Joseph Smith wrote witnesses statement

[_Joe Geisner]

He makes no attempt to deal with John Whitmer's "supernatural" statement. Why me is out ahead of him.[/color]

Lulu,

If I recall correctly, Dan has three accounts that support the spiritual eyes idea.

I think, as Dan points out quite clearly, that it could be both for some or one type for some. Again, I am going by memory of Dan's articles, but the witnesses were not necessarily together when they "experienced" the plates. The eight could have been separate just like the three.

Also, if Cowdery did write the testimony, you have just made him an accomplice in the plates experience. The more I learn about Cowdery the more I see him up to his eye balls in this entire development of a religion.

[_lulu]

He makes no attempt to deal with John Whitmer's "supernatural" statement. Why me is out ahead of him.[/color]

Lulu,

If I recall correctly, Dan has three accounts that support the spiritual eyes idea.

I think, as Dan points out quite clearly, that it could be both for some or one type for some. Again, I am going by memory of Dan's articles, but the witnesses were not necessarily together when they "experienced" the plates. The eight could have been separate just like the three.

Also, if Cowdery did write the testimony, you have just made him an accomplice in the plates experience. The more I learn about Cowdery the more I see him up to his eye balls in this entire development of a religion.

I agree and thanks for pointing me to Dan. I just don't like it when it gets ignored. I think that's dishonest.

At least Skousen was willing to work with spiritual eyes with M. Harris. I'll give him points for that. But deduct points for not dealing with supernatural for J. Whitmer.

I think why me, who might not be a regular favorite with us heathens, showed that with very little effort, apologia can be made from such evidence, a better approach in my opinion than just ignoring it, which has been the more traditional practice.

Although I wonder why I care about the quality of Mormon apologetics.

[Guest]

I wonder if he has read Dan Vogel's article? Everything he writes fits perfectly into Dan's historical analysis. As Dan discusses, it make sense that Smith had made plates of tin by the time the eight handled them, and Royal writes "The emphasis in their statement is on what they saw. For instance, the plates had “the appearance of gold”, and the engravings had “the appearance of ancient work and of curious workmanship”. They did not claim the plates were made of gold; they did not claim that the work was ancient or skillfully done – but from what they could see, it was so! The plates were heavy – they hefted them."

This fits into Dan's article perfectly!

The appearance of gold would make sense since no one actually tested the metal of the plates. If the statement claimed that the plates were of gold, the question would be: how did they know that the plates were real gold? Everything about the plates needed to be in legalese so that the statement could not be challenged. So, the notion of appearance takes on some importance. How could the eight witnesses claim that the work was ancient since no expert examined them.

It seems that their statement was a work of genius, a statement that bore the truth of what the witnesses saw and felt. It is only with heavy that they could be certain without the need of the appearance to be heavy. Since they actually knew that the plates were heavy because they did lift the plates.

I think that you are over dramatizing the event to fit your own world view. Royal is not supporting your conclusion that dan vogel's take on it was accurate and that dan's conclusion is the correct one. Rather just the opposite.

My take on authorship of the 8 witness statement is that Oliver was involved. Joseph could never write such a statement without having someone involved in proofreading and editing.

[_why me]

One more thing: it has been suggested that Joseph made the plates. It seems like a lot of work just to organize a church. Find 11 idiots, make plates, write a 600 page book, create a huge narrative complete with visions etc. It just seems like a lot of work for creating a new church. Much easier to form a new protestant sect with sidney, if sidney was involved in the fraud as marg and uncle dale claim.

What did joseph get for his fraud: persecution, prison, destruction and death. A new protestant sect would have given joseph and emma a nice life and a peaceful life. And sidney would have brought over his flock.

[_Dantana]

One more thing: it has been suggested that Joseph made the plates. It seems like a lot of work just to organize a church. Find 11 idiots, make plates, write a 600 page book, create a huge narrative complete with visions etc. It just seems like a lot of work for creating a new church. Much easier to form a new protestant sect with sidney, if sidney was involved in the fraud as marg and uncle dale claim.

What did joseph get for his fraud: persecution, prison, destruction and death. A new protestant sect would have given joseph and emma a nice life and a peaceful life. And sidney would have brought over his flock.

It seems possible, plausible to me that J. Smith was just playing it by ear. He came across the manuscript, when he couldn't sell it as a novel to Canadia, perhaps he saw that it would be a source of wonder if put forth as non-fiction. Perhaps the escalator landed him at these floors you've suggested.

[_marg]

I agree and thanks for pointing me to Dan. I just don't like it when it gets ignored. I think that's dishonest.

