Witnesses
Start: Introduction
Previous: Priesthood Restoration
Contents for this section:
At the end of the day? It all doesn’t matter. The Book of Mormon Witnesses and their testimonies of the gold plates are irrelevant. It does not matter whether eleven 19th century treasure diggers with magical worldviews saw some gold plates or not. It doesn’t matter because of this one simple fact:
JOSEPH DID NOT USE THE GOLD PLATESFOR TRANSLATING THE BOOK OF MORMON
This is the one section where instead beginning with a quote from the Church or some other source trusted by Latter-day Saints, he quotes himself from the end of this section. So expect my response to be repeated as well.
Consider: How would one "use" the gold plates for translating? If it were a traditional translation, he could use it by reading it. However, Joseph did not know reformed Egyptian and so could not read it. Instead, he translated it by the gift and power of God. Those in the room reported that he placed a seer stone in his hat to exclude the light, and that he would be able to see the translation glowing as he looked in the seer stone.
When people say that Joseph did not use the gold plates, what they really mean is that Joseph did not look at them. Jeremy does not explain is what benefit he thinks looking at the plates would serve. Joseph translated by the gift and power of God, and God being all-powerful can provide that translation however He would like, and through whatever requirements He wishes.
The three witnesses were shown the plates by an angel, and they heard the voice of God declare that Joseph translated them by the gift and power of God. They eight witnesses handled the plates. Of course the witnesses and their testimonies are relevant. Critics can explain away the Spirit as "just feelings" but it is much more difficult to explain away the physical reality of the plates.
The testimony of the Three and Eight Witnesses to the Book of Mormon is a key part to the testimonies of many members of the Church. Some even base their testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon on these 11 witnesses and their claims.
While some might, I would find this atypical. Latter-day Saints teach that the foundation of a testimony comes from a witness of the Spirit. While the witnesses may support their testimony, I have never heard anyone share a testimony that said they based their belief on the three and eight witnesses.
As a missionary, I was instructed to teach investigators about the testimonies of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon as part of boosting the book’s credibility.
To be clear, every mission is different, so Jeremy's experience isn't universal. This isn't part of the standard discussions used at the time of my mission, nor with the Preach my Gospel lessons that began soon after. On my mission, when we invited people to read the Book of Mormon, part of what we invited them to read was the testimony of the three and eight witnesses, but that's about it. In my experience, we taught that we can only gain a testimony about the Book of Mormon from the Spirit.
There are several critical problems for relying and betting on these 19th century men as credible witnesses.
MAGICAL WORLDVIEW
In order to truly understand the Book of Mormon witnesses and the issues with their claims, one must understand the magical worldview of many people in early 19th century New England. These are people who believed in folk magic, divining rods, visions, second sight, peep stones in hats, treasure hunting (money digging or glass looking), and so on.
Those involved with what we might call "folk magic" did not consider it magic at all. Rather than a magical worldview, they had a religious worldview. I believe in visions, and I believe that the Lord works through small and simple means to bring about greater purposes.
Believing in unscientific things doesn't mean that they are not credible witnesses. And believing in unscientific things doesn't mean that they cannot be used by God to serve Him.
Many people believed in buried treasure, the ability to see spirits and their dwelling places within the local hills and elsewhere. This is one reason why treasure digging as a paid service was practiced. Joseph Smith, his father, and his brother Hyrum had engaged in treasure hunting from 1820–1827. Joseph was hired by folks like Josiah Stowell, who Joseph mentions in his history. In 1826, Joseph was arrested and brought to court in Bainbridge, New York on the complaint of Stowell’s nephew who accused Joseph of being a “disorderly person and an imposter.”
This paragraph is more about Joseph Smith than the witnesses, but it does mention two of them: his father and Hyrum. I was unfamiliar with the claim that Joseph's father and brother engaged in treasure hunting, especially specifically from 1820-1827. Jeremy is quoting Grant Palmer in An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, who doesn't elaborate further. I found that Mark Ashurst-McGee cites sources of Joseph Smith Sr.'s involvement in treasure digging, and D. Michael Quinn mentions some about Hyrum, but there's not a lot, and there's no discussion of timeframes.
As for Joseph Smith, he was hired by Josiah Stowell, not "folks like Josiah Stowell"—as far as I'm aware, while Joseph did use his seer stone for finding lost objects, only Josiah Stowell is said to have hired Joseph for his services. Treasure digging was typically done for their own benefit, the diggers' reward being the treasure they found, and not normally a paid practice.
Josiah Stowell wanted to find some hidden treasure and he had heard about Joseph's gift for finding things that were hidden or lost. In the fall of 1825, Joseph worked for Josiah Stowell for nearly a month without success until he was able to persuade Josiah to quit. Joseph was paid fourteen dollars a month for this work. Several month's later, Josiah's nephew, Peter G. Bridgman filed a complaint, and Joseph was charged as a "disorderly person and an Imposter." Joseph appeared before a judge on 20 March 1826. Accounts disagree as to the result, but Josiah testified in favor of Joseph and there is no evidence that Joseph received any punishment.
Jeremy does not explain why he thinks treasure hunting means they are not credible witnesses. In a couple paragraphs and again at the end of this magical worldview segment, Jeremy will use this as yet another thing that doesn't match his expectations, not as an argument why they are not credible.
It would not have been unusual during this time for a neighbor, friend, or even a stranger to come up to you and say, “I received a vision of the Lord!” and for you to respond, in all seriousness, “Well, what did the Lord say?”
It wasn't unusual for people to report visions, but it was typical for others to treat them with contempt, as was the case for Joseph Smith. Richard Bushman talks about that in Rough Stone Rolling:
Joseph did tell a Methodist preacher about the First Vision. Newly reborn people customarily talked over their experiences with a clergyman to test the validity of the conversion. The preacher's contempt shocked Joseph. Standing on the margins of the evangelical churches, Joseph may not have recognized the ill repute of visionaries. The preacher reacted quickly and negatively, not because of the strangeness of Joseph's story but because of its familiarity. Subjects of revivals all too often claimed to have seen visions. In 1826 a preacher at the Palmyra Academy said he saw Christ descend "in a glare of brightness, exceeding ten fold the brilliancy of the meridian Sun." The Wayne Sentinel in 1823 reported Asa Wild's vision of Christ in Amsterdam, New York, telling him that all denominations were corrupt. At various other times and places, beginning early in the Protestant era, religious eccentrics had claimed visits from divinity. Norris Stearns published an account in 1815 of two beings who appeared to him: "One was God, my Maker, almost in bodily shape like a man. His face was, as it were a flame of Fire, and his body, as it had been a Pillar and a Cloud. . . . Below him stood Jesus Christ my Redeemer, in perfect shape like a man."The clergy of the mainline churches automatically suspected any visionary report, whatever its content. "No person is warranted from the word of God," a writer in the Connecticut Evangelical Magazine said in 1805, "to publish to the world the discoveries of heaven or hell which he supposes he has had in a dream, or trance, or vision. Were any thing of this kind to be made known to men, we may be assured it would have been done by the apostles, when they were penning the gospel history." The only acceptable message from heaven was assurance of forgiveness and a promise of grace. Joseph's report of God's rejection of all creeds and churches would have sounded all too familiar to the Methodist evangelical, who repeated the conventional point that "all such things had ceased with the apostles and that there never would be any more of them."
If Jeremy is saying that this is a reason the witnesses are unreliable (which is how this segment was introduced) then this is a case of begging the question, a type of circular reasoning fallacy. That is, it seems Jeremy is saying that they can't be trusted because they believe that angels appear to people. However, if an angel actually did appear to them, then they must necessarily believe that angels appear to people.
This is one of the reasons why 21st century Mormons, once including myself, are so confused and bewildered when hearing stuff like Joseph Smith using a peep stone in a hat or Oliver Cowdery using a divining rod or dowsing rod such as illustrated below:
I agree that that would do well to prevent people from being confused about Church history. But being confusing still isn't a reason the witnesses are unreliable. Perhaps Jeremy is no longer arguing that this means they are not credible, since it seems that he is going for another "I wasn't taught this" argument. Whether you were taught it or not doesn't change the reality of their witness.
The remainder of this segment is on Oliver's diving rod, largely quoting an anti-Mormon website, MormonThink.
The use of divining rods (such as the one above) is actually mentioned in the scriptures. In Doctrine & Covenants 8, the following heading provides context for the discussion:“Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet to Oliver Cowdery, at Harmony, Pennsylvania, April 1829. In the course of the translation of the Book of Mormon, Oliver, who continued to serve as scribe, writing at the Prophet’s dictation, desired to be endowed with the gift of translation. The Lord responded to his supplication by granting this revelation.”The revelation states, in relevant part:(Emphasis Added)6. Now this is not all thy gift; for you have another gift, which is the gift of Aaron; behold, it has told you many things;7. Behold, there is no other power, save the power of God, that can cause this gift of Aaron to be with you.8. Therefore, doubt not, for it is the gift of God; and you shall hold it in your hands, and do marvelous works; and no power shall be able to take it away out of your hands, for it is the work of God.9. And, therefore, whatsoever you shall ask me to tell you by that means, that I will grant unto you, and you shall have knowledge concerning it.10. Remember that without faith you can do nothing; therefore ask in faith. Trifle not with these things; do not ask for that which you ought not.11. Ask that you may know the mysteries of God, and that you may translate and receive knowledge from all those ancient records which have been hid up, that are sacred; and according to your faith shall it be done unto you.From the D&C 8 account, we don’t really know much about what exactly the “gift of Aaron” is that Oliver Cowdery received. What is “the gift of Aaron”? The text provides several clues:
- Oliver has a history of using it, since “it has told [him] many things.”
- It is “the gift of God.”
- It is to be held in Oliver’s hands (and kept there, impervious to any power).
- It allows Oliver to “do marvelous works.”
- It is “the work of God.”
- The Lord will speak through it to Oliver and tell him anything he
- asks while using it.
- It works through faith.
- It enables Oliver to translate ancient sacred documents.
Or rather, it would enable Oliver to translate—as we learn in Doctrine and Covenants 9, Oliver apparently was unsuccessful and gave up, and the Lord explained why he failed.
With only these clues, the “gift of Aaron” is difficult to identify. The task becomes much easier, however, when we look at the original revelation contained in the Book of Commandments, a predecessor volume to the Doctrine & Covenants, used by the LDS Church before 1835.
The original manuscript for the April 1829 revelation is no longer extant, but if we want the earliest copy, you can find it in Revelation Book 1, copied around March 1831. The Book of Commandments began to be printed in 1833, but because a mob destroyed the press, it was never completed, and therefore was never actually used by the Church except in a limited capacity thanks to several Saints who were able to save sheets that had been printed, which they bound later. The Joseph Smith Papers say, "It is unclear how many were saved and bound, but fewer than three dozen are currently known to exist."
Specifically, Section 7 of the Book of Commandments contains wording that was changed in the Doctrine & Covenants 8. The term “gift of Aaron” was originally “rod” and “rod of nature” in the Book of Commandments:“Now this is not all, for you have another gift, which is the gift of working with the rod: behold it has told you things: behold there is no other power save God, that can cause this rod of nature, to work in your hands.”
– The Book of Commandments 7:37 [Actually 7:3] (emphasis added)So, what is the “gift of Aaron” mentioned in D&C 8? It is a “rod of nature.”
What is a “rod of nature”? It is a divining rod or dowsing rod as illustrated in the above images, which Oliver Cowdery used to hunt for buried treasure.
The actual earliest copy of the revelation that I linked above said Oliver had "the gift of working with the sprout" and that God would "cause this thing of Nature" to work in his hands. In preparing the text for publication, Sidney Rigdon replaced sprout and thing of nature with rod. Editors of the Book of Commandments added of nature back in, so it became rod of nature. Joseph Smith Papers notes that "Green, flexible shoots or rods cut from hazel, peach, or cherry trees were sometimes used as divining rods."
Given that it was later changed to be compared with Aaron's rod, there exists some debate as to whether Oliver used a forked rod, as illustrated above (which is typical for dowsing rods) or a straight rod. A straight rod would be unusual, but later on it is said that Joseph gave Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball straight rods. According to Heber's son, Solomon F. Kimball—
Sister Sarah M. Kimball [who had married Heber's cousin] signed her name to the following statements: "At a Relief Society Meeting held April 28, 1842, I heard the Prophet make this statement. 'While other leading men of the Church have been unrighteously aspiring, Heber C. Kimball has been true and is to me what John was to Jesus, my beloved disciple.' Bro. Kimball showed me a rod that the Lord through the Prophet Joseph had given to him. He said that when he wanted to find out anything that was his right to know, all he had to do was to kneel down with the rod in his hand, and that sometimes the Lord would answer his questions before he had time to ask them." My mother and my sister, Helen Mar, told me the same thing and added to it, that Pres. Young received a similar rod from the Lord at the same time. They claimed that these rods were given to them because they were the only ones of the original Twelve who had not lifted up their heels against the Prophet.
As for the last claim, I can't find a source that says Oliver Cowdery used his rod for treasure seeking. I would assume he used it to find water, as that is their typical use, but it seems that the original revelation for Doctrine and Covenants 7 the only source to mention Oliver's divining rod.
Cowdery’s use of a divining rod to search for buried treasure evokes similar images of Joseph Smith hunting for treasure with a peep stone in a hat. Oliver also wished to use his divining rod, in the same way Joseph Smith used his stone and hat, to translate ancient documents. Doctrine & Covenants Section 8 indicates that the Lord, through Joseph Smith, granted Oliver’s request to translate using a...rod.
This summary shows that the analysis of Doctrine and Covenants 8 failed to look at Oliver's motivations. For that, we need to first look at Section 6. Oliver didn't want to translate with a rod, but rather, Oliver desired to know the will of the Lord, and as part of the revelation, the Lord told Oliver, "I grant unto you a gift, if you desire of me, to translate, even as my servant Joseph." It was based on this, that Oliver wished to translate.
Doctrine and Covenants 8 came as a result of Oliver's desire to translate, as the Lord promised. There, the Lord informed Oliver that he had two gifts: First was in verses 1-5 that Oliver had the gift of revelation, that he should "receive a knowledge concerning the engravings of old records" if he ask in faith with an honest heart, and the Lord would answer in his mind and in his heart by the Holy Ghost.
The second gift is the gift of the sprout, or rod, compared with the gift of Aaron. Again, he is told that if he asks in faith "by that means" the Lord would answer. He is told to not ask for what he ought not, but to ask to know the mysteries of God and that he may translate.
If Oliver Cowdery’s gift was really the use of a divining rod – and it was – then this tells us that the origins of the Church are much more rooted in folk magic and superstition than we’ve been led to believe by the LDS Church’s whitewashing of its origins and history.
Maybe it's just me, but I find it odd to claim the Church is whitewashing its origins and history by linking the Joseph Smith Papers which displays and discusses these primary documents that otherwise we would know nothing about. On 1 February 2013, a couple months before the Letter to a CES Director was first published, the Church posted an article on Oliver Cowdery's Gift as part of the Revelations in Context series, which helps provide historical context for each of the sections in the Doctrine and Covenants.
More recently, the Church published this information in Saints and in a supplementary article, Divining Rods.
For me, I had always wondered how Oliver was supposed to translate the plates. He didn't become a witness until after the Book of Mormon was translated. So he couldn't see the plates, he couldn't see the Urim and Thummim, so how was it supposed to work? So when I learned the real history as an adult, suddenly things made sense. Joseph didn't need those things to translate, and Oliver didn't either.
WITNESSES
We are told that the witnesses never disavowed their testimonies, but we have not come to know these men or investigated what else they said about their experiences.
Unfortunately, by the end of the section Jeremy still won't have come to know these men, nor investigated what else they said about their experiences. I'll see what I can do to help the rest of us.
They are 11 witnesses to the Book of Mormon: Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, Hiram Page, David Whitmer, John Whitmer, Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer Jr., Hyrum Smith, Samuel Smith, and Joseph Smith Sr. – who all shared a common worldview of second sight, magic, and treasure digging – which is what drew them together in 1829.
