost objects?
To imply that someone is unreliable simply because of things that they believed were valid is a ad hominem attack
Some of Joseph Smith's associates practiced "treasure hunting" and believed in the use of seer stones to locate lost objects. Some claim that many of these individuals believed in "second sight." Do these characteristics make these men unreliable witnesses?
Those who accuse people of being unreliable witnesses because they believed in "treasure hunting" or "second sight" are employing what is known as a "ad hominem" attack on the witnesses' character. The term "ad hominem" is defined, according to Merriam-Webster, as:
appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect.
marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.
One can see that this accusation applies both of these definitions:
The terms "treasure hunter" and "second sight" are intended to evoke feelings of prejudice in the 21st-century reader. We typically reject such things as "superstition." Applying these attitudes to how we view 19th-century individuals is called "presentisim."
One critic implies that, despite the fact that the witnesses never denied what they said, that "in light of their superstitions and reputations," we will somehow find their testimony to have less value. The witnesses, incidentally, had reputations for honesty. [147]
How exactly does the belief that one can locate buried treasure by means of a seer stone speak to one's character or honesty?
Some have claimed that this rebuttal is a misapplication of the ad-hominem fallacy. It's easy to claim that an ad-hominem fallacy is misapplied by invoking the fallacy fallacy, which means that an argument can still be true even if it contains a logical fallacy. Thus, even if it's an ad hominem attack, it may still be true and necessary for evaluating someone! This is a common counterclaim to make when an interlocutor accuses you of ad hominem. But let's revert to the original argument being made here. The original argument states that the witnesses are unreliable because some of them hunted for treasure occasionally. It is ad hominem to claim this and does not address the consistency of the witnesses, even when their feelings for Joseph turned sour at different points of their lives. It does not address the multiplicity of occasions when they went on record to testify, the occasions when they went our of their way to correct their testimony when misrepresented by the public press, the both tangible and revelatory nature of their experience, the witnesses other than the 11 that saw the plates and handled them, and so forth. The argument is bunk.
All Three Witnesses left the Church after disagreements with Joseph Smith, yet they never denied having seen the plates and the angel
One must also consider this: The Three Witnesses all left the Church after serious disagreements with Joseph Smith, and yet never denied that they had seen the plates and the angel, even near the end of their lives.
The fact that three different men allowed their name to be printed below a statement saying that they saw an angel, and then continued to affirm that they had seen the angel in public statements (some of them even published in newspapers) until the end of their lives, tends to tip the scale more toward "it really happened" than "it didn't happen." That's the point of a signed statement after all.
Is someone's ability to see something affected by their seeing something else?
As it regards the witnesses, the extent to which any were involved is not certain. Even among historians today, the extent to which Joseph Smith was involved is in dispute. It was originally the idea of his father to undertake the practice. It is in doubt if many of the witnesses were involved at all in treasure seeking. For instance, there is no record of the Whitmers being involved in treasure seeking and magic before the organization of the Church (Not to say that they absolutely weren't. Just that there is no evidence.)But let's think of it this way
As it regards the eight witnesses, even if all of them were treasure hunters, is their ability to see something affected by their seeing something else? It's just a silly question to imply that these eight men can't look at a physical object with their physical eyes when they looked at something else with their physical eye. According to John Whitmer, none of them ever denied seeing the physical plates with their physical eyes.
In the case of the three witnesses, some people have suggested that these men may have hallucinated their experience or only seen things with their "spiritual eyes". Aside from "spiritual eyes" being scriptural language that they were commanded to use, there has never been documented case in the history of scrying of two people hallucinating the same thing at the same time.[148]
It strains credulity to suggest that these men could do that and hold their testimony of the Book of Mormon after falling away from Joseph and the Church.
The following video introduces all witnesses, both formal and informal, to the Book of Mormon, examines several of the hardest-hitting claims against them, and demonstrates the emergent strength of their composite testimonials.
Question: Is a man unreliable because he lived in the 19th-Century?
To imply that someone is unreliable simply because of the era they lived in is a ad hominem attack
Were the Book of Mormon witnesses not "empirical" or "rational" because they lived in the 19th-Century during a time when "folk magic" was practiced?
One critic of Mormonism claims "The mistake that is made by 21st century Mormons is that they’re seeing the Book of Mormon Witnesses as empirical, rational, twenty-first century men" (The claim was modified to read "nineteenth-century men" in later revisions)[149]
To imply that nineteenth-century men are intrinsically unreliable is both an ad hominem (an attack against the character of person making the claim, rather than the claim itself) and sets an impossible standard of evidence for the gospel inasmuch as they were the only men available as witnesses at the time. Thus the author is using a screening argument (dates of life) that can be used to exclude whatever evidence he wishes to ignore.
Some have claimed that this rebuttal is a misapplication of the ad-hominem fallacy. It's easy to claim that an ad-hominem fallacy is misapplied by invoking the fallacy fallacy, which means that an argument can still be true even if it contains a logical fallacy. Thus, even if it's an ad hominem attack, it may still be true and necessary for evaluating someone! This is a common counterclaim to make when an interlocutor accuses you of ad hominem. But let's revert to the original argument being made here. The original argument states that the witnesses are unreliable because they lived in the 19th century, sought for treasure, and/or (may have) practiced folk magic. It is ad hominem to claim this and does not address the consistency of the witnesses, even when their feelings for Joseph turned sour at different points of their lives. It does not address the multiplicity of occasions when they went on record to testify, the occasions when they went our of their way to correct their testimony when misrepresented by the public press, the both tangible and revelatory nature of their experience, the witnesses other than the 11 that saw the plates and handled them, and so forth. The argument is bunk.
The following video introduces all witnesses, both formal and informal, to the Book of Mormon, examines several of the hardest-hitting claims against them, and demonstrates the emergent strength of their composite testimonials.
Question: Could Joseph Smith have hypnotized the witnesses to the Book of Mormon?
The Three Witnesses had the opportunity to qualify their testimony, but all of them insisted that their vision was literal and unmistakable
It is claimed that the Book of Mormon witnesses may have been sincere in their testimony, but were actually the victims of 'hallucination' or 'hypnosis' induced in them by Joseph Smith.
The Three Witnesses had the opportunity to qualify their testimony, but all of them insisted that their vision was literal and unmistakable. In addition, they each verified the literalness of the event by stating that their physical ears heard a heavenly voice. Critics twist the historical record in their effort to eliminate the troublesome witnesses but their testimonies cannot be convincingly dismissed.
(Note: All emphasis in the following quotes has been added.)
David Whitmer—like the other witnesses—had been charged with being deluded into thinking he had seen an angel and the plates. Joseph Smith III remembered when David was such accused, and said:
"How well and distinctly I remember the manner in which Elder Whitmer arose and drew himself up to his full height—a little over six feet—and said, in solemn and impressive tones: '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!'."[150]
Martin Harris used the same qualifying statements to describe his experience in 1829:
"In introducing us, Mr. Godfrey said, 'Brother Harris, I have brought these young men to hear your statement as to whether or not you believe the Book of Mormon to be true.' His face was turned to the wall. He turned and faced us and said, 'Now I don't believe, but I know it to be true, for with these eyes I saw the angel and with these ears (pointing to them) I heard him say it was a true and correct record of an ancient people that dwelt upon this the American continent'."[151]
Oliver Cowdery was asked, “Was your testimony based on a dream, was it the imagination of your mind, was it an illusion”? He responded with the exact same qualifying statements as the other two Witnesses:
"My eyes saw, my ears heard, and my understanding was touched, and I know that whereof I testified is true. It was no dream, no vain imagination of the mind—it was real."[152]
Only 3% of people are capable of experiencing a visual hallucination, and only 9% of the population can hallucinate a voice speaking to them while under the influence of hypnosis
Research by Ernest Hilgard at Stanford found that only 3% of people are capable of experiencing a visual hallucination, and only 9% of the population can hallucinate a voice speaking to them while under the influence of hypnosis. These statistics just further refute psychological arguments against the validity of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon.[153]
Question: Are the Book of Mormon witnesses unreliable because many of them were related?
To imply that someone is unreliable simply because of who they are related to is a ad hominem attack
It is claimed that because many of the witnesses are related, this means they are not to be trusted.
Mark Twain made fun of this very issue:
And when I am far on the road to conviction, and eight men, be they grammatical or otherwise, come forward and tell me that they have seen the plates too; and not only seen those plates but "hefted" them, I am convinced. I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified. [154]
This is what is known as a "ad hominem" attack on the witnesses' character. The term "ad hominem" is defined, according to Merriam-Webster, as:
appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect.
marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.
How, exactly, does being related to someone else who is viewing the same thing that you are make one less honest or reliable? This is simply an irrelevant distraction. When you are going to show something sacred to someone, you certainly don't show it to strangers but to those with whom you are familiar and who you can trust. As such, one would not expect anyone but close acquaintances and family to be so trusted. The witnesses, incidentally, had reputations for honesty.
Some have claimed that this rebuttal is a misapplication of the ad-hominem fallacy. It's easy to claim that an ad-hominem fallacy is misapplied by invoking the fallacy fallacy, which means that an argument can still be true even if it contains a logical fallacy. Thus, even if it's an ad hominem attack, it may still be true! But that is not the point of the original argument being made here. The original argument states that the witnesses are unreliable because they are related to each other and their love and bias for Joseph somehow weakens their efficacy. It is ad hominem to claim this and does not address the consistency of the witnesses, even when their feelings for Joseph turned sour at different points of their lives. It does not address the multiplicity of occasions when they went on record to testify, the occasions when they went our of their way to correct their testimony when misrepresented by the public press, the both tangible and revelatory nature of their experience, the witnesses other than the 11 that saw the plates and handled them, and so forth. The argument is bunk.
The witnesses would, of necessity, be those who were close to Joseph. Recall the fact that the witnesses eventually had disaffected members among them because of disagreements with Joseph Smith, yet they never denied their witness. This gives credence to their testimony over time.
Relationships among the Three and Eight Witnesses
Three of the witnesses were related to Joseph Smith:
Joseph Smith, Sr. [father]
Hyrum Smith [brother]
Samuel H. Smith [brother]
Five of the eleven witnesses were sons of Peter Whitmer, Sr., who had provided Joseph and Oliver a place to translate:
David Whitmer
Christian Whitmer
Jacob Whitmer
Peter Whitmer, Jr.
John Whitmer
Two of the witnesses married into the Whitmer family:
Oliver Cowdery would marry Elizabeth Ann Whitmer in 1832.[155]
Hiram Page married the oldest Whitmer daughter, Catherine, on 10 November 1825.[156]
The following video introduces all witnesses, both formal and informal, to the Book of Mormon, examines several of the hardest-hitting claims against them, and demonstrates the emergent strength of their composite testimonials.
Question: Did Joseph Smith say that viewing the gold plates would result in death?
The only first-person account—that made by Joseph Smith himself—says that it was Joseph who would be destroyed if he showed the plates to any other person unless commanded to do so by the Lord
It is claimed that Joseph Smith said that the penalty for viewing the gold plates was death, and that this was just a way for Joseph to hide the fact that the plates really didn't exist. However, the only first-person account—that made by Joseph Smith himself—says that it was Joseph who would be destroyed if he showed the plates to any other person unless commanded to do so by the Lord. Many accounts attributed to Joseph in which he is supposed to have claimed that anyone else who viewed the plates would die originated with people who were hostile to Joseph and the Church. Significantly, Emma's statement makes no mention of the alleged penalty associated with the unauthorized viewing of the plates.
Primary source: Joseph Smith's own words
Joseph Smith-History 1:42 describes the conditions under which Joseph was to handle the plates:
Again, he told me, that when I got those plates of which he had spoken—for the time that they should be obtained was not yet fulfilled—I should not show them to any person; neither the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim; only to those to whom I should be commanded to show them; if I did I should be destroyed. While he was conversing with me about the plates, the vision was opened to my mind that I could see the place where the plates were deposited, and that so clearly and distinctly that I knew the place again when I visited it. (emphasis added)
According to this, it was Joseph who risked destruction if he showed the plates to anyone unless explicitly commanded to do so by the Lord, not the person to whom he showed them.
Of course, we also have the testimony of the Three and Eight witnesses, who all viewed the plates without any threat of destruction.
The idea that God would "strike down" anyone who viewed the plates came from a hostile secondary source
Fawn Brodie claimed that Joseph told Martin Harris that God's wrath would strike him down if he examined the plates or looked at him while he was translating. This is supported by a second-hand source: Charles Anthon's statement regarding the visit of Martin Harris in Eber D. Howe's anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed. Anthon stated:
I adverted once more to the roguery which had been in my opinion practised upon [Harris], and asked him what had become of the gold plates. He informed me that they were in a trunk with the large pair of spectacles. I advised him to go to a magistrate and have the trunk examined. He said the "curse of God" would come upon him should he do this. [157]
In the critical bookMormonism Unvailed, Peter Ingersoll and Sophia Lewis claimed that Joseph told them that anyone who viewed the plates would perish.
Peter Ingersoll was a hostile source. Here is what he claims that Joseph said to him:
...On my entering the house, I found the family at the table eating dinner. They were all anxious to know the contents of my frock. At that moment, I happened to think of what I had heard about a history found in Canada, called the golden Bible; so I very gravely told them it was the golden Bible. To my surprise, they were credulous enough to believe what I said. Accordingly I told them that I had received a commandment to let no one see it, for, says I, no man can see it with the naked eye and live. However, I offered to take out the book and show it to them, but they refuse to see it, and left the room." Now, said Jo, "I have got the damned fools fixed, and will carry out the fun." Notwithstanding, he told me he had no such book, and believed there never was any such book....(emphasis added)[158]
Here we have a statement alleged to have been made by Joseph Smith that "no man can see it with the naked eye and live." However, we also see that, according to Peter Ingersoll, Joseph came up with the entire idea of the "golden bible" on the spur of the moment as a way to have "fun." Then he claims that Joseph confided to him that the plates didn't actually exist at all. There are so many inconsistencies between this story and the statements of numerous other witnesses that one wonders if Peter Ingersoll was the one who was having some "fun" with his audience. Ingersoll can also be discredited on his claim that Joseph made the story up on the spot, because Joseph was telling various people about his Moroni visits well before recovering the plates (see for example various Knight family recollections).
SOPHIA LEWIS, certifies that she "heard a conversation between Joseph Smith, Jr., and the Rev. James B. Roach, in which Smith called Mr. R. a d-----d fool. Smith also said in the same conversation that he (Smith) was as good as Jesus Christ;" and that she "has frequently heard Smith use profane language. She states that she heard Smith say "the Book of Plates could not be opened under penalty of death by any other person but his (Smith's) first-born, which was to be a male." She says she "was present at the birth of this child, and that it was still-born and very much deformed."(emphasis added)[159]
Here we find that not only could the plates not be viewed by another person, but that the only person who could "open" them would be Joseph's first-born child. Sophia Lewis's testimony is suspicious however. Hezekiah M'Kune, Levi Lewis and Sophia Lewis went together to make their depositions before the justice. Their testimonies bear a remarkable similarity and contain the unique claim that Joseph claimed to be "as good as Jesus Christ." This claim is not related by any other individuals who knew the Prophet, suggesting that these three individuals planned and coordinated their story before giving their depositions. [160]
Joseph's wife Emma did not recall any specific threat of destruction associated with the unauthorized viewing of the plates
It is interesting to note that Emma Smith, admittedly much closer to her husband Joseph than the hostile sources previously quoted, never mentioned a penalty for viewing the plates. In fact, in an interview with her son Joseph Smith III in 1879, the following conversation was recorded:
[Joseph Smith III} Q: I should suppose that you would have uncovered the plates and examined them?
[Emma Smith Bidamon] A. I did not attempt to handle the plates, other than I have told you, nor uncover them to look at them. I was satisfied that it was the work of God, and therefore did not feel it to be necessary to do so.
Major Bidamon here suggested: Did Mr. Smith forbid your examining the plates?
[Emma] A. I do not think he did. I knew that he had them, and was not specially curious about them. I moved them from place to place on the table, as it was necessary in doing my work.
[JS III] Q. Mother, what is your belief about the authenticity, or origin, of the Book of Mormon?
[Emma] A. My belief is that the Book of Mormon is of divine authenticity - I have not the slightest doubt of it. I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his scribe, your father would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he could at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him. This was a usual thing for him to do. It would have been improbable that a learned man could do this; and, for one so ignorant and unlearned as he was, it was simply impossible.(emphasis added)[161]
Emma, therefore, did not recall any specific threat of destruction associated with the unauthorized viewing of the plates.
Question: Were the Book of Mormon witnesses not neutral because they were members of the Church and believers in Joseph's mission?
The witnesses did not believe they had seen plates because they believed in the restoration; they believed in the restoration because they had seen plates
It is claimed 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."
The critics have the sequence reversed: the witnesses did not believe they had seen plates because they believed in the restoration; they believed in the restoration because they had seen plates. It would be a strange witness if realizing the Joseph had actual plates and divine aid to translate them did not compel them to become members of the restored gospel.
As Pratt points out above, the Book of Mormon is something about which one cannot be neutral or disinterested—if one is convinced that it is what it claims to be, then this requires action.
