Mormon Early Historical Events and Witnesses

[malkie]

I believe I understand your point, Res. However, I prefered to mention the actual witnesses for two reasons:

• I cannot be accused later of ignoring the important events for which there were witnesses
• I believe I can make the case that having witnesses who can be shown to be unqualified may be perceived as worse than not having witnesses at all

It is sometimes said that the 3 + 8 witnesses are the best "evidence" for the existence of the Book of Mormon plates. In effect I want to be able to say: "Is this the best you've got?", and show the weakness of their testimony.

I think it does depend on the claim you are responding to. If the claim is that the 3+8 are the best evidence, I would respond the same way -- attack the weakness of the evidence. If the claim is that all important events in the restoration are backed up by the testimony of several witnesses, I'd attack the 3+8 as not addressing an important event. I think it's two different arguments -- both of them strong. But mixing them without being clear weakens both. Let me illustrate:

Church: There is testimony of several witnesses supporting every important event in the restoration.
Me: Not the first vision, not Moroni's visitation, not receiving the plates, etc.
Church: What about the 3+8?
Me: They're not qualified.
Church: Now you're moving the goalposts. The issue was whether there was witness testimony, but when I refer you to witness testimony, you introduce the new concept of "qualified."

That would be a valid objection.

What I''m suggesting instead:

Church: What about the 3+8?
Me: All they witnessed was a staged event -- not an important event in the restoration. If you take away the events the witnesses witnessed, all of the important events of the restoration would still have occurred.

This response stays within the bounds of the church's original claim: that all important events of the restoration are backed up with the testimony of several witnesses.

I still think I see your point, but don't completely agree.

From the beginning of the OP:

Paul taught the principle that “in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” (2 Corinthians 13:1). President Joseph Fielding Smith said of this law: “In giving the world the testimony of three witnesses in addition to Joseph Smith, the Lord fulfilled the law. 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.”

[my bolding]
Student Manual: D&C Section 5, The Testimony of the Three Witnesses

So the claim made by JFS is not just that there are several witnesses, but that the Lord sent accredited witnesses. I'm not allowing the church to define the claim as something less - a self-straw man argument - in order to weaken my case.

Let me do a Take Two on your illustrative dialog.

Church: There is testimony of several witnesses supporting every important event in the restoration.
Me: Actually, JFS says that the important events since the restoration are supported by the testimony of several accredited witnesses.
In some cases - the first vision, Moroni's visitation, receiving the plates, etc. - there are no witnesses of any sort, accredited or not. In others, there are witnesses, to be sure. However, it's easy to show that they were not qualified to evaluate and testify on vital aspects of the events.

Now I don't need to assert that the testimonies of the 3 + 8 were based on staged events. If that were the case I would have to get agreement on what "staged" meant for these events, and on the significance of the staging. For example, apologists have a ready and arguably reasonable answer for the fact that we don't have original witnesses' own signatures on an original document - some could not sign their names, and, in any case, the source document has been lost. However, none of the witnesses ever complained about feeling they were "managed" into providing their statements, and all of them verified afterwards - some of them several times - that they stood by the statements ascribed to them.

But don't give up on me yet - I appreciate that you're helping me to refine what my objections are, and there are no doubt other weaknesses to overcome.

[malkie]

I think the point I'm seeing is that, if I (pretending that although IANAL, I can play one on TV) were bringing out this information in court, say with the church on the stand, it would be well for me to separate the two lines of argument.

"I'd like you to explain to me how it can be that two different sets of events fail to comply with the Lord's requirements, albeit in different ways. Let's start with the no witnesses cases, since they are simplest to describe and understand."

Then follow up with the second line:

"Having established that some events had no witnesses at all, I'd now like to turn your attention to a second set of events for which there were witnesses. However, the issue here is that JFS promised us accredited witnesses."

[Res Ipsa]

I think it does depend on the claim you are responding to. If the claim is that the 3+8 are the best evidence, I would respond the same way -- attack the weakness of the evidence. If the claim is that all important events in the restoration are backed up by the testimony of several witnesses, I'd attack the 3+8 as not addressing an important event. I think it's two different arguments -- both of them strong. But mixing them without being clear weakens both. Let me illustrate:

Church: There is testimony of several witnesses supporting every important event in the restoration.
Me: Not the first vision, not Moroni's visitation, not receiving the plates, etc.
Church: What about the 3+8?
Me: They're not qualified.
Church: Now you're moving the goalposts. The issue was whether there was witness testimony, but when I refer you to witness testimony, you introduce the new concept of "qualified."

That would be a valid objection.

What I''m suggesting instead:

Church: What about the 3+8?
Me: All they witnessed was a staged event -- not an important event in the restoration. If you take away the events the witnesses witnessed, all of the important events of the restoration would still have occurred.

This response stays within the bounds of the church's original claim: that all important events of the restoration are backed up with the testimony of several witnesses.