These are the eleven "official" witnesses, but that is not what drew them together. Obviously for three of them, they were drawn together because they were family: Joseph's father, Joseph Smith Sr. and two of his brothers, Hyrum and Samuel Smith. The five Whitmers were also drawn together because they were family. The Whitmers and the others were drawn to Joseph Smith because of his work with the Book of Mormon, not because they shared magical worldview.
Martin Harris was a respected landowner in Palmyra, and he first heard of the plates from his brother. He didn't think much of it at first, but as he heard more and eventually spoke to the Smiths' about it personally, he prayed and became satisfied that it was the Lord's work and he would help however he could.
Oliver Cowdery was a schoolmaster in Manchester and boarded with the Smith family in Palmyra. After learning about the plates, he prayed to know the truth and the Lord manifested to him that they were true. After that, he desired to meet Joseph in Harmony and help him with the translation effort.
David Whitmer had become friends with Oliver, and they often talked about the gold plates. Oliver wrote him saying that it was God's will for him to help Joseph, Emma, and Oliver to move to the Whitmer home in Fayette. The family agreed. David wanted to go to Harmony immediately, but his father asked him to pray first. After praying, he felt he needed to finish his work at home before going to Pennsylvania. The next morning, he awoke to find about six acres had been plowed overnight. He finished the plowing and fertilizing and headed for Harmony earlier than expected.
The remaining witnesses were David's brothers, John, Christian, Jacob, and Peter, and also David's brother-in-law, Hiram Page.
The following are several facts and observations on three of the Book of Mormon Witnesses:
MARTIN HARRIS
Martin Harris was anything but a skeptical witness. He was known by many of his peers as an unstable, gullible, and superstitious man.
He was also known by his peers to be honorable, honest, and industrious. When we look at his behavior, we see that Martin Harris was definitely a skeptical witness.
He said that when he first heard of the "golden bible" that he thought "that the money-diggers had probably dug up an old brass kettle, or something of the kind." and so he thought no more of it. But as rumors spread, he became more curious. Joseph asked his mother Lucy to invite Martin over. He came a couple days later without telling when, and Joseph was not at home, which gave him an opportunity to talk to the family about the plates. He talked with them separately to see if their stories agreed, which they did.
After Joseph came and related his story, he asked Martin for his assistance. Martin told him, "if it is the devil's work I will have nothing to do with it, but if it is the Lord's you can have all the money necessary to bring it before the world. … we know that the devil is to have great power in the latter days to deceive if possible the very elect; and I don't know that you are one of the elect. Now you must not blame me for not taking your word." Joseph wouldn't show him the plates, but let him lift the box containing the plates, as he allowed his wife and daughter a couple days earlier. He said " I knew from the heft that they were lead or gold, and I knew that Joseph had not credit enough to buy so much lead." He went home and prayed, promising to put in his best effort if the Lord showed him that it was his work. He said that by the still small voice the Lord showed him that it was His work, and so Martin was satisfied.
One day, he was at the Smith house and was picking his teeth with a pin. He accidentally dropped the pin into shavings and straw. He, Joseph Smith and Northrop Sweet looked for it, but couldn't find it. Martin decided to surprise Joseph saying, "Take your stone." Joseph took it from his pocked and put it in his hat and placed his face in his hat. Martin said, "I watched him closely to see that he did not look one side; he reached out his hand beyond me on the right, and moved a little stick, and there I saw the pin, which he picked up and gave to me. I know he did not look out of the hat until after he had picked up the pin."
After Joseph and Emma moved to Harmony, Martin Harris met with Professor Charles Anthon and showed him a copy of the Book of Mormon characters as well as their translation. While they disagree about what exactly happened, Martin came away more sure of the translation. This was seen as fulfilling Isaiah 29:11-12.
One day, when they took a break from the translation, Martin found a stone that looked just like Joseph's seer stone. He swapped them out without telling Joseph. Joseph was not able to translate, and Martin confessed what he had done and explained he did it "to stop the mouths of fools, who had told him that the Prophet had learned these sentences and was merely repeating them, etc."
These are not the actions of someone who is supposedly "anything but a skeptical witness." The reason many of his peers saw him as an "unstable, gullible, and superstitious man" is because he said he saw an angel. So again Jeremy is begging the question, it's like saying, "Martin didn't see an angel because after all, he said he saw an angel, does this sound like a stable person to you?"
Brigham Young once said of Martin:“As for Martin Harris, he had not much to apostatize from; he possessed a wild, speculative brain. I have heard Joseph correct him and exhort him to repentance for teaching false doctrines.”
This comes from a sermon Brigham Young gave on 20 July 1862 and published in The Deseret News a month later. The context of the quote is that Brigham had just taught that the three witnesses "knew and still know that what they received is true." He related a story of Oliver when he was not a member of the Church where he had said, "I am past belief, for I have a perfect knowledge of the truth of the Book of Mormon, that God revealed to Joseph Smith the plates on which it was engraven and aided him to translate it."
Each of the witnesses left the Church, and Brigham was impressed that they maintained their testimonies, but he also observed that "most, after they have forsaken the true way, become so darkened in their minds that they do not know whether or not they believe or know anything correctly." The statement about Martin Harris is used to support that. Just because someone has seen an angel does not mean that they cannot believe or teach false doctrine.
Martin Harris said something similar in 1855 to Thomas Colburn, a missionary who passed through Kirtland and met with many of those who had left the Church. Colburn said, "He confessed that he had lost confidence in Joseph Smith, consequently his mind became darkened, and he was left to himself."
Reports assert that he and the other witnesses never literally saw the gold plates, but only an object said to be the plates, covered with a cloth.
This claim comes from two sources, which Jeremy will quote from repeatedly later on. Both of these are about Martin Harris, not the other witnesses. The first is a letter from Stephen Burnett to Lyman Johnson on 15 April 1838 which was copied into Joseph Smith's letterbook by James Mulholland in 1839 as it related to the dissent in Kirtland, and possibly in response to Joseph Smith's instructions in March and May 1839 to record the history of the Missouri troubles.
In the aftermath of the collapse of the Kirtland Safety Society, many lost faith in Joseph Smith as a prophet. Warren Parrish, Luke Johnson, and John Boynton were meeting weekly with Grandison Newell and other enemies of the Church to denounce the First Presidency. Martin Harris and others soon joined them, and by the end of 1837, they had formed their own church. They, including Martin Harris, were excommunicated from the Church.
Stephen Burnett had joined the Church in November 1830, and had served as a missionary and in leadership positions. In his letter he said that during this trouble he "reflected long and deliberately upon the history of this church & weighed the evidence for & against it— loth to give it up—" and as he did so he had heard that Martin Harris said he denied his testimony, and so this "last pedestal gave way". Stephen wrote:
I came to hear Martin Harris state inapubliccongregationthat he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver nor David & also that the eight witnesses never saw them & hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it
So on 25 March 1838 in a meeting with Parrish's group in the Kirtland Temple, Stephen Burnett "renounced the Book of Mormon." He was followed by Warren Parrish, Luke Johnson, and John Boynton, who each agreed with Stephen. When they were done speaking, Martin Harris stood and spoke. Stephen recorded his words this way:
M Harris arose & said he was sorry for any man who rejected the Book of Mormon for he knew it was true, he said he had hefted the plates repeatedly in a box with only a tablecloth or a handkerchief over them, but he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain. And said that he never should have told that the testimony of the eight was false, if it had not been picked out of air but should have let it passed as it was
In another account of the same March 25th meeting, from a letter written by George A. Smith to Josiah Flemming on 30 March 1838, George affirms that Martin denounced what they were saying:
Last Sabbath a division arose among the Parrish party about the Book of Mormon, John F. Boyington, W. Parrish, Luke Johnson and others said it was nonsense. Martin Harris then bore testimony of its truth and said all would be damned, if they rejected it. Cyrus Smalling, Joseph Coe and others declared his testimony was true.
Clearly, Martin is denouncing their rejection of the Book of Mormon. However, it seems what Burnett latches on to is that Martin didn't literally see the plates. However, this doesn't align with dozens of other statements from Martin Harris that report that he did literally see the plates.
Martin did say that prior to working for Joseph as a scribe, he hefted the plates in a box, and Emma said that the plates were often on the table, wrapped in a table cloth. It seems to me that it is to this period that Martin was referring, which was before he became a witness.
The second source comes from John A. Clark, a rector in the Episcopal Church in Philadelphia. In 1840, he traveled through Palmyra, where he had once lived. In a series of letters published in the Episcopal Recorder in Philadelphia, he described "the rise and origin of Mormonism." The first letter was written 31 August 1840 and was published on September 12th. After describing the evidence that Joseph Smith actually copied from Solomon Spaulding, he quoted the testimony of the three witnesses, and quotes someone from Palmyra:
To know how much this testimony is worth I will state one fact. A gentleman in Palmyra, bred to the law, a professor of religion, and of undoubted veracity told me that on one occasion, he appealed to Harris and asked him directly,—"Did you see those plates?" Harris replied, he did. "Did you see the plates, and the engravings on them with your bodily eyes?" Harris replied, "Yes, I saw them with my eyes,—they were shown unto me by the power of God and not of man." "But did you see them with your natural,—your bodily eyes, just as you see this pencil-case in my hand? Now say no or yes to this." Harris replied,—"Why I did not see them as I do that pencil-case, yet I saw them with the eye of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see any thing around me,—though at the time they were covered over with a cloth."
These are the two sources Jeremy will use later on which say Martin only saw the plates while covered over with a cloth. However, there is actually another source that uses that description, but describes it happening during the translation process, before becoming a witness. At the same time, he affirms the reality of his experience with the angel showing him the plates. In 1853, David B. Dille interviewed Martin Harris, who had remained in Kirtland.
I then addressed Mr. Harris relative to his once high and exalted station in the Church, and his then fallen and afflicted condition. I afterwards put the following questions to Mr. Harris, to which he severally replied with the greatest cheerfulness:—'What do you think of the Book of Mormon? Is it a divine record?'
Mr. Harris replied and said—'I was the right-hand man of Joseph Smith, and I know that he was a Prophet of God. I knew the Book of Mormon is true.' Then smiting his fist on the table, he said—'And you know that I know that it is true. I know that the plates have been translated by the gift and power of God for his voice declared it unto us; therefore I know of a surety that the work is true. For,' continued Mr. Harris, 'did I not at one time hold the plates on my knee an hour-and-a-half, whilst in conversation with Joseph, when we went to bury them in the woods, that the enemy might not obtain them? Yes, I did. And as many of the plates as Joseph Smith translated I handled with my hands, plate after plate.
When Martin helped Joseph hide the plates in the woods would have been before he was a witness, and so this would have been the time when he handled them while covered with a cloth. When the angel showed him the plates, he did not handle them at that time. Notice also how he tells about his experience with the divine in the same breath as he speaks with the mundane? It probably isn't surprising that others focused on what confirmed their expectations.
John Whitmer, one of the eight witnesses, specifically said in an 1878 interview that they were not covered with a cloth when they were shown to him.
I am aware that your name is affixed to the testimony in the Book of Mormon, that you saw the plates?He—It is so, and that testimony is true.I—Did you handle the plates with your hands?He—I did so!I—Then they were a] material substance?He—Yes, as material as anything can be.I—They were heavy to lift?He—Yes, and as you know gold is a heavy metal. they were very heavy.I—How big were the leaves?He—So far as I recollect, 8 by 6 or 7 inchesI—Were the leaves thick?He—Yes, just so thick, that characters could be engraven on both sides.I—How were the leaves joined together?He—In three rings, each one in the shape of a D with the straight line towards the centre.I—In what place did you see the plates.He—In Joseph Smith's house; he had them there.I—Did you see them covered with a cloth?.He—No. He handed them uncovered into our hands, and we turned the leaves sufficient to satisfy us.I—Were you all eight witnesses present at the same time?He—No. At that time Joseph showed the plates to us, we were four persons, present in the room, and at another time he showed them to four persons more.
A letter from Oliver Cowdery responding to questions was published in the Gospel Luminary on 10 December 1829, and he also answers a question for Martin Harris.
You also wished Mr. Harris to inform you respecting his seeing this book, whether there could not possibly have been some juggling at the bottom of it. A few words on that point may suffice.—
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.
The bracketed comments come from the author of the article, Cornelius C. Blatchly. This is one of the earliest statements from a Book of Mormon witness besides the statement itself. Martin Harris testified again and again on the physical reality of the plates. In 1869, William Harrison Homer returned from a mission to England and stopped in Kirtland and met with Martin Harris. His sister had married Martin's son, and William wanted to encourage Martin to come to Utah. Martin shared his testimony (which was later published in the Improvement Era).
"What about your testimony to the Book of Mormon? Do you still believe that the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith was a Prophet?" Again the effect was electric. A changed old man stood before me. It was a man with a message, a man with a noble conviction in his heart, a man inspired of God and endowed with divine knowledge. Through the broken window of the Temple shone the winter sun, clear and radiant.
"Young man," answered Martin Harris with impressiveness, "Do I believe it! Do you see the sun shining! Just as surely as the sun is shining on us and gives us light, and the sun and stars give us light by night, just as surely as the breath of life sustains us, so surely do I know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, chosen of God to open the last dispensation of the fulness of times: so surely do I know that the Book of Mormon was divinely translated. I saw the plates; I saw the Angel; I heard the voice of God. I know that the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. I might as well doubt my own existence as to doubt the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon or the divine calling of Joseph Smith."
In 1870 he moved out to Utah, where he continued to share the reality of the plates and his experience. In even the hostile accounts, Martin never denied his testimony of the truth of the Book of Mormon. In many other accounts, Martin affirmed that he did literally see the plates. We will talk more about these accounts later.
Additionally, Martin Harris had a direct conflict of interest in being a witness. He was deeply financially invested in the Book of Mormon as he mortgaged his farm to finance the book.
It is a conflict of interest—that would give him incentive to lie and say he saw the plates. However, Martin did not mortgage his farm until after he saw the plates. All the same, I think it is fair to say that we can't just take Martin's word for it. Instead, we are supposed to pray about it and the Spirit will tell us that it is true.
Another thing to note, although sales at first didn't go well and he had to sell 151 acres, eventually they were all sold and Martin said that Joseph "paid me all that I advanced, and more too." In 1837 and 1840, the Church printed second and third editions of the Book of Mormon. Martin had left the Church. He no longer had a financial incentive, and yet, as shown above, he still defended the truth of the Book of Mormon.
The following are some accounts of the superstitious side of Martin Harris:“Once while reading scripture, he reportedly mistook a candle’s sputtering as a sign that the devil desired him to stop. Another time he excitedly awoke from his sleep believing that a creature as large as a dog had been upon his chest, though a nearby associate could find nothing to confirm his fears. Several hostile and perhaps unreliable accounts told of visionary experiences with Satan and Christ, Harris once reporting that Christ had been poised on a roof beam.”
The first statement about the sputtering candle comes from an 1882 letter from Stephen S. Harding to Thomas Gregg, which he published in in The Prophet of Palmyra in 1890. Stephen was born in Palmyra in 1808. Although he had moved away, in 1829 he traveled back east and spent the summer in Palmyra. He had also served as Utah Territory governor in 1862 for a year.
Stephen also described Martin as industrious, and was the most promising in the neighborhood of future prospects (pg. 37). He said Martin was "noted as one who could quote more Scripture than any man in the neighborhood" He found the change "truly phenomenal" and as he was "the only man of any account" he sought out an interview with him. He met him at Grandin's print shop, where they spoke some. Oliver Cowdery, and both Joseph Smith Junior and Senior were there. He met with them again later, and spent the night at Joseph Smith Senior's house.
After dinner Oliver Cowdery began to read from the Book of Mormon, using light from a single tin candlestick with a tallow dip in it. After reading for some time, "the candle began to spit and splutter, sometimes almost going out, and flashing up with a red-blue blaze." Stephen recognized it as the fire was "interrupted by the flax shives that remained in the tow wicking" but he reported that Martin Harris said, "it is the Devil trying to put out the light, so that we can't read any more." Lucy agreed and "the tallow dip shortened at such a fearful rate that the further reading had to be abandoned."
The second statement comes from a transcript of a reminiscence written by Joseph Knight Senior, sometime between 1835-1847. He writes that in the Spring of 1830 (see discussion in Joseph Smith Papers for Doctrine and Covenants 19) he took Joseph Smith to Palmyra, where they met Martin Harris struggling to sell the Book of Mormon. Martin and Joseph Knight slept on the floor in Joseph Smith Senior's house.