Given that many witnesses were subsequently disaffected from Joseph Smith and the Church (some permanently), and yet never denied their witness, this attack has been robbed of much of whatever force it previously had. The disaffected witnesses had many reasons to be "interested" in denouncing Joseph Smith and the faith he founded. Yet, they did not—this argues for the reality of their experience and the sincerity of their witness despite any beliefs they had when they first gave it.
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?
Parley P. Pratt replied to this assertion, which was frequently the main means of dismissing the witnesses in early anti-Mormon writing:
Mr. L. complains of all the witnesses to the Book of Mormon being interested witnesses; that is, they are all followers of, and believers in, that system. But, I enquire, who would be a disinterested witness? If all Christendom were to see the original document, and be convinced of its truth, they would all see the original document, and be convinced of its truth, they would all be as much interested in it as those who first witnessed it. The Lord never chose a disinterested witness of his resurrection or any other truth. Would Mr. L. have a witness who would say the thing is true to be sure, but does not concern me, I purpose never to obey it myself, but to go down to hell, for the sake of giving others a disinterested testimony of its truth? But after all, the first witnesses to the Book of Mormon were not members of this church when they gave their testimony; for there was no such church in existence until some time after their testimony had been published.[162]
Question: How do the witnesses of the Book of Mormon compare to the witnesses of Philemon Stewart's A Holy, Sacred and Divine Roll and Book; From the Lord God of Heaven, to the Inhabitants of Earth?
One critic of the Church asks how we can believe in the Book of Mormon witnesses and not the witnesses to Philemon Stewart's A Holy, Sacred and Divine Roll and Book; From the Lord God of Heaven, to the Inhabitants of Earth (hereafter Holy Roll).[163] The critic mistakenly attributes authorship for the book to Ann Lee: founder of the Shaker movement during the late 1700s.[164] However, "[the book] was written in 1843, and Ann Lee died in 1784. The book came out during a period in Shaker history known as the Era of Manifestations, wherein multiple people claimed visionary experiences and revelations that they believed were being sent to them by Ann Lee, who they believed was a secondary Christ figure. This era occurred between 1837 and the mid-1850s. It was such a confusing time that many members didn’t know what was actual revelation and what was hallucination.[165] Those 'visions' were being used to 'expose sins' of others and force them out of the community[.]"[166] The book "contains moral counsel, biblical quotations, historical observations, and theological reflections, all represented as the product of spirit revelation."[167] One can read the book for free online at this link. Stewart claimed that on May 4, 1842, an angel named Al'sign te're Jah' appeared to him and led him to a fountain named the Holy Fountain at New Lebanon. The fountain was located at a site called Holy Mount where, three days prior on May 1, the Shakers had celebrated the first passover feast. There, Stewart claimed to have scribed the revelation as dictated by the angel over the course of fourteen days for six hours a day. The original version totaled over 400 pages. The first 200 or so pages of the book is the revelation as delivered by the angel. The other 200 or so pages document more than ninety testimonies attesting to the authenticity of the book and other things. The individuals who gave these testimonies claim to have witnessed different things. Some witnesses don't compare at all with what the Book of Mormon witnesses saw while others compare more closely. For instance, eight women give their names and testify that they saw the angel that appeared to Stewart holding the Holy Roll while on top of a house. How should a person claim that the Book of Mormon witnesses are superior to the witnesses to Philemon Stewart's book?
Response to Question
The Divine Roll and Book Fell out of Favor with Leaders, Members, and Witnesses of the Shaker Movement
The first point is made succinctly by Book of Mormon scholar Matthew Roper. He responded back in 1993 to the same criticism as made by Gerald and Sandra Tanner. He wrote:
The Tanners attempt to downplay the significance of the witnesses’ written testimony by noting similarities between it and several nineteenth-century Shaker writings in which some Shaker believers claimed to have seen angels and visions. “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 book. [In Shaker writings,] there are over a hundred pages of testimony from ‘Living Witnesses.’“[168] But the quantity of witnesses has little meaning if those witnesses afterwards admit that they were wrong. Unlike the Book of Mormon, the Shaker Roll and Book afterwards fell into discredit and dishonor among the Shakers themselves and was abandoned by its leaders and most believers,[169] while the Book of Mormon continued to be a vitally important part of Mormon scripture to which each of the witnesses, including Martin Harris, continued to testify, even while outside of the Church.[170]
It should be emphasized that this discredit and skepticism among believers in the Shaker movement was quick. In fact, it started during the printing and publication process of the Holy Roll. The late American religious historian Stephen J. Stein in his book The Shaker Experience in America observes that the Shakers believed that sacred scripture could be produced through revelation of dead spirits (a belief known as spiritualism) to "instruments" or "visionists": mortal people and followers of the Shaker movement. When revelation was claimed to be produced in the name and authority of the instruments or visionists themselves and not the spirits, that revelation's authenticity was questioned. This questioning and skepticism was directed towards Stewart's Holy Roll, "no doubt fueled by personal animosities toward" Stewart himself.[171] Stein observes in another presentation (and probably the best source of information on the Holy Roll) that the Shaker society's leaders accused Stewart of "elevating his own role in the revelation and for soliciting too many testimonies in support of it" as well as "self-enhancement and of a lack of humility." Stewart's book, along with the testimonials of the other visionists attesting to the book's divinity, was published in 1843. Stewart wrote to the ministry at New Lebanon, NY asking them to reprint the Holy Roll in 1848—a request that was not pursued further by the Shakers. Stewart, in time, became a critic of the establishment's leadership and remained so until his death in 1875.[172] In 1874 (31 years after the Holy Roll was published), Charles Nordhoff was told by one of the Shaker elders that the best use for copies of the Holy Roll was to burn them.[173] So whatever the testimony and visitations of these visionists that gave their names to Stewart's revelation were, it apparently wasn't enough to convince them to remain committed to stalwartly defending that testimony. The only one that appears to have remained committed to the book's authenticity was Stewart.
Comparison of the Different Testimonies
When comparing the testimonies of the experiences of the Book of Mormon Witnesses and the Shaker witnesses, Brian Hales offers this easy-to-read chart:
The Shakers are a Now Defunct and Discredited Religious Movement
As author Jim Bennett observed about this criticism:
So we shouldn’t accept the testimony of Book of Mormon witnesses because the Shakers, who no longer exist and who’s central claims have been completely discredited by the passage of time, claimed to see angels? How is that anything but a non sequitur? Each testimony should be evaluated on its own merits. As it stands, the Shakers no longer exist, so I don’t see much value in reviewing their testimonies.[174]
Assuming that the Shaker Testimony is Actually True
Let's assume that the Shaker testimony is true and the Holy Roll actually did have divine origins, does that really impinge on the witnesses credibility? Of course not! That some people claim to see one thing is not evidence that others can't see and experience something different. To say otherwise is just a non-sequitir.
Additionally, Latter-day Saints are open to other people having spiritual manifestations, revelations, and visions in other religions. The prophet Nephi in the Book of Mormon teaches that God has inspired the production of many religious books.[175] Along similar lines, the prophet Alma teaches that “the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true.”[176] Additionally, the Book of Alma teaches that the Spirit of God can be poured out on non-covenant people so that their hearts can be softened and thus prepared to receive the Gospel.[177] Doctrine & Covenants teaches that "we believe religion is instituted of God[.]"[178] Other biblical scriptures clearly indicate that God inspires other groups outside of his covenant group with truth, light, and miracles.[179] A 1978 official statement from the First Presidency of the Church states that "[t]he great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals."[180] Latter-day Saints could accept at least some of the visions of the Shakers without having to feel that any of their theological commitments are being compromised.
Conclusion
It's clear that comparisons between the Book of Mormon witnesses and the witnesses to Philemon Stewart's book intended to discredit the former are likely going to be guilty of the false equivalency logical fallacy. Even if we are to accept the truthfulness of what the Shaker witnesses claimed, it does not need to be threatening in any way to the credibility of the Book of Mormon witnesses nor any of the theological commitments held by orthodox Latter-day Saints.
Richard Anderson: All eleven Book of Mormon witnesses publicly reaffirmed their testimony as printed
Richard Anderson described multiple accounts of all the Witnesses bearing testimony and reaffirming their published testimony:[181]
The three Smiths who formally gave their names as seeing and handling the plates were the Prophet's father, Joseph Smith, Sr.; the Prophet's older brother, Hyrum; and his immediately younger brother, Samuel Harrison. They sometimes joined the other Book of Mormon witnesses to reaffirm their testimony printed in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon regarding lifting and turning the leaves of the plates. After quoting the published statements of the Three and Eight Witnesses, and describing the experience of the latter group, Lucy Smith relates, "The ensuing evening, we held a meeting, in which all the witnesses bore testimony to the facts as stated above."[182] Two years later, in the period of dynamic preaching of the early elders, a conference was held near Cleveland, Ohio, remembered by Luke Johnson as follows: "At this conference the eleven witnesses to the Book of Mormon, with uplifted hands, bore their solemn testimony to the truth of that book, as did also the Prophet Joseph."[183]
Question: Did the Witnesses who left the Church continue to maintain their witness of the Book of Mormon?
All of the Three Witnesses and three of the Eight Witnesses left the Church in 1838 and were hostile, at least for a time, against Joseph Smith. Yet, they clung to their witness and continued to affirm it
Three Witnesses
Oliver Cowdery
Oliver would later return to the Church and seek rebaptism.
During his estrangement from the Church, he insisted upon his witness as true.
David Whitmer never returned to the Church, but left an extensive record validating his testimony. When Thomas B. Marsh, an excommunicated apostle, approached Whitmer and Cowdery to learn "the real truth" about the Book of Mormon (since they, like him, were now excommunicated and hostile to it) Marsh reported:
I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to his testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book. I asked him, if so, how did he not stand by Joseph? He answered, in the days when Joseph received the Book of Mormon, and brought it forth, he was a good man filled with the Holy Ghost, but he considered he had now fallen. I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.[184]
Hiram Page never returned to the Church, but continued to bear his witness. Even when approached by the excommunicated William McLellin, Page replied:
As to the Book of Mormon, it would be doing injustice to myself, and to the work of God of the last days, to say that I could know a thing to be true in 1830, and know the same thing to be false in 1847.[185]
John Whitmer never returned to the Church, but maintained his testimony as the second-longest lived witness (after his brother David Whitmer).
When asked how he could leave in view of his testimony of the plates' literal reality, John rationalized his choice to disbelieve the translation of the Book of Mormon (despite knowing that the plates were literal and physical):
I cannot read it, and I do not know whether it is true or not.[186]
Whitmer would not, then, deny what he had seen and hefted, even when estranged from Joseph and the Church.
After leaving the Church, John said:
It may not be amiss in this place, to give a statement to the world concerning the work of the Lord, as I have been a member of this church of Latter Day Saints from its beginning; to say that the book of Mormon is a revelation from God, I have no hesitancy; but with all confidence have signed my named to it as such; and I hope, that my patrons will indulge me in speaking freely on this subject, as I am about leaving the editorial department. Therefore I desire to testify to all that will come to the knowledge of this address; that I have most assuredly seen the plates from whence the book of Mormon is translated, and that I have handled these plates, and know of a surety that Joseph Smith, jr. has translated the book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, and in this thing the wisdom of the wise most assuredly has perished: therefore, know ye, O ye inhabitants of the earth, wherever this address may come, that I have in this thing freed my garments of your blood, whether you believe or disbelieve the statements of your unworthy friend and well-wisher.[187]
Question: What did the Book of Mormon witnesses say about the faithfulness of other witnesses?
Some Book of Mormon witnesses emphasized that they had never renounced their testimony, and insisted that they had never heard other witnesses do so either.
John Whimter: "I have never heard that any one of the three, or eight witnesses ever denied the testimony that they have borne to the Book as published in the first edition of the Book of Mormon."[188]
David H. Cannon: The thing which impressed me most of all was, as we stood beside the grave of Oliver Cowdery the other Witness, who had come back into the Church before his death, and [David Whitmer] in describing Oliver[']s action, when bearing his testimony, said to the people in his room, placing his hands like this upon his head, saying 'I know the Gospel to be true and upon this head has Peter[,] James and John laid their hands and confer[r]ed the Holy Melchisedic Priesthood.' [189]
David Whitmer, interview with James H. Hart: "Mr Whitmer felt very indignant while speaking of certain statements published recently to the effect that he and Oliver Cowdery had denied their statement as published in the Book of Mormon. This he denounced as false in every particular. He said: "Oliver never wavered in his testimony, and when he was on his death bed, I was there, with many of his friends, until he passed away. He bore the same testimony on his dying bed that he had always borne through life, and earnestly called upon all to cleave to the truth revealed through the Prophet Joseph, and to serve the Lord. As for myself, I have never denied my testimony that is published in the Book of Mormon, for I know that God has revealed these things for the salvation of the children of men, and to Him belongs all the honor, the power and the glory."[190]
Said Oliver Cowdery of a testimony by John Whitmer: "A thousand things may be conjectured, but when a man declares openly, candidly, and seriously, of what he has seen, hefted and handled with his own hands, and taht in the presence of a God who sees and knows the secrets of the heart, no man possessed of common reason and common sense, can doubt, or will be so vain as to dispute."[191]
"By 1847 not a single one of the surviving eleven witnesses was part of the LDS Church"
MormonThink states...
"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 Response
Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The Witnesses
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 harshly criticized 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 eighth 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 those groups' 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 presumed 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? And, how is it that they could write "their own account?" Don't you think their inability to read or write might make them vulnerable to having Hurlbut or others influence what was written in their names? The three and eight witnesses could all read and write.
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?
Spalding manuscript—It is claimed 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)
"There are many witnesses to James Strang's claim of having unearthed metal plates which he translated into scripture"
MormonThink states...
"There are many witnesses to James Strang's claim of having unearthed metal plates which he translated into scripture."
Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The Witnesses
Question: Who was James Strang?
Photo of James J. Strang, 1856, taken just before his death by one of those who plotted his murder.
James Strang claimed that Joseph wrote a letter appointing him as president of the Church after Joseph's death
James Jesse Strang was a Latter-day Saint leader in Nauvoo who established a breakaway Mormon sect after the murder of Joseph Smith, Jr.
After Joseph Smith was murdered, there were several claimants to his role as leader and prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (see Succession in the Presidency of the Church). One of these was James Strang, a recent convert to the church. Several prominent families, including many members of Joseph's family accepted Strang's claims, which were based on a letter which Strang said Joseph had written appointing him as President of the church should Joseph Smith be killed. Along with the letter, Strang claimed that an angel had ordained him to the office of prophet immediately following Joseph's death.
Strang's group is formally called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (no hyphen, different capitalization) but Strang's church and his followers are commonly called "Strangites."
Strang and his associates settled for several years on Beaver Island in Lake Michigan, where he was pronounced king. Strang, who was an almost pathological overachiever, was also a lawyer, land developer, news correspondent for the New York Tribune, and a scientist for the Smithsonian Institution.
Strang was killed in 1856 by some of his disaffected followers at Beaver Island. Following his death his movement started to disband. Today there are less than 500 Strangite members, living mostly in Michigan and Wisconsin.
James Strang's Letter of Appointment
Strang's claimed letter of appointment has received a lot of attention from scholars for obvious reasons. There are a few things in dispute about the document. The first is that the wording of the document is somewhat ambiguous. The document seems to only appoint Strang as the president of the newly created Voree Stake in Wisconsin. Strang's son Charles Strang was among those who believed this.[192] Another thing is that the letter is purportedly from Joseph Smith but the document is written in all capitals--uncharacteristic of Joseph's handwriting. Though Joseph Smith likely would have used letter-writing services like scriveners being in a position of leadership in the Church, and outside authorities do not dispute the authenticity of the wording of the document as characteristic of Joseph's education and style.[193] The last thing in dispute of its authenticity is Joseph Smith's signature at the end of it. The difficulty there is that even if the signature were not penned by Joseph, it would not inherently cast doubt on the authenticity of the document since he frequently allowed others to sign for him and it is therefore difficult to know which signature is. The strongest point against the document is therefore its ambiguity.
James Strang's Letter of Appointment Page 1James Strang's Letter of Appointment Page 3
How does he compare to Joseph Smith?
Many have wondered how James Strang might be different from Joseph Smith. There are several ways in which they differ and it is important to know these differences, for "by their fruits ye shall know them" (Matthew 7:20) and the differences can tell us more about the intentions of each person involved in the succession crisis.
Chart credit: Brian Hales
Are his claims to angelic ordination valid?
Strang famously claimed that he was ordained by an angel to be successor to Joseph Smith. But the Doctrine and Covenants does not, contrary to Strang's claim, state that one must be ordained by an angel to be a successor.
Question: Of what did the Strangite witnesses testify?
Four witnesses who testified that they themselves had dug the Voree Plates from the ground where Strang said that they would be discovered
It is claimed that break-off sects like James Strang's produced eyewitnesses of buried records, and that because of this, Joseph's ability to produce witnesses is neither surprising nor persuasive.