I still think I see your point, but don't completely agree.

From the beginning of the OP:

Paul taught the principle that “in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” (2 Corinthians 13:1). President Joseph Fielding Smith said of this law: “In giving the world the testimony of three witnesses in addition to Joseph Smith, the Lord fulfilled the law. 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.”

[my bolding]
Student Manual: D&C Section 5, The Testimony of the Three Witnesses

So the claim made by JFS is not just that there are several witnesses, but that the Lord sent accredited witnesses. I'm not allowing the church to define the claim as something less - a self-straw man argument - in order to weaken my case.

Let me do a Take Two on your illustrative dialog.

Church: There is testimony of several witnesses supporting every important event in the restoration.
Me: Actually, JFS says that the important events since the restoration are supported by the testimony of several accredited witnesses.
In some cases - the first vision, Moroni's visitation, receiving the plates, etc. - there are no witnesses of any sort, accredited or not. In others, there are witnesses, to be sure. However, it's easy to show that they were not qualified to evaluate and testify on vital aspects of the events.

Now I don't need to assert that the testimonies of the 3 + 8 were based on staged events. If that were the case I would have to get agreement on what "staged" meant for these events, and on the significance of the staging. For example, apologists have a ready and arguably reasonable answer for the fact that we don't have original witnesses' own signatures on an original document - some could not sign their names, and, in any case, the source document has been lost. However, none of the witnesses ever complained about feeling they were "managed" into providing their statements, and all of them verified afterwards - some of them several times - that they stood by the statements ascribed to them.

But don't give up on me yet - I appreciate that you're helping me to refine what my objections are, and there are no doubt other weaknesses to overcome.

I think we are both helping each other sharpen arguments. I think you make a good point concerning the meaning of staged. But don't you have the same problem with the word "accredited?" Does it mean "qualified?" If so, what are the qualifications? What are the qualifications for viewing an angel.

[malkie]

I still think I see your point, but don't completely agree.

From the beginning of the OP:

[my bolding]
Student Manual: D&C Section 5, The Testimony of the Three Witnesses

So the claim made by JFS is not just that there are several witnesses, but that the Lord sent accredited witnesses. I'm not allowing the church to define the claim as something less - a self-straw man argument - in order to weaken my case.

Let me do a Take Two on your illustrative dialog.

Church: There is testimony of several witnesses supporting every important event in the restoration.
Me: Actually, JFS says that the important events since the restoration are supported by the testimony of several accredited witnesses.
In some cases - the first vision, Moroni's visitation, receiving the plates, etc. - there are no witnesses of any sort, accredited or not. In others, there are witnesses, to be sure. However, it's easy to show that they were not qualified to evaluate and testify on vital aspects of the events.

Now I don't need to assert that the testimonies of the 3 + 8 were based on staged events. If that were the case I would have to get agreement on what "staged" meant for these events, and on the significance of the staging. For example, apologists have a ready and arguably reasonable answer for the fact that we don't have original witnesses' own signatures on an original document - some could not sign their names, and, in any case, the source document has been lost. However, none of the witnesses ever complained about feeling they were "managed" into providing their statements, and all of them verified afterwards - some of them several times - that they stood by the statements ascribed to them.

But don't give up on me yet - I appreciate that you're helping me to refine what my objections are, and there are no doubt other weaknesses to overcome.

I think we are both helping each other sharpen arguments. I think you make a good point concerning the meaning of staged. But don't you have the same problem with the word "accredited?" Does it mean "qualified?" If so, what are the qualifications? What are the qualifications for viewing an angel.

Ahhh, I was wondering if you would ask this question, because I asked myself. However, I don't think I do have the same problem - though I have a similar one.

If I introduce the word "staged", or the concept of staging, then I'm on the hook for defining and justifying. But I should be able to ask the church to define and justify "accredited" because it was used by JFS. So my problem is not that I have to provide a defensible definition, but that I have to be prepared to challenge whatever definition the church provides to try to get to something (like "expert") that suits the point I need to make. I hinted at this in the OP in my comment on the JFS quote. That's why I talked up the non-"Tom, Dick, or Harry" nature of such a witness.

Regardless, I expect it to be relatively easy to show that, for the important and unusual aspects of the experiences claimed by the 3 + 8, they had no relevant qualifications. My intention is to use the words of FAIR to help me establish this point.

[Res Ipsa]

I think we are both helping each other sharpen arguments. I think you make a good point concerning the meaning of staged. But don't you have the same problem with the word "accredited?" Does it mean "qualified?" If so, what are the qualifications? What are the qualifications for viewing an angel.

Ahhh, I was wondering if you would ask this question, because I asked myself. However, I don't think I do have the same problem - though I have a similar one.