In the middle of the night, Martin woke Joseph Knight up and asked him if he felt anything on the bed. He told him no, and asked if he did. "Yes, I felt some thing as Big as a grat Dog Sprang upon my Brest." He asked Martin if he was mistaken, and he said no, "It was so." He sprang up and felt, but couldn't see or feel anything.
The third story about Jesus and the Devil we will see again below in the next two quotes, we will look at those then come back. But first, I'd like to quote what the article Jeremy links goes on to say:
But such talk came easy. His exaggerated sense of the supernatural naturally produced caricature and tall and sometimes false tales.
Yet despite these eccentricities, more than a dozen of Harris's Palmyra contemporaries left descriptions of the man that describe his honor, honesty, industry, peacefulness, and respectability, his hard-headed, Yankee shrewdness, and his growing wealth. Clearly, on matters of business and purse, Harris had unusual ability.
Who among us hasn't experienced things we didn't understand? I think it's pretty normal to associate the Devil with things that interfere with your righteous goals.
Thinking about Martin Harris, I think it would help your perspective by imagining how you would be depicted by someone who only highlighted your flaws.
“No matter where he went, he saw visions and supernatural appearances all around him. He told a gentleman in Palmyra, after one of his excursions to Pennsylvania, while the translation of the Book of Mormon was going on, that on the way he met the Lord Jesus Christ, who walked along by the side of him in the shape of a deer for two or three miles, talking with him as familiarly as one man talks with another.”– John A. Clark letter, August 31, 1840 in Early Mormon Documents 2:271
The source is the same letter I linked earlier, and one Jeremy will bring up again later. After quoting someone from Palmyra saying Martin saw the plates covered with a cloth, he goes on to talk about the eight witnesses and then comes back to Martin, saying he claimed to receive revelations himself, and provided this story.
This is one of the "hostile and perhaps unreliable" stories referred to in the last line of the previous paragraph. Might I suggest that there may be a conflict of interest for The Episcopal Recorder to accurately report on another Church?
“According to two Ohio newspapers, shortly after Harris arrived in Kirtland he began claiming to have ‘seen Jesus Christ and that he is the handsomest man he ever did see. He has also seen the Devil, whom he described as a very sleek haired fellow with four feet, and a head like that of a Jack-ass.’”– Early Mormon Documents 2:271, note 32
The source on this one is the Painesville Geauga Gazette in a 5 April 1831 article, which was reprinted in the Guernsey Times in Cambridge Ohio April 16th and the Marietta American Friend on April 16th. The line is preceded by "Martin Harris, one of the original Mormon prophets, arrived in this village, last Saturday, on his way to the Holy Land." Martin's descriptions were later included in Mormonism Unvailed. This is another "hostile and perhaps unreliable" story.
The final story with Christ "poised on a roof beam" comes from the August 1880 Lippincott's Magazine where they reported that William Van Camp, who was the editor for the Wayne Democratic Press recalled Martin Harris visited the Smiths while still in doubt about what Joseph had told him. "One night, while he was in his room, curtained off from the single large room of the interior, there appeared to him no less a personage than Jesus Christ. Harris was informed that Mormonism was the true faith, and Van Camp knows that it was a log house, although no vestige now remains, because Harris told him that his celestial visitor was lying on the beam overhead!" The Smiths had moved to a frame home in 1825, and Martin did not live in a log home, so I'm not sure how this story is supposed to fit in.
With both of these stories, there is nothing wrong with Martin seeing Jesus, but you would think that if Martin really were saying such things, they would be faith-positive stories and therefore shared by those in the Church who knew Martin Harris. Because you only see these stories from hostile sources, that implies to me that the stories are either false, or misunderstood. Otherwise we would need to explain why Martin only told these stories to those who didn't believe him, or why those that did never shared them.
Before Harris became a Mormon, he had already changed his religion at least five times.
Wikipedia's source on that is the same Dialogue Journal article on Martin Harris Jeremy had just linked. Here's what the article says:
Some Palmyra citizens remembered Harris being "tossed to and fro." "He was first an orthodox Quaker, then a Universalist, next a Restorationer, then a Baptist, [and] next a Presbyterian," recalled G. W. Stodard, a neighbor who had known him thirty years. (In Howe 1834, 261). Another Palmyra citizen added Methodism to the list, while a third villager remembered Harris's fondness for new creeds, "the more extravagant the better" (Clark 1842, 223; Turner 1851,215).
Rather than "add[ing] Methodism to the list" Clark actually only identifies two: "He had been, if I mistake not, at one period a member of the Methodist Church, and subsequently had identified himself with the Universalists." Continuing on:
Harris's version was less extravagant. On occasion he apparently visited Palmyra's several churches and established with churchgoers a mutual rapport. "All of the Sects called me brother because the Lord [had] enlightened me," he recollected. As a youth he may have worshipped with the Friends (the extended Harris family had Quaker ties), but since his midlife religious awakening, though "anxiously sought" by the "sectarians," he had felt "inspired of the Lord & taught of the Spirit" to refuse a formal commitment.
In Martin Harris' autobiography he says that in the year 1818, he was "Inspired of the Lord & taught of the Spirit that I should not join any Church".
Richard Lloyd Anderson says in Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses regarding these churches Martin supposedly joined:
Palmyra sources do not yet prove that Martin was a Quaker, though his wife probably was. And no evidence yet associates Martin with the Baptist or Presbyterian churches. Note that the other two names are religious positions, not necessarily churches—philosophical Universalists dissent from traditional churches in believing that God will save all, and Restorationaists obviously take literally the many Bible prophecies of God's reestablished work in modern times. … Of course Martin could have been a Universalist and Restorationer simultaneously.
Latter-day Saint beliefs are also Restorationist and Universalist. These aren't denominations, but rather religious philosophies.
After Joseph’s death, Harris continued this earlier pattern by joining and leaving 5 more different sects, including that of James Strang (whom Harris went on a mission to England for), other Mormon offshoots, and the Shakers.
Martin remained behind in Kirtland, and he held some resentment toward the Church, which is why he didn't join the main body of the Saints, instead associating with other groups. Richard Lloyd Anderson observed:
Every affiliation of Martin Harris was with some Mormon group, except when he was affiliated with the Shaker belief, a position not basically contrary to his Book of Mormon testimony because the foundation of that movement was acceptance of personal revelation from heavenly beings.
One may well ask, since religious instability is so much in evidence, why Martin Harris did not abandon his signed testimony. Freely seeking and bound by no Mormon ties, the only constancy of this period is his witness of the Nephite record. If Martin Harris' experience was an invention or emotional aberration, why didn't it go the way of his other religious flirtations? But if his doctrinal commitments in Kirtland were fickle, his testimony of the angel and the plates remained an immovable certainty.
In other words, Martin apparently didn't have a problem changing religions, so the contrast between his attitude toward denominations and his faith in the Book of Mormon emphasizes his testimony rather than detracts from it. It implies that he didn't maintain faith in the Book of Mormon simply out of stubbornness.
For those like me who are interested in learning more about the history, a couple years after Joseph Smith died, those who were left behind in Kirtland followed after the leadership of James J. Strang, Martin included. In August 1846, they held a conference in the Kirtland Temple. Part of that, Lester Brooks was ordained an Apostle, and he and Martin Harris were set apart to go to England as missionaries.
Leaders in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints attacked Martin Harris even before he arrived, and so when he wanted to speak at a Latter-day Saint conference in Birmingham, he was not permitted to speak. A member of the conference later recalled
When we came out of the meeting Martin Harris was beset with a crowd in the street, expecting that he would furnish them with material to war against Mormonism; but when he was asked if Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, he answered yes; and when asked if the Book of Mormon was true, this was his answer: "Do you know that the sun shining on us? Because as sure as you know that, I know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, and that he translated that book by the power of God."
Much to the consternation of Lester Brooks, Martin Harris did not preach about Strangism, but instead stuck with testifying of the reality of the Book of Mormon. The mission was supposed to last a year or more, but actually only lasted two months. Brooks wrote that "I thought it very necessary that Martin Harris leave that country and there was no other way only for me to come with him." They arrived in New York 8 December 1846. Brooks later wrote that "the greatest blunder that ever I committed was in taking Harris to England." It was said that "Lester Brooks and Martin Harris … [went on a mission together], the folly of the latter defeated their work."
When he returned, Martin Harris spoke to a Strangite congregation who said, "We had often heard of him, but until then we never had the pleasure of seeing him. This man, although he has been buffeted and scoffed at by the world made our hearts glad in consequence of the unwavering testimony which he bore with regard to the origin of Mormonism."
However, his association with the Strangites was short and by March 1847, Lester Brooks had heard that Martin was "at Kirtland Doing all he can against [James Strang]." By then, he had joined a different breakaway church.
In January 1847, William E. McLellin (who had been an apostle until he was excommunicated in 1838) started a reorganized church called the Church of Christ, claiming that Joseph Smith had ordained David Whitmer his successor in 1834. Unlike in Strang's church, they required rebaptism and reordination, so Martin Harris was baptized on 13 February 1847. They were able to get David Whitmer to join, but he didn't move to Kirtland and so the church was short-lived. At a Church of Christ conference in June 1849 that Martin Harris was president over, membership was withdrawn from William E. McLellin and his church disappeared soon after.
Not only did Harris join other religions, he testified and witnessed for them. It has been reported that Martin Harris “declared repeatedly that he had as much evidence for a Shaker book he had as for the Book of Mormon” (The Braden and Kelly Debate, p.173).
In a letter dated 31 December 1844, Phineas Young and others wrote to the Twelve from Kirtland saying, "Martin Harris is a firm believer in Shakerism, says his testimony is greater than it was of the Book of Mormon." At about the same time, Edward Bunker met with him and later wrote that he "heard him bear his testimony to the truth of the Book of Mormon." In July 1845, Jeremiah Cooper visited Kirtland and reported meeting Martin Harris where "he bore testimony to the truth of the Book of Mormon."
Jeremy will bring up the Shaker book again a couple of other times quite a while later, so we'll come back to it then. For now, apparently Martin owned a copy, as Latter-day Saint missionary James W. Bay recorded in his journal for November 1850 seeing it when visiting Martin Harris, and his 7-year-old daughter read from it. However what Martin talked about was the Book of Mormon, that he "knew it was true for he saw the plates and knew for himself."
The Braden and Kelly Debate was in 1884 and between Clark Braden, a Church of Christ minister and E. L. Kelley, who would go on to become the Presiding Bishop in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It's not clear what the source of Clark Braden's information was, but it's similar to the Phineas Young statement, so Martin Harris probably said something like that. The difference though is that Martin clearly had a stronger testimony than of the Book of Mormon, as you can find plenty of references to him sharing his testimony of it, whereas he rarely said anything regarding Shaker belief.
Whatever his attitude toward Shaker beliefs were, they were not so strong that he lived the Shaker lifestyle. Martin Harris remained married during these years, while Shakers believe in celibacy. Devout Shakers lived together in communities, but Martin stayed in Kirtland instead of moving to nearby North Union. Not to mention that this apparently overlapped with his experiences with churches that had broken off of The Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints.
By 1855, he had abandoned his Shaker leanings, as it was reported by missionary Thomas Colburn, "he tried the Shakers, but that would not do, then tried Gladden Bishop, but no satisfaction". Speaking of Gladden Bishop …
In addition to his devotion to self-proclaimed prophet James Strang, Martin Harris was a follower to another self-proclaimed Mormon prophet by the name of Gladden Bishop. Like Strang, Bishop claimed to have plates, a Urim and Thummim, and that he was receiving revelation from the Lord. Martin was one of Gladden Bishop’s witnesses to his claims.
More specifically, Francis Gladden Bishop claimed to have the plates and Urim and Thummim that Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Mormon. In 1851
For some background, Gladden was an early convert to the Church, but was frustrated when he was not ordained to the high priesthood. He questioned how he could get it, and claims that in answer to a prayer in 1832, an angel ordained him a high priest. He was reprimanded by the Kirtland High Council a couple times for teaching false doctrine relating to his position in the church. He apologized, but didn't change. In 1842 he was finally excommunicated.
A few months later, he claimed that an odd visitor returned to his home, and revealed himself as the angel Nephi, saying he was the same angel who had given Joseph Smith the Book of Mormon plates. He said that Christ's twelve apostles were elders, not high priests, and it was actually him and two others that appeared as Peter, James, and John to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to ordain them apostles, and that they and John the Revelator were the four angels in Revelation 7:1 that stood at the four corners of the earth. Gladden claimed these three others also appeared, and Nephi admonished him to fast and prepare to receive "seven sacred things."
Nephi returned the next day to give him (1) the gold plates, (2) the lost 116 pages, (3) the sword of Laban, (4) the Urim and Thummim, or interpreters, (5) the breastplate, (6) the Liahona, and (7) a pair of interlocking crowns that Gladden Bishop called the Crown of Israel and the Crown of Glory.
He preached in 1842, but was largely ignored, and he moved away. In 1847 he resumed activity, and the next year was preaching in Voree among the Strangites, but was again largely ignored. He began again in 1850 in Kirtland. He gathered a handful of followers and in 1851 published a proclamation, calling it a "flying roll" to go out over the earth to gather Israel. This was followed by an address to explain the proclamation. The address declared that they were to go to the Salt Lake Valley. They arrived by 1854, but that summer he sold his property in Utah and moved back east, and so his "New Church" quickly crumbled.
Anyway, in the 1851 proclamation Gladden claimed to have the gold plates, and called Martin Harris to be a witness (as quoted in this article):
And therefore that my word might be fulfilled, and also that my people might believe, have I caused that my servant Gladden should call Witnesses of these things; even he, who was one of the three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, (viz: my servant Martin [Harris], and also my daughter Phebe [Bishop's wife], whom I have called these many years that she might be a witness in this, my great and glorious work, which I have now begun, and which shall never be overthrown;) and behold! my Witnesses have borne their testimony before my people in this place, yea, and in my house, even that which my people have built and dedicated unto me in Kirtland.
Brigham Young spoke in 1853 of the Gladdenites arriving in Utah and mentioned that Martin Harris was "the one who gave this holy roll to Gladden." However, unlike the Martin's statements on the angel showing him the Book of Mormon plates, there is no record outside the proclamation of Martin seeing Gladden with the plates. As with the Shakers, his devotion is unclear, as he did not migrate to Utah with them. And in 1855, he is reported to have found "no satisfaction" with them.
That same month in 1855, Martin published a proclamation, claiming to be a revelation given by Moses, Elias, Elijah, and John through Miss Sexton, a Spirit medium of Cleveland. William Smith also was said to have received a revelation through her as well. They met in October 1855, and though they did not organize a church at that time, twelve resolutions were accepted, and they planned to meet in six months for another conference. At about the same time, Martin's wife and family moved to Iowa, then out to Utah.
In May 1858, Dr. Jeter Clinton told Brigham Young that "Martin Harris and Wm. Smith were at Kirtland, Ohio, and had organized a Church of their own." The next month Brother Enoch Beese and several others reported that "Martin Harris had reorganized the Church in this place [Kirtland] with 6 members appointed Wm Smith their Leader Prophet Seer & revelator, in few days Harris drove Wm Smith out of the place & damned him to Hell".
In my opinion, Martin Harris had a testimony of the plates, but not of Brigham Young. He felt bitter against the Saints in Utah, but he still wanted to practice his religion, and so associated with whoever would have him. Finally in 1870, he was convinced to come out to Utah. He held no prominent position, but people frequently visited him, and he bore his testimony of seeing the angel with the plates.
If someone testified to you of an unusual spiritual encounter he had, but he also told you that he...
- Conversed with Jesus who took the form of a deer
- Saw the devil with his four feet and donkey head
- Chipped off a chunk of a stone box that would mysteriously move beneath the ground to avoid capture
- Interpreted simple things like a flickering of a candle as a sign of the devil
- Had a creature appearing on his chest that no one else could see
...would you believe his claims? Or would you call the nearest mental hospital?
With inconsistencies, a conflict of interest, magical thinking, and superstition like this, exactly what credibility does Martin Harris have and why should I believe him?