We should not lose sight of what it was to which the Strangite witnesses bore their testimony. [194] In a manner clearly intended to replicate the Three and the Eight Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, J. J. Strang produced four witnesses who testified that they themselves had dug the Voree Plates from the ground where he said that they would be discovered. Their detailed written testimony was used by Strang in the Voree Herald, January 1846; Zion's Reveille, 1 April 1847; and Gospel Herald, 4 May 1848 and reads as follows:
On the thirteenth day of September, 1845, we, Aaron Smith, Jirah B. Wheelan, James M. Van Nostrand, and Edward Whitcomb, assembled at the call of James J. Strang, who is by us and many others approved as a Prophet and Seer of God. He proceeded to inform us that it had been revealed to him in a vision that an account of an ancient people was buried in a hill south of White River bridge, near the east line of Walworth County; and leading us to an oak tree about one foot in diameter, told us that we would find it enclosed in a case of rude earthen ware under that tree at the depth of about three feet; requested us to dig it up, and charged us to so examine the ground that we should know we were not imposed upon, and that it had not been buried there since the tree grew. The tree was surrounded by a sward of deeply rooted grass, such as is usually found in the openings, and upon the most critical examination we could not discover any indication that it had ever been cut through or disturbed.
We then dug up the tree, and continued to dig to the depth of about three feet, where we found a case of slightly baked clay containing three plates of brass. On one side of one is a landscape view of the south end of Gardner's prairie and the range of hills where they were dug. On another is a man with a crown on his head and a scepter in his hand, above is an eye before an upright line, below the sun and moon surrounded with twelve stars, at the bottom are twelve large stars from three of which pillars arise, and closely interspersed with them are seventy very small stars. The other four sides are very closely covered with what appear to be alphabetic characters, but in a language of which we have no knowledge.
The case was found imbedded in indurated clay so closely fitting it that it broke in taking out, and the earth below the soil was so hard as to be dug with difficulty even with a pickax. Over the case was found a flat stone about one foot wide each way and three inches thick, which appeared to have undergone the action of fire, and fell in pieces after a few minutes exposure to the air. The digging extended in the clay about eighteen inches, there being two kinds of earth of different color and appearance above it.
We examined as we dug all the way with the utmost care, and we say, with utmost confidence, that no part of the earth through which we dug exhibited any sign or indication that it had been moved or disturbed at any time previous. The roots of the tree stuck down on every side very closely, extending below the case, and closely interwoven with roots from other trees. None of them had been broken or cut away. No clay is found in the country like that of which the case is made.
In fine, we found an alphabetic and pictorial record, carefully cased up, buried deep in the earth, covered with a flat stone, with an oak tree one foot in diameter growing over it, with every evidence that the sense can give that it has lain there as long as that tree has been growing. Strang took no part in the digging, but kept entirely away from before the first blow was struck till after the plates were taken out of the case; and the sole inducement to our digging was our faith in his statement as a Prophet of the Lord that a record would thus and there be found.[195]
Question: What are the differences between the Strangite witness statements and those of the Three and Eight Witnesses to the Book of Mormon?
Strang's witnesses saw nothing supernatural
No one doubts that Strang had a set of a few very small metallic plates in his possession, or that they were removed from the earth in the manner reported above. In that sense, there would be nothing for his witnesses to deny.
Wrote Daniel C. Peterson in "Defending the Faith: The story behind James Strang and his sect," Deseret News (9 June 2011) off-site
The two sets of inscribed plates that Strang claimed to have found in Wisconsin and Michigan beginning in 1845 almost certainly existed. Milo Quaife's early, standard biography of Strang reflects that, while Strang's angelic visitations "may have had only a subjective existence in the brain of the man who reported them, the metallic plates possessed a very material objective reality."
And they were almost certainly forgeries.
The first set, the three "Voree" or "Rajah Manchou" plates, were dug up by four "witnesses" whom Strang had taken to the plates' burial place. Illustrated and inscribed on both sides, the Rajah Manchou plates were roughly 1.5 by 2.75 inches in size — small enough to fit in the palm of a hand or to carry in a pocket.[196]
Some of Strang's witnesses later repudiated their testimonies, and one witness later admitted helping to fabricate the plates
Ex-strangite Isaac Scott, who was once a leader in the Strangite Church, stated that Caleb P. Barnes told him that he and Strang had actually fabricated the plates. According to Scott, the men,
made the 'plates' out of Ben [Perce]'s old kettle and engraved them with an old saw file, and ... when completed they put acid on them to corrode them and give them an ancient appearance; and that to deposit them under the tree, where they were found, they took a large auger ... which Ben [Perce] owned, put a fork handle on the auger and with it bored a long slanting hole under a tree on 'The Hill of Promise,' as they called it, laying the earth in a trail on a cloth as taken out, then put the 'plates' in, tamping in all the earth again, leaving no trace of their work visible. [197]
Peterson continues:
Among the many who saw them was Stephen Post, who reported that they were brass and, indeed, that they resembled the French brass used in familiar kitchen kettles. "With all the faith & confidence that I could exercise," he wrote, "all that I could realize was that Strang made the plates himself, or at least that it was possible that he made them." One source reports that most of the four witnesses to the Rajah Manchou plates ultimately repudiated their testimonies.
The 18 "Plates of Laban," likewise of brass and each about 7.5 by 9 inches, were first mentioned in 1849 and were seen by seven witnesses in 1851. These witnesses' testimony was published as a preface to "The Book of the Law of the Lord," which Strang said he derived from the "Plates of Laban." (He appears to have begun the "translation" at least as early as April 1849. An 84-page version appeared in 1851; by 1856, it had reached 350 pages.) Strang's witnesses report seeing the plates, but mention nothing miraculous. Nor did Strang supply any additional supporting testimony comparable to that of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon.
One of the witnesses to the "Plates of Laban," Samuel P. Bacon, eventually denied the inspiration of Strang's movement and denounced it as mere "human invention." Another, Samuel Graham, later claimed that he had actually assisted Strang in the creation of the plates.[198]
Chauncy Loomis reports that Samuel Graham described how the Plates of Laban were fabricated, and Samuel Bacon finds remnants of the plates hidden in Strang's ceiling
Chauncy Loomis, in a letter to Joseph Smith III dated 10 Nov. 1888 and published in the Saint's Herald, talked of a conversation that he had with George Adams. Adams described how Strang had asked him to dress in a long white robe and use phosphorous to impersonate an angel. Adams also reported that Samuel Graham talked about how he and Strang fabricated the Plates of Laban. Loomis reported that Samuel Bacon discovered fragments of the plates hidden in the ceiling of Strang's house, and then left the Strangite Church.
At this time George [Adams] was gone from the island on some business. When he returned and saw how things were going he left the island with his family. I saw him and wife after this on Mackinaw Island. He said to me, “Brother Loomis, I always thought you to be an honest man, but you are like poor dog Tray; you have been caught in bad company, and now my advice to you is to leave the island, for I tell you Strang is not a prophet of God. I consider him to be a self-confessed imposter. Strang wanted me to get a couple of bottles of phosphoros and dress myself in a long white robe and appear on the highest summit on the island, called Mount Pisgah, break the bottles, make an illumination and blow a trumpet and disappear so that he might make it appear that an angel had made them a visit; that it might beget faith in the Saint.” I said to him, “Brother Adams, how is it that you deny the testimony given by you so long ago, that you knew Strang was a prophet of God?” “Well, brother Loomis, I will tell you: I was in the spirit of Strang then.” I have since thought that if he ever spoke the truth it was then. I speak of these things that you may see how we were Strang led. I was in the spirit of Strang and foretold some things that would befall us which never came to pass; but I believe that myself and another brother at one time had the Spirit of God, for we prophesied that Strang would be killed, and the Saints would be driven from the island, which truly did come to pass. I shall now make some statement in regard to others who were the chief men of the kingdom. Bro. Samuel Graham, I think, president of the Twelve, declared that he and Strang made those plates that Strang claimed to translate the Book of the Law from. But they in the first place prepared the plates and coated them with beeswax and then formed the letters and cut them in with a pen knife and then exhibited them to the rest of the Twelve. The facts were Graham apostatized and left the island, taking his family and Strang’s first wife, Mary, with him to Voree, Wisconsin. At this time Strang was at Detroit, Michigan. His wife never returned to him; he had four others besides and some concubines. Bro. Samuel Bacon says that in repairing Strang’s house he found hid behind the ceiling the fragments of those plates which Strang made the Book of the Law from. He turned infidel and left the island. [198]
Image of page 719 of the Saint's Herald dated 10 Nov. 1888.
Peterson concludes,
"We can hardly escape the conclusion," writes Quaife, "that Strang knowingly fabricated and planted them for the purpose of duping his credulous followers" and, accordingly, that "Strang's prophetic career was a false and impudent imposture." A more recent biographer, Roger Van Noord, concludes that "based on the evidence, it is probable that Strang — or someone under his direction — manufactured the letter of appointment and the brass plates to support his claim to be a prophet and to sell land at Voree. If this scenario is correct, Strang's advocacy of himself as a prophet was more than suspect, but no psychological delusion."
Thus, Strang's plates were much less numerous than those of the Book of Mormon, his witnesses saw nothing supernatural and his translation required the better part of a decade rather than a little more than two months. (Quite unlike the semi-literate Joseph Smith, Strang was well-read. He had been an editor and lawyer before his involvement with Mormonism.) Perhaps most strikingly, unlike the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, some (at least) of Strang's witnesses later denied their testimonies.
The contrasts work very much in Joseph Smith's favor.[199]
In summary, Strang and his witnesses:
had no supernatural component to their witness
had fewer plates in his possession
took the better part of 10 years to complete his translation project
had one who later denounced his project as mere "human invention"
had one who later confessed to helping fabricate the plates
The collective testimony of the Book of Mormon Witnesses is, in terms of its evidentiary value and strength, far more challenging to critics than is the testimony of James J. Strang's witnesses.
Question: Did Joseph Smith's family and other Book of Mormon witnesses support James Strang's movement after Joseph's death?
Introduction to Question
It is claimed by one critic of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that "[e]very single living Book of Mormon witness besides Oliver Cowdery accepted Strang's prophetic claim of being Joseph Smith's successor and joined him and his church. Additionally, every single member of Joseph Smith's family except for Hyrum's widow also endorsed, joined, and sustained James Strang as 'Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.'"[200]
Response to Question
This claim was thoroughly addressed by David Snell—host of the Faith and Beliefs segment of the YouTube channel Saints Unscripted.
↑Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 74. ISBN 0877478465.
↑Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 74. ISBN 0877478465.
↑David Whitmer, interview with Chicago Times (August 1875); cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:23.
↑David Whitmer, Proclamation, 19 March 1881; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:69.
↑David Whitmer, Interview with Chicago Tribune, 23 January 1888, printed in "An Old Mormon's Closing Hours," Chicago Tribune (24 January 1888); cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:209.
↑David Whitmer, Interview, "The Last Witness Dead! David Whitmer, the aged Patria[r]ch, Gone to His Rest. His Parting Injunction to His Family and Friends. He Departs in Peace," Richmond (MO) Democrat (26 January 1888); cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:211.
↑Jeremy Runnells "Debunking FAIR's Debunking (Debunking FairMormon) July 2014 Revision; The omnibus title of the document in question is "Document Containing the Correspondence, Orders, &C. in Relation to the Disturbances with the Mormons; And the Evidence Given Before the Hon. Austin A. King, Judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri, at the Court-House in Richmond, in a Criminal Court of Inquiry, Begun November 12, 1838, on the Trial of Joseph Smith, Jr., and Others, for High Treason and Other Crimes Against the State" (Fayette, MO: Boon’s Lick Democrat, 1841), 103–7
↑For a discussion of these documents, see Stanley B. Kimball, “Missouri Mormon Manuscripts: Sources in Selected Societies,” BYU Studies 14, no. 4 (Summer 1974): 458–87.
↑Joseph Smith "The Prophet's Letter to the Church" 16 December 1838 in History of the Church Vol 3: Ch 15: P 226 (ed.) Brigham H. Roberts off-site
↑Jeremy Runnells, Debunking FairMormon under "Witnesses"
↑Letter of David Whitmer to Anthony Metcalf, March 1887. Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years Before the Mast (Malad, Indiana: 1888): 73-4; in David Whitmer Interviews. A Restoration Witness. Lyndon W. Cook, Editor (Grandin Books, Orem, Utah, 1991): 246-7 Quoted in Early Mormon Documents 5:193. Also quoted in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), p. 86.
↑Interview with Joseph Smith III et al. (Richmond, Missouri, July 1884), originally published in The Saints' Herald (28 January 1936) and reprinted in Cook, ed., David Whitmer Interviews, 134—35, emphasis in the original. Cited in Daniel C. Peterson, "Not Joseph's, and Not Modern," in Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, edited by Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and John W. Welch, (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2002), Chapter 2, references silently removed—consult original for citations. Also quoted in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), p. 88.
↑Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 74. ISBN 0877478465.
↑Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 74. ISBN 0877478465.
↑Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 88. ISBN 0877478465.
↑McLellin to Cobb, 14 August 1880; cited by Larry C. Porter, "The Odyssey of William Earl McLellin: Man of Diversity, 1806–83," in The Journals of William E. McLellin, 1831–1836, edited by Jan Shipps and John W. Welch (Urbana: Brigham Young University Studies and University of Illinois Press, 1994), 296. ISBN 0842523162.
↑Richmond Conservator Report (26 January 1888); quoted in Lyndon W. Cook ed., David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness (Grandin Book Company, 1993), 226.
↑Richmond Democrat 16/6 (2 February 1888), quoted in Eldin Ricks, The Case of the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1971), 16.
↑"David Whitmer Proclamation, 19 March 1881," quoted in Early Mormon Documents 5:69.
↑David Whitmer, to Robert Nelson, 15 February 1887, Richmond, Missouri, David Whitmer Papers, Community of Christ Library-Archives; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:225.
↑David Whitmer, Interview with Franklin D. Richards and Charles C. Richards, 22 May 1885; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:224.
↑David Whitmer, to Sister Gates, 11 February 1887, Richmond, Missouri, David Whitmer Papers, Community of Christ Library-Archives; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:224-225.
↑David Whitmer, interview with St. Louis Republican 77 (16 July 1884): 7; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:132.
↑David Whitmer to Mark H. Frorscutt, 2 March 1875, Scrapbook, 16-17; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:219.
↑David Whitmer, Interview with Joseph Smith III and others on 4 April 1882, Saints' Herald 29 (1 May 1882): 141; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:221.
↑"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," November 1857; printed in Deseret News (24 March 1858) and Millennial Star 26 (1864): 406; cited in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 56-57. ISBN 0877478465.
↑David Whitmer in letter to James N. Seymond, cited in Saints' Herald 26 (15 July 1879): 223-24; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:219.
↑David Whitmer, to Heman C. Smith, 5 December 1876, Community of Christ LIbrary-Archives; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:219.
↑David Whitmer, Proclamation, 19 March 1881; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:69.
↑David Whitmer, interview with Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith, 7-8 September 1878; Joseph F. Smith, Diary, 7-8 September 1878, Church Archives; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:44.
↑David Whitmer, interview with Jonas W. Chatburn, Saints' Herald (15 June 1882): 189; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:94.
↑David Whitmer, reported by B.H. Roberts, Contributor 9 (March 1888): 169 and Millennial Star 50 (20 February 1888): 120; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:223-224.
↑David Whitmer, interview with James H. Hart on 21 August 1883, Journal-Notebook, 21 August 1883, Special Collections and Manuscripts, Harold B. Lee Library, BYU ; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:96.
↑David Whitmer, interview with James H. Hart on 10 March 1884, Letter to Deseret News (18 March 1884); cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:105.
↑David Whitmer, Interview with E.C. Briggs, 1884; recorded in E.C. Briggs to Joseph Smith III, 4 June 1884, Saints' Herald 31 (21 June 1884): 396-97; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:121.
↑David Whitmer, Interview with Edwin G. Woolley, Diary, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:221.
↑David Whitmer, to S. T. Mouch, 18 November 1882, Richmond, Missouri, Whitmer Papers, Communty of Christ LIbrary-Archives; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:222.
↑David Whitmer, interview with J. Frank McDowell on 8 May 1884, Saints' Herald 31 (9 August 1884): 508; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:223.
↑Brent Lee Metcalfe, "Apologetic and Critical Assumptions About Book of Mormon Historicity," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 26 no. 3 (Fall 1993), 176–177.
↑Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 3:18–19. Volume 3 link
↑Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 3:18–19, cited in footnote 3. Volume 3 link
↑Bushman discusses the threats against the apostates, and their decision to flee, in Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), 350–351.
↑Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), 342–372.
↑William E. McLellin, journal, 18 July 1831, reproduced in The Journals of William E. McLellin, 1831–1836, edited by Jan Shipps and John W. Welch (Urbana: Brigham Young University Studies and University of Illinois Press, 1994), 29. ISBN 0842523162..
↑Deseret News 21/37 (Wednesday, 16 October 1872): 557d.
↑David Whitmer, interview with Chicago Times (August 1875); cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:21-22.
↑David Whitmer, interview with Chicago Times (August 1875); cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:23.
↑David Whitmer to Mark H. Frorscutt, 2 March 1875, Scrapbook, 16-17; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:219.
↑David Whitmer, reported by Thomas Wood Smith to the Editor, Fall River (MA) Herald, 28 March 1879; reprinted in the Saints' Herald 26 (15 April 1879): 128; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:26.
↑David Whitmer, to Heman C. Smith, 5 December 1876, Community of Christ LIbrary-Archives; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:219.