If I introduce the word "staged", or the concept of staging, then I'm on the hook for defining and justifying. But I should be able to ask the church to define and justify "accredited" because it was used by JFS. So my problem is not that I have to provide a defensible definition, but that I have to be prepared to challenge whatever definition the church provides to try to get to something (like "expert") that suits the point I need to make. I hinted at this in the OP in my comment on the JFS quote. That's why I talked up the non-"Tom, Dick, or Harry" nature of such a witness.

Regardless, I expect it to be relatively easy to show that, for the important and unusual aspects of the experiences claimed by the 3 + 8, they had no relevant qualifications. My intention is to use the words of FAIR to help me establish this point.

Thinking this through, I don’t think I need the word “staged.” It’s convenient, but I think I can simply argue that the witnesses didn’t witness an event important to the restoration. Take out the witnesses and the restoration is instant.

On “accredited,” I agree that you can ask the church to define the term. But, however it does that, I don’t think we can expect the definition to come close to “expert.” One definition I saw said something like generally believed.

[Gadianton]

I'd never heard the term "accredited witnesses" before and just now looked it up. This is from the D&C student manual:

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.” (Church History and Modern Revelation, 1:40.)

It sounds like not only are they collapsing into circularity, but even changing what is meant by "witness". It sounds to me like they're saying a "witness" is somebody with the proper credentials who "testifies" of something, and therefore that something must be true (because they are accredited) and not because the witness actually saw anything.

[malkie]

Ahhh, I was wondering if you would ask this question, because I asked myself. However, I don't think I do have the same problem - though I have a similar one.

If I introduce the word "staged", or the concept of staging, then I'm on the hook for defining and justifying. But I should be able to ask the church to define and justify "accredited" because it was used by JFS. So my problem is not that I have to provide a defensible definition, but that I have to be prepared to challenge whatever definition the church provides to try to get to something (like "expert") that suits the point I need to make. I hinted at this in the OP in my comment on the JFS quote. That's why I talked up the non-"Tom, Dick, or Harry" nature of such a witness.

Regardless, I expect it to be relatively easy to show that, for the important and unusual aspects of the experiences claimed by the 3 + 8, they had no relevant qualifications. My intention is to use the words of FAIR to help me establish this point.

Thinking this through, I don’t think I need the word “staged.” It’s convenient, but I think I can simply argue that the witnesses didn’t witness an event important to the restoration. Take out the witnesses and the restoration is instant.

On “accredited,” I agree that you can ask the church to define the term. But, however it does that, I don’t think we can expect the definition to come close to “expert.” One definition I saw said something like generally believed.

OK, you're right. I agree that I should not argue that the witnesses witnessed an event important to the restoration. So now that you've pointed out that weakness, that's not exactly what I'd like to say. Nor, I believe, do apologists who use their statements, and, in particular, the persistence of their testimonies to their deathbeds. For me, the relevant event is not their experience but rather their testifying about their experience. I'm not saying that they didn't experience what they claimed. My objection is to the conclusions they drew from their experiences.

I'm out all day tomorrow, but if I have time before I leave home I'll post the notes I made on FAIR's article on the 11 witnesses, and hope you can tell me if you think I'm still missing important aspects of the situation.

[malkie]

I'd never heard the term "accredited witnesses" before and just now looked it up. This is from the D&C student manual:

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.” (Church History and Modern Revelation, 1:40.)

It sounds like not only are they collapsing into circularity, but even changing what is meant by "witness". It sounds to me like they're saying a "witness" is somebody with the proper credentials who "testifies" of something, and therefore that something must be true (because they are accredited) and not because the witness actually saw anything.

Good point, Gad. I think you've nicely highlighted the importance of having the church explain what is meant by "accredited witness" in this context, if it's not the kind of obvious thing a normal intelligent person would expect it to be. I suggest that is the same as an "expert witness" who (according to the legal shows I watch on TV ) are usually accredited by some respectable professional governing body for their demonstrated expertise in a specific field.

[Res Ipsa]

I'd never heard the term "accredited witnesses" before and just now looked it up. This is from the D&C student manual:



It sounds like not only are they collapsing into circularity, but even changing what is meant by "witness". It sounds to me like they're saying a "witness" is somebody with the proper credentials who "testifies" of something, and therefore that something must be true (because they are accredited) and not because the witness actually saw anything.

Good point, Gad. I think you've nicely highlighted the importance of having the church explain what is meant by "accredited witness" in this context, if it's not the kind of obvious thing a normal intelligent person would expect it to be. I suggest that is the same as an "expert witness" who (according to the legal shows I watch on TV ) are usually accredited by some respectable professional governing body for their demonstrated expertise in a specific field.

If I try to steel man the Church’s claim, I think “accredited” means “certified” or “approved” — just like the ABA accredits laws schools. Who accredits the witnesses? God. How do you know whether a witness has been accredited by God? You ask him.

This interpretation escapes Malkie’s qualification argument by using a common meaning of “accredited.” I’m not sure about circularity, as I suspect all personal revelation can be constructed as circular.

[Physics Guy]

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.