Jeremy had talked about all the other things on the list, but not stone box. Apparently when he copied the entire segment from a 2009 entry from an ex-Mormon site, he cut out that quote, but not from the summary.
Anyway, that story comes from Ole A. Jensen, who said he visited Martin Harris in July 1875. Martin shared his testimony that the angel showed him the plates and saw him "turn the golden leaves over" and he "heard the voice of God say the book is true, and translated correctly." After this, he related another story.
I will tell you a wonderful thing that happened After Joseph had found the plates. Three of us took some tools to go to the hill and <hunt> for some more boxes, or gold or something, and indeed we found a stone box. We got quite excited about it and dug carefully around it, and we were ready to take it up, but behold by some unseen power, it slipped back into the hill. We stood their [sic] and looked at it, and one of us took a crow bar and tried to drive it thru the lid to hold it, but it glanced and broke one corner off the box. some time that boxbwill be found, and you will see the corner broken off, and then you will know I have told the truth.
He repeated his testimony that "as sure as you are standing hear and see me just as sure did I see the Angel with the golden plates, in his hand" and Martin explained that he promised that he would "bear witness of this truth both hear and hearafter."
Anyway, for the list of the claims, the first two were from anonymous sources that obviously didn't like the Church, the third and last were active members of the Church, and the fourth was also from someone who disagreed with the Church, though he also said that Lucy Smith agreed with Martin. So of those that heard Martin share these stories, 50% believed his claims. Those that didn't just dismissed him, and didn't call a mental hospital.
Sure, if someone told me these things, I wouldn't just take their word for it, but we aren't asking anybody to take Martin Harris' word for it. The purpose of the witnesses is to fulfill God's law of witnesses, not so you blindly follow them. Even court cases aren't settled just because there are witnesses. We invite people to read, ponder, and pray about the Book of Mormon, and God will let us know by the power of the Holy Ghost whether it is true.
DAVID WHITMER
“David Whitmer, the third of this group, claimed in early June 1829 before their group declaration that he, Cowdery, and Joseph Smith observed ‘one of the Nephites’ carrying the records in a knapsack on his way to Cumorah. Several days later this trio perceived ‘that the Same Person was under the shed’ at the Whitmer farm.”– An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, p.179
Not that it matters but Jeremy misquoted Palmer, which is why I added text in black—obviously just removed because Jeremy is talking about each in a different order than Grant Palmer. (The correct way to shorten a quote is with the three dots (…) which is called an ellipses.) This quote is in reference to how David Whitmer said the plates were carried back to New York by an old man. This same visitor later showed his mother the gold plates.
More specifically, Edward Stevenson interviewed David Whitmer in December 1877 and again in January 1887, which contained these details about how David went down to Harmony and brought Joseph, Emma, and Oliver back to his father's farm in Fayette. This was published in the Juvenille Instructor the next month. In September 1878 Elders Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith visited and he related the same story. These are faith-promoting stories, so I'm not sure why Jeremy is bringing them up, he doesn't explain why he is unsatisfied with further witnesses to the work, but I guess I won't complain.
David Whitmer explained that Joseph wrote to ask him to come to Harmony and take them to his parent's house in Fayette. They agreed to help, but David still had work to do on the farm, so agreed to go once he was finished. He was surprised one day to see much of it completed, which allowed him to leave earlier than expected. (See also Lucy Mack Smith's history.)
The journey took about three days, so he stopped at inns along the way. When David arrived in Harmony, they came out to meet him. Joseph had watched his journey through the seer stone, and to David's surprise, he had correctly identified the inns he had stayed at, which they verified on the way back.
During the return trip, David noticed an old man by the side of the wagon who greeted them with "good morning, it is very warm." He was carrying a knapsack on his back, fastened with straps across his chest. David invited him to ride, but he declined saying, "No, I am going to Cumorah." David said, "This name was something new to me, I did not know what Cumorah meant" then disappeared suddenly. They asked Joseph to inquire of the Lord, and David said that shortly afterwards, "he looked at Joseph & his Countenance was heavenly, nearly white, & he said that their visitor was one of the 3 Witne <Nephites> with the plates in the knapsac".
sometime after this, my mother was going to milk the cows when she was met out near the yard by the same old man (judging by her description of him) who said to her: "You have been very faithful and diligent in your labors, but your are tired because of the increase of your toil; it is proper therefore that you should receive a witness that your faith may strengthened." Thereupon he showed her the plates . My father and mother had a large family of their own, the addition to it therefore of Joseph, his wife Emma, and Oliver very greatly increased the toil and anxiety of my mother. And although she had never complained she had sometimes felt that her labor was too much, or at least she was perhaps beginning to feel so. This circumstance, however, completely removed all such feelings and nerved her up for her increased responsibilities.
See also accounts by John C. Whitmer (Mary's grandson, son of Jacob) and Elvira Pamela Mills, the daughter of the man that married Christian Whitmer's widow.
“In 1880, David Whitmer was asked for a description of the angel who showed him the plates. Whitmer responded that the angel ‘had no appearance or shape.’ When asked by the interviewer how he then could bear testimony that he had seen and heard an angel, Whitmer replied, ‘Have you never had impressions?’ To which the interviewer responded, ‘Then you had impressions as the Quaker when the spirit moves, or as a good Methodist in giving a happy experience, a feeling?’ ‘Just so,’ replied Whitmer.”– Interview with John Murphy, June 1880, EMD 5:63
John Murphy's interview was printed in a letter to the editor in The Hamiltonian on 21 January 1881.
When David Whitmer read it, he published a proclamation in March 1881 to refute what had been said about him. (He later included in his Address to All Believers in Christ)
Unto all Nations, Kindred Tongues and People, unto whom these presents shall come:
It having been represented by one John Murphy, of Polo, Caldwell County, 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 this end, therefore, that he may understand me now, if he did not then; and that the world may know the truth, I wish now, standing as it were, in the very sunset of life, and in the fear of God, once for all to make this public statement:
That I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof, which has so long since been published with that Book, as one of the three witnesses. Those who know me best, well know that I have always adhered to that testimony. And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do again affirm the truth of all my statements, as then made and published.
"He that hat an ear to hear, let him hear;" it was no delusion! What is written is written, and he that readeth let him understand.
From there, David Whitmer goes on to also make clear that he is not part of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and lists the doctrines he disagrees with. The fact that Jeremy failed to mention David's rebuttal either shows he didn't do his research, or he is intentionally misleading.
A young Mormon lawyer, James Henry Moyle, who interviewed Whitmer in 1885, asked if there was any possibility that Whitmer had been deceived. “His answer was unequivocal...that he saw the plates and heard the angel with unmistakable clearness.” But Moyle went away “not fully satisfied...It was more spiritual than I anticipated.” – Moyle diary, June 28, 1885, EMD 5:141
Here is what James Henry Moyle recorded in his diary (pg 33)
Called on David Whitmer, Sen. Was introduced by Wm. Marshall.
Mr. Whitmer conversed and showed me the papers for 2 1/2 hours. Was very kind, but had trouble in keeping him on the point in issue. He was somewhat spiritual in his explanations. He was not as naturalistic in his descriptions as I wished. …
Mr. D. Whitmer, Sen., did not handle the plates, only saw them. Says Martin Harris and Cowdery did, so they say.
Says he did see them and the angel and heard him speak, but that it was indescribable, that it was through the power of God and was possibly or at least he then spoke of Paul hearing and seeing Christ but his associates did not, because it was only seen in the Spirit.
I was not fully satisfied with the explanation. It was more spiritual than I anticipated. …
He firmly maintains the truth of his statement in Book of Mormon.
(Ellipses skip over statements about the Book of Mormon manuscript and about how David disagreed with Joseph's later revelations.) James Moyle was a lawyer, and wanted to know all the details, but was slightly disappointed that David Whitmer said it was an "indescribable" experience.
James Moyle shared the experience several times later in life. Jeremy gave two quotes, but only cited the diary. The other quote came from an address he gave on 18 March 1945, which appears a few pages later in Early Mormon Documents. Right after that quote, James explains what was unsatisfactory to him.
Was there any possibility for him to have been deceived in any particular? His answer was unequivocal. That there was no question about its truthfulness. That the angel stood in a little clear space in the woods, with nothing between them but a fallen log, the angel on one side, the witnesses on the other. It was all in broad clear daylight; that he saw the plates and heard the angel with unmistakable clearness, and there was nothing to prevent the same.
He was 80 years old, perfectly gray, serious minded, and beyond question sincere. His mind seemed perfectly clear. He moved about with freedom, and lived three years after with his mind normal.
I had just graduated in the law. He was the first witness I ever attempted to cross-examine, and I did so with all the intensity of my impelling desire to know the truth. The interview lasted two and a half hours. I exhausted all my resources, and he was very kind and willing to aid me.
There was only one thing that did not fully satisfy me. I had difficulty then as I have now to describe just what was unsatisfactory. I wrote in my diary immediately on my return home, that in describing the scene in the woods he was "somewhat spiritual in his explanations and not as materialistic as I wished." That was my description then and I cannot make it any clearer now. He said, "It was indescribable; that it was through the power of God." He then spoke of Paul hearing and seeing Christ, and his associates did not, because it is only seen in the spirit.
I asked if the atmosphere about them was normal. Then he said it was indescribable, but the light was bright and clear, yet apparently a different kind of light, something of a soft haze I concluded.
A few years before in an interview with President Joseph F. Smith and Apostle Orson Pratt, they reported that he said it was more brilliant than that of the noonday sun.
I have wondered if there was a special significance, not clear to me, in the language used by the three witnesses in their testimony referring to the golden plates, "And they have been shown unto us by the power of God and not of man." The eight witnesses say the plates were shown unto them by Joseph Smith. That I call materialistic, the other spiritual, and I could not get anything more out of it.
David Whitmer made clear that the experience was real, but was unable to describe what it was like to be in the presence of an angel. David Whitmer was was the most interviewed witness with many, many detailed interviews. Richard Lloyd Anderson created a composite from these many repeated occasions to show what an interview would be like.
Q: Is your published testimony accurate?A: "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." (Source)Q: When did this event take place?A: "It was in June, 1829, the very last part of the month. . . ." (Source)Q: What was the approximate time of day?A: "It was about 11 a.m." (Source)Q: What were the circumstances of the vision?A: "[We] went out into the woods nearby, 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." (Source)Q: Describe the angel.A: "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." (same source)Q: Did the angel have the Book of Mormon plates?A: "[He] showed to us the plates, the sword of Laban, the Directors, the Urim and Thummim, and other records. Human language could not describe heavenly things and that which we saw." (Source)Q: Did the vision take place under natural circumstances?A: "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 around 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, and the Interpreters. I saw them 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 were translated by the gift and power of God." (Source)Q: Can you explain the supernatural power that surrounded you?A: "All of a sudden I beheld a dazzingly brilliant light that surpassed in brightness even the sun at noonday, and which seemed to envelop the woods for a considerable distance around. Simultaneous with the light came a strange entrancing influence which permeated me so powerfully that I felt chained to the spot, while I also experienced a sensation of joy absolutely indescribable." (Omaha Herald, story released to other Sources, and reprinted and reviewed)Q: "Did you see the Urim and Thummim?"A: "I saw the Interpreters in the holy vision; they looked like whitish stones put in the rim of a bow—looked like spectacles, only much larger." (Source)Q: Did you see an actual table?A: "You see that small table by the wall? . . . Well, there was a table about that size, and the heavenly messenger brought the several plates and laid them on the table before our eyes and we saw them. . . ." (Source)Q: Did you handle the plates?A: "I did not handle the plates—only saw them." (Source, pg 29) "Joseph, and I think Oliver and Emma told me about the plates, and described them to me, and I believed them, but did not see except at the time testified of." (Source)Q: How clearly could you see the plates?A: "[T]he angel stood before us, and he turned the leaves one by one." (Source)"[H]e held the plates and turned them over with his hands, so that they could be plainly visible. . . ." (Source)Q: "Did the angel turn all the leaves before you as you looked on it?"A: "No, not all, only that part of the book which was not sealed, and what there was sealed appeared as solid to my view as wood." (Source)Q: "Can you describe the plates?"A: "The appeared to be of gold, about six by nine inches in size, about as thick as parchment, a great many in number and bound together like the leaves of a book by massive rings passing through the back edges. The engraving upon them was very plain and of very curious appearance." (Source)Q: Is it possible that you imagined this experience?A: "[O]ur testimony is true. And if these things are not true, then there is no truth; and if there is no truth, there is no God; and if there is no God, there is no existence. But I know there is a God, for I have heard His voice and witnessed the manifestation of his power." (Source)Q: "Do you remember the peculiar sensation experienced upon that occasion?"A: "Yes, I remember it very distinctly. And I never think of it, from that day to this, but what that spirit is present with me." (Source)
He would often correct reporters when they got things wrong. In these and in many other accounts, he would show off the printer's manuscript of the Book of Mormon, which he kept and preserved all his life.
Whitmer’s testimony also included the following:“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 it should be done unto them.’”– David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ (promoting his Whitmerite sect)If David Whitmer is a credible witness, why are we only using his testimony of the Book of Mormon while ignoring his other testimony claiming that God Himself spoke to Whitmer “by his own voice from the heavens” in June 1838, commanding Whitmer to apostatize from the Lord’s one and only true Church?
Well, for one, David claimed that the church was the one that apostatized, not him. But in June 1838, he had already been excommunicated from the Church. Although he had criticized the teachings of the Church for decades, his book seems to be the one and only time where he mentions the voice of God involved in his leaving the Church, unlike the many, many times he testified of the Book of Mormon.
For some history, in July 1834, David Whitmer was appointed president of the Church in Missouri, similar to a stake president today. W. W. Phelps and John Whitmer were his assistants, and in 1836-37, they helped the Latter-day Saints settle in Far West. In January 1838, they investigated the Missouri presidency for wrongdoing, and shortly after tried John Whitmer and W. W. Phelps for misusing Church funds, and David Whitmer for willfully breaking the Word of Wisdom. They were removed from their positions. Joseph Smith arrived in Missouri in March, and approved the removal of the stake presidency, and in the April conference he called a new stake presidency.
On 13 April 1838, the Missouri High Council met regarding David Whitmer, and others. He was accused of usurping too much authority, writing letters of dissension to apostates, and breaking the Word of Wisdom. David replied by letter, saying he disagreed with their authority in removing him as stake president. Although the conference in the previous November clarified that he only presided over the Church in Missouri, he still believed himself to be president over the high priesthood. He felt showing up to the trial would be acknowledging their authority, and so instead he wrote announcing his withdrawal from the Church. The council considered the charges sustained, and therefore considered him no longer a member of the Church.
So what happened in June that David was writing about? Continue reading and he specifically calls out Dr. Sampson Avard. In June 1838, he began meeting with Jared Carter and George W. Robinson and they formed a group that later came to be known as the Danites, which desired to defend the Church from opposition. At about the same time, this group sent a threatening letter to David Whitmer and others to leave Caldwell County or face dire consequences. Within days they fled the area for good.
Assuming that David's account is correct, is it any wonder that God might warn him to leave a group that wanted to kill him?
As for Sampson Avard, the Danites participated in the Missouri-Mormon war. In the aftermath, Avard turned against the Church, and swore testimony against Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith referred to the Danites as a secret combination, and taught that "every man shall have the privilege of worshipping God according to the dictates of his own conscience". Avard was excommunicated 17 March 1839.
OLIVER COWDERY
Like Joseph and most of the Book of Mormon witnesses, Oliver Cowdery and his family were treasure hunters. Oliver’s preferred tool of trade, as mentioned above, was the divining rod. He was known as a “rodsman.” Along with the witnesses, Oliver held a magical worldview.
Also, Oliver Cowdery was not an objective and independent witness. As scribe for the Book of Mormon, co-founder of the Church, and cousin to Joseph Smith, a conflict of interest existed in Oliver being a witness.
These are all things that have been addressed before. Oliver apparently had a rod, going off of Doctrine and Covenants 8, but there isn't a source that it was his preferred tool of trade or that he was known as a rodsman. Putting that aside, believing that God can lead you to water and minerals doesn't mean an angel cannot show you gold plates.