↑David Whitmer, in Edward Stevenson, Journal, 14:10-18, entry of 22-23 December 1877, Church Archives (spelling, capitalization, and punctuation modernized and corrected); cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:29.
↑David Whitmer, in Edward Stevenson, letter to Salt Lake Herald (21 January 1878); cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:34.
↑David Whitmer interview with P. Wilhelm Poulson, circa April 1878, letter to the editor, Deseret Evening News (16 August 1878); cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:38-39.
↑David Whitmer, interview with Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith, 7-8 September 1878; Joseph F. Smith, Diary, 7-8 September 1878, Church Archives; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:43-44.
↑David Whitmer, interview with Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith, 7-8 September 1878; Joseph F. Smith, Diary, 7-8 September 1878, Church Archives; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:44.
↑David Whitmer, interview with Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith, 7-8 September 1878; Joseph F. Smith, Diary, 7-8 September 1878, Church Archives; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:44.
↑David Whitmer, J.L. Traughber to the editor, 13 October 1879, Saints' Herald 26 (15 November 1879): 341; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:58.
↑David Whitmer in letter to James N. Seymond, cited in Saints' Herald 26 (15 July 1879): 223-24; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:219.
↑David Whitmer, Proclamation, 19 March 1881; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:69.
↑David Whitmer, Interview with Kansas City Journal (1 June 1881); cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:77.
↑David Whitmer, Interview with Chicago Times (14 October 1881); cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:85.
↑David Whitmer, Interview with William H. Kelley and George A. Blakeslee, 15 December 1881; published in William H. Kelley to the Editor, 16 January 1882, Saints' Herald 29 (1 March 1882): 68-69; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:91-92.
↑David Whitmer, interview with Jonas W. Chatburn, Saints' Herald (15 June 1882): 189; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:94.
↑David Whitmer, Interview with Joseph Smith III and others on 4 April 1882, Saints' Herald 29 (1 May 1882): 141; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:221.
↑David Whitmer, to S. T. Mouch, 18 November 1882, Richmond, Missouri, Whitmer Papers, Communty of Christ LIbrary-Archives; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:222.
↑David Whitmer, interview with James H. Hart on 21 August 1883, Journal-Notebook, 21 August 1883, Special Collections and Manuscripts, Harold B. Lee Library, BYU ; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:96.
↑David Whitmer, interview with James H. Hart on 21 August 1883, Letter to Deseret News (23 August 1883); cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:97.
↑Interview with Joseph Smith III et al. (Richmond, Missouri, July 1884), originally published in The Saints' Herald (28 January 1936) and reprinted in Cook, ed., David Whitmer Interviews, 134—35, emphasis in the original. Cited in Daniel C. Peterson, "Not Joseph's, and Not Modern," in Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, edited by Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and John W. Welch, (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2002), Chapter 2, references silently removed—consult original for citations. Also quoted in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 88. ISBN 0877478465.
↑David Whitmer, interview with J. Frank McDowell on 8 May 1884, Saints' Herald 31 (9 August 1884): 508; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:223.
↑David Whitmer, interview with James H. Hart on 10 March 1884, Letter to Deseret News (18 March 1884); cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:105.
↑David Whitmer, Interview with George Q. Cannon, Journal, 27 February 1884, Church Archives; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:113.
↑David Whitmer, Interview with E.C. Briggs, 1884; recorded in E.C. Briggs to Joseph Smith III, 4 June 1884, Saints' Herald 31 (21 June 1884): 396-97; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:121.
↑David Whitmer, interview with St. Louis Republican 77 (16 July 1884): 7; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:132.
↑David Whitmer, Interview with Unknown Reporter, around July 1884, unidentified and undated newspaper clipping, William H. Samson, Scrapbook, 18:76-77, Rochester Public Library, Local History ROom, Rochester, New York; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:134.
↑David Whitmer, to E.C. Brand, 8 February 1885 in Kingston [Missouri] Times (23 December 1887); cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:224.
↑David Whitmer, Interview with Franklin D. Richards and Charles C. Richards, 22 May 1885; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:224.
↑David Whitmer, interview with Edward Stevenson, Journal, 24:30-37, entry of 9 February 1886, Church Archives (spelling, capitalization, and punctuation modernized); original cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:160.
↑David Whitmer, interview with Nathan Tanner, Jr., Journal, 13 May 1886, [50-61], Church Archives; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:166.
↑David Whitmer, Interview with Edward Stevenson, Journal, 28:123-130, entry of 2 January 1887, Church Archives (spelling, capitalization, and punctuation modernized); original cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:187.
↑David Whitmer, to Sister Gates, 11 February 1887, Richmond, Missouri, David Whitmer Papers, Community of Christ Library-Archives; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:224-225.
↑David Whitmer, to Robert Nelson, 15 February 1887, Richmond, Missouri, David Whitmer Papers, Community of Christ Library-Archives; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:225.
↑David Whitmer, to Anthony Metcalf, 2 April 1887; printed in A[nthony] Metcalf, Ten Years before the Mast ([Malad City, Idaho]: n.p. [1888]), 73-74, italics in original; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:193.
↑David Whitmer, reported by B.H. Roberts, Contributor 9 (March 1888): 169 and Millennial Star 50 (20 FEbruary 1888): 120; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:223-224.
↑David Whitmer, Interview with Edwin G. Woolley, Diary, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:221.
↑Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 74. ISBN 0877478465.
↑Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 74. ISBN 0877478465.
↑McLellin to Cobb, 14 August 1880; cited by Larry C. Porter, "The Odyssey of William Earl McLellin: Man of Diversity, 1806–83," in The Journals of William E. McLellin, 1831–1836, edited by Jan Shipps and John W. Welch (Urbana: Brigham Young University Studies and University of Illinois Press, 1994), 296. ISBN 0842523162.
↑Richmond Conservator Report (26 January 1888); quoted in Lyndon W. Cook ed., David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness (Grandin Book Company, 1993), 226.
↑Richmond Democrat 16/6 (2 February 1888), quoted in Eldin Ricks, The Case of the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1971), 16.
↑David Whitmer, interview with Nathan Tanner, Jr., Letter to Nathan A. Tanner, 17 February 1909, typed copy, Church Archives; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:170.
↑David H. Cannon, Autobiography, 13 March 1917, p. 5; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:218.
↑David Whitmer, cited by Joseph F. Smith, Brian H. Stuy (editor), Collected Discourses: Delivered by Wilford Woodruff, his two counselors, the twelve apostles, and others, 1868–1898, 5 vols., (Woodland Hills, Utah: B.H.S. Publishing, 1987–1989), 2:1987-1982. [Discourse given on 21 February 1892.] ; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:220.
↑Parley P. Pratt, A Reply to...“Complete Failure,”...and...“Mormonism Exposed,” (Manchester: W. R. Thomas, 1840), 1-9. off-siteFull title
↑Daniel C. Peterson, "Not Joseph's, and Not Modern," in Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, edited by Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and John W. Welch, (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2002), Chapter 2, references silently removed—consult original for citations.
↑"I.C. Funn," [John Whitmer Testimony], Kingston (MO) Sentinel, ca. January 1878, reprinted in Saints' Herald 25 (15 February 1878): 57; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:245.
↑David Whitmer, interview with James H. Hart on 21 August 1883, Journal-Notebook, 21 August 1883, Special Collections and Manuscripts, Harold B. Lee Library, BYU ; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:96.
↑George Godfrey, “Testimony of Martin Harris,” from an unpublished manuscript copy in the possession of his daughter, Florence (Godfrey) Munson of Fielding, Utah; quoted in Eldin Ricks, The Case of the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1971), 65–66. Also cited in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 117. ISBN 0877478465.
↑"Letter from General W.H. Gibson," Seneca Advertiser (Tiffin, Ohio) (12 April 1892); cited in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 40. ISBN 0877478465.
↑Milwaukee Sentinel (13 April 1848); cited in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 44. ISBN 0877478465.
↑Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 44. ISBN 0877478465.
↑David Whitmer, responding to John Murphy, "David Whitmer Proclamation, 19 March 1881," quoted in Early Mormon Documents 5:69
↑Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, in letter dated 29 November 1829, quoted in Corenlius C. Blatchly, "THE NEW BIBLE, written on plates of Gold or Brass," Gospel Luminary 2/49 (10 Dec. 1829): 194.
↑Andrew Jenson, Latter-Day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia: A Compilation of Biographical Sketches of Prominent Men and Women in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 4 vols., (Salt Lake City, A. Jenson History Co., 1901; reprinted Salt Lake City, Utah : Greg Kofford Books, 2003), 1:246.
↑George Godfrey, “Testimony of Martin Harris,” from an unpublished manuscript copy in the possession of his daughter, Florence (Godfrey) Munson of Fielding, Utah; quoted in Eldin Ricks, The Case of The Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1971), 65–66.
↑Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 137-138. ISBN 0877478465.
↑Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations (Liverpool, S.W. Richards, 1853), 141.
↑Emma Smith, The Saints’ Herald, 26:290; Michael H. MacKay and Gerrit Dirkmaat, From Darkness unto Light: Joseph Smith’s Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2015), 15.
↑William Smith, William Smith on Mormonism (Lamoni, IA: Herald Steam Book and Job Office, 1883), 5–12. Quoted in Larry E. Morris, A Documentary History of the Book of Mormon (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), 153–56.
↑Smith, "Old Soldier," 643–44. See also Matthew B. Brown, Plates of Gold: The Book of Mormon Comes Forth (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2003), 48.
↑Journal of Discourses, 7:164. Quoted in H. Donl Peterson, Moroni: Ancient Prophet, Modern Messenger (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000), 165.
↑John D. Lee, Mormonism Unveiled (St. Louis: Bryan, 1877), 184. Quoted in Peterson, Moroni, 165–66.
↑Lucy Mack Smith, The Revised and Enhanced History of Joseph Smith by His Mother, eds. Scot Facer Proctor and Maureen Jensen Proctor (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996), 152–53. Quoted in Peterson, Moroni, 167. It is unclear from the account whether this was a dream as experienced by Harris or an actual appearance of an angel that Harris may have thought was a dream.
↑Harrison Burgess, “Sketch of a Well Spent Life,” Labors in the Vineyard (Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1884), 65–66. Quoted in Peterson, Moroni, 170.
↑ “Early Days of Mormonism,” Chenango Union, Apr. 12, 1877. Quoted in Larry E. Morris, “Empirical Witnesses of the Gold Plates,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 52, no. 2 (Summer 2019): 67.
↑William Shepard and H. Michael Marquardt, Lost Apostles: Forgotten Members of Mormonism’s Original Quorum of Twelve (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2014), 42.
↑Stokely’s comments were originally published in the Western Press (Mercer County, Pennsylvania), though no copies of that paper seem to be extant. But his report was subsequently republished as “The Mormonites” on page two of The American Sentinel for 25 February 1832, and then as “The Orators of Mormon” in Catholic Telegraph (Cincinnati) on 14 April 1832, on pages 204–05. Emphasis in original.
↑Edward W. Tullidge, “Biographies,” in Tullidge’s Histories: Containing the History of All the Northern, Eastern, and Western Counties of Utah, also the Counties of Southern Idaho (Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor, 1889), 2:174–75.
↑W.O. [William Owen], “Mormon Bible,” Free Enquirer (New York) (3 September 1831): 364.
↑Jeremy Runnells, "Letter to a CES Director" (original draft posted on the critical website "FutureMissionary.com") (2013)
↑See Theodore Besterman, Crystal-gazing: a study in the history, distribution, theory and practice of scrying (London: W. Rider & son, 1924), 123. As he writes: “What is perhaps the most interesting of these miscellaneous phenomena can be best described as collective scrying, coming under the general head of simultaneous hallucination. In such a case two or more persons simultaneously see approximately the same vision in the speculum. The qualification is necessary, for in none of the best attested and detailed instances of such visions did the scryers see precisely the same vision. This forms the most puzzling of the various aspects of this puzzling matter.” The closest that someone has gotten to documenting such a case was Grant H. Palmer, Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 194. Palmer writes: "Alan Taylor, director of the Institute of Early American History and Culture, has observed that treasure-seeking groups of that era often encountered spectral apparitions and sinking treasure chests. With expectations high, a suggestion from one participant would trigger a group vision, according to his research. Taylor found that years later some of these groups, still believing their experiences were real, would not deny then and never had." Palmer is citing Alan Taylor, "The Early Republic's Supernatural Economy: Treasure Seeking in the American Northeast, 1780-1830," American Quarterly 38 (Spring 1986): 13-14. There are two issues here. First, the insinuation that the power of suggestion could explain a group vision like that of the witnesses. It's perhaps possible; but look at the elaborate circumstances Taylor describes that produce that right atmosphere: "These supernatural encounters were very "real" to those who experienced them. Childhood exposure to treasure tales and their careful performance of elaborate ceremonies at the digging site created a nervous expectation to see the extraordinary. Long hours of strenuous, nighttime digging by flickering lanterns in dark, remote, and cold locales engendered exhaustion. Adherence to strict procedures, especially the rule of silence, produced sustained tension. Finally, seekers tended to bring along a generous supply of alcohol and drank freely to fortify their nerves and warm their bodies. These circumstances developed their anxiously expectant frame of mind to the point that one participant's suggestion, or any unexpected sight or sound, could trigger a group hallucination. Subsequent, repeated narration to others rapidly confirmed, refined, and elaborated the experience." There is no evidence that the witnesses experience was anything like this. It was the middle of the day, in the summer and thus experienced no dark, cold exhaustion. There is no elaborate or strict procedures described for the witnesses experience other then their praying for the experience to occur. The instructions for the witnesses in the contemporary revelations (D&C 5, 17) are also not nearly so elaborate or convoluted. Basic instructions are given in them such as to humble oneself before the Lord and testify to what you see. Absent are injunctions to remain silent to produce suspense or anything else described by Taylor. The second key issue is the assertion by Palmer that “years later some of these groups, still believing their experiences were real, would not deny then and never had.” The evidence cited for this assertion is a 1867 chronicler’s assertion that a Mr. Savage stood by his conviction of his experiences (what exactly those are is not made clear in the article) “as long as he lived,” and could not be “ridiculed out of it.” Note, of course, that Mr. Savage is an individual, not a group. So a single person never denied his experiences (whatever they were) his entire life. The other evidence is from Martin Harris’s Tiffany’s interview. While this is Martin talking about it years later, the conversations he was reporting with money diggers were contemporary with their digging activities. We have no idea if any of the people Martin spoke to “never denied” their experiences, because there is zero follow-up with them in the historical record. These people, like Taylor describes, would have been under elaborate and stressful psychological conditions in order to produce these visions. With the witnesses to the Book of Mormon plates, we have documented testimony of their experience that we can easily examine, held up in that documentary record over a long, long period of time, and we have no evidence that they were placed in unideal psychological circumstances prior to their vision. Palmer then states in a citation: ""For a detailed description of a company of seven men who never denied that they viewed a guardian and his "glittering" metal treasure, see Daniel P. [Judge] Thompson , May Martin: Or the Money Diggers. A Green Mountain Tale (London: J. Clements Lytle, 1841, 19-22." This assertion is patently absurd by Palmer, since May Martin is a fictional novel.
↑Jeremy Runnells, "Letter to a CES Director" (original version posted on the critical website "FutureMissionary.com") (2013)
↑Joseph Smith III visited David Whitmer in 1884, along with a committee from the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and several onlookers. According to Joseph III's memoirs, one of the non-believers there was a military officer, who suggested the possibility that Whitmer "had been mistaken and had simply been moved upon by some mental disturbance or hallucination, which had deceived him into thinking he saw" the angel and the plates. Joseph III's recollection of Whitmer's response is quoted above. See Memoirs of Joseph Smith III, cited in Mary Audentia Smith Anderson, Joseph Smith III and the Restoration (Independence, MO: 1952), pp. 311-12. Cited in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 88. ISBN 0877478465.
↑ Alma L. Jensen, attested statement, Dayton, Ohio, 1 June 1936, L. Tom Perry Special Collections Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
↑Jacob F. Gates, "Testimony of Jacob Gates," Improvement Era no. 15 (March 1912), 418–419.
↑Hilgard, Ernest R. (1965). Hypnotic Susceptibility. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.; Stanford Profile Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
↑Hugh W. Nibley, Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass: The Art of Telling Tales About Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (Vol. 11 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by David J. Whittaker, (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1991), 128. ISBN 0875795161. GL direct link
↑"Interview with Joseph Smith III", in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 1:542.
↑Parley P. Pratt, A Reply to...“Complete Failure,”...and...“Mormonism Exposed,” (Manchester: W. R. Thomas, 1840), 1-9. off-siteFull title
↑Jeremy T. Runnells, CES Letter: My Search for Answers to My Mormon Doubts (n.p.: CES Letter Foundation, 2017), 103–04.
↑Stephen J. Stein, The Shaker Experience in America (Hartford, CT: Yale University Press, 1992), 177–80. For a more detailed discussion of the contents of the Holy Roll, see Stephen J. Stein, "The Story of the Shaker Bible," Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society 105, no. 2. (October 1995): 357–63.
↑Jerald Tanner and Sandra Tanner, “Roper Attacks Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?” Salt Lake City Messenger 82 (September 1992): 14.
