Mormon Early Historical Events and Witnesses

[malkie]

We are called upon in this life to walk by faith, not by sight, not by the proclamation of heavenly messengers with the voice of thunder, but by the proclamation of accredited witnesses whom the Lord sends and by whom every word shall be established.

I don't read this as an attempt to make a case for anything, but rather as an open admission that Mormon claims about the Restoration rest, not on evidence or argument, but on faith. "Heavenly messengers with the voice of thunder" would be serious evidence, at least for the people that heard them and saw them, at least if they could be confident that they were sober at the time and of sound mind. Less spectacular witnesses require more faith to believe.

If the witnesses themselves are less impressive than thunderous angels, they might still gain an indirect authority by being "accredited" by some prior authority which one already accepts. Believing the unimpressive witnesses because of their endorsement by another authority requires faith in that other authority. In the Mormon case, this other authority would seem to be the Mormon church, which has simply declared certain people to have been accredited witnesses. Those who already have faith in the Mormon church will then accept what these witnesses say.

That's all I read Fielding Smith as having said. It's not an apologetic argument, not even an attempt at trying to convince non-Mormons of anything. It's just an open statement of how the Mormon church advances its claims, by asserting the "accreditation" of certain otherwise unimpressive witnesses, and demanding faith in the accreditation, and then in what the witnesses said. The only reason that Fielding Smith offers for this purely faith-based approach is that it is just how God does things. So it's faith all the way down.

In other words, I would paraphrase Fielding Smith's statement as, "We are Mormons, and a Mormon just believes." He just says that in a way that sounds better, to Mormons.

At the time of the showing of the plates to the 3 + 8 witnesses, there was no Mormon church available to provide accreditation. Logic would seem to require that the witnesses JFS refers to were accredited at or before the time of whatever they were claiming to have witnessed. I still think that the church - but not Lucy - has some 'splainin' to do.

[Limnor]

I’m not sure I could be more convinced of their “accredit”-ness then if they hadn’t been foretold in the book itself…

Yet another “really?” moment.

[Gadianton]

If the witnesses themselves are less impressive than thunderous angels, they might still gain an indirect authority by being "accredited" by some prior authority which one already accepts.

But that's the problem, the reason why Jesus needed miracles and Joseph needed gold plates is because of the lack of accreditation. Carl Sagan was essentially right. If I were to build an engine that runs on water, nobody will believe me on account of my accreditation but it would be trivial to prove it and seal my fame. As easy as it is for me to demonstrate an engine that runs on water (if I had one), it's just as trivial for God to send an angel. If I could make an engine that runs on water I'd make one and prove it right away. If there were a God, he'd send an angel. Just like I can't build an engine that runs on water, there is no God to send an angel. I don't need a degree or published papers if I can actually build the engine.

What the church needs isn't accredited witnesses, it needs to own the accreditation pipeline and it doesn't have it. That's why not even greatest frauds amongst the Brethren who complain the loudest like wrong-road Holland did, can make BYU do apologetics their way. They want apologists like Dan to go on archeological excavations and find real proof of the Book of Mormon but it can't happen because there is no proof. The kind of real scholarship they imagine will ultimately end with getting black-balled.

The best they can do is imagine their own authority. The problem with real actual witnesses is anybody can be a witness. We have more witnesses of the paranormal than silicon valley has storage capacity for their social media content. Since they can't have real witness because either there is nothing to witness, or witnesses can make up anything they want, including competing paranormal claims that are more in vogue an gold plates, all they can do if hope for the best on talking points about witnesses steeped in circularity that establish their witnesses as the ones the world must believe.

[malkie]

Here is what FAIR has to say, in summary, about the 3 witnesses:

The testimony of the Three Witnesses, as printed in every edition of the Book of Mormon since its publication, reads as follows:

"Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen."

So the Three Witnesses:

1. Saw an angel come down from heaven and lay the plates before them
2. Saw the plates
3. Saw the engravings on the plates.
4. Heard the voice of God declare that the plates were translated by His gift and power.
5. Heard the Lord command them to testify of the Book of Mormon’s divinity

.

FAIR Answers: Eleven official witnesses to the Book of Mormon

I'm not going to suggest that these men were anything other that honest folks who did their best, as men of that time and place, to make sense of their experiences. The durability of their testimonies, for me, is a strong factor in establishing their bona fides.

I'm not even going to consider the weaknesses demonstrated by IHQ with respect to eyewitness testimony: it's a factor, to be sure, but not necessary for my purposes.

I believe that we can easily see that there are two different kinds of statements here: statements of fact, and statements of conclusion. In cases like this (eyewitness testimony of events) you could reasonably expect a disinterested person to confirm statements of fact. But based on previous experience, qualifications, and expertise, a disinterested person may draw completely different conclusions, or may decline to state any conclusion on the basis of lack of experience, qualifications, and expertise.