Oliver was third cousins with Joseph's mother, Lucy Mack Smith. It is not likely that they knew that they were related. Whatever conflict of interest might have existed in the beginning, like David Whitmer and Martin Harris, that disappeared when he was excommunicated. If they were really "in on it," you would think that Joseph Smith would have been forced to bend over backwards for them to keep them happy. But instead, they were kicked out of the Church, and yet they maintained their testimonies of the Book of Mormon.
After Oliver Cowdery left the Church, he became a lawyer and practiced law in Ohio. One story relates how he was criticized for saying he saw an angel, but he maintained his testimony. Probably the most accurate story was shared by George Q. Cannon in 1881:
When I was a boy I heard it stated concerning Oliver Cowdery, that after he left the Church he practiced law, and upon one occasion, in a court in Ohio, the opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified that had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which had given to the world, was literally true.
In time, Oliver rejoined the Church through the help of Phineas Young, Oliver's brother-in-law, and older brother of Brigham Young. He was rebaptized in 1848, but was not able to move out to Utah before he died in 1850.
SECOND SIGHT
People believed they could see things as a vision in their mind. They called it “second sight.” We call it “imagination.” It made no difference to these people if they saw with their natural eyes or their spiritual eyes as both were one and the same.
Personally, I would call it "revelation." And I'm pretty sure that it did make a difference, otherwise why make the distinction? Jeremy is trying to say that the witnesses saw something only spiritual, not physical, but thought it the same. However, the witnesses specifically described their experience as not imagined, but real. It seems that Jeremy is the one it makes no difference if they saw with their natural eyes or spiritual eyes: that if they said it was physical, Jeremy interprets as imagined.
It was Stephen Burnett who claimed it was "imagined" and we've talked about his quote before, and we will again in a minute. But Martin Harris stood and rebuked him, though Stephen maintained his opinion. However, as I've quoted before, Martin and the other two witnesses described literally seeing an angel. Here's some more:
William Waddoups said that he met with Martin Harris a week after he arrived in Salt Lake City in 1870.
To me Martin Harris said: "Sit down on that couch." I sat on the couch as instructed, while Martin Harris stood on the opposite side of the room. Martin Harris then spoke to me as follows:
"Young man, I had the privilege of being with the Prophet Joseph Smith, and with these eyes of mine," pointing to his eyes, "I saw the angel of the Lord, and I saw the plates and the Urim and Thummim and the sword of Laban, and with these ears," pointing to his ears, "I heard the voice of the angel, and with these hands," holding out his hands, "I handled the plates containing the record of the Book of Mormon, and I assisted the Prophet in the translation thereof. I bear witness that this testimony is true."
Jacob F. Gates wrote that his father Jacob Gates stopped to visit Oliver in 1849 on his way to England.
Finally father put this question to him. "Oliver," said he "I want you to tell me the whole truth about your testimony concerning the Book of Mormon,-the testimony sent forth to the world over your signiture and found in the front of that book. Was your testimony based on a dream,-was it the imagination of your mind, was it an illusion, a myth? -tell me truthfully.
To question him thus seemed to touch Oliver very deeply. He answered not a word, but arose from his easy chair, went to the book case, took down a Book of Mormon of the first edition, turned to the testimony of the Three Witnesses and read in the most solemn manner the words to which he had subscribed his name nearly twenty years before. Facing my father he said, "Jacob, I want you to remember what I say to you. I am a dying man, and what would it profit me to tell you a lie?" "I know" said he "that this Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God. 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."
Joseph Smith III wrote in his memoirs that in 1884 he and others went to David Whitmer to compare the Book of Mormon with the original manuscript. During this time, David was visited by several people. One of these was Colonel Giles, who had brought a friend, Captain Fall. Joseph Smith III was in the room as they spoke with David Whitmer.
The colonel, in an affable and friendly manner, discussed with Elder Whitmer the evidence the latter had borne as a special witness to the divinity of the Book of Mormon. Rather suggestively he 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 him 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!"
Everyone present, including the colonel and his friend, stood under the spell of the impressive silence which followed this emphatic declaration. It was as if we were in the presence of the Angel himself!
I went out of the room with the visitors, and the Colonel remarked:
"It is somewhat difficult, Elder Smith, for us everyday men to believe the statement made by Mr. Whitmer, but one thing is certain—no man could hear him make his affirmation, as he has to us in there, and doubt for one moment the honesty and sincerity of the man himself. He fully believes he saw and heard, just as he has stated he did."
There were also eight witnesses who were shown the plates without an angel, and so there was no spiritual aspect about it. They were able to handle and feel the plates for themselves.
In a letter written by Sally Parker to Mr. John Kempton on 26 August 1838, she shared a sermon by Hyrum Smith. (Spelling and punctuation corrected)
For I have not heard but one sermon since we have been in the place and that by Hyrum Smith. As he was moving to Missouri he tarried with us a little while. His discourse was beautiful. We were talking about the Book of Mormon, [of] which he is one of the witnesses. He said he had but two hands and two eyes. He said he had seen the plates with his eyes and handled them with his hands and he saw a breast plate and he told how it was made. It was fixed for the breast of a man with a hole in [the] stomach and two pieces upon each side with a hole through them to put in a string to tie it on, but that was not so good gold as the plates for that was pure. Why I write this is because they dispute the Book so much.
There were also the "unofficial" witnesses, those besides the 11 who had experiences with the plates. I quoted Emma Smith's experience thumbing the plates and moving them around while covered. I also shared Mary Whitmer's experience being shown the plates.
In an 1843 letter written to Joseph Smith in behalf of Josiah Stowell, Martha Campbell wrote:
he says he never staggard at the foundation the work for he knew to mutch concerning it if I under stood him wright he was the firs person that took the Plates out of your hands themornigmorning you brough[t] them in & he observed blessed is he that seeth & believeeth & more blessed is he that believeeth without seeing & says he has seen & believeed
At an 1830 trial in Bainbridge, Josiah Stowell defended Joseph Smith, and is reported to have said that:
witness was at Palmyra, and saw prisoner; that prisoner told witness that the Lord had told prisoner that a Golden Bible was in a certain hill; that Smith, the prisoner went in the night and brought the Bible, (as Smith said;) witness saw a corner of it; it resembled a stone of a greenish caste; should judge it to have been about one foot square and six inches thick; he would not let it be seen by any one; the Lord had commanded him not; it was unknown to Smith that witness saw a corner of the bible, so called by Smith;
Also among these "unofficial" witnesses are those who were always against the church. Lucy Harris and her daughter hefted the plates while in a box, as did Isaac Hale. Obviously they were unimpressed, but they knew Joseph had something and so can't be explained as just their imagination.
As mentioned previously, people believed they could see spirits and their dwelling places in the local hills along with seeing buried treasure deep in the ground. This supernatural way of seeing the world is also referred in Doctrine & Covenants as “the eyes of our understanding.”
This argument comes from Grant Palmer's book, An Insider's View to Mormon Origins where he tries to argue that Joseph Smith and others didn't see what they claim to have seen.
Palmer cited Doctrine and Covenants 110, which is what Jeremy linked. The Doctrine and Covenants also uses the term "eyes of our understanding" in section 76. In both of these, they were a shared experience, Joseph Smith was not alone. In section 76, it was a vision, but both Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon saw the same thing, so couldn't be said to be just their imagination. Doctrine and Covenants 110 the vision was an actual visitation, seen by both Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.
Of course, the Witnesses had a shared experience with viewing the plates as well. You can try to explain it away as their imagination if you like, but as more people see the same thing, it becomes harder to explain how that is possible.
Grant Palmer also tries to diminish the experience of the eight witnesses, claiming that it was only a "mind vision" but they consistently report a physically real experience, and shared hallucinations aren't really a thing that happens.
If the plates and the experiences were real and tangible as 21st century Mormons are led to believe, why would the witnesses make the following kind of statements when describing the plates and the experience?“I never saw the golden plates, only in a visionary or entranced state.”– EMD 2:346-347
“While praying I passed into a state of entrancement, and in that state I saw the angel and the plates.”– EMD 2:346-347
Both of these are from the same source, Ten Years Before the Mast by Anthony Metcalf, published in 1888, and the single quote is broken into two. It tells his autobiography, including how he joined and left the Church. Part of that, he said he visited Martin Harris in the winter of 1875-76, but also said that it was about two years before Martin died, which was in 1875, so perhaps he meant as early as the winter at the beginning or end of 1873. At the time, Anthony Metcalf was associating with the Reorganized church. He claimed that Martin told him:
I never saw the golden plates, only in a visionary or entranced state. I wrote a great deal of the Book of Mormon myself, as Joseph Smith translated or spelled the words out in English. Sometimes the plates would be on a table in the room in which Smith did the translating, covered over with a cloth. I was told by Joseph Smith that God would strike him dead if he attempted to look at them, and I believed it. When the time came for the three witnesses to see the plates, Joseph Smith, myself, David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery, went into the woods to pray. When they had all engaged in prayer, they failed at the time to see the plates or the angel who should have been on hand to exhibit them. They all believed it was because I was not good enough, or, in other words, not sufficiently sanctified. I withdrew. As soon as I had gone away, the three others saw the angel and the plates. In about three days I went into the woods to pray that I might see the plates. While praying I passed into a state of entrancement and in that state I saw the angel and the plates.
From there, he says Martin Harris went on to talk about Charles Anthon, the loss of the 116 pages, and the beginning of plural marriage. He said that Martin "did believe that Mormonism was the pure gospel of Christ when it was first revealed," but that he "never believed that the Brighamite branch of the Mormon church, nor the Josephite church, was right".
In 1887, Anthony Metcalf wrote a letter to David Whitmer saying what Martin Harris had told him, and asked David to explain to him "the condition he was in when he saw the angel and the plates". He said that he received a reply letter dated 2 April 1887, and copied his reply verbatim:
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.
Anthony Metcalf was focused on the "vision" or "spirit" part of the experience, but it was also a very real, physical experience. Latter-day Saints describe Joseph Smith seeing Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ as "the first vision" despite believing it was a real experience. We also might describe miracles as a spiritual experience, but that doesn't mean we don't believe it actually happened.
“He only saw the plates with a spiritual eye”– Joseph Smith Begins His Work, Vol. 1, 1958
Assuming he got the source right, this is a misquote. Rather than a quote, he seems to have used a summary of the quote. An ex-Mormon site used those words when summarizing the quote: "When Harris was asked if he saw the plates with his naked eyes, he would later admit he only saw the plates with a spiritual eye."
The introduction of that book gives the actual quote, from John H. Gilbert, which Jeremy correctly quotes below. John Gilbert was the typesetter for the Book of Mormon, and in an 1892 memorandum, he said that when he finished setting the testimony of the three witnesses, he asked Martin if he saw them with his naked eyes. He said that "Martin looked down for an instant, raised his eyes up, and said, 'No, I saw them with a spir[i]tual eye.'"
In the Pearl of Great Price, Moses gave a similar statement, "now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him."
Taking David Whitmer's statement on the previous quote into account, if John Gilbert reported Martin Harris correctly, then perhaps Martin was speaking in this sort of sense, and he was focusing on the "naked" part of the question, while David would point out that although they were in the spirit, they were in the body also.
“I saw them with the eye of faith.”– John A. Clark to Dear Brethren, 31 Aug. 1840, Episcopal Recorder (Philadelphia) 18 (12 Sept. 1840):
I brought up John A. Clark earlier as a source for the plates being covered with a cloth. In the same quote, Martin also said, "I saw them just as distinctly as I see any thing around me." If we assume the quote is correct, I think we would be wise to remember what David Whitmer said, that it was both a spiritual and a physical experience.
“As shown in the vision”– Zenas H. Gurley, Jr., Interview with David Whitmer on January 14, 1885
Zenas Gurley was an elder in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This comes from the beginning of his interview:
1- Do you know that he plates seen with the Angle (on the table) were real metal, did you touch them?Ans We did not touch nor handle the plates2- Was the table literal wood? or was the whole a vision such as often occurs in dreams &c?Ans- The table had the appearance of literal wood as shown in the vision, in the glory of God.3 Q Did you see the Urim and Thummim, what was it?Ans- I saw the "Interpreters" in the holy [piece missing] they looked like white stones p [piece missing] rim of a bow, looked like spectacles only much larger.
From there, Zenas went on to talk about why he left the Church, as discussed in an earlier section. The full quote supports David's other statements, that the vision was a real experience, and not a dream.
“...when I came to hear Martin Harris state in public that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver nor David & also that the eight witnesses never saw them & hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it, the last pedestal gave way, in my view our foundation was sapped & the entire superstructure fell in heap of ruins, I therefore three week since in the Stone Chapel...renounced the Book of Mormon...after we were done speaking M Harris arose & said he was sorry for any man who rejected the Book of Mormon for he knew it was true, he said he had hefted the plates repeatedly in a box with only a tablecloth or a handkerchief over them, but he never saw them only as he saw a city throught [sic] a mountain. And said that he never should have told that the testimony of the eight was false, if it had not been picked out of—–— [him/me?] but should have let it passed as it was...”– Letter from Stephen Burnett to “Br. Johnson,” April 15, 1838, in Joseph Smith Letter Book, p. 2
I brought this quote up earlier as a source for witnesses seeing the plates "under a cloth". Here we come to where Jeremy cites the source for the first time.
The first part of the quote is what Stephen had heard, and why he was renouncing the Book of Mormon. Martin Harris was in this meeting, and rejected what he had said, which is the second part of the quote. As I said earlier, in another account written at the same time, George A. Smith said that "Martin Harris then bore testimony of its truth and said all would be damned, if they rejected it."
You can find Stephen Burnett's letter and a better transcription at the Joseph Smith Papers project. At the time of my writing, it is labeled as "interim content" but hopefully they will add textual and contextual annotation later.
The foreman in the Palmyra printing office that produced the first Book of Mormon said that Harris “used to practice a good deal of his characteristic jargon about ‘seeing with the spiritual eye,’ and the like.”
This comes from Pomeroy Tucker's book, which he wrote in 1867. Take a look at the full paragraph:
How to reconcile the act of Harris in signing his name to such a statement, in view of the character of honesty which had always been conceded to him, could never be easily explained. In reply to uncharitable suggestions of his neighbors, he used to practise a good deal of his characteristic jargon about "seeing with the spiritual eye," and the like. As regards the other witnesses associated with Harris, their averments in this or any other matter could excite no more surprise than did those of Smith himself.
He goes on to quote the Book of Mormon which talks about the witnesses, but then offers his own theory.
Professor Rafinesque in his Asiatic Journal for 1832, describes similar plates found by him in Mexico, being "written from top to bottom like the Chinese, or from side to side indifferently, like the Egyptian and the Demotic Libyan." A number of these remains were found a few years ago in Pike County, Illinois, described as "six plates of brass of a bell shape ..." Smith may have obtained through Rigdon (the literary genius behind the screen) one of these glyphs, which resemble so nearly his description of the book he pretended to find on Mormon Hill. For the credit of human character, it is better at any rate to presume this, and that the eleven ignorant witnesses were deceived by appearances, than to conclude that they willfully committed such gross moral perjury before high Heaven, as their solemn averments imply.
Of course, the Pike County bell-shaped plates were actually the Kinderhook plates, later shown to be a hoax. Plus, there is no evidence that Sidney Rigdon had contact with Joseph Smith.
Anyway, the point is that Pomeroy Tucker thought that either Joseph deceived them, or that they were liars. While he had no favorable opinion on the other witnesses, he knew Martin to be an honest man.
Two other Palmyra residents said that Harris told them that he had seen the plates with “the eye of faith” or “spiritual eyes”– EMD 2:270 and 3:22
The "eye of faith" quote is from John A. Clark again. The second quote comes from a letter from Reverend Jesse Townsend to Phineas Stiles. Written on 24 December 1833, it was first published in 1867 in Pomeroy Tucker's book. Although published much later, it has a lot of similarities to another letter he wrote on 16 August 1834, published on 5 March 1835 in The Salt River Journal in Bowling Green, Missouri.