↑One nineteenth-century authority on the Shakers relates, “Some of the most curious literature of the Shakers dates from this period [early-to-midnineteenth century]; and it is freely admitted by their leading men that they were in some cases misled into acts and publications which they have since seen reason to regret. Their belief is that they were deceived by false spirits, and were unable, in many cases, to distinguish the true from the false. That is to say, they hold to their faith in ‘spiritual communications,’ so called; but repudiate much in which they formerly had faith, believing this which they now reject to have come from the evil one. . . . The most curious relics of those days are two considerable volumes, which have since fallen into discredit among the Shakers themselves, but were at the time of their issue regarded as highly important. One of these is entitled ‘A Holy, Sacred, and Divine Roll and Book, from the Lord God of Heaven to the Inhabitants of the Earth.‘ . . . The second work is called ‘The Divine Book of Holy and Eternal Wisdom, revealing the Word of God, out of whose mouth goeth a sharp Sword.’ . . . These two volumes are not now, as formerly, held in honor by the Shakers. One of their elders declared to me that I ought never to have seen them, and that their best use was to burn them,” in Charles Nordhoff, The Communistic Societies of the United States (New York: Hillary House Publishers, 1961), 235, 245, 248, 250; this is a reprint of the 1875 edition.
↑Amos 9:7; Jonah 1; Matthew 3:9; Luke 3:8. These four are affirmed to mean that God inspires other nations and people with light in James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 44. See also Luke 9:49-50.
↑"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," November 1857; printed in Deseret News (24 March 1858) and Millennial Star 26 (1864): 406; cited in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 56-57. ISBN 0877478465.
↑Letter of Hiram Page to William E. McLellin (30 May 1847), Ray County, Mo.; cited in Ensign of Liberty 1 (1848): 63.
↑"Theodore Turley's Memorandums," Church Archives, handwriting of Thomas Bullock, who began clerking in late 1843; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:241.; see also with minor editing in Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 3:307–308. Volume 3 link
↑John Whimter to Mark H. Forest [Forscutt], 5 March 1876, Whitmer Papers, Community of Christ Library-Archives; in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:243.
↑David H. Cannon, Autobiography, 13 March 1917, p. 5; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:218.
↑David Whitmer, interview with James H. Hart on 10 March 1884, Letter to Deseret News (18 March 1884); cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:105.
↑Oliver Cowdery, "Conference Report," Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate 1 (June 1835), 143. Reproduced in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:250.
↑ Heman Smith, History of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, vol. 3, chapter 2, pp. 52–53.
↑ William Shephard, James J. Strang: Teachings of a Mormon Prophet. Burlington, WI: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints pp. 261–262.
↑The base text for this wiki article came from a FAIR board posting, Daniel C. Peterson, “Case of the Missing Golden Plates,” FAIR message boards, Posted on: Jan 22 2006, 02:12 PM. FAIR link
↑Voree Herald, January 1846; Zion's Reveille, 1 April 1847; and Gospel Herald, 4 May 1848
↑Jeremy Runnells, CES Letter: My Search for Answers to my Mormon Doubts (n.p.: CES Letter Foundation, 2017), 99.
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?"
"Just because three witnesses signed a statement saying they saw an angel, doesn't mean it really happened or that it didn't happen either"
MormonThink states...
"Just because three witnesses signed a statement saying they saw an angel, doesn't mean it really happened or that it didn't happen either."
John Whitmer (1876): "I have never heard that any one of the three or eight witnesses ever denied the testimony that they have borne to the Book as published in the first edition of the Book of Mormon"
In 1876, John Whitmer, one of the Eight Witnesses, wrote a lengthy letter to Mark Forscutt, which included the following:
Oliver Cowdery lived in Richmond, Mo., some 40 miles from here, at the time of his death. I went to see him and was with him for some days previous to his demise. I have never heard him deny the truth of his testimony of the Book of Mormon under any circumstances whatever. . . . Neither do I believe that he would have denied, at the peril of his life; so firm was he that he could not be made to deny what he has affirmed to be a divine revelation from God. . . .
I have never heard that any one of the three or eight witnesses ever denied the testimony that they have borne to the Book as published in the first edition of the Book of Mormon. There are only two of the witnesses to that book now living, to wit., David Whitmer, one of the three, and John Wh[itmer], one of the eight. Our names have gone forth to all nations, tongues and people as a divine revelation from God. And it will bring to pass the designs of God according to the declaration therein contained.[1]
John Whitmer's character
"Mr. [John] Whitmer is considered a truthful, honest and law abiding citizen by this community, and consequently, his appointment [to preach] drew out a large audience. Mr. Whitmer stated that he had often handled the identical golden plates which Mr. Smith received from the angel...."[2]
Question: Did the witnesses to the Book of Mormon realize that they would be ridiculed and not believed?
The witnesses were not naive
They knew that they would not be believed by many, and would suffer ridicule or personal/professional costs. Despite this, they stuck to their claims.
David Whitmer recalled:
"When we were first told to publish our statement, we felt sure the people would not believe it, for the Book told of a people who were refined and dwelt in large cities; but the Lord told us that He would make it known to the people, and people should discover the ruins of the lost cities and abundant evidence of the truth of what is written in the Book."[3]
Question: What might the witnesses to the Book of Mormon have gained if they had denied their testimonies?
The witnesses had much to gain by denying their experiences
Martin Harris noted that he would have been well-paid if he was willing to deny his witness:
A few hours before his death and when he was so weak and enfeebled that he was unable to recognize me or anyone, and knew not to whom he was speaking, I asked him if he did not feel that there was an element at least, of fraudulence and deception in the things that were written and told of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and he replied as he had always done so many, many times in my hearing the same spirit he always manifested when enjoying health and vigor and said: ‘The Book of Mormon is no fake. I know what I know. I have seen what I have seen and I have heard what I have heard. I have seen the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon is written. An angel appeared to me and others and testified to the truthfulness of the record, and had I been willing to have perjured myself and sworn falsely to the testimony I now bear I could have been a rich man, but I could not have testified other than I have done and am now doing for these things are true.[4]
One non-member noted that the excommunicated Oliver Cowdery would have been the editor of a Democratic Party newspaper, "but was dropped on the discovery that he was one of the seven founders of Mormonism."[5] Cowdery would have been advantaged to have denied his witness, but did not. Later, in 1848, an opposing political party opposed Cowdery's Democratic candidacy partly because he was "one of the three witnesses to the discovery of the Golden Plates, or Mormon Bible, by Joe Smith."[6] Richard Anderson noted that citations from the Book of Mormon were then used as "the basis of personal sarcasm against Cowdery."[7] Again, Oliver would have been advantaged to distance himself from his testimony and witness, but did not.
Question: Did the witnesses disagree with their testimony after it was printed in the Book of Mormon?
The witnesses never refuted their testimony in the Book of Mormon. In fact, David Whitmer even affirmed it "as then made and published"
It is claimed that no document exists of the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses which contain their actual signatures, and that this somehow invalidates their testimonies as printed in the Book of Mormon, and that the witnesses statements in the Book of Mormon manuscript are written and signed only by Oliver Cowdery.
The claim that the witnesses somehow didn't agree with their testimony as it was printed in the Book of Mormon during the entire period of their lives is nonsense.
The printer's manuscript of the Book of Mormon is entirely in Oliver Cowdery's handwriting, including the witness statements
The printer's manuscript is a copy of the original Book of Mormon manuscript. This copy was made by Oliver Cowdery and taken to the printer. Therefore, the entire document is in Oliver's handwriting. The original manuscript was placed in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House.[8] Years later, it was removed and found to have been mostly destroyed by water damage. As a result of this, we do not have the portion of the original Book of Mormon manuscript containing the witness statements. It should be noted that in the 1830 Book of Mormon, the witness statements were included at the end of the book, rather than at the front as they are today.
Question: Did the witnesses make clear statements regarding their testimonies?
The witnesses made very clear statements regarding their testimonies
We will let the Three Witnesses speak for themselves on this issue. In each case, they made statements confirming their testimonies near the end of their lives.
David Whitmer affirms his testimony in 1881 as it is printed in the Book of Mormon years after he left the Church:
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.[9]
Oliver Cowdery in 1829, shortly after his experience as a witness:
It was a clear, open beautiful day, far from any inhabitants, in a remote field, at the time we saw the record, of which it has been spoken, brought and laid before us, by an angel, arrayed in glorious light, [who] ascend [descended I suppose] out of the midst of heaven. Now if this is human juggling—judge ye. [10]
Oliver Cowdery in 1848, years after he left the Church:
I wrote, with my own pen, the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph, as he translated it by the gift and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or as it is called by the book, Holy Interpreters. I beheld with my eyes, and handled with my hands, the gold plates from which it was transcribed. I also saw with my eyes and handled with my hands the Holy Interpreters. That book is true. [11]
Martin Harris, right before his death:
The Book of Mormon is no fake. I know what I know. I have seen what I have seen and I have heard what I have heard. I have seen the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon is written. An angel appeared to me and others and testified to the truthfulness of the record, and had I been willing to have perjured myself and sworn falsely to the testimony I now bear I could have been a rich man, but I could not have testified other than I have done and am now doing for these things are true. [12]
Richard Anderson: All eleven Book of Mormon witnesses publicly reaffirmed their testimony as printed
Richard Anderson described multiple accounts of all the Witnesses bearing testimony and reaffirming their published testimony:[13]
The three Smiths who formally gave their names as seeing and handling the plates were the Prophet's father, Joseph Smith, Sr.; the Prophet's older brother, Hyrum; and his immediately younger brother, Samuel Harrison. They sometimes joined the other Book of Mormon witnesses to reaffirm their testimony printed in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon regarding lifting and turning the leaves of the plates. After quoting the published statements of the Three and Eight Witnesses, and describing the experience of the latter group, Lucy Smith relates, "The ensuing evening, we held a meeting, in which all the witnesses bore testimony to the facts as stated above."[14] Two years later, in the period of dynamic preaching of the early elders, a conference was held near Cleveland, Ohio, remembered by Luke Johnson as follows: "At this conference the eleven witnesses to the Book of Mormon, with uplifted hands, bore their solemn testimony to the truth of that book, as did also the Prophet Joseph."[15]
Question: Does Doctrine and Covenants 5 stipulate that there be only three witnesses to the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated?
Introduction to Criticism
Readers of the Doctrine and Covenants have become puzzled by a verse that, at first blush, stipulates that there be only three witnesses to the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. The text reads as follows:
10 But this generation shall have my word through you;
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.
This may cause some stress for readers since there were at least 24 (and perhaps more) formal and informal witnesses to the gold plates--each with different experiences to recount.
This article will examine this criticism and another, closely-related criticism. Upon a closer reading of the text of the revelation, the concern should be eliminated.
Response to Criticism
The Actual Experiences of the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon Plates
First, we should reacquaint ourselves with what each of the formal and informal witnesses to the gold plates actually said (as far as such can be documented) about their experience.
There are the Three Witnesses—including David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris; and there are the Eight Witnesses--including Joseph Smith Sr., Hyrum Smith, Samuel H. Smith, Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer Jr., John Whitmer, and Hiram Page. Additionally, there are several informal witnesses--people who either saw, felt, and/or hefted the plates but were not required to give their names in a formal statement testifying to the plates’ reality. These witnesses include people such as Emma Smith, Lucy Mack Smith, Katharine Smith, Mary Mussellman Whitmer, Josiah Stowell, Alvah Beaman, Joseph Knight Sr., Luke Johnson, Harrison Burgess, Lucy Harris, Joseph McKune Sr., and Lyman Johnson.
The testimony of the Three Witnesses, as printed in every edition of the Book of Mormon since its publication, reads as follows:
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.
So the Three Witnesses:
Saw an angel come down from heaven and lay the plates before them
Saw the plates
Saw the engravings on the plates.
Heard the voice of God declare that the plates were translated by His gift and power.
Heard the Lord command them to testify of the Book of Mormon’s divinity.
The testimony of the Eight Witnesses, as printed in every edition of the Book of Mormon since its publication, reads as follows:
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.
So the Eight Witnesses:
Had Joseph Smith show them the plates
Handled, saw, and hefted the leaves from the plates
Saw the engravings on the plates
The informal witnesses’ experiences are as follows:
Emma Smith felt the plates through a cloth as she moved them around the house while cleaning and doing other chores.[16]
Katherine Smith felt the plates through a cloth as she moved them around the house.[17]
William Smith, Joseph Smith's younger brother, testified in June 1884 that when Joseph first brought the plates home, that "[Joseph's family] handled them and could tell what they were. They were not quite as large as this Bible. Could tell whether they were round or square. Could raise the leaves this way [he raises a few leaves of the Bible before him]. One could easily tell that they were not a stone, hewn out to deceive, or even a block of wood. Being a mixture of gold and copper, they were much heavier than stone, and very much heavier than wood."[18] He also stated in 1883 that he saw Joseph bring the plates home from the hill wrapped in a tow frock. According to him, they weighed about 60 pounds.[19]
Josiah Stowell “caught a glimpse of their corner as the covering slipped off when Joseph handed them to him[.]”[20] Stowell said the plates “resembled a stone of a greenish caste,” which is consistent with the plates being made of a copper alloy which had oxidized.[21]
Alvah Beaman “heard the metallic clinking of the plates as he helped move them around in [a] wooden chest[.]”[22]
Mary Whitmer “saw both the plates and the angel. Her experience is interesting because, even though it includes the divine messenger, even he is portrayed in rather ordinary terms. He shows up as a man while she is out milking cows, he shows her the record, and then he is gone.”[23]
Joseph Knight Sr. was among those at the Smith home when Joseph first retrieved the plates in 1827. According to William Smith, those present were allowed to feel and heft the plates.[24]
According to Brigham Young in 1859, Luke Johnson, in a “vision of his mind,” saw that “the angel of God came and laid the plates before him, and he saw and handled them, and saw the angel, and conversed with him as he would with one of his friends.”[25] John D. Lee visited Luke in 1846 and “asked him if the statement he signed about seeing the angel and the plates was true, if he did see the plates from which the Book of Mormon was printed or translated.” According to Lee, Johnson said it was true.[26]
According to Lucy Mack Smith, Lucy Harris, Martin Harris's wife, saw the angel and plates. “She said that a personage had appeared to her the night before and said to her that inasmuch as she had disputed the servant of the Lord, said that his word was not to be believed, and asked him many improper questions, she had done that which was not right in the sight of God. Then he said, ‘Behold, here are the plates, look upon them and believe.’”[27] According to Martin Harris in an 1859 interview with Joel Tiffany, Lucy also had the opportunity to lift the plates while contained in a glass box.[28] Martin appears to have affirmed the same in a conference address he gave in 1870 in Salt Lake City.[29]
According to that same interview of Martin Harris done by Tiffany, Martin's daughter Lucy Harris was with her mother and Lucy Mack Smith when she had the experience of lifting the plates while contained in a glass box.[30]
Harrison Burgess reported that in July 1832, he had “a glorious personage clothed in white stood before [him] and exhibited to [his] view the plates from which the Book of Mormon was taken.”[31]
According to his granddaughter Mehitable Smith Many Doolittle, Joseph McKune Sr. once felt the plates. An 1887 newspaper article reported that she said that “[w]hile [McKune] was upon his farm he had the Mormon Bible. Whether he professed to find it before or after marriage Mrs. Doolittle does not remember. Her grandfather was once privileged to take in his hands a pillow-case in which the supposed saintly treasure was wrapped, and to feel through the cloth that it had leaves. From the size and the weight of the book, Mr. McKune supposed that in dimensions it closely resembled an ordinary Bible in the print of those days.”[32]
Lyman Johnson and Orson Pratt embarked on a missionary journey in February 1832.[33] On 8 February 1832, they stopped at the home of Benjamin Stokely, in Cool Spring Township, Mercer County, Pennsylvania. “According to Stokely, Lyman testified that an angel had personally shown him the Book of Mormon plates, the same as the witnesses to the Book of Mormon.”[34] In Stokely’s own words, “An angel brought the Mormonite Bible and laid it before him (the speaker); he therefore knows these things to be true.” Of Pratt and Johnson, Stokely wrote, “They appeared to have very little learning, to be sincere in all they said. They had good manners — had been well raised — were decent and unassuming in every thing I saw, or heard them say.”[35] In the 1880s, Edward Tullidge interviewed Lorin Farr, who by that time had served as the mayor of Ogden, Utah about his early life. Among other things, Farr recalled hearing the gospel preached by Orson Pratt and Lyman Johnson for the very first time, when he was eleven years old. It was in the spring of 1832: “Lyman Johnson arose and delivered one of the most powerful testimonies pertaining to the mission of Joseph Smith and the great work of the last days, that Lorin ever heard. [Lyman] also said that he knew the Book of Mormon was true, for he had seen an angel and he had made this known unto him.”[36] When Lyman Johnson preached in Dalton, Coos County, New Hampshire, in July 1835, the eighteen-year-old Ethan Barrows was in the audience and listening carefully. In the “Journal of Ethan Barrows,” Journal of History 15 (January 1922): 36, written around 1892, Barrows reported that “He said that an holy angel had ministered with him and had shown him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated, and commanded him to testify to all the world that it was true.”