At least Skousen was willing to work with spiritual eyes with M. Harris. I'll give him points for that. But deduct points for not dealing with supernatural for J. Whitmer.

If the evidence 'that J. Whitmer described using a supernatural means to see the plates' is reliable..then that is stronger evidence than the 8 witness testimony. And it leads one to suspect there weren't any plates. The 8 witnesses because of their close connection to Smith and that they had a potential vested interest makes their statements supportive of what is in the testimony not as strong as statements made outside the testimony not supportive. Unless J. Whitmer had a grudge against Smith and company, and was motivated to go against the testimony, if he had seen the plates in the normal sense, then there is no benefit to describe seeing them in a supernatural sense...that goes against what the testimony statement infers.

If Smith had plates then it seems reasonable that he'd have shown them briefly to individuals with no vested interest such as Emma's dad. Instead Emma dad was shown a box covered, he might have held it. Apparently Emma claimed (I believe) to have only dusted around a box covered with a cloth...so she too didn't claim to see plates.

So as far as I can see (not that I have examined this in great detail) but it appears no strong evidence metal plates existed and the evidence leads one to suspect they didn't exist. As you note Lulu...J. Whitmer's statement of seeing via the supernatural is extremely important in evaluating whether some plates existed. That is strong evidence that the 8 witness testimony of seeing plates is bogus. Maybe J. Geisner knows what the strong evidence is that plates existed..from the article he said he read by Dan.

[_lulu]

If the evidence 'that J. Whitmer described using a supernatural means to see the plates' is reliable. . .

I took a quick look at the hard copy of History of the Church Vol 3. Ch. XXI, p. 307. It's clearly a secondary source. Not clear what the primary source is. And not in a position to pursue it right now.

Does any one know?

Its a discussion between Theodore Turley and John Whitmer with some accusasions flying about the veracity of Mormonism.

http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/History ... ch/Vol_III

I just ordered a hard copy of Anderson's book on the witnesses, I'll report back when I get it.

I love MD

[_Joe Geisner]

So as far as I can see (not that I have examined this in great detail) but it appears no strong evidence metal plates existed and the evidence leads one to suspect they didn't exist. As you note Lulu...J. Whitmer's statement of seeing via the supernatural is extremely important in evaluating whether some plates existed. That is strong evidence that the 8 witness testimony of seeing plates is bogus. Maybe J. Geisner knows what the strong evidence is that plates existed..from the article he said he read by Dan.

I hope I do not sound like a pain over this, but I cannot emphasize enough that people need to read Dan's work. His original article is in American Apocrypha. This book is a must have if a person is a serious student of the Book of Mormon. Here is Dan's response to critics of the first article.

http://signaturebooks.com/2012/03/book- ... revisited/

Here is a quote from this article.

"Nor does it say they turned the leaves, but instead ambiguously states that “as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands.” Conceivably the leaves could be turned even while under a cloth or in a sack"

I will admit, I have had the pleasure of talking with Dan over this issue and he has convinced me that Smith had something to show the witnesses. Marg, I think Isaac Hale was way to smart to fall for Joseph's tin plates and he would have exposed him to the public. I think Isaac Hales testimony about Smith is the most damning of any persons. I think most of the affidavits in Howes book are reliable, but Hales really stands out.

I also have a newspaper article for the 1828 trial that has Josiah Stowell testifying that Smith had something that looked like a "green stone" that he claimed were the plates. As was pointed out in this thread, Smith was probably working from the seat of his pants on much of this. Maybe he had a stone at times, maybe this allowed him time to make the tin plates.

If anyone would like a copy of the newspaper article, send me a p.m.

Also Lulu, send me a p.m. and I can help you out with your Anderson book. I think it will be worth your time.

[_marg]

Thanks Joe. This is not something I have much interest in spending much time on...and I'm not a serious student of Mormonism generally other than I have some interest in the spalding theory.

Lulu..it appears that J. Whitmer's statement with respect to seeing with the supernatural is not reliable. Apparently even if true that he said that it was given after he was excommunicated.

Again though from what I can tell there doesn't seem to be strong evidence metal plates existed. If they had existed
I think the evidence would be stronger..there would likely be more statements given by the witnesses other than what is in the Book of Mormon which itself is extremely unreliable.

[_lulu]

Lulu..it appears that J. Whitmer's statement with respect to seeing with the supernatural is not reliable. Apparently even if true that he said that it was given after he was excommunicated.

If an alleged J. Whitmer quote commonly used to impeach his alleged testimony of the plates is not reliable, does that mean he really saw the plates? It was at that point that I decided I'd better get Anderson.