Reverend Townsend was a Presbyterian minister in Palmyra, and so those of Joseph Smith's family who joined the Presbyterian Church would have heard him preach. Here is the full paragraph, including Pomeroy Tucker's note:
At that time Martin Harris was worth five or six thousand dollars, while the Smiths were not worth a cent. The latter used Martin's money freely; and some other men, having a great dislike to labor, joined Joe in his deceptions, among whom was a sort of schoolmaster named Cowdery, who assisted him in writing or transcribing the "Book of Mormon," as a pretended translation of the golden plates which he affirmed he had been directed by the Spirit of the Lord to dig from the earth. This was all done in the most secret manner. At the same time it was assumed to the uninitiated that it would be "immediate death" for any except the translators to see the plates. Poor Martin's faith was apparently strengthened by this pretension, but afterward the "command" was modified and he claimed to have seen the plates with "spiritual eyes."*
*Mr. Townsend, at the date of his letter, had not learned of the connection of Rigdon and the Spaulding manuscript with this matter.
In his letter written the following year Reverend Townsend dropped the "spiritual eyes" claim, and instead wrote, "Poor Martain, through his lack of faith, and his having at a certain time refused to hand over to Joe more money, was excluded from a view of the plates."
The actual timeline was that he saw the plates in June 1829, and he mortgaged his farm to pay for the Book of Mormon publication in August. Although a Palmyra resident, it seems that Reverend Townsend didn't hear this directly from Martin Harris, but through stories told in town.
John H. Gilbert, the typesetter for most of the Book of Mormon, said that he had asked Harris, “Martin, did you see those plates with your naked eyes?” According to Gilbert, Harris “looked down for an instant, raised his eyes up, and said, ‘No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.”– EMD 2:548
Jeremy brought this up before, but now is a correct quote, the source being an 1892 memorandum. As I said before, assuming the quote is correct, David Whitmer says they were both in the body and the spirit, so Martin may have been focused on the "naked" part of the question.
If these witnesses literally really saw the plates like everyone else on the planet sees tangible objects...why strange statements like, “I never saw them only as I see a city through a mountain”? What does that even mean? I have never seen a city through a mountain. Have you?Why all these bizarre statements from the witnesses if the plates were real and the event literal?
Jeremy has provided seven of these statements—nine if we count the Moyle and Gurley statements that aren't actually against a literal event. Richard Lloyd Anderson remarked in 2004 that there are about 200 times where the witnesses affirmed what they said in the witness statement. Then he says there are only eight or ten documents that imply otherwise, so we have to ask ourselves, "Do you believe the 95 percent or do you believe the five?"
The "bizarre statements" are in the minority, and I feel comfortable saying that I don't know what "as I see a city through a mountain" is supposed to mean, and instead rely on the statements that do make sense. Why all these sensible statements if the plates were imaginary and the event figurative?
Why would you need a vision or supernatural power to see real physical plates that Joseph said were in a box that he carried around? When Martin Harris was asked, “But did you see them [plates] with your natural, your bodily eyes, just as you see this pencil-case in my hand? Now say no or yes to this.” Martin answered, “I did not see them as I do that pencil-case, yet I saw them with the eye of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me, though at the time they were covered over with a cloth.” – Origin and History of the Mormonites, p.406
Why couldn’t Martin just simply answer “yes”?
Jeremy used the "eye of faith" quote twice and mentioned "covered with a cloth" once. Now we have a more complete quote. To answer Jeremy's question, I'll provide the full quote again (though I'll use the edited 1850 compilation that Jeremy linked to, instead of the 1840 original that I quoted last time). After John A. Clark gives the testimony of three and eight witnesses, he says:
As regards the value of Harris's testimony, in particular, the following anecdote is conclusive :—"On one occasion, a sensible and religious gentleman in Palmyra put the following question to Harris: 'Did you see those plates?' Harris replied that he did. 'But did you see the plates, and the engravings on them with your bodily eyes?' Harris replied, 'Yes, I saw them with my eyes; they were shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.' 'But did you see them with your natural, your bodily eyes, just as you see this pencil-case in my hand? Now say no or yes to this." Harris replied, 'I did not see them as I do that pencil-case, yet I saw them with the eye of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see any thing around me, though at the time they were covered over with a cloth.'"
So Martin did simply answer "yes" twice already, and they kept pressing him until they got an answer they wanted. Note that they still reported that Martin went on to say that he "saw them just as distinctly as I see any thing around me".
JAMES STRANG AND VOREE PLATES WITNESSES
James Strang and his claims are fascinating. He was basically Joseph Smith 2.0 – but with a twist.
Jeremy never explains what he thought the twist was, but Strang's similarities to Joseph Smith were intentional. He claimed to be Joseph Smith's successor, and so wanted to establish that claim with similar experiences. I'll explain the history throughout this segment, and you can decide how similar they are.
Joseph smith was killed on 27 June 1844. While Sidney Rigdon and Brigham Young immediately went to Nauvoo, James Strang stayed in Michigan. On August 5th, he addressed a gathering of Saints in Florence, Michigan, and he presented a letter he claimed was written by Joseph Smith, identifying Strang as his successor. In addition, he claimed to have been ordained by an angel to this position. Although a convert of five months, his claim seems to have appealed to many outside of Nauvoo, which is where the main body of the Saints who were, and who chose to follow Brigham Young as the President of the Twelve Apostles.
Like Joseph, Strang did the following:
- Claimed that he was visited by an angel who reserved plates for him to translate into the word of God. “The record which was sealed from my servant Joseph. Unto thee it is reserved.”
- Received the “Urim and Thummim”.
According to James Strang, on 1 September 1845, "the Angel of the Lord" visited him and gave him the Urim and Thummim, and the voice of the Lord told him of a record that he should translate, which were sealed from Joseph Smith, and that it contained a record of the history of the people in that land. Using the Urim and Thummim, James Strang saw the plates buried under an Oak tree in Voree. He returned the Urim and Thummim and the angel departed.
As the testimony of the four witnesses below shows, on September 13th, James Strang took four others to an oak tree, and asked them to investigate the tree. They said it was surrounded by grass, and they didn't find any indication that it had been disturbed. After digging up the tree and down three feet, they found "a case of slightly baked clay containing three plates of brass." The three plates were small and had writing on four of the sides, and pictures on the other two.
Five days later, he had completed his translation of the text as well as an interpretation of the other figures. He said it was called "The Record of Rajah Manchou of Vorito" and the translation is four short paragraphs that describe the destruction of his people, that strangers will inhabit the land, and though men will kill the forerunner, God would bring forth this record by a mighty prophet.
He published a facsimile of these plates (also pictured by Jeremy below) and James Strang would show the plates to any interested visitors who wished to look at them. They remained in his family, but disappeared at the turn of the century, and their current location is unknown.
- Produced 11 witnesses who testified that they too had seen and inspected ancient metal plates.
- Introduced new scripture. After unearthing the plates (the same plates as Laban from whom Nephi took the brass plates in Jerusalem), Strang translated it into scripture called the “Book of the Law of the Lord.”
Jeremy said that James Strang was "fascinating" but I suppose just as an idea, not that he was interesting enough to study. (For comparison, in the CES Letter, he also calls The First Book of Napoleon "fascinating" and says that the Book of Abraham "both fascinated and disturbed" him.) To be fair, nobody's perfect, and I've probably not studied some of the questions as much as I could have.
Anyway, the Book of the Law of the Lord was different than the three plates dug up in 1845. I can't find the source where he first claims it, but apparently at some point he received the brass plates and began translating as early as April 1849. In 1851 the Book of the Law of the Lord was first published, which included a statement from seven witnesses that James Strang had these 18 plates, which they saw and handled.
This edition was 80 pages long, but in 1856 ten new chapters and a ton of notes were added, and so that edition is 320 pages. With five exceptions (which are said to be modern-day revelations to James Strang) the Book of the Law of the Lord is said to come from portions of the plates of Laban.
- Established a new Church: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite). Its headquarters is still today in Voree, Wisconsin.
From their point of view, they did not establish a new church, as they believe that James Strang was Joseph Smith's legitimate successor. Unlike other groups that split off of our church, they kept the same name of the Church. ("The" is not part of their church name, and (Strangite) is just an informal distinction. Our Church later stylized the name of the Church with a hyphenated "Latter-day" with a lowercase "d" and included "The" in the name of the Church. Though, both of these style variants appeared in the Church since 1838, and also in the Strangite church.)
In 1850, they moved to Beaver Island, where James Strang was made King. But he was shot and killed in 1856, and a mob drove them off the island. He refused to name a successor. Eventually, remaining apostle Lorenzo Dow Hickey was able to gather up those that had remained loyal to James Strang, including Wingfield W. Watson, but by then, many had joined the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which was organized in 1860 with Joseph Smith III as their leader.
Wingfield Watson eventually moved back to Voree and bought up 105 acres in 1897. A stone meeting house was built in Voree in 1927. In 1990, there were two main congregations, the second one being in Artesia, New Mexico, and it was said that a total of about 200 members were scattered across the world.
Like the Book of Mormon, the Book of the Law of the Lord has the testimony of its Witnesses in its preface:
TESTIMONYBe it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, to whom this Book of the Law of the Lord shall come, that James J. Strang has the plates of the ancient Book of the Law of the Lord given to Moses, from which he translated this law, and has shown them to us. We examined them with our eyes, and handled them with our hands. The engravings are beautiful antique workmanship, bearing a striking resemblance to the ancient oriental languages; and those from which the laws in this book were translated are eighteen in number, about seven inches and three-eights wide, by nine inches long, occasionally embellished with beautiful pictures.
And we testify unto you all that the everlasting kingdom of God is established, in which this law shall be kept, till it brings in rest and everlasting righteousness to all the faithful.
SAMUEL GRAHAM,SAMUEL P. BACON,WARREN POST,PHINEAS WRIGHT,ALBERT N. HOSMER,EBENEZER PAGE,JEHIEL SAVAGE.
Eventually, Jeremy's argument is going to be that if we believe Joseph's eleven witnesses, why not James Strang's eleven witnesses? Or alternatively, if we reject Strang's witnesses, why not Joseph's? I think this comes from a misunderstanding that we just take their word for it, which we don't. It is also a logical fallacy that because one group of people is honest (or dishonest) that another group of people must also be the same (False Equivalence fallacy).
That being said, none of these people claimed to see an angel or heard the voice of God proclaiming the translation to be by the word of God. The plates didn't even have the appearance of gold, so there wasn't many claims for them to be dishonest about anyway.
I figured I'd take the opportunity to do some research and find out who these people were. I only found a little bit though, but it's something.
James Strang believed himself to be Joseph Smith's successor, so when the apostles did not accept his claims and excommunicated him, in April 1846, he excommunicated Brigham Young and six other of the apostles. At the same time, he called Jehiel Savage as an apostle.
Two of the Latter-day Saint apostles decided to accept James Strang as a leader—William Smith was accepted as the Patriarch, and John E. Page remained an apostle. John's brother Ebenezer Page became an apostle in the April 1847 conference, but his wife continued with Brigham Young. In August, Ebenezer was suspended for teaching plural marriage, but reconciled the following month. He was called to preside over Beaver Island. William was also suspended, and he did not reconcile, but began teaching that he was the rightful President of the Church.
Samuel P. Bacon was ordained a High Priest in June 1847 to preside over the Osego Conference in New York. Samuel Graham was sustained as an apostle in the October 1848 conference. In July 1849, Albert Hosmer was appointed clerk. At the same time, John E. Page was excommunicated.
James Strang began translating the Book of the Law of the Lord perhaps as early as 1849. On 13 July 1849, he secretly married a second wife, Elvira Field. Decades later, according to Lorenzo Dow Hickey, the marriage was by revelation as he translated the brass plates
Phineas Wright was one of the presidents of the Seventies and was ordained an apostle in August 1849. Warren Post served several missions, and was ordained an apostle in 1850.
In 1850, James Strang was made king of the church, and he began reading from the Book of the Law of the Lord. On 6 April 1851, Warren Post wrote in his journal that with the other witnesses (though he didn't mention Jehiel Savage) he saw the 18 brass plates, weighing about six pounds. The Book of the Law of the Lord was soon published, which included the witness statement.
But at the same time, James Strang was not able to keep his polygamy secret, and many members left.
In 1888, Chauncy Loomis wrote to Joseph Smith III about some of his experiences in Voree and Beaver Island. He claimed that Samuel Graham left the church and the island, taking his family and Strang's first wife, Mary, with him to Voree. In May 1851, James ordered Mary to leave Beaver Island because he believed she was creating opposition among his followers. He married a third wife in January 1852. James Strang denied rumors that Mary had deserted him, and he spent winters of 1853 and 55 with her in Lansing while she oversaw his property at Voree, and she wrote him a love letter in 1854.
Chauncy Loomis claimed that Samuel Graham "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."
He also claimed that Samuel Bacon said 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." Samuel Bacon apostatized and left the island.
In July 1855, only 4 of Strang's apostles were in good standing: Ebenezer Page, Phineas Wright, L. D. Hickey and Warren Post. Phineas Wright was opposed to polygamy, so when his daughter Sarah married James Strang in July 1855, they did so secretly. James Strang also married Sarah's cousin, Phoebe Wright in October 1855.
After James Strang was was shot on 16 June 1856, he did not name a successor, believing that a successor could only be ordained by angels. A mob drove them from the island, and James Strang died on July 5th in Voree. Most members eventually joined the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints when it was organized in 1860, though a small group eventually gathered back in Voree.
I couldn't find much about the Witnesses, but it seems they did not leave any further statements , and largely moved on from their experience.
In addition to the above 7 witnesses, there were 4 witnesses who went with Strang as they unearthed the Voree Plates:
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.
AARON SMITH,JIRAH B. WHEELAN,J. M. VAN NOSTRAND,EDWARD WHITCOMB.
I didn't find much on these witnesses, except for Aaron Smith. It seems he was the first supporter of James Strang, and he was was already first counselor when he dug up the plates. When they accepted John E. Page into their leadership, Aaron Smith and others believed that re-baptism was necessary. James Strang disagreed, believing their church to be the same organization. When John C. Bennett joined, Aaron Smith condemned him. James Strang felt he overstepped his authority, but Aaron didn't listen, and rejected his authority, thus creating a separate group. Aaron Smith was excommunicated shortly after.
For the others, I just see that by the end of 1846, Jirah B. Wheelan was on the Voree High Council, and that Edward Whitcomb was president of the Teacher's quorum. In April 1846 James M. Van Nostrand was made President pro tempore of the Elders Quorum.
According to Isaac F. Scott Senior, writing in 1888, he once talked with Caleb P. Barnes who claimed
that
J.J. Strang, Benjamin Pierce, Wells, and himself, got up the whole thing for speculation, to sell lands which they owned where they intended to build Voree.
He said, "Strang, Pierce and Wells are dead, and I am the only one left that had a hand in the d——d mean scrape; and Voree is dead, and you are the man that knocked all our calculations in the head; and I have concluded that you might as well know the whole matter, for our calculations are all burst up and Jimmie's kingdom has all come to an end."
Mr. Barnes said their aim, in the first place, was to have Joseph Smith appoint a gathering place, or Stake, on their lands, but as Smith was killed about this time they changed their plans and concluded to make Strang Smith's successor and that would make a sure thing of building up Voree. Barnes said the four that he named got up the letter of appointment, and that Joseph Smith was dead when they got it up, also that Strang dictated every word of it. He said they made the "plates" out of Ben Pierce's old kettle and engraved them with an old saw file and made the characters similar to those on the plates found near Kinderhook, Pike Co., Illinois, but mixed up the engravings so they could not be easily detected; that when comleted they put acid on them to corrode them and give them an ancient appearance; and that tho deposit them under the tree, where they were found, they took a large auger, used for rafting purposes, which Ben Pierce 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. Soon after the "plates" were deposited Strang got a revelation as to where they were, and then he got Aaron Smith, J. B. Wheeland and James Vanostrand for witnesses and to exume them and they found them just as revealed (!) to Strang.
Voree Plates Facsimiles The Book of the Law of the Lord
Like Joseph, Strang had a scribe (Samuel Graham) who wrote as Strang translated. Along with several of the witnesses, Graham was later excommunicated from Strang’s Church. There is no direct evidence that any of the above 11 Strang witnesses ever denied their testimony of James Strang, the Voree Plates, Strang’s church, or Strang’s divine calling.