Tying the Experiences of the Various Witnesses to Doctrine & Covenants 5
Now, response becomes quite simple. Reviewing the experiences of each of the various witnesses, it can be seen that none of them received "the same witness" as that of the Three Witnesses. Let's quote the most relevant part of the passage in question and bold the most important parts of that passage:
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
The Three Witnesses heard the voice of God declare unto them that the translation of the Book of Mormon was done by his gift and power. None of the other witnesses received "this same testimony." That is how one may reconcile the passage with the presence of other types of witnesses to the Book of Mormon plates.
Introduction to Criticism #2
There is a related criticism to this one. It is claimed that the original revelation that was later edited and incorporated into the Doctrine and Covenants is much less open to the existence of other witnesses to the Book of Mormon plates.
yea & the testimony of three of my Servants shall go forth with my word unto this Generation yea three shall Know of A surety that those things are true for I will give them power that they may Behold & vew these things as they are & to none else will I grant this power among this Generation & the testimony of three Witnesses will I send forth & my word[.][37]
One can quickly see that the original revelation omits the phrases "for from heaven will I declare it unto them" and "to receive this same testimony." Thus, fitting the experiences of the other witnesses into the origins of the Book of Mormon may become trickier.
The revelation is dated March 1829. The translation of the Book of Mormon took place between late April 1829 to June 1829.[38] The translation actually commenced with Mosiah being translated first, getting all the way to Moroni, then going back to 1 Nephi, and finishing with Words of Mormon.[39] There are three passages in the Book of Mormon that refer to the witnesses of the Book of Mormon: Ether 5:2–4, 2 Nephi 11:3, and 2 Nephi 27:12–14.
Ether 5:2–4 reads:
2 And behold, ye may be privileged that ye may show the plates unto those who shall assist to bring forth this work;
3 And unto three shall they be shown by the power of God; wherefore they shall know of a surety that these things are true.
4 And in the mouth of three witnesses shall these things be established; and the testimony of three, and this work, in the which shall be shown forth the power of God and also his word, of which the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost bear record—and all this shall stand as a testimony against the world at the last day.
2 Nephi 11:3 reads:
And my brother, Jacob, also has seen him as I have seen him; 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.
2 Nephi 27:12–14 reads:
12 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.
13 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; for the Lord God hath said that the words of the faithful should speak as if it were from the dead.
14 Wherefore, the Lord God will proceed to bring forth the words of the book; and in the mouth of as many witnesses as seemeth him good will he establish his word; and wo be unto him that rejecteth the word of God!
Given the timeline for translation, Joseph would have received D&C 5 in March 1829, then translated Ether, and then translated 2 Nephi. Reading the passages in that order and looking at the explicit flow of ideas, one might surmise that Joseph Smith at first believed that only three people were going to see the Book of Mormon plates and then, over time, revised his plan to include more witnesses to the Book of Mormon plates.
Response to Criticism #2
Focus on the Phrases "my word unto this Generation" and "Behold & [view] these things as they are"
To respond to this criticism, one can easily fit the uniqueness of the experience of the Three Witnesses in particular into the phrase "[the Lord's] word unto this Generation". The Lord's word unto this generation was the declaration in his own voice to the Three Witnesses that the Book of Mormon was translated by his gift and power through Joseph Smith and that the Book of Mormon should go to the ends of the earth with the witnesses declaring it to those ends. Knowing that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God was the Three Witnesses' opportunity to "Behold & [view] these things as they are" as promised in the original draft of the revelation.
Interpret "three" in Ether 5 not as stipulating that only three shall see the plates by the power of God, but that three as a set will be given the opportunity to see the plates together and act as formal witnesses to God's work through the Book of Mormon
This doesn't entirely resolve the criticism because it may appear to some that Ether 5 is saying that only three witnesses will see the plates. Ether 5 says that the plates will be shown unto three. But this three does not need to be interpreted to mean that only three will see the plates by the power of God. Indeed, it seems more likely that it just means that three witnesses will receive a unique testimony from God and, following God's law of witnesses that two or three shall establish his words,[40] hear a declaration from God's own voice that the Book of Mormon was translated by his gift and power and that the Book of Mormon should be declared to the ends of the earth; that they should formally act as a set of three that receive the same declaration from God's voice and testify of that declaration to all people.
Look again at verse 2: "And behold, ye may be privileged that ye may show the plates unto those who shall assist to bring forth this work". That's open language. It seems like viewing the plates is open to anyone who assists in bringing forth the work. That can include the eight witnesses and the informal witnesses.
Then there's verse 3: "And unto three shall they be shown by the power of God; wherefore they shall know of a surety that these things are true." How do they know of a surety? The original manuscript of Doctrine & Covenants 5 above says that it's because God will give the three witnesses his word unto this generation that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God.
Close out with verse 4: "And in the mouth of three witnesses shall these things be established; and the testimony of three, and this work, in the which shall be shown forth the power of God and also his word, of which the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost bear record—and all this shall stand as a testimony against the world at the last day." Some might take that initial 'And in the mouth of three witnesses shall these things be established' as clarifying that only three shall be given power to establish God's word. But that initial statement just echoes the stipulations of Deuteronomy, 2 Corinthians, Timothy, and even Doctrine and Covenants 6 that God establishes his word by the testimony of two or three witnesses. It's not saying that only three shall see the plates. It's saying that a group of three will be given the same testimony that the Book of Mormon is divine from God's own voice and formally represent a fulfillment of the requirement that God's word be established by two or three witnesses. Relevantly, that seems to be how 2 Nephi 11:3 treats this passage in Ether.
William Owen (skeptical account): "Ten persons say they have seen them and hefted them, three declare that an angel of God appeared to them and showed them to them"
A skeptical account from a reader in 1831 demonstrates that the witnesses' contemporaries understood the experience to be a literal one:
The plates from which Smith, the author translates his book are said to be in his possession. Ten persons say they have seen them and hefted them, three declare that an angel of God appeared to them and showed them to them, and told them that God had given Smith power to be able to read them, understand them, and translate them. The names of those persons are signed to the certificates in the book.[41]
Question: Is someone unreliable because they practiced "treasure hunting" and believed in the use of seer stones to find lost objects?
To imply that someone is unreliable simply because of things that they believed were valid is a ad hominem attack
Some of Joseph Smith's associates practiced "treasure hunting" and believed in the use of seer stones to locate lost objects. Some claim that many of these individuals believed in "second sight." Do these characteristics make these men unreliable witnesses?
Those who accuse people of being unreliable witnesses because they believed in "treasure hunting" or "second sight" are employing what is known as a "ad hominem" attack on the witnesses' character. The term "ad hominem" is defined, according to Merriam-Webster, as:
appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect.
marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.
One can see that this accusation applies both of these definitions:
The terms "treasure hunter" and "second sight" are intended to evoke feelings of prejudice in the 21st-century reader. We typically reject such things as "superstition." Applying these attitudes to how we view 19th-century individuals is called "presentisim."
One critic implies that, despite the fact that the witnesses never denied what they said, that "in light of their superstitions and reputations," we will somehow find their testimony to have less value. The witnesses, incidentally, had reputations for honesty. [42]
How exactly does the belief that one can locate buried treasure by means of a seer stone speak to one's character or honesty?
Some have claimed that this rebuttal is a misapplication of the ad-hominem fallacy. It's easy to claim that an ad-hominem fallacy is misapplied by invoking the fallacy fallacy, which means that an argument can still be true even if it contains a logical fallacy. Thus, even if it's an ad hominem attack, it may still be true and necessary for evaluating someone! This is a common counterclaim to make when an interlocutor accuses you of ad hominem. But let's revert to the original argument being made here. The original argument states that the witnesses are unreliable because some of them hunted for treasure occasionally. It is ad hominem to claim this and does not address the consistency of the witnesses, even when their feelings for Joseph turned sour at different points of their lives. It does not address the multiplicity of occasions when they went on record to testify, the occasions when they went our of their way to correct their testimony when misrepresented by the public press, the both tangible and revelatory nature of their experience, the witnesses other than the 11 that saw the plates and handled them, and so forth. The argument is bunk.
All Three Witnesses left the Church after disagreements with Joseph Smith, yet they never denied having seen the plates and the angel
One must also consider this: The Three Witnesses all left the Church after serious disagreements with Joseph Smith, and yet never denied that they had seen the plates and the angel, even near the end of their lives.
The fact that three different men allowed their name to be printed below a statement saying that they saw an angel, and then continued to affirm that they had seen the angel in public statements (some of them even published in newspapers) until the end of their lives, tends to tip the scale more toward "it really happened" than "it didn't happen." That's the point of a signed statement after all.
Is someone's ability to see something affected by their seeing something else?
As it regards the witnesses, the extent to which any were involved is not certain. Even among historians today, the extent to which Joseph Smith was involved is in dispute. It was originally the idea of his father to undertake the practice. It is in doubt if many of the witnesses were involved at all in treasure seeking. For instance, there is no record of the Whitmers being involved in treasure seeking and magic before the organization of the Church (Not to say that they absolutely weren't. Just that there is no evidence.)But let's think of it this way
As it regards the eight witnesses, even if all of them were treasure hunters, is their ability to see something affected by their seeing something else? It's just a silly question to imply that these eight men can't look at a physical object with their physical eyes when they looked at something else with their physical eye. According to John Whitmer, none of them ever denied seeing the physical plates with their physical eyes.
In the case of the three witnesses, some people have suggested that these men may have hallucinated their experience or only seen things with their "spiritual eyes". Aside from "spiritual eyes" being scriptural language that they were commanded to use, there has never been documented case in the history of scrying of two people hallucinating the same thing at the same time.[43]
It strains credulity to suggest that these men could do that and hold their testimony of the Book of Mormon after falling away from Joseph and the Church.
The following video introduces all witnesses, both formal and informal, to the Book of Mormon, examines several of the hardest-hitting claims against them, and demonstrates the emergent strength of their composite testimonials.
Question: Is a man unreliable because he lived in the 19th-Century?
To imply that someone is unreliable simply because of the era they lived in is a ad hominem attack
Were the Book of Mormon witnesses not "empirical" or "rational" because they lived in the 19th-Century during a time when "folk magic" was practiced?
One critic of Mormonism claims "The mistake that is made by 21st century Mormons is that they’re seeing the Book of Mormon Witnesses as empirical, rational, twenty-first century men" (The claim was modified to read "nineteenth-century men" in later revisions)[44]
To imply that nineteenth-century men are intrinsically unreliable is both an ad hominem (an attack against the character of person making the claim, rather than the claim itself) and sets an impossible standard of evidence for the gospel inasmuch as they were the only men available as witnesses at the time. Thus the author is using a screening argument (dates of life) that can be used to exclude whatever evidence he wishes to ignore.
Some have claimed that this rebuttal is a misapplication of the ad-hominem fallacy. It's easy to claim that an ad-hominem fallacy is misapplied by invoking the fallacy fallacy, which means that an argument can still be true even if it contains a logical fallacy. Thus, even if it's an ad hominem attack, it may still be true and necessary for evaluating someone! This is a common counterclaim to make when an interlocutor accuses you of ad hominem. But let's revert to the original argument being made here. The original argument states that the witnesses are unreliable because they lived in the 19th century, sought for treasure, and/or (may have) practiced folk magic. It is ad hominem to claim this and does not address the consistency of the witnesses, even when their feelings for Joseph turned sour at different points of their lives. It does not address the multiplicity of occasions when they went on record to testify, the occasions when they went our of their way to correct their testimony when misrepresented by the public press, the both tangible and revelatory nature of their experience, the witnesses other than the 11 that saw the plates and handled them, and so forth. The argument is bunk.
The following video introduces all witnesses, both formal and informal, to the Book of Mormon, examines several of the hardest-hitting claims against them, and demonstrates the emergent strength of their composite testimonials.
Question: Could Joseph Smith have hypnotized the witnesses to the Book of Mormon?
The Three Witnesses had the opportunity to qualify their testimony, but all of them insisted that their vision was literal and unmistakable
It is claimed that the Book of Mormon witnesses may have been sincere in their testimony, but were actually the victims of 'hallucination' or 'hypnosis' induced in them by Joseph Smith.
The Three Witnesses had the opportunity to qualify their testimony, but all of them insisted that their vision was literal and unmistakable. In addition, they each verified the literalness of the event by stating that their physical ears heard a heavenly voice. Critics twist the historical record in their effort to eliminate the troublesome witnesses but their testimonies cannot be convincingly dismissed.
(Note: All emphasis in the following quotes has been added.)
David Whitmer—like the other witnesses—had been charged with being deluded into thinking he had seen an angel and the plates. Joseph Smith III remembered when David was such accused, and said:
"How well and distinctly I remember the manner in which Elder Whitmer arose and drew himself up to his full height—a little over six feet—and said, in solemn and impressive tones: '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!'."[45]
Martin Harris used the same qualifying statements to describe his experience in 1829:
"In introducing us, Mr. Godfrey said, 'Brother Harris, I have brought these young men to hear your statement as to whether or not you believe the Book of Mormon to be true.' His face was turned to the wall. He turned and faced us and said, 'Now I don't believe, but I know it to be true, for with these eyes I saw the angel and with these ears (pointing to them) I heard him say it was a true and correct record of an ancient people that dwelt upon this the American continent'."[46]
Oliver Cowdery was asked, “Was your testimony based on a dream, was it the imagination of your mind, was it an illusion”? He responded with the exact same qualifying statements as the other two Witnesses:
"My eyes saw, my ears heard, and my understanding was touched, and I know that whereof I testified is true. It was no dream, no vain imagination of the mind—it was real."[47]
Only 3% of people are capable of experiencing a visual hallucination, and only 9% of the population can hallucinate a voice speaking to them while under the influence of hypnosis
Research by Ernest Hilgard at Stanford found that only 3% of people are capable of experiencing a visual hallucination, and only 9% of the population can hallucinate a voice speaking to them while under the influence of hypnosis. These statistics just further refute psychological arguments against the validity of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon.[48]
Question: Are the Book of Mormon witnesses unreliable because many of them were related?
To imply that someone is unreliable simply because of who they are related to is a ad hominem attack
It is claimed that because many of the witnesses are related, this means they are not to be trusted.
Mark Twain made fun of this very issue:
And when I am far on the road to conviction, and eight men, be they grammatical or otherwise, come forward and tell me that they have seen the plates too; and not only seen those plates but "hefted" them, I am convinced. I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified. [49]
This is what is known as a "ad hominem" attack on the witnesses' character. The term "ad hominem" is defined, according to Merriam-Webster, as:
appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect.
marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.
How, exactly, does being related to someone else who is viewing the same thing that you are make one less honest or reliable? This is simply an irrelevant distraction. When you are going to show something sacred to someone, you certainly don't show it to strangers but to those with whom you are familiar and who you can trust. As such, one would not expect anyone but close acquaintances and family to be so trusted. The witnesses, incidentally, had reputations for honesty.
Some have claimed that this rebuttal is a misapplication of the ad-hominem fallacy. It's easy to claim that an ad-hominem fallacy is misapplied by invoking the fallacy fallacy, which means that an argument can still be true even if it contains a logical fallacy. Thus, even if it's an ad hominem attack, it may still be true! But that is not the point of the original argument being made here. The original argument states that the witnesses are unreliable because they are related to each other and their love and bias for Joseph somehow weakens their efficacy. It is ad hominem to claim this and does not address the consistency of the witnesses, even when their feelings for Joseph turned sour at different points of their lives. It does not address the multiplicity of occasions when they went on record to testify, the occasions when they went our of their way to correct their testimony when misrepresented by the public press, the both tangible and revelatory nature of their experience, the witnesses other than the 11 that saw the plates and handled them, and so forth. The argument is bunk.
The witnesses would, of necessity, be those who were close to Joseph. Recall the fact that the witnesses eventually had disaffected members among them because of disagreements with Joseph Smith, yet they never denied their witness. This gives credence to their testimony over time.
Relationships among the Three and Eight Witnesses
Three of the witnesses were related to Joseph Smith:
Joseph Smith, Sr. [father]
Hyrum Smith [brother]
Samuel H. Smith [brother]
Five of the eleven witnesses were sons of Peter Whitmer, Sr., who had provided Joseph and Oliver a place to translate:
David Whitmer
Christian Whitmer
Jacob Whitmer
Peter Whitmer, Jr.
John Whitmer
Two of the witnesses married into the Whitmer family:
Oliver Cowdery would marry Elizabeth Ann Whitmer in 1832.[50]
Hiram Page married the oldest Whitmer daughter, Catherine, on 10 November 1825.[51]
The following video introduces all witnesses, both formal and informal, to the Book of Mormon, examines several of the hardest-hitting claims against them, and demonstrates the emergent strength of their composite testimonials.
Question: Did Joseph Smith say that viewing the gold plates would result in death?
The only first-person account—that made by Joseph Smith himself—says that it was Joseph who would be destroyed if he showed the plates to any other person unless commanded to do so by the Lord
It is claimed that Joseph Smith said that the penalty for viewing the gold plates was death, and that this was just a way for Joseph to hide the fact that the plates really didn't exist. However, the only first-person account—that made by Joseph Smith himself—says that it was Joseph who would be destroyed if he showed the plates to any other person unless commanded to do so by the Lord. Many accounts attributed to Joseph in which he is supposed to have claimed that anyone else who viewed the plates would die originated with people who were hostile to Joseph and the Church. Significantly, Emma's statement makes no mention of the alleged penalty associated with the unauthorized viewing of the plates.
