But what do the witnesses' testimony prove?

[Kishkumen]

The witnesses' stories has intrigued me on a number of fronts, as a lawyer and as a marginal believer.

John Whitmer was one of the eight. He left the church. He published a retraction of his affirmation.

One of my ancestors went to visit him to ask him why he retracted his affirmation.

John Whitmer said that when he turned the leaves of the