The "direct" is in there because according to Chauncey Loomis he denied their testimony, but that is a late second-hand testimony. Instead we should look at what they actually said, right? Unfortunately, I can't find any evidence that they ever affirmed their testimony, either.
Every single living Book of Mormon witness besides Oliver Cowdery accepted Strang’s prophetic claim of being Joseph’s true successor and joined him and his church.
The living witnesses (besides Oliver Cowdery) were Martin Harris, Hiram Page and David, Jacob, and John Whitmer.
We talked about Martin Harris earlier, that he joined their church and was called to serve a mission to England in August 1846. However, his testimony was in the Book of Mormon, not of James Strang, so the mission was seen by his companion Lester Brooks as a disaster, and they immediately came home. In February 1847, he joined McLellin's church, and was excommunicated from the Strangite church.
Hiram Page was the brother of the apostle John E. Page. Hiram was also married to Catherine Whitmer, the sister of David, Jacob, and John Whitmer. Hiram wrote to James Strang in 1847 speaking positively about him in his role as a prophet and invited him to come to Missouri. However, he and the Whitmers did not join him in Voree, and there is no evidence that they joined 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.”
The source for this is a letter from William Smith on 11 May 1846. Another letter written 1 March 1846 specifically named William, his mother Lucy, and his sisters, Nancy, Catherine [sic] and their husbands, and also his sister Sophronia. Katherine would later deny having ever signed a statement supporting Strang.
Others of the Smith family who were not named were three other widows: Emma Smith, Samuel Smith's widow, Levira Clark, and Don Carlos' widow, Agnes Moulton Coolbrith. Emma remained in Illinois, while the other two traveled to Utah.
Wilford Woodruff wrote in his journal on 19 May 1846 that "Mother Smith & others together, they were some of them advocating the cause of Strang". However, of the named people, only William went to Voree and associated with the Strangites. And that was short lived, for just a year. Instead, the others remained in Nauvoo, and would eventually associate with the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
What does this say about the credibility of the Book of Mormon witnesses if they were so easily duped by James Strang and his claims of being a prophet called of God to bring forth new scripture from ancient plates only to later turn out to be a fraud?
It doesn't say anything about their credibility. Seeing an angel and seeing the plates doesn't grant you the ability to tell if some unrelated person claiming to have seen angels and plates or not.
NO DOCUMENT OF ACTUAL SIGNATURES
The closest thing we have in existence to an original document of the testimonies of the witnesses is a printer’s manuscript written by Oliver Cowdery (you can see black/white photo on Joseph Smith Papers here). Every witness name except Oliver Cowdery on that document is not signed; they are written in Oliver’s own handwriting.
The reason for this is that this is the printer's manuscript, which is a copy of the original manuscript. However, the original manuscript was placed in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House. It remained there for 40 years, and it was damaged by water and mold, and only 28% remains. Unfortunately, the original Three and Eight Witness statements no longer exist.
In September 1878, Elders Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith visited David Whitmer, and they were permitted to look at the printer's manuscript that he had kept and preserved. They examined the handwriting and saw it was almost entirely in Oliver Cowdery's handwriting. But they were surprised to see that the signatures were all in Oliver Cowdery's handwriting as well.
We found that the names of the eleven witnesses were, however, subscribed in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery. When the question was asked Mr. Whitmer if he and the other witnesses did or did not sign the testimonies themselves, Mr. W. replied "each signed his own name." "Then where are the original signatures?" D. W. I don't know, I suppose Oliver copied them, but this I know is an exact copy.
David affirmed that he had signed it, but had apparently forgotten that a copy was made. Lewis Bidamon removed the original manuscript from the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House after Emma Smith died in 1879, and he showed and handed out the surviving pages to others. The original witness statements would have been in the destroyed portion of the manuscript.
Further, there is no testimony from any of the witnesses, with the exception of David Whitmer, directly attesting to the direct wording and claims of the manuscript or statements in the Book of Mormon.
While we have “testimonies” from the witnesses recorded in later years through interviews and second eyewitness accounts and affidavits, many of the “testimonies” given by some of the witnesses do not match the claims and wording of the preface statements in the Book of Mormon.
For example, the Testimony of Three Witnesses (which includes Martin Harris) states:“...that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon;”Martin Harris:“...he said he had hefted the plates repeatedly in a box with only a tablecloth or a handkerchief over them, but he never saw them...”– Letter from Stephen Burnett to “Br. Johnson,” April 15, 1838, in Joseph Smith Letter Book, p.2
We've already talked about Stephen Burnett's letter, this quote cuts off Martin Harris's affirmation that it is true. The argument here is that Martin's statement doesn't match the three witness statement. However, that assumes that the experience with the angel was Martin's only experience with the plates. The quote in Stephen Burnett's letter matches a different experience where Martin held the plates on his knee for an hour and a half as he and Joseph went to hide plates in the woods, and he turned the pages one by one. Since this would have been before he became a witness, they would have been covered at the time.
Many of the testimonies do match the claims given in the Three Witnesss statement, it is only the few that Jeremy chooses to cite repeatedly that do not. Here is another one, according to Ole A. Jensen who wrote about visiting Martin Harris in 1875:
The Prophet and Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and myself went into a little grove to pray, to obtain a promise that we should behold it with our own eyes. That we could testify to the world We prayed two or three times, and at length the Angel stood befor Oliver and David, and showed them the plates, But, Behold I had gone myself to pray and in my desperation I asked the Prophet to kneel down with me, and pray for me, that I may see the plates. And we did so and immediately the Angel stood befor me and said 'look' and when I glanced at him I fell, But I stood on my feet and saw the Angel turn the golden leaves over, and I said "it is enough, my Lord and my God!["] Then I heard the voice of God say the book is true, and translated correctly.
This matches all the claims in the written testimony—that an angel appeared, showed them the plates, and the voice of God pronouncing the translation correct.
“I did not see them as I do that pencil-case, yet I saw them with the eye of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me, though at the time they were covered over with a cloth.”
There is a difference between saying you “beheld and saw the plates and the engravings thereon” and saying you “hefted the plates repeatedly in a box with only a tablecloth or a handkerchief over them” or that the plates “were covered over with a cloth” and that you “did not see them as [you] do that pencil-case, yet [you] saw them with the eye of faith” or “with a spiritual eye.”
We have already talked about the John A. Clark and Sidney Gilbert quotes here repeatedly. And as I said earlier, David Whitmer, when asked about Martin Harris' statement, he explained "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."
Shortly after Martin Harris arrived in Utah, he spoke with Robert Barter. William Glen later recalled their conversation. Barter asked Harris:
"Are you sure you saw the Angel and the records of the Book of Mormon in the form of gold plates?" To which Harris replied: "Gentlemen," holding out his hand, "do you see that hand? Are you sure you see it? Or are your eyes playing you a trick or something? No. Well, as sure as you see my hand so sure did I see the Angel and the plates. Brethren, I know I saw and heard thee things, and the Lord knows I know these things of which I was spoken are true".
There are dozens of these literally-saw-an-angel testimonies.
When I was a missionary, my understanding and impression from looking at the testimony of the Three and Eight Witnesses in the Book of Mormon was that the signatures and statements were legally binding documents in which the names represented signatures on the original document similar to those you would see on the original US Declaration of Independence. This is how I presented the testimonies to investigators.
I suppose I can't fault Jeremy for having strange ideas on his mission, we all carry our own preconceptions, and end up having weird ideas. But we can still stand to learn new things. The Three and Eight Witness statements are not legally binding documents. Neither is the Declaration of Independence. A legally binding document is an agreement between two parties that require or prohibit specific actions on behalf of one or both of the parties. A signed document provides proof that the agreement exists.
I suppose you could consider the Three Witness statement as a contract that they would testify of what they had seen—"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." But this is fulfilled by the statement by itself. Though I suppose you could say that the 200 statements they gave afterwards supports their original statement.
According to the above manuscript that Oliver took to the printer for the Book of Mormon, they were not signatures. Since there is no document or evidence of any document whatsoever with the actual signatures of all of the witnesses, the only real testimonies we have from the witnesses are later interviews given by them and eyewitness accounts/affidavits made by others, some of which are shown previously.
From a legal perspective, the statements of the testimonies of the Three and Eight witnesses hold no credibility or weight in a court of law as there are a) no signatures of any of the witnesses except Oliver, b) no specific dates, c) no specific locations, and d) some of the witnesses made statements after the fact that contradict and cast doubt on the specific claims made in the statements contained in the preface of the Book of Mormon.
Rather than a legally binding document, the witness statements are... witness statements. I think you will find that courts of law do not require witness statements to be written down or signed. Like, we could use similar logic to say that statements that claim that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy wouldn't hold up in a court of law and therefore he was not a polygamist.
No, you don't have to take their word for it, but the witnesses affirmed their testimony hundreds of times, so the fact that the original document no longer exists isn't really an argument against them.
CONCLUSION
This segment seems to be misplaced, because Jeremy is not only summarizing what he has already said, but will go on to introduce and talk about new problems. I think it should really go after the "problems" segment, especially since part of it is summarizing things he hadn't brought up yet. But in his original letter, Jeremy put these as two sub-items under conclusion, so I'm not sure what he intended.
“THE WITNESSES NEVER RECANTED OR DENIED THEIR TESTIMONIES”
Neither did James Strang’s witnesses; even after they were excommunicated from the church and estranged from Strang. Neither did dozens of Joseph Smith’s neighbors and peers who swore and signed affidavits on Joseph’s and his family’s characters. Neither did many of the Shaker witnesses who signed affidavits that they saw an angel on the roof top holding the Sacred Roll and Book written by founder Ann Lee. Same goes for the numerous people over the centuries who claimed their entire lives to have seen the Virgin Mary and pointing to their experience as evidence that Catholicism is true.
There are also numerous witnesses who have never recanted their sincere testimonies of seeing UFOs, Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, Abominable Snowman, Aliens, and so on.
It simply doesn’t mean anything. People believe in false things their entire lives and never recant. Just because they never denied or recanted their testimonies does not follow that their experience and claims are authentic or that reality matches to what their perceived experience was.
Sure, but most times people are not asked to deny their testimony at gunpoint. On 20 July 1833 a mob destroyed the printing press and print office in Independence Missouri. Violence increased in the area with the ultimate goal to drive the Saints from Jackson County. On October 31st a mob attacked the Whitmer settlement, driving families from their homes with clubs, and tearing down homes.
Writing in 1839, John P. Greene wrote about the incidents relating to he Saints being driven from Missouri.
On Tuesday, when the mob again assembled, they went to the houses of several of the leading Mormons; and, taking Isaac Morley, David Whitmer, and others, they told them to bid their families farewell, for they would never see them again. Then driving them at the point of the bayonet to the public square, they stripped and tarred and feathered them, amidst menaces and insults. The commanding officer then called twelve of his men, and ordering them to cock their guns and present them at the prisoners' breasts, and to be ready to fire when he gave the word,—he addressed the prisoners, threatening them with instant death, unless they denied the book of Mormon and confessed it to be a fraud; at the same time adding, that if they did so, they might enjoy the privileges of citizens. David Whitmer, hereupon, lifted up his hands and bore witness that the Book of Mormon was the Word of God. The mob then let them go.
David Whitmer spoke about it himself in an 1883 interview with James H. Hart who wrote:
I have been surrounded by hostile mobs, on one occasion numbering four or five hundred demanding I should deny what is published over my name in the Book of Mormon; but the testimony I gave to that mob made them fear and tremble, and I escaped from them. One gentleman, a doctor, an unbeliever, told me afterwards that the bold and fearless testimony borne on that occasion and the fear that seemed to take hold of the mob had made him a believer in the Book of Mormon.
In a recently discovered notebook, William McLellin wrote in around 1871—when he had long been out of the Church—about his experiences with the witnesses.
12. In 1833, when mobbing reigned triumphant in Jackson Co. Mo. I and O. Cowdery fled from our homes, for fear of personal violence on Saturday the 20th day of July. The mob dispersed, agreeing to meet again on the next Tuesday. They offered eighty dollars reward for any one who would deliver Cowdery or McLellan in Independence on Tuesday. On Mond[a]y I slipped down into the Whitmer’s settlement, and there in the lonely woods I met with David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery. I said to them, “brethren I never have seen an open vision in my life, but you men say you have, and therefore you positively know. Now you know that our lives are in danger every hour, if the mob can onlyonlycatch us. Tell me in the fear of God, is that book of Mormon true?” Cowdery looked at me with solemnity depicted in his face, and said, “Brother William, God sent his holy angel to declare the truth of the translation of it to us, and therefore we know. And though the mob kill us, yet we must die declaring its truth.” David said, “Oliver has told you the solemn truth, for we could not be deceived. I most truly declaredeclareto you its truth”!! Said I, boys I believe you. I can see no object for you to tell me false <hood> now, when our lives are endangered. Eight men testify also to handling that sacred pile of plates, from which Joseph Smith <read off the> translation [of] that heavenly Book.
13. One circumstance I’ll relate of one of these eight witnesses. While the mob was raging in Jackson Co. Mo. in 1833 some young men ran down Hiram Page <in the woods> one of the eight <witnesses,> and commenced beating and pounding him with whips and clubs. He begged, but there was no mercy. They said he was <a> damned Mormon, and they meant to beat him to death! But finally one then said to him, if you will deny that damned book, we will let you go. Said he, how can I deny what I know to be true? Then they pounded him again. When they thought he was about to breathe his last, they said to him, Now what do you think of your God, when he dont save you? Well said he, I believe in God—Well, said one of the most intelligent among them, I believe the damned fool will stick to it though we kill him. Let us let him go. But his life was nearly run out. He was confined to his bed for a length of time. So much for a man who knows for himself. Knowledge is beyond faith or doubt. It is positive certainty.
Although McLellin would go on to be one of those to actively work against the Church and become involved with the Missouri mobs he knew that the witnesses were dedicated to their statements. Because they were threatened with death, their testimony caries more weight.
PROBLEMS
1. In discussing the witnesses, we should not overlook the primary accounts of the events they testified to.
I agree, so I find it odd that Jeremy chooses to overlook the primary accounts of the events they testified to, instead focusing on a few outlier secondhand accounts.
The official statements published in the Book of Mormon are not dated, signed (we have no record with their signatures except for Oliver’s), nor is a specific location given for where the events occurred. These are not eleven legally sworn affidavits but rather simple statements pre-written by Joseph Smith with claims of having been signed by three men and another by eight.
The original was destroyed in the corner of the Nauvoo house, so we don't know what it might have looked like. But all of the witnesses continued to affirm their written testimony over the years. If Jeremy's argument is that Joseph just wrote their statements and signatures without their knowledge, there is no justification for taking such a position.
2. All of the Book of Mormon witnesses, except Martin Harris, were related by blood or marriage either to the Smiths or Whitmers. Oliver Cowdery (married to Elizabeth Ann Whitmer and cousin to Joseph Smith), Hiram Page (married to Catherine Whitmer), and the five Whitmers were all related by marriage. Of course, Hyrum Smith, Samuel Smith, and Joseph Smith Sr. were Joseph’s brothers and father.
Mark Twain made light of this obvious problem:“...I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified.”
Oliver Cowdery didn't marry Elizabeth Ann Whitmer until 1832, so was not related at the time. Oliver was third cousins with Lucy Mack Smith, and there is no evidence they were aware of their relationship. If we are going there, might as well say that Martin Harris was 10th cousins with Oliver Cowdery and 11th Cousins with Joseph Smith. I think it is fair to say that the three witnesses were unrelated, and the eight witnesses were all either Smiths or Whitmers.
Jeremy calls being related an "obvious problem" but I'm not sure it is. Are related people not able to see the same things? Of course they can. Is this something God would not allow? Of course He could.
It isn't that it is an actual problem for their witness to be true, it is more that because Jeremy has doubts, it raises a red flag for him. He believes that since families are so much more well-connected than unrelated people then that would make it easier for them to collude to deceive others. However, that doesn't mean that they actually did collude.
Like I said way back in the introduction, something that bears repeating, my purpose isn't to to try and prove Jeremy wrong, nor to prove myself right. Rather, I want to show that the CES Letter isn't as strong an argument against the Church as many critics think it is, and to show why I remain a believing Latter-day Saint even knowing what it says.
