Do we believe Martin Harris...

[Nomomo]

...when he added his name to the Testimony of the Three Witnesses

And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; (Emphasis added)

...or do we believe him when he told John H. Gilbert

Martin was something of a prophet: — He frequently said that "Jackson would be the last president that we would have; and that all persons who did not embrace Mormonism in two years would be stricken off the face of the earth.: He said that Palmyra was to be the New Jerusalem, and that her streets were to be paved with gold. Martin was in the office when I finished setting up the testimony of the three witnesses, — (Harris — Cowdery and Whitmer) I said to him, — "Martin, did you see those plates with your naked eyes?" Martin looked down for an instant, raise his eyes up, and said, 'No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.' (Wilford C. Wood, Joseph Smith Begins His Work, Vol. 1, 1958, introduction.) (Emphasis added)

...or do we believe him when

On 25 March [1838], Martin Harris told a public meeting that none of the witnesses had physically seen or handled the plates, that they had not seen the plates with their "natural eyes" (Stephen Burnett to Lyman E. Johnson, 15 April 1838, Joseph Smith Letterbook, 2:64-66) (Emphasis added)

So was he lying then or now?

During that year about 300 members had left the Church. Within a month after Harris made his statement, three of the apostles no longer believed in the Book of Mormon and two more were out of favor with the church. All three witnesses of the Book of Mormon and three of the eight additional witnesses had defected. (ibid.)

But just remember this: none of them ever denied their testimonies. You know the ones I'm referring to... "the testimonies" that Joseph dictated for them?

[_Runtu]

I've heard DCP say repeatedly that the Three Witnesses simply must be dealt with and that they lend credibility to Joseph's testimony.

But why? Other religious leaders have published great revelations, and off the top of my head, I can't think of any who had some sort of physical source for the revelation or who went to such great pains to publish "eyewitness" testimony of that source's existence.

It's almost as if God (well, let's give Joseph the hypothetical benefit of the doubt) wasn't confident that the Book of Mormon would be accepted as revelation without the plates or at least the witness testimony.

And why, for that matter, did Joseph dictate the text of the witness testimony? If it were such a significant event, would it not have made it more credible had they actually described the experience in their own words?

I don't know why this suddenly strikes me as even fishier than it has before.

[_MormonMendacity]

I've heard DCP say repeatedly that the Three Witnesses simply must be dealt with and that they lend credibility to Joseph's testimony.

Recent court cases have piqued my interest in this topic. There are several cases where experts are being brought in to challenge the credibility of eyewitness testimony. This sounds like fertile ground for planting additional seeds of doubt about whether eyewitnesses (even to real events) are reliable.

In this BBC news article, The problem with eyewitnesses, some of the distorting factors are stress, presence of a gun, conferring with others, leading questions, media coverage and misinterpretation. Of course, not all of those things were present when the angel showed the plates to Cowdery, Whitmer and Harris (at least they didn't say Joseph had a gun...) but their stories certainly seem to have the "conferring with others" aspect. Was it peer pressure?

This posting on SciForums was pretty interesting, too: How reliable are eyewitnesses? describes a number of tests referenced in the post that seem to indicate unreliability and manipulation of what people remember and ignore.

And when I was reading my missionary journal after many, many years, I was surprised to find out some pretty interesting (troubling) things I did on my mission. It got me wondering about recovered memories and I found this article: Researcher Show How False Memories Are Formed

I thought this quote was very interesting:

"Our challenge was to bring people into the laboratory and set up a circumstance in which they would remember something that did not happen," said Kenneth A. Paller, professor of psychology and co-investigator of the study. (Brian Gonsalves, who was a doctoral student of Paller's and who now is a post-doctoral fellow at Stanford University, is the first author of the paper.)

"We measured brain activity in people who looked at pictures of objects or imagined other objects that we asked them to visualize. Later we asked them to discriminate what they actually saw from what they imagined," Paller said.