Primary source: Joseph Smith's own words
Joseph Smith-History 1:42 describes the conditions under which Joseph was to handle the plates:
Again, he told me, that when I got those plates of which he had spoken—for the time that they should be obtained was not yet fulfilled—I should not show them to any person; neither the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim; only to those to whom I should be commanded to show them; if I did I should be destroyed. While he was conversing with me about the plates, the vision was opened to my mind that I could see the place where the plates were deposited, and that so clearly and distinctly that I knew the place again when I visited it. (emphasis added)
According to this, it was Joseph who risked destruction if he showed the plates to anyone unless explicitly commanded to do so by the Lord, not the person to whom he showed them.
Of course, we also have the testimony of the Three and Eight witnesses, who all viewed the plates without any threat of destruction.
The idea that God would "strike down" anyone who viewed the plates came from a hostile secondary source
Fawn Brodie claimed that Joseph told Martin Harris that God's wrath would strike him down if he examined the plates or looked at him while he was translating. This is supported by a second-hand source: Charles Anthon's statement regarding the visit of Martin Harris in Eber D. Howe's anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed. Anthon stated:
I adverted once more to the roguery which had been in my opinion practised upon [Harris], and asked him what had become of the gold plates. He informed me that they were in a trunk with the large pair of spectacles. I advised him to go to a magistrate and have the trunk examined. He said the "curse of God" would come upon him should he do this. [52]
In the critical bookMormonism Unvailed, Peter Ingersoll and Sophia Lewis claimed that Joseph told them that anyone who viewed the plates would perish.
Peter Ingersoll was a hostile source. Here is what he claims that Joseph said to him:
...On my entering the house, I found the family at the table eating dinner. They were all anxious to know the contents of my frock. At that moment, I happened to think of what I had heard about a history found in Canada, called the golden Bible; so I very gravely told them it was the golden Bible. To my surprise, they were credulous enough to believe what I said. Accordingly I told them that I had received a commandment to let no one see it, for, says I, no man can see it with the naked eye and live. However, I offered to take out the book and show it to them, but they refuse to see it, and left the room." Now, said Jo, "I have got the damned fools fixed, and will carry out the fun." Notwithstanding, he told me he had no such book, and believed there never was any such book....(emphasis added)[53]
Here we have a statement alleged to have been made by Joseph Smith that "no man can see it with the naked eye and live." However, we also see that, according to Peter Ingersoll, Joseph came up with the entire idea of the "golden bible" on the spur of the moment as a way to have "fun." Then he claims that Joseph confided to him that the plates didn't actually exist at all. There are so many inconsistencies between this story and the statements of numerous other witnesses that one wonders if Peter Ingersoll was the one who was having some "fun" with his audience. Ingersoll can also be discredited on his claim that Joseph made the story up on the spot, because Joseph was telling various people about his Moroni visits well before recovering the plates (see for example various Knight family recollections).
SOPHIA LEWIS, certifies that she "heard a conversation between Joseph Smith, Jr., and the Rev. James B. Roach, in which Smith called Mr. R. a d-----d fool. Smith also said in the same conversation that he (Smith) was as good as Jesus Christ;" and that she "has frequently heard Smith use profane language. She states that she heard Smith say "the Book of Plates could not be opened under penalty of death by any other person but his (Smith's) first-born, which was to be a male." She says she "was present at the birth of this child, and that it was still-born and very much deformed."(emphasis added)[54]
Here we find that not only could the plates not be viewed by another person, but that the only person who could "open" them would be Joseph's first-born child. Sophia Lewis's testimony is suspicious however. Hezekiah M'Kune, Levi Lewis and Sophia Lewis went together to make their depositions before the justice. Their testimonies bear a remarkable similarity and contain the unique claim that Joseph claimed to be "as good as Jesus Christ." This claim is not related by any other individuals who knew the Prophet, suggesting that these three individuals planned and coordinated their story before giving their depositions. [55]
Joseph's wife Emma did not recall any specific threat of destruction associated with the unauthorized viewing of the plates
It is interesting to note that Emma Smith, admittedly much closer to her husband Joseph than the hostile sources previously quoted, never mentioned a penalty for viewing the plates. In fact, in an interview with her son Joseph Smith III in 1879, the following conversation was recorded:
[Joseph Smith III} Q: I should suppose that you would have uncovered the plates and examined them?
[Emma Smith Bidamon] A. I did not attempt to handle the plates, other than I have told you, nor uncover them to look at them. I was satisfied that it was the work of God, and therefore did not feel it to be necessary to do so.
Major Bidamon here suggested: Did Mr. Smith forbid your examining the plates?
[Emma] A. I do not think he did. I knew that he had them, and was not specially curious about them. I moved them from place to place on the table, as it was necessary in doing my work.
[JS III] Q. Mother, what is your belief about the authenticity, or origin, of the Book of Mormon?
[Emma] A. My belief is that the Book of Mormon is of divine authenticity - I have not the slightest doubt of it. I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his scribe, your father would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he could at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him. This was a usual thing for him to do. It would have been improbable that a learned man could do this; and, for one so ignorant and unlearned as he was, it was simply impossible.(emphasis added)[56]
Emma, therefore, did not recall any specific threat of destruction associated with the unauthorized viewing of the plates.
Question: Were the Book of Mormon witnesses not neutral because they were members of the Church and believers in Joseph's mission?
The witnesses did not believe they had seen plates because they believed in the restoration; they believed in the restoration because they had seen plates
It is claimed 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."
The critics have the sequence reversed: the witnesses did not believe they had seen plates because they believed in the restoration; they believed in the restoration because they had seen plates. It would be a strange witness if realizing the Joseph had actual plates and divine aid to translate them did not compel them to become members of the restored gospel.
As Pratt points out above, the Book of Mormon is something about which one cannot be neutral or disinterested—if one is convinced that it is what it claims to be, then this requires action.
Given that many witnesses were subsequently disaffected from Joseph Smith and the Church (some permanently), and yet never denied their witness, this attack has been robbed of much of whatever force it previously had. The disaffected witnesses had many reasons to be "interested" in denouncing Joseph Smith and the faith he founded. Yet, they did not—this argues for the reality of their experience and the sincerity of their witness despite any beliefs they had when they first gave it.
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?
Parley P. Pratt replied to this assertion, which was frequently the main means of dismissing the witnesses in early anti-Mormon writing:
Mr. L. complains of all the witnesses to the Book of Mormon being interested witnesses; that is, they are all followers of, and believers in, that system. But, I enquire, who would be a disinterested witness? If all Christendom were to see the original document, and be convinced of its truth, they would all see the original document, and be convinced of its truth, they would all be as much interested in it as those who first witnessed it. The Lord never chose a disinterested witness of his resurrection or any other truth. Would Mr. L. have a witness who would say the thing is true to be sure, but does not concern me, I purpose never to obey it myself, but to go down to hell, for the sake of giving others a disinterested testimony of its truth? But after all, the first witnesses to the Book of Mormon were not members of this church when they gave their testimony; for there was no such church in existence until some time after their testimony had been published.[57]
Question: How do the witnesses of the Book of Mormon compare to the witnesses of Philemon Stewart's A Holy, Sacred and Divine Roll and Book; From the Lord God of Heaven, to the Inhabitants of Earth?
One critic of the Church asks how we can believe in the Book of Mormon witnesses and not the witnesses to Philemon Stewart's A Holy, Sacred and Divine Roll and Book; From the Lord God of Heaven, to the Inhabitants of Earth (hereafter Holy Roll).[58] The critic mistakenly attributes authorship for the book to Ann Lee: founder of the Shaker movement during the late 1700s.[59] However, "[the book] was written in 1843, and Ann Lee died in 1784. The book came out during a period in Shaker history known as the Era of Manifestations, wherein multiple people claimed visionary experiences and revelations that they believed were being sent to them by Ann Lee, who they believed was a secondary Christ figure. This era occurred between 1837 and the mid-1850s. It was such a confusing time that many members didn’t know what was actual revelation and what was hallucination.[60] Those 'visions' were being used to 'expose sins' of others and force them out of the community[.]"[61] The book "contains moral counsel, biblical quotations, historical observations, and theological reflections, all represented as the product of spirit revelation."[62] One can read the book for free online at this link. Stewart claimed that on May 4, 1842, an angel named Al'sign te're Jah' appeared to him and led him to a fountain named the Holy Fountain at New Lebanon. The fountain was located at a site called Holy Mount where, three days prior on May 1, the Shakers had celebrated the first passover feast. There, Stewart claimed to have scribed the revelation as dictated by the angel over the course of fourteen days for six hours a day. The original version totaled over 400 pages. The first 200 or so pages of the book is the revelation as delivered by the angel. The other 200 or so pages document more than ninety testimonies attesting to the authenticity of the book and other things. The individuals who gave these testimonies claim to have witnessed different things. Some witnesses don't compare at all with what the Book of Mormon witnesses saw while others compare more closely. For instance, eight women give their names and testify that they saw the angel that appeared to Stewart holding the Holy Roll while on top of a house. How should a person claim that the Book of Mormon witnesses are superior to the witnesses to Philemon Stewart's book?
Response to Question
The Divine Roll and Book Fell out of Favor with Leaders, Members, and Witnesses of the Shaker Movement
The first point is made succinctly by Book of Mormon scholar Matthew Roper. He responded back in 1993 to the same criticism as made by Gerald and Sandra Tanner. He wrote:
The Tanners attempt to downplay the significance of the witnesses’ written testimony by noting similarities between it and several nineteenth-century Shaker writings in which some Shaker believers claimed to have seen angels and visions. “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 book. [In Shaker writings,] there are over a hundred pages of testimony from ‘Living Witnesses.’“[63] But the quantity of witnesses has little meaning if those witnesses afterwards admit that they were wrong. Unlike the Book of Mormon, the Shaker Roll and Book afterwards fell into discredit and dishonor among the Shakers themselves and was abandoned by its leaders and most believers,[64] while the Book of Mormon continued to be a vitally important part of Mormon scripture to which each of the witnesses, including Martin Harris, continued to testify, even while outside of the Church.[65]
It should be emphasized that this discredit and skepticism among believers in the Shaker movement was quick. In fact, it started during the printing and publication process of the Holy Roll. The late American religious historian Stephen J. Stein in his book The Shaker Experience in America observes that the Shakers believed that sacred scripture could be produced through revelation of dead spirits (a belief known as spiritualism) to "instruments" or "visionists": mortal people and followers of the Shaker movement. When revelation was claimed to be produced in the name and authority of the instruments or visionists themselves and not the spirits, that revelation's authenticity was questioned. This questioning and skepticism was directed towards Stewart's Holy Roll, "no doubt fueled by personal animosities toward" Stewart himself.[66] Stein observes in another presentation (and probably the best source of information on the Holy Roll) that the Shaker society's leaders accused Stewart of "elevating his own role in the revelation and for soliciting too many testimonies in support of it" as well as "self-enhancement and of a lack of humility." Stewart's book, along with the testimonials of the other visionists attesting to the book's divinity, was published in 1843. Stewart wrote to the ministry at New Lebanon, NY asking them to reprint the Holy Roll in 1848—a request that was not pursued further by the Shakers. Stewart, in time, became a critic of the establishment's leadership and remained so until his death in 1875.[67] In 1874 (31 years after the Holy Roll was published), Charles Nordhoff was told by one of the Shaker elders that the best use for copies of the Holy Roll was to burn them.[68] So whatever the testimony and visitations of these visionists that gave their names to Stewart's revelation were, it apparently wasn't enough to convince them to remain committed to stalwartly defending that testimony. The only one that appears to have remained committed to the book's authenticity was Stewart.
Comparison of the Different Testimonies
When comparing the testimonies of the experiences of the Book of Mormon Witnesses and the Shaker witnesses, Brian Hales offers this easy-to-read chart:
The Shakers are a Now Defunct and Discredited Religious Movement
As author Jim Bennett observed about this criticism:
So we shouldn’t accept the testimony of Book of Mormon witnesses because the Shakers, who no longer exist and who’s central claims have been completely discredited by the passage of time, claimed to see angels? How is that anything but a non sequitur? Each testimony should be evaluated on its own merits. As it stands, the Shakers no longer exist, so I don’t see much value in reviewing their testimonies.[69]
Assuming that the Shaker Testimony is Actually True
Let's assume that the Shaker testimony is true and the Holy Roll actually did have divine origins, does that really impinge on the witnesses credibility? Of course not! That some people claim to see one thing is not evidence that others can't see and experience something different. To say otherwise is just a non-sequitir.
Additionally, Latter-day Saints are open to other people having spiritual manifestations, revelations, and visions in other religions. The prophet Nephi in the Book of Mormon teaches that God has inspired the production of many religious books.[70] Along similar lines, the prophet Alma teaches that “the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true.”[71] Additionally, the Book of Alma teaches that the Spirit of God can be poured out on non-covenant people so that their hearts can be softened and thus prepared to receive the Gospel.[72] Doctrine & Covenants teaches that "we believe religion is instituted of God[.]"[73] Other biblical scriptures clearly indicate that God inspires other groups outside of his covenant group with truth, light, and miracles.[74] A 1978 official statement from the First Presidency of the Church states that "[t]he great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals."[75] Latter-day Saints could accept at least some of the visions of the Shakers without having to feel that any of their theological commitments are being compromised.
Conclusion
It's clear that comparisons between the Book of Mormon witnesses and the witnesses to Philemon Stewart's book intended to discredit the former are likely going to be guilty of the false equivalency logical fallacy. Even if we are to accept the truthfulness of what the Shaker witnesses claimed, it does not need to be threatening in any way to the credibility of the Book of Mormon witnesses nor any of the theological commitments held by orthodox Latter-day Saints.
Richard Anderson: All eleven Book of Mormon witnesses publicly reaffirmed their testimony as printed
Richard Anderson described multiple accounts of all the Witnesses bearing testimony and reaffirming their published testimony:[76]
The three Smiths who formally gave their names as seeing and handling the plates were the Prophet's father, Joseph Smith, Sr.; the Prophet's older brother, Hyrum; and his immediately younger brother, Samuel Harrison. They sometimes joined the other Book of Mormon witnesses to reaffirm their testimony printed in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon regarding lifting and turning the leaves of the plates. After quoting the published statements of the Three and Eight Witnesses, and describing the experience of the latter group, Lucy Smith relates, "The ensuing evening, we held a meeting, in which all the witnesses bore testimony to the facts as stated above."[77] Two years later, in the period of dynamic preaching of the early elders, a conference was held near Cleveland, Ohio, remembered by Luke Johnson as follows: "At this conference the eleven witnesses to the Book of Mormon, with uplifted hands, bore their solemn testimony to the truth of that book, as did also the Prophet Joseph."[78]
Question: Did the Witnesses who left the Church continue to maintain their witness of the Book of Mormon?
All of the Three Witnesses and three of the Eight Witnesses left the Church in 1838 and were hostile, at least for a time, against Joseph Smith. Yet, they clung to their witness and continued to affirm it
Three Witnesses
Oliver Cowdery
Oliver would later return to the Church and seek rebaptism.
During his estrangement from the Church, he insisted upon his witness as true.
David Whitmer never returned to the Church, but left an extensive record validating his testimony. When Thomas B. Marsh, an excommunicated apostle, approached Whitmer and Cowdery to learn "the real truth" about the Book of Mormon (since they, like him, were now excommunicated and hostile to it) Marsh reported:
I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to his testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book. I asked him, if so, how did he not stand by Joseph? He answered, in the days when Joseph received the Book of Mormon, and brought it forth, he was a good man filled with the Holy Ghost, but he considered he had now fallen. I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.[79]
Hiram Page never returned to the Church, but continued to bear his witness. Even when approached by the excommunicated William McLellin, Page replied:
As to the Book of Mormon, it would be doing injustice to myself, and to the work of God of the last days, to say that I could know a thing to be true in 1830, and know the same thing to be false in 1847.[80]
John Whitmer never returned to the Church, but maintained his testimony as the second-longest lived witness (after his brother David Whitmer).
When asked how he could leave in view of his testimony of the plates' literal reality, John rationalized his choice to disbelieve the translation of the Book of Mormon (despite knowing that the plates were literal and physical):
I cannot read it, and I do not know whether it is true or not.[81]
Whitmer would not, then, deny what he had seen and hefted, even when estranged from Joseph and the Church.
After leaving the Church, John said:
It may not be amiss in this place, to give a statement to the world concerning the work of the Lord, as I have been a member of this church of Latter Day Saints from its beginning; to say that the book of Mormon is a revelation from God, I have no hesitancy; but with all confidence have signed my named to it as such; and I hope, that my patrons will indulge me in speaking freely on this subject, as I am about leaving the editorial department. Therefore I desire to testify to all that will come to the knowledge of this address; that I have most assuredly seen the plates from whence the book of Mormon is translated, and that I have handled these plates, and know of a surety that Joseph Smith, jr. has translated the book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, and in this thing the wisdom of the wise most assuredly has perished: therefore, know ye, O ye inhabitants of the earth, wherever this address may come, that I have in this thing freed my garments of your blood, whether you believe or disbelieve the statements of your unworthy friend and well-wisher.[82]
Question: What did the Book of Mormon witnesses say about the faithfulness of other witnesses?