For me, when I was a teenager, I received a spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon. So as a believing Latter-day Saint, it just makes sense to me why God would choose the Smiths and Whitmers to be witnesses. I feel like those who didn't believe would have tried to steal the plates, so it's not like there was much choice in 1829 upstate New York.
It's okay to have questions and doubts. Doubts don't have to lead to rejection. My answers may or may not work for you, but I believe that you can receive your own answers as you seek inspiration from the Spirit.
3. Within eight years, all of the Three Witnesses were excommunicated from the Church. This is what Joseph Smith said about them in 1838:“Such characters as...John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris, are too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them.”
This was from when Joseph Smith was writing from Liberty Jail. He believed, or had reason to believe that these men had helped the state militia which came to Far West, seized and pillaged the town, rounding up the men into the town square, beating those who resisted them. Some soldiers assaulted and raped women found hiding in their homes.
David Whitmer wrote in 1887 refuting rumors that he had helped them
Such a rumor may have existed; if so, it may have originated in this way; when I came to Richmond, General Parks, who was in command of the State Militia, was short of wagons and teams, as they were scarce here then; so he pressed me and my team into service and I was forced to go and drive a wagon load of baggage to Far West. I told them if I had to go I would take no gun. They said "all right;" and I took no gun. This rumor may have originated in this way. God knows that I did not encourage the militia in the least to persecute the Saints.
All these men had been excommunicated for teaching against Joseph Smith, so it seems reasonable he would believe rumors that they were associating with the dissenters that actually were fighting against Joseph. Heber C. Kimball had claimed that the Whitmers accompanied Major General Lucas to Far West and helped identify church leaders. John Whitmer testified against Joseph smith at the November 1838 hearing. Martin Harris was not in Missouri at the time, but earlier in 1838 he did associate with others who had left the Church and were opposed to Joseph Smith, creating their own church. It was brief, though, as they also denounced the Book of Book of Mormon, and Martin Harris condemned them for doing so.
This is what first counselor of the First Presidency and once close associate Sidney Rigdon had to say about Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer:
“Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer...united with a gang of counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and blacklegs in the deepest dye, to deceive, cheat, and defraud the saints out of their property, by every art and stratagem which wickedness could invent...”
What does it say about the Witnesses and their characters if even the Prophet and his counselor in the First Presidency thought they were questionable and unsavory?
What Jeremy cites is actually from the court of inquiry against Joseph and other Church leaders, held in November 1838. (February 1841 is just when it was printed.) And it is actually quoting Sampson Avard, one of the leaders of the Danites. They had participated in driving out the dissenters, and then participated in the Missouri-Mormon war, but in the aftermath, he agreed to cooperate with the criminal prosecution in exchange for immunity. In his testimony, he claimed that Joseph Smith was "the prime mover and organizer" of the Danites.
I mentioned it earlier, but the Danites had sent a threatening letter to the dissenters to leave Caldwell County or face dire consequences. The quote comes from that letter, and Sampson Avard claimed in the court of inquiry that Sidney Rigdon wrote it. It does resemble some of the sentiments he expressed during a 17 June 1838 sermon, so it is possible he was involved, but this is tempered by the fact he didn't sign it. Sampson Avard's signature is the first of 83 signatures.
Ebenezer Robinson, one of those that signed it, said in 1890 that he didn't remember reading it or having it read to him, just that his signature was requested as a sign of loyalty to the First Presidency, so he believed the document was written by them. It doesn't seem like it was written by them either. Hyrum Smith was the second counselor in the First Presidency, and John Smith was an assistant Church president, and while their signatures do appear, they are not together.
The letter accused Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer of counterfeiting, and that was one of the charges brought against Oliver during his excommunication.
So to answer the question, seeing an angel or seeing plates does not turn you into or guarantee that you will remain a holy person. So I would say it speaks even more highly of their testimony. If they were lying, shouldn't Joseph have been concerned that by excommunicating them that they would let the truth out about the angel?
4. As mentioned in the above “Polygamy | Polyandry” section, Joseph was able to influence and convince many of the 31 witnesses to lie and perjure in a sworn affidavit that Joseph was not a polygamist.
As a reminder of that section, this is in regards to what was published in the 1 October 1842 Times and Seasons where a group of Saints condemned John C. Bennet's "Secret Wife System" as slander. Eliza R. Snow wrote a letter to Joseph F. Smith explaining why:
At the time the sisters of the Relief Society signed our article I was married to the prophet— we made no allusion to any other system of marriage than Bennett's— his was prostitution, and it was truly his, and he succeeded in pandering his course on the credulity of the unsuspecting by making them believe that he was thus authorized by the Prophet. In those articles there is no reference to divine plural marriage. We aimed to put down its opposite.
The message didn't say that Joseph was not a polygamist, just that the Saints weren't practicing what John Bennet was claiming.
Or maybe my argument should have been to point out that we don't have the original document with signatures, and it doesn't say a date or location, and therefore wouldn't hold up in a court of law? I only bring it up to point out how weak and unpersuasive the argument is, and to note that Jeremy does not place his own criticisms to the same level of scrutiny that he demands of others.
Is it outside the realm of possibility that Joseph was also able to influence or manipulate the experiences of his own magical thinking, treasure digging family and friends as witnesses? Biased Mormon men who already believed in second sight and who already believed that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God?
No, of course it's not outside the realm of possibility. But if you are going to use bias to explain why they provided their testimonies, then you will also need to explain why they maintained their testimony when they no longer had incentive, or when there was an incentive to deny their testimonies.
It's also not outside the realm of possibility that they actually did see an angel, and that he showed them the plates, and that the voice of God told them that it was translated by the gift and power of God. And that eight others really did handle and examine the plates. No one is saying to just take their word for it, but that you may pray and ask God and learn whether it is true or not.
5. If the Prophet Joseph Smith could get duped with the Kinderhook Plates, thinking that the 19th century fake plates were a legitimate record of a “descendent [sic - misspelling is Jeremy's] of Ham,” how is having gullible men like Martin Harris handling the covered plates going to prove anything?
Well, given that Joseph Smith wasn't duped... and given that Martin Harris was later shown the plates by an angel... it isn't supposed to "prove" anything. It is supposed to provide evidence to the reality of Joseph Smith's mission. But proof about spiritual things only comes from the Spirit.
6. James Strang’s claims and Voree Plates Witnesses are distinctive and more impressive compared to the Book of Mormon Witnesses:
This is subjective. Personally, I find even the eight witnesses more impressive given that the plates they saw also had the appearance of gold. I also find the plates weighing about 50 pounds to be more impressive than the 18 plates James Strang had.
I find the Three Witnesses more impressive, they saw an angel and heard the voice of God declaring that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God. None of the Strang witnesses made such a claim.
The next few bullets are what he sees as distinctive and more impressive, but I will note that Jeremy doesn't find the Strangite witnesses so impressive that he believes them.
- All of Strang’s witnesses were not related to one another through blood or marriage like the Book of Mormon Witnesses were.
The Four Witnesses were in 1845, the Seven Witnesses in 1851. His church also had all the history of ours, and so had the benefit of not starting from scratch, having many believers to choose from.
And actually, James Strang was son-in-law to Phineas Wright, since Strang married his daughter in 1855. I doubt Jeremy even checked to see if any witnesses were third cousins. I couldn't find half of them on Family Search, so I think more research needs to be done. But I did see that Aaron Smith and Jirah B. Wheelan were fourth cousins once removed, assuming Family Search is correct.
- Some of the witnesses were not members of Strang’s church.
- The Voree Plates were displayed in a museum for both members and non-members to view and examine.
The Four and Seven Witnesses were all leaders in Strang's church. Instead, I think maybe Jeremy is just counting the "unofficial" witnesses that came to Strang's house where they could see them. The Four witnesses weren't witnesses of the plates—they were witnesses to how Strang found the plates.
- Strang provided 4 witnesses who testified that on his instructions, they actually dug the plates up for Strang while he waited for them to do so. They confirmed that the ground looked previously undisturbed.
The idea behind this was so that people couldn't claim Strang just manufactured them. Though, it doesn't rule out someone digging in at shallow angle from a distance away and concealing the evidence.
The three witnesses instead saw an angel in broad daylight, and heard the voice of God declare that it was translated by the gift and power of God. An angel and a voice is a lot harder to manufacture, and it has to be convincing enough that they will testify of it through out their lives, even if they have a mob pointing their guns at them.
7. The Shakers and Ann Lee:The Shakers felt that “Christ has made his second appearance on earth, in a chosen female known by the name of Ann Lee, and acknowledged by us as our Blessed Mother in the work of redemption” (Sacred Roll and Book, p.358). The Shakers had a sacred book entitled A Holy, Sacred and Divine Roll and Book; From the Lord God of Heaven, to the Inhabitants of Earth.
More than 60 individuals gave testimony to the Sacred Roll and Book, which was published in 1843. Although not all of them mention angels appearing, some of them tell of many angels visiting them. One woman told of eight different visions.
Here is the testimony statement (page 304 of Sacred Roll and Book):We, the undersigned, hereby testify, that we saw the holy Angel standing upon the house-top, as mentioned in the foregoing declaration, holding the Roll and Book.
BETSEY BOOTHE.LOUISA CHAMBERLAIN.CATY DE WITT.LAURA ANN JACOBS.SARAH MARIA LEWIS.SARAH ANN SPENCER.LUCINDA MCDONIELS.MARIA HEDRICK.Joseph Smith only had three witnesses who claimed to see an angel. The Shakers, however, had a large number of witnesses who claimed they saw angels and the Sacred Roll and Book. There are over a hundred pages of testimony from “Living Witnesses.”
For some background, the Shakers originated in England, breaking off from the Quakers in 1747, and called themselves the United Society of Believers in Christ's Second Appearing. Ann Lee joined in 1758, then became the leader. She and eight followers went to America in 1774. They believed that Ann was the second coming of Christ. They were called "Shaking Quakers" or Shakers because of their ecstatic worship services. They also believed in celibacy, did not believe in baptism, and some practiced vegetarianism. They came to form communal societies where they lived and worked together.
There was a Shaker community in North Union, Ohio, close to Kirtland. Leman Copley had converted from the Shakers and wanted to go preach to them, and to get more understanding. Joseph Smith received a revelation, now Doctrine and Covenants 49, which corrected these false doctrines. Leman Copley went with Sidney Rigdon to the Shaker community to preach, but were unsuccessful in their efforts.
Anyway, on to the Sacred Roll. Beginning in 1837 was the "Era of Manifestations" in Shakerism which marked a period of spiritual gifts and revelations. In 1842, Philemon Stewart said he was visited by an angel, who showed him a scroll and he wrote what the Angel dictated six hours each day for fourteen days. Part II is 180 pages with a collection of over 90 testimonies. They are diverse, rather than telling a singular event, but together they intend to serve to confirm the claims in Part I and to support Philemon Stewart. It was written in New Lebanon, New York, and then published in Canterbury New Hampshire.
For a time, it was granted special authority as scripture, but even as it was being printed, leaders in the Shaker community criticized Philemon Stewart with self-aggrandizement. Ironically, one complaint was that he solicited too many testimonies. While the Book of Mormon was a foundational text for the Latter-day Saint movement, the Sacred Roll disappeared from Shaker beliefs, and is now something of a footnote in history.
The evidence seems to show that Martin Harris accepted the Sacred Roll and Book as a divine revelation. Clark Braden stated: “Harris declared repeatedly that he had as much evidence for a Shaker book he had as for the Book of Mormon” (The Braden and Kelly Debate, p.173).
Jeremy quoted this earlier, but I guess I'll repeat myself too. In December 1844, it was reported that "Martin Harris is a firm believer in Shakerism, says his testimony is greater than it was of the Book of Mormon."
However, his commitment couldn't have been strong as he did not join the commune, and he remained married to his wife. And only six months later, Jeremiah Cooper visited Kirtland and reported meeting Martin Harris where "he bore testimony to the truth of the Book of Mormon." Then in 1846 he had joined the Strangites and preached in England briefly, again affirming his testimony in the Book of Mormon.
Martin apparently owned a copy of the Sacred Roll, as Latter-day Saint missionary James W. Bay recorded in his journal for November 1850 seeing it when visiting Martin Harris, and his 7-year-old daughter read from it. However what Martin talked about was the Book of Mormon, that he "knew it was true for he saw the plates and knew for himself."
By the time of the Braden and Kelly Debate in 1884, Martin Harris had been dead for nearly 10 years, and Clark Braden should have known that clearly Martin Harris's supposed belief in Shakerism was not so strong as his belief in the Book of Mormon.
Why should we believe the Book of Mormon Witnesses but not the Shakers witnesses? What are we to make of the reported Martin Harris comment that he had as much evidence for the Shaker book he had as for the Book of Mormon?
Clark Braden didn't tell us what sort of evidence Martin Harris thought he had. Perhaps he believed its 90 something testimonies? I think comparing his lifelong commitment to his testimony of the Book of Mormon with the two statements on his belief in the Shakers is enough to show which he actually believed in.
Like with the Strangite witnesses, I would say this is a false equivalence fallacy. Just because two people claim to have seen angels, that doesn't mean that if you accept one, you have to accept both; or that if you reject one, you have to reject both. Also just because you believe one person saw an angel doesn't mean that you have to believe everything else they said.
And again, it's not like we ask people to just take their word for it. Instead, we invite all people to pray and learn the truth from the Holy Spirit.
In light of the James Strang/Voree Plates witnesses, the fact that all of the Book of Mormon Witnesses – except Martin Harris – were related to either Joseph Smith or David Whitmer, along with the fact that all of the witnesses were treasure hunters who believed in second sight, and in light of their superstitions and reputations...why would anyone gamble their lives by believing in a book based on anything these men said or claimed, or what’s written as the testimonies of the Witnesses in the preface of the Book of Mormon?
David Whitmer gambled his life at gunpoint because he knew that what he had seen was true, and could not deny it. Hiram Page maintained his testimony even as he was being beat to death, because he knew what he saw, and could not deny what he knew to be true.
Jeremy is acting as if we are the ones gambling our lives, but it was the witnesses who actually did. No one is asking us to gable our lives, nor is anyone asking us to believe in the Book of Mormon because of what others say about it.
Maybe the Christians who share the CES Letter with me are thinking of it as a more general expression, like "gambling their souls" on believing the Book of Mormon. But you could just as easily turn it around and ask "why would anyone gamble their souls by rejecting the Book of Mormon based on what the CES Letter says about it?" I'm sure that like me, they don't base their belief solely on what others say. I believe it because I have read it and prayed about it, and that is all I can ask of others.
The mistake that is made by 21st century Mormons is that they’re seeing the Book of Mormon Witnesses as empirical, rational, nineteenth-century men instead of the nineteenth-century magical thinking, superstitious, inconsistent, and treasure digging men they were. They have ignored the peculiarities of their worldview, and by so doing, they misunderstand their experiences as witnesses.
In other words, if I understand Jeremy's argument right, he is saying that we misunderstand them that according to their worldview, their imagination was like reality to them. However, that ignores their many many testimonies where they affirm that it was not their imagination, but that it was a real experience.
At the end of the day? It all doesn’t matter. The Book of Mormon Witnesses and their testimonies of the gold plates are irrelevant. It does not matter whether eleven 19th century treasure diggers with magical worldviews saw some gold plates or not. It doesn’t matter because of this one simple fact:
JOSEPH DID NOT USE THE GOLD PLATESFOR TRANSLATING THE BOOK OF MORMON
Ancient prophets go through all the time, trouble, and effort in making, engraving, compiling, abridging, preserving, transporting, hiding, and burying gold plates.
Moroni dies and comes back as a resurrected angel to deliver the gold plates to Joseph for translating the Book of Mormon.
Joseph uses his rock and hat instead for dictating the Book of Mormon we have today.
The witnesses were all there watching as Joseph translated. They knew that he didn't "use" the plates—meaning that he didn't look at them. What would be the benefit of looking at text in a language he didn't understand?
The plates were real, and they served as a physical testimony to Joseph and the eight witnesses that Joseph actually had something, that it couldn't be entirely his imagination.
Then for the three witnesses, along with the angel was the voice of God told them that the plates were translated by the gift and power of God. So of course the plates and the witnesses are relevant.
Next: Temples & Freemasonry
No comments:
Post a Comment