Extending upon considerable Northwestern research on what happens in the brain when people remember versus forget, the researchers were interested in what happens differently in the brain when false memories are produced.

"We learned that the particular parts of the brain critical for generating visual images are highly activated when people imagine images such as those we presented to our study participants," said Paller

Many of the visual images that the subjects were asked to imagine were later misremembered as actually having been seen.

I'm not saying that anything like this happend to the Witnesses...but it sure makes me wonder about why the plates had to be taken away instead of just laying them out there for the world to view. God seems to like us to follow a good tale.

[_Guardiands]

There are many factors, as you point out, in analyzing a "testimony."

I can't address all the issues you raise, so I'd like to touch upon one or two. Essentially I'd like to deal with semantics. It seems to me that some have taken issue with Oliver Cowdery's usage of the phrase "spiritual eyes." I am curious what leads people to believe this phrase calls into question his actual viewing of the plates? As always to understand what is meant one must delve into connotation of phrases and words. So when dealing with angelic visits, visits from God, and the supernatural it seemed that a phrase "spiritual eyes" was what they used to describe the witnessing of such events.

To show the connotation I will quote from a scripture in Moses that uses this: "Moses 1: 11
11 But 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."

Juding from the usage of "spiritual eye" here, the only thing that Oliver Cowdery's usage of that term means is that he was transfigured. It does not mean it was a dream, it does not mean he did not actually see it. etc.

This of course is not 100% for sure what he meant, but by taking the one scripture that uses the phrase we can see the connotation and as such I would be left to conclude that Oliver did very much see the plates, though he was in a transfigured state at the time (thus moses 1 would lead us to believe)

As for the claim of those not believing the Book of Mormon. As far as I know it the apostacy that took place centered around the authority and expanded powers that Joseph had taken. The witnesses continued to hold to seeing the plates, even though they themselves were disenfranchised with Joseph as a leader.

Odd that when you are upset with a man and hold the power to tear him down you still continue to state that you viewed the plates.

Now, there are other reasons that you touch upon which may explain why they would hold to this testimony, factors we may be able to see and some we may not. So I just wanted to touch on those few points.

[_MormonMendacity]

There are many factors, as you point out, in analyzing a "testimony."

I can't address all the issues you raise, so I'd like to touch upon one or two. Essentially I'd like to deal with semantics. It seems to me that some have taken issue with Oliver Cowdery's usage of the phrase "spiritual eyes." I am curious what leads people to believe this phrase calls into question his actual viewing of the plates? As always to understand what is meant one must delve into connotation of phrases and words. So when dealing with angelic visits, visits from God, and the supernatural it seemed that a phrase "spiritual eyes" was what they used to describe the witnessing of such events.

To show the connotation I will quote from a scripture in Moses that uses this: "Moses 1: 11
11 But 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."

Juding from the usage of "spiritual eye" here, the only thing that Oliver Cowdery's usage of that term means is that he was transfigured. It does not mean it was a dream, it does not mean he did not actually see it. etc.

This of course is not 100% for sure what he meant, but by taking the one scripture that uses the phrase we can see the connotation and as such I would be left to conclude that Oliver did very much see the plates, though he was in a transfigured state at the time (thus moses 1 would lead us to believe)

I think saying that being "transfigured" is a valid explanation for Harris's "spiritual eyes" comment doesn't help me any more than just accepting his actual comment of "spiritual eyes". What is the difference? I don't know what being transfigured means any more than I know what spiritual eyes are?

I know I have physical eyes and they receive light and my brain acts on that light to form images. I know that I have physical hands and that when I touch something the nerves in my hands transmit those feelings into my brain and it stores those feelings.

For the Witnesses to be giving testimony that involved a transfiguration leaves me unable to determine if that testimony is helpful to me. For all I know a transfiguration is another word for drug-induced hypnosis that doesn't provide me with valuable information. Although your explanation could be 100% accurate I am afraid it leaves me without further light and knowledge.