Some Book of Mormon witnesses emphasized that they had never renounced their testimony, and insisted that they had never heard other witnesses do so either.
John Whimter: "I have never heard that any one of the three, or eight witnesses ever denied the testimony that they have borne to the Book as published in the first edition of the Book of Mormon."[83]
David H. Cannon: The thing which impressed me most of all was, as we stood beside the grave of Oliver Cowdery the other Witness, who had come back into the Church before his death, and [David Whitmer] in describing Oliver[']s action, when bearing his testimony, said to the people in his room, placing his hands like this upon his head, saying 'I know the Gospel to be true and upon this head has Peter[,] James and John laid their hands and confer[r]ed the Holy Melchisedic Priesthood.' [84]
David Whitmer, interview with James H. Hart: "Mr Whitmer felt very indignant while speaking of certain statements published recently to the effect that he and Oliver Cowdery had denied their statement as published in the Book of Mormon. This he denounced as false in every particular. He said: "Oliver never wavered in his testimony, and when he was on his death bed, I was there, with many of his friends, until he passed away. He bore the same testimony on his dying bed that he had always borne through life, and earnestly called upon all to cleave to the truth revealed through the Prophet Joseph, and to serve the Lord. As for myself, I have never denied my testimony that is published in the Book of Mormon, for I know that God has revealed these things for the salvation of the children of men, and to Him belongs all the honor, the power and the glory."[85]
Said Oliver Cowdery of a testimony by John Whitmer: "A thousand things may be conjectured, but when a man declares openly, candidly, and seriously, of what he has seen, hefted and handled with his own hands, and taht in the presence of a God who sees and knows the secrets of the heart, no man possessed of common reason and common sense, can doubt, or will be so vain as to dispute."[86]
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?
"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"
MormonThink states...
"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"
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?
On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The following quote comes from one of the most noted pro-LDS Mormon historians and apologists, Richard Bushman:
“Now, most historians, Mormon or not, who work with the sources, accept as fact Joseph Smith’s career as village magician. Too many of his closest friends and family admitted as much, and some of Joseph’s own revelations support the contention.”
- Richard L. Bushman, Mormon historian, “Treasure-seeking Then and Now,” Sunstone, v. 11, September 1987, p. 5
FairMormon commentary
The author has misquoted the source —Because the critic simply copies what they think are source quotes from other web sites, the quote does not match the source. No, Richard Bushman did not say that. The quote does not appear in the cited source. It appears to be a critic's paraphrase of what Bushman said.
That scholarship helped me understand Joseph Smith, because the sources made it clear that not just the Smith family but
many people in the neighborhood were invoking spells and rituals to find buried treasure while still claiming to be believing Christians....But what intrigues me still more is that nowhere, so far as I can see, did the revelations ever repudiate treasure-seeking Joseph had no reason to believe that it was all superstitious hogwash, as we are inclined to think today.
==
Notes
==
[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.
[note] Chicago Times Correspondent Interview, 14 October 1881, Richmond, Missouri, Chicago Times, 17 October 1881, in Lyndon W. Cook, ed. David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness (Orem, UT: Grandin, 1991), 75 76.
[note] James H. Hart Interview, 21 August 1883, Richmond, Missouri, James H. Hart Notebook, in Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, 96.
[note] David Whitmer to Anthony Metcalf, March 1887, in Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years before the Mast (Malad, IN: n.p., 1888), 73 74.
[note] Nathan Tanner Jr. to Nathan A. Tanner, 17 February 1909, in Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, 192 93.
[note] Joseph Smith III et al., Interview, July 1884, Richmond Missouri, in Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, 134 35.
[note] "Statement of William M. Glenn to O. E. Fischbacher, 30 May 1943, Cardston, Alberta, Canada," Deseret News, 2 October 1943, Church Section, p. 6.
[note] Remarks of Oliver Cowdery, 21 October 1848, Misqueto Creek, Council Bluffs, Iowa, Reuben Miller Journal, 21 October 1848, Latter day Saint Church Archives. Miller's account later appeared in the Millennial Star 21 (1859): 544 46, and in the Deseret Evening News, 20 February 1910, 8.
[note] Jacob Forsberry Gates (son of Jacob Gates), signed and notarized affidavit, 30 January 1912, LDS Church Archives; published in Improvement Era (March 1912): 418-19.
[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.
↑Daniel C. Peterson, "Not Joseph's, and Not Modern," in Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, edited by Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and John W. Welch, (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2002), Chapter 2, references silently removed—consult original for citations.
↑"I.C. Funn," [John Whitmer Testimony], Kingston (MO) Sentinel, ca. January 1878, reprinted in Saints' Herald 25 (15 February 1878): 57; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:245.
↑David Whitmer, interview with James H. Hart on 21 August 1883, Journal-Notebook, 21 August 1883, Special Collections and Manuscripts, Harold B. Lee Library, BYU ; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:96.
↑George Godfrey, “Testimony of Martin Harris,” from an unpublished manuscript copy in the possession of his daughter, Florence (Godfrey) Munson of Fielding, Utah; quoted in Eldin Ricks, The Case of the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1971), 65–66. Also cited in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 117. ISBN 0877478465.
↑"Letter from General W.H. Gibson," Seneca Advertiser (Tiffin, Ohio) (12 April 1892); cited in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 40. ISBN 0877478465.
↑Milwaukee Sentinel (13 April 1848); cited in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 44. ISBN 0877478465.
↑Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 44. ISBN 0877478465.
↑David Whitmer, responding to John Murphy, "David Whitmer Proclamation, 19 March 1881," quoted in Early Mormon Documents 5:69
↑Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, in letter dated 29 November 1829, quoted in Corenlius C. Blatchly, "THE NEW BIBLE, written on plates of Gold or Brass," Gospel Luminary 2/49 (10 Dec. 1829): 194.
↑Andrew Jenson, Latter-Day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia: A Compilation of Biographical Sketches of Prominent Men and Women in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 4 vols., (Salt Lake City, A. Jenson History Co., 1901; reprinted Salt Lake City, Utah : Greg Kofford Books, 2003), 1:246.
↑George Godfrey, “Testimony of Martin Harris,” from an unpublished manuscript copy in the possession of his daughter, Florence (Godfrey) Munson of Fielding, Utah; quoted in Eldin Ricks, The Case of The Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1971), 65–66.
↑Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 137-138. ISBN 0877478465.
↑Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations (Liverpool, S.W. Richards, 1853), 141.
↑Emma Smith, The Saints’ Herald, 26:290; Michael H. MacKay and Gerrit Dirkmaat, From Darkness unto Light: Joseph Smith’s Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2015), 15.
↑William Smith, William Smith on Mormonism (Lamoni, IA: Herald Steam Book and Job Office, 1883), 5–12. Quoted in Larry E. Morris, A Documentary History of the Book of Mormon (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), 153–56.
↑Smith, "Old Soldier," 643–44. See also Matthew B. Brown, Plates of Gold: The Book of Mormon Comes Forth (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2003), 48.
↑Journal of Discourses, 7:164. Quoted in H. Donl Peterson, Moroni: Ancient Prophet, Modern Messenger (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000), 165.
↑John D. Lee, Mormonism Unveiled (St. Louis: Bryan, 1877), 184. Quoted in Peterson, Moroni, 165–66.
↑Lucy Mack Smith, The Revised and Enhanced History of Joseph Smith by His Mother, eds. Scot Facer Proctor and Maureen Jensen Proctor (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996), 152–53. Quoted in Peterson, Moroni, 167. It is unclear from the account whether this was a dream as experienced by Harris or an actual appearance of an angel that Harris may have thought was a dream.
↑Harrison Burgess, “Sketch of a Well Spent Life,” Labors in the Vineyard (Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1884), 65–66. Quoted in Peterson, Moroni, 170.
↑ “Early Days of Mormonism,” Chenango Union, Apr. 12, 1877. Quoted in Larry E. Morris, “Empirical Witnesses of the Gold Plates,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 52, no. 2 (Summer 2019): 67.
↑William Shepard and H. Michael Marquardt, Lost Apostles: Forgotten Members of Mormonism’s Original Quorum of Twelve (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2014), 42.
↑Stokely’s comments were originally published in the Western Press (Mercer County, Pennsylvania), though no copies of that paper seem to be extant. But his report was subsequently republished as “The Mormonites” on page two of The American Sentinel for 25 February 1832, and then as “The Orators of Mormon” in Catholic Telegraph (Cincinnati) on 14 April 1832, on pages 204–05. Emphasis in original.
↑Edward W. Tullidge, “Biographies,” in Tullidge’s Histories: Containing the History of All the Northern, Eastern, and Western Counties of Utah, also the Counties of Southern Idaho (Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor, 1889), 2:174–75.
↑W.O. [William Owen], “Mormon Bible,” Free Enquirer (New York) (3 September 1831): 364.
↑Jeremy Runnells, "Letter to a CES Director" (original draft posted on the critical website "FutureMissionary.com") (2013)
↑See Theodore Besterman, Crystal-gazing: a study in the history, distribution, theory and practice of scrying (London: W. Rider & son, 1924), 123. As he writes: “What is perhaps the most interesting of these miscellaneous phenomena can be best described as collective scrying, coming under the general head of simultaneous hallucination. In such a case two or more persons simultaneously see approximately the same vision in the speculum. The qualification is necessary, for in none of the best attested and detailed instances of such visions did the scryers see precisely the same vision. This forms the most puzzling of the various aspects of this puzzling matter.” The closest that someone has gotten to documenting such a case was Grant H. Palmer, Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 194. Palmer writes: "Alan Taylor, director of the Institute of Early American History and Culture, has observed that treasure-seeking groups of that era often encountered spectral apparitions and sinking treasure chests. With expectations high, a suggestion from one participant would trigger a group vision, according to his research. Taylor found that years later some of these groups, still believing their experiences were real, would not deny then and never had." Palmer is citing Alan Taylor, "The Early Republic's Supernatural Economy: Treasure Seeking in the American Northeast, 1780-1830," American Quarterly 38 (Spring 1986): 13-14. There are two issues here. First, the insinuation that the power of suggestion could explain a group vision like that of the witnesses. It's perhaps possible; but look at the elaborate circumstances Taylor describes that produce that right atmosphere: "These supernatural encounters were very "real" to those who experienced them. Childhood exposure to treasure tales and their careful performance of elaborate ceremonies at the digging site created a nervous expectation to see the extraordinary. Long hours of strenuous, nighttime digging by flickering lanterns in dark, remote, and cold locales engendered exhaustion. Adherence to strict procedures, especially the rule of silence, produced sustained tension. Finally, seekers tended to bring along a generous supply of alcohol and drank freely to fortify their nerves and warm their bodies. These circumstances developed their anxiously expectant frame of mind to the point that one participant's suggestion, or any unexpected sight or sound, could trigger a group hallucination. Subsequent, repeated narration to others rapidly confirmed, refined, and elaborated the experience." There is no evidence that the witnesses experience was anything like this. It was the middle of the day, in the summer and thus experienced no dark, cold exhaustion. There is no elaborate or strict procedures described for the witnesses experience other then their praying for the experience to occur. The instructions for the witnesses in the contemporary revelations (D&C 5, 17) are also not nearly so elaborate or convoluted. Basic instructions are given in them such as to humble oneself before the Lord and testify to what you see. Absent are injunctions to remain silent to produce suspense or anything else described by Taylor. The second key issue is the assertion by Palmer that “years later some of these groups, still believing their experiences were real, would not deny then and never had.” The evidence cited for this assertion is a 1867 chronicler’s assertion that a Mr. Savage stood by his conviction of his experiences (what exactly those are is not made clear in the article) “as long as he lived,” and could not be “ridiculed out of it.” Note, of course, that Mr. Savage is an individual, not a group. So a single person never denied his experiences (whatever they were) his entire life. The other evidence is from Martin Harris’s Tiffany’s interview. While this is Martin talking about it years later, the conversations he was reporting with money diggers were contemporary with their digging activities. We have no idea if any of the people Martin spoke to “never denied” their experiences, because there is zero follow-up with them in the historical record. These people, like Taylor describes, would have been under elaborate and stressful psychological conditions in order to produce these visions. With the witnesses to the Book of Mormon plates, we have documented testimony of their experience that we can easily examine, held up in that documentary record over a long, long period of time, and we have no evidence that they were placed in unideal psychological circumstances prior to their vision. Palmer then states in a citation: ""For a detailed description of a company of seven men who never denied that they viewed a guardian and his "glittering" metal treasure, see Daniel P. [Judge] Thompson , May Martin: Or the Money Diggers. A Green Mountain Tale (London: J. Clements Lytle, 1841, 19-22." This assertion is patently absurd by Palmer, since May Martin is a fictional novel.
↑Jeremy Runnells, "Letter to a CES Director" (original version posted on the critical website "FutureMissionary.com") (2013)
↑Joseph Smith III visited David Whitmer in 1884, along with a committee from the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and several onlookers. According to Joseph III's memoirs, one of the non-believers there was a military officer, who suggested the possibility that Whitmer "had been mistaken and had simply been moved upon by some mental disturbance or hallucination, which had deceived him into thinking he saw" the angel and the plates. Joseph III's recollection of Whitmer's response is quoted above. See Memoirs of Joseph Smith III, cited in Mary Audentia Smith Anderson, Joseph Smith III and the Restoration (Independence, MO: 1952), pp. 311-12. Cited in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 88. ISBN 0877478465.
↑ Alma L. Jensen, attested statement, Dayton, Ohio, 1 June 1936, L. Tom Perry Special Collections Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
↑Jacob F. Gates, "Testimony of Jacob Gates," Improvement Era no. 15 (March 1912), 418–419.
↑Hilgard, Ernest R. (1965). Hypnotic Susceptibility. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.; Stanford Profile Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
↑Hugh W. Nibley, Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass: The Art of Telling Tales About Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (Vol. 11 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by David J. Whittaker, (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1991), 128. ISBN 0875795161. GL direct link
↑"Interview with Joseph Smith III", in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 1:542.
↑Parley P. Pratt, A Reply to...“Complete Failure,”...and...“Mormonism Exposed,” (Manchester: W. R. Thomas, 1840), 1-9. off-siteFull title
↑Jeremy T. Runnells, CES Letter: My Search for Answers to My Mormon Doubts (n.p.: CES Letter Foundation, 2017), 103–04.
↑Stephen J. Stein, The Shaker Experience in America (Hartford, CT: Yale University Press, 1992), 177–80. For a more detailed discussion of the contents of the Holy Roll, see Stephen J. Stein, "The Story of the Shaker Bible," Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society 105, no. 2. (October 1995): 357–63.
↑Jerald Tanner and Sandra Tanner, “Roper Attacks Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?” Salt Lake City Messenger 82 (September 1992): 14.
↑One nineteenth-century authority on the Shakers relates, “Some of the most curious literature of the Shakers dates from this period [early-to-midnineteenth century]; and it is freely admitted by their leading men that they were in some cases misled into acts and publications which they have since seen reason to regret. Their belief is that they were deceived by false spirits, and were unable, in many cases, to distinguish the true from the false. That is to say, they hold to their faith in ‘spiritual communications,’ so called; but repudiate much in which they formerly had faith, believing this which they now reject to have come from the evil one. . . . The most curious relics of those days are two considerable volumes, which have since fallen into discredit among the Shakers themselves, but were at the time of their issue regarded as highly important. One of these is entitled ‘A Holy, Sacred, and Divine Roll and Book, from the Lord God of Heaven to the Inhabitants of the Earth.‘ . . . The second work is called ‘The Divine Book of Holy and Eternal Wisdom, revealing the Word of God, out of whose mouth goeth a sharp Sword.’ . . . These two volumes are not now, as formerly, held in honor by the Shakers. One of their elders declared to me that I ought never to have seen them, and that their best use was to burn them,” in Charles Nordhoff, The Communistic Societies of the United States (New York: Hillary House Publishers, 1961), 235, 245, 248, 250; this is a reprint of the 1875 edition.
↑Amos 9:7; Jonah 1; Matthew 3:9; Luke 3:8. These four are affirmed to mean that God inspires other nations and people with light in James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 44. See also Luke 9:49-50.
↑"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," November 1857; printed in Deseret News (24 March 1858) and Millennial Star 26 (1864): 406; cited in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 56-57. ISBN 0877478465.
↑Letter of Hiram Page to William E. McLellin (30 May 1847), Ray County, Mo.; cited in Ensign of Liberty 1 (1848): 63.
↑"Theodore Turley's Memorandums," Church Archives, handwriting of Thomas Bullock, who began clerking in late 1843; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:241.; see also with minor editing in Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 3:307–308. Volume 3 link
↑John Whimter to Mark H. Forest [Forscutt], 5 March 1876, Whitmer Papers, Community of Christ Library-Archives; in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:243.
↑David H. Cannon, Autobiography, 13 March 1917, p. 5; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:218.
↑David Whitmer, interview with James H. Hart on 10 March 1884, Letter to Deseret News (18 March 1884); cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:105.
↑Oliver Cowdery, "Conference Report," Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate 1 (June 1835), 143. Reproduced in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:250.