Witness Statements of Fact:

1. Saw a "personage" seemingly appear from above them, and lay some plates before them
2. Saw the plates
3. Saw the engravings on the plates.
4. Heard a voice declare that the plates were translated by god's gift and power.
5. Heard a voice command them to testify of the Book of Mormon’s divinity

Although 1. seems a bit far-fetched to me - though it could have been staged (!!) - I don't want to challenge any of these statements.

Witness Statements of Conclusion:

1. The "personage" they saw was an angel which came from heaven and lay before them the plates from which JSJr claimed to have translated the Book of Mormon. However, the witnesses, as far as we know, had no way of knowing:
   • that the personage was an angel
   • that the personage came down from heaven
   • that the plates were the same ones from which JSJr claimed to have translated the Book of Mormon
2. Saw the plates
3. Saw the engravings on the plates.
4. The voice they heard was that of God
   However, the witnesses, as far as we know, had no way of knowing whose voice they heard
5. The command they heard was from the Lord
   However, the witnesses, as far as we know, had no way of knowing who gave the command

Conclusion
As far as I'm aware, nobody has shown that the three witnesses were qualified (or accredited) to:

• identify angels
• conclude that an apparition came from heaven
• verify that the plates they saw were the ones used by JSJr to translate the Book of Mormon
• identify the voice of god

The facts they testified to were not all that special, and of no value in establishing any significant truth.

On the other hand, the critical items of information that formed their conclusions were completely outside of any documented expertise, and are therefore also of no value in establishing any significant truth.

[Physics Guy]

The "accreditation" of which JFS spoke must have been granted retroactively by the Church. Probably he meant it to have come from God, but this immediately raises the question of why one should believe that God had accredited these particular people as witnesses, and the only answer is that the Mormon church says that God did that.

I've posted here before about how close reading of the statement of the Eight Witnesses is disturbing because when speaking about handling objects, it only uses the word "leaves", and not "plates". This leaves open the possibility the witnesses merely handled Smith's paper pages of translation, and not the metal plates. Wording the Statement in this subtly ambiguous way would let the Eight maintain the statement, if they were ever challenged to uphold it, while giving most readers a false impression that a much more stringent test of the plates had been made than what actually happened.

Close reading of the statement of the Three is also dismaying. It says that the Witnesses have seen the plates; then it says that they also saw the engravings on the plates, by the power of God and not of man; finally it breaks the big news about the angel. Especially given the statement of the Eight witnesses who claim to have seen the plates in an ordinary way, the way the Statement of Three opens with seeing plates, and then builds up to an angelic visitation, just seems weird. It's like a story that starts out saying that my house got broken into last night, and then after a few more sentences adds the detail that my house was actually stomped flat by Godzilla. This is known in journalism as "burying the lede" (and yes it's spelled "lede", for weird historical reasons). I mean, if three guys saw an angel descend from Heaven then I'd really think they'd put that in the headline, and not just mention it further down as a detail in how they saw plates.

It's weird that the text says the Three saw the plates, then adds that they also saw the engravings on the plates. That's like saying I saw a newspaper, and also the print on the paper. Normally everyone would assume that if you saw an engraved plate then of course you saw the engraving. So why go out of your way to mention seeing the engravings, as well as the plates, especially with the emphasis that the engravings were seen by the power of God? What this does is to raise doubt about the manner in which the plates were seen at all, by suggesting that the plates might have been seen in a way that did not automatically imply that the engravings upon them had also been seen. Once again, in fact, the possibility is left open that the Witnesses saw the plates only from a distance, or even covered, and the "engravings" which they also saw were Smith's (allegedly) copied markings, on paper. The language is close to the way one might speak if one saw the original Magna Carta inside a glass case, and then also saw a separate transcription of its text, at close up.

Again as with the Statement of the Eight, the lack of detail is puzzling. If the Eight had really handled ancient metal plates, I would expect them to mention that the plates felt cold, or had sharp edges, or were smooth, or were surprisingly light or heavy, or rattled against each other, or something. Here, there is no detail about the angel. It's as if the Witnesses expect to say, "an angel of God came down from heaven," and have the audience nod as if they'd just said that a dog barked. For all the detail that the Three supply about the angel, angels might as well be Big Macs, all the same and familiar to everyone.

The Statement gives itself one piece of cover: "It is marvellous ... Nevertheless ...". The understated implication seems to be that the experience was so overpoweringly sacred that the participants would never be able to say anything about it at all, except that they were commanded by God to bear witness about it, so they have described it in minimal terms.

Now maybe that is a way that people who had really seen an angel would write about it. It's still a far cry from the kind of vivid and spontaneous account that would make a witness statement seem convincing. In an eyewitness account it's the details that aren't strictly necessary for the story that go a long way to persuading, because if they're strange, but actually do hang together, then it seems less likely that someone would have invented them.

Mormon apologists seem to talk up the Witness Statements as eyewitness testimony, but this is a kind of bait-and-switch. Whatever weight witness testimony in general may carry, the Book of Mormon Witness Statements are actually both in a special category of weirdly cagey, minimalistic witness statements. That particular kind of witness testimony is much less impressive than other kinds.