As for the claim of those not believing the Book of Mormon. As far as I know it the apostacy that took place centered around the authority and expanded powers that Joseph had taken. The witnesses continued to hold to seeing the plates, even though they themselves were disenfranchised with Joseph as a leader.

I think that the people who left the church in 1838 did so because of what Harris had said.

"...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 the instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it, the last pedestal gave way, in my view our foundation was sapped..."(Burnett to Lyman Johnson, 15 April 1838, quoted in "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins")

"Martin Harris, one of the subscribing witnesses, has come out at last, and says he never saw the plates, from wich the book purports to have been translated, except in vision and he further says that any man who says he has seen them in any other way is a liar, Jospeh New Testament excepted."(Parrish to E. Holmes, 11 Aug 1838, ibid.)

I think that they were feeling, like I was, that they had been lied to. The Witnesses purported to have "seen and handled" the plates. That's what their written testimony says -- the one that I surmise Joseph dictated. I think that's what investigators thought they had done. That's what *I* thought had happened all my life.

Odd that when you are upset with a man and hold the power to tear him down you still continue to state that you viewed the plates.

One would certainly be in a quandry, that's for sure. "Your Honor. Is the witness lying now or was he lying then?"

What I am sure of is that I know nothing about the men that would lead me to believe that they were trustworthy and certainly some doubt, from these and other sources, that their trust could be questioned. I also am left to wonder why testimonies to physical facts are necessary for a spiritual work. Especially if we can't examine the evidence ourselves.

I'm just saying that it really sounds just like a carnival shell game, to me. You know the one where the pea (like the plates) isn't under any of the shells.

[_Guardiands]

Mormon Mendacity, as for the last part of your post, it is funny cause I just posted the same thing on another thread. Don't remember the name, but we're both discussing on it. So I share you concerns on that topic as well.

As for the "spiritual eyes" my point is that from what we read we need not surmise from this anything other than he is saying he saw an angel. To see holy beings it is believed you have to be transfigured. So it doesn't even mean he was in a different state. All it means is "I saw an angel, I can't see an angel in a normal state, thus since I saw this angel I had to be transfigured."

From what I see all he's saying by "spiritual eyes" is that he saw a spiritual being.

I can try to make more sense of that later if need be.

As for the witnesses, I dunno, if I was as upset at Joseph as the witnesses ended up being you'd have a hard time getting me to stick to some "lie" that kept him in power. The only arguments I see are 1. They really saw it. 2. They thought they saw it. 3. they didn't want to go back on their testimony because it'd disgrace their name.

For me the bigger problem lies in the witnesses at all. Like I said before, what's up with this limited objectivity. "Ok we have physical plates, but only a few of you can see it, that makes it objective....but the rest have to trust you" Why can't we get the objective experience as well? Further, why then are we moved from relying on a spiritual witness to being asked to have faith in some men we don't know? (my same problem with the New Testament)

[_MormonMendacity]

Thanks, Guardiands. I have appreciated reading your comments and think they certainly do make a lot of sense.

When I was wondering about the likelihood of the Witnesses denying their testimonies (and I do agree with you that they may have actually believed they experienced something), I think it goes back to what their overall view of miracles was. I'm not the first to have wondered about this and I think Grant Palmer did a good job of exploring it.

As for the witnesses, I dunno, if I was as upset at Joseph as the witnesses ended up being you'd have a hard time getting me to stick to some "lie" that kept him in power. The only arguments I see are 1. They really saw it. 2. They thought they saw it. 3. they didn't want to go back on their testimony because it'd disgrace their name.

If, for example, they valued their innate abilities to commune with god and experience miracles, that might have meant more to them than sticking it to Joseph. They might have felt that denying the spiritual experience -- or whatever it was -- would discredit them more than they were willing to risk.

But...utlimately, I dunno either.

For me the bigger problem lies in the witnesses at all. Like I said before, what's up with this limited objectivity. "Ok we have physical plates, but only a few of you can see it, that makes it objective....but the rest have to trust you" Why can't we get the objective experience as well? Further, why then are we moved from relying on a spiritual witness to being asked to have faith in some men we don't know? (my same problem with the New Testament)

I agree. And it became difficult for me to ignore the mounting problems that I had with the story and just accept the answers as reasonable explanations. Telling me that they were hidden from me for the benefit of my faith didn't wash anymore.

When Pahoran pointed out that he used this pseudomym was because anti-Mormons had never successfully answered why the Book of Mormon would have a reformed Egyptian name it appeared that no explanation about how Joseph might have come up with the name fit into the "successfully answered" category.

The apologists, it appears, never have to give plausibility for Joseph making it up or harvesting it from some book he or other assistants might have had access to. Those explanations aren't reasonable answers. But that Joseph saw translated from inaccessible Golden Plates? Oh yeah. That's believable.

Thanks again for your insight

[_Guardiands]

Thank you, MormonMendacity, I also appreciate your insights.

Specifically "If, for example, they valued their innate abilities to commune with god and experience miracles, that might have meant more to them than sticking it to Joseph. They might have felt that denying the spiritual experience -- or whatever it was -- would discredit them more than they were willing to risk.

But...utlimately, I dunno either. "

Humanity has a great way of making miracles work for them. Say a prayer cause your shoe is missing and when you find it you thank God that he provided you with the ability to find that shoe. Pray and it doesn't happen and it was cause He didn't want it to.

Where I'm going with this is along the same lines you mentioned, they didn't want to accept the fact that they were wrong in what they thought was a spiritual experience. I believe either they really saw it, or they really thought they saw it.

Either way, they're not going to go back on their word, because to do so is either to deny what is true, or to deny what they believed to be true, which in essence admits that they can't trust their own spiritual experiences. And frankly, I don't many people who discredit themselves in the spiritual realm (though I'd put myself in the self discrediting section). So in summary, what you got me thinking is that to deny this testimony is to deny that their spiritual experiences can be trusted. If that makes sense.

[_why me]

I have no reason to doubt the witnesses, especially Martin Harris. He had much invested in the lds church and very little to gain. He lost his marriage because of the Book of Mormon and I believe that at first, he was rejected by heavenly father only to be given permission later to be a witness.

Why would any of the witnesses lie? No one gained from lying and in fact, many departed from the fold. And yet, they kept their testimony intact. The witnesses give the lds church and the Book of Mormon some credibility. And their credibility has not been destroyed yet.

[_Jason Bourne]

...when he added his name to the Testimony of the Three Witnesses

And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; (Emphasis added)

...or do we believe him when he told John H. Gilbert

Martin was something of a prophet: — He frequently said that "Jackson would be the last president that we would have; and that all persons who did not embrace Mormonism in two years would be stricken off the face of the earth.: He said that Palmyra was to be the New Jerusalem, and that her streets were to be paved with gold. Martin was in the office when I finished setting up the testimony of the three witnesses, — (Harris — Cowdery and Whitmer) I said to him, — "Martin, did you see those plates with your naked eyes?" Martin looked down for an instant, raise his eyes up, and said, 'No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.' (Wilford C. Wood, Joseph Smith Begins His Work, Vol. 1, 1958, introduction.) (Emphasis added)

...or do we believe him when

On 25 March [1838], Martin Harris told a public meeting that none of the witnesses had physically seen or handled the plates, that they had not seen the plates with their "natural eyes" (Stephen Burnett to Lyman E. Johnson, 15 April 1838, Joseph Smith Letterbook, 2:64-66) (Emphasis added)

So was he lying then or now?

During that year about 300 members had left the Church. Within a month after Harris made his statement, three of the apostles no longer believed in the Book of Mormon and two more were out of favor with the church. All three witnesses of the Book of Mormon and three of the eight additional witnesses had defected. (ibid.)

But just remember this: none of them ever denied their testimonies. You know the ones I'm referring to... "the testimonies" that Joseph dictated for them?

Which one did he sign and put his name to?