And so we're back to JFS's admission that Mormon claims are supported by witnesses who are unimpressive, not just in lacking angelic thunder but in being unable to tell a persuasive story, but who should nonetheless be believed because they are the accredited witnesses of God, who prefers to do things this way, according to the Mormon church.

Take it or leave it. It's consistent, I guess. It just doesn't give an apologist much to work with, without resorting to rhetorical tricks.

[Res Ipsa]

The "accreditation" of which JFS spoke must have been granted retroactively by the Church. Probably he meant it to have come from God, but this immediately raises the question of why one should believe that God had accredited these particular people as witnesses, and the only answer is that the Mormon church says that God did that.

Exactly. I don't think we can read JFS's words as being aimed at critics of Mormonism. They are aimed at the faithful. For the faithful, the witnesses are accredited by God. And they don't have to rely on the church because they can pray to God to get a direct witness.

To the critic or outsider, it's all circular because the LDS concept of personal revelation is circular. We see that the accreditation, in actual fact, is retroactive and comes from the church.

[malkie]

Here is what FAIR has to say, in summary, about the 8 witnesses:

The testimony of the Eight Witnesses, as printed in every edition of the Book of Mormon since its publication, reads as follows:

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

So the Eight Witnesses:

1. Had Joseph Smith show them the plates
2. Handled, saw, and hefted the leaves from the plates
3. Saw the engravings on the plates.

FAIR Answers: Eleven official witnesses to the Book of Mormon

As with the FAIR summary of the testimonies of the three witnesses, I'm going to separate the statements of fact from statements of conclusion or supposition.

Witness Statements of Fact:

1. Had Joseph Smith show them some plates
2. Handled, saw, and hefted the leaves from the plates the witnesses handled only the part of the leaves that Joseph said he had translated
3. Saw the engravings on the plates.

Witness Statements of Conclusion:

1. that the leaves they handled, saw, and hefted, were the same ones from which JSJr claimed to have translated the Book of Mormon
   However, the witnesses, as far as we know, had no way of knowing that the leaves were the same ones
2. that the engravings thereon had the appearance of ancient work
   However, the witnesses, as far as we know, had no way of knowing what "ancient work" would look like

Conclusion
As far as I'm aware, nobody has shown that the three witnesses were qualified (or accredited) to:

• verify that the leaves they saw and handled, saw, and hefted, were the ones used by JSJr to translate the Book of Mormon - specifically, only the part of the leaves that Joseph said he had translated
• identify "ancient work"

The facts they testified to were not all that special, and of no value in establishing any significant truth.

On the other hand, the critical items of information that formed their conclusions were completely outside of any documented expertise, and are therefore also of no value in establishing any significant truth.

In this respect, the eight witnesses, similarly to the three witnesses, have nothing of weight to add to the claims that JSJr had the source material of the Book of Mormon provided by supernatural means.

Edited for accuracy to include the suggestion Res made below.

[Res Ipsa]

Here is what FAIR has to say, in summary, about the 8 witnesses:

The testimony of the Eight Witnesses, as printed in every edition of the Book of Mormon since its publication, reads as follows:

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

So the Eight Witnesses:

1. Had Joseph Smith show them the plates
2. Handled, saw, and hefted the leaves from the plates
3. Saw the engravings on the plates.

FAIR Answers: Eleven official witnesses to the Book of Mormon

As with the FAIR summary of the testimonies of the three witnesses, I'm going to separate the statements of fact from statements of conclusion or supposition.

Witness Statements of Fact:

1. Had Joseph Smith show them some plates
2. Handled, saw, and hefted the leaves from the plates
3. Saw the engravings on the plates.

Witness Statements of Conclusion:

1. that the leaves they handled, saw, and hefted, were the same ones from which JSJr claimed to have translated the Book of Mormon
   However, the witnesses, as far as we know, had no way of knowing that the leaves were the same ones
2. that the engravings thereon had the appearance of ancient work
   However, the witnesses, as far as we know, had no way of knowing what "ancient work" would look like

Conclusion
As far as I'm aware, nobody has shown that the three witnesses were qualified (or accredited) to:

• verify that the leaves they saw and handled, saw, and hefted, were the ones used by JSJr to translate the Book of Mormon
• identify "ancient work"

The facts they testified to were not all that special, and of no value in establishing any significant truth.

On the other hand, the critical items of information that formed their conclusions were completely outside of any documented expertise, and are therefore also of no value in establishing any significant truth.

In this respect, the eight witnesses, similarly to the three witnesses, have nothing of weight to add to the claims that JSJr had the source material of the Book of Mormon provided by supernatural means.

Looks pretty solid to me. I'd modify the statements of facts to reflect that the witnesses handled only the part of the leaves that Smith said he translated.

[malkie]

Looks pretty solid to me. I'd modify the statements of facts to reflect that the witnesses handled only the part of the leaves that Smith said he translated.

Thanks, Res - updated as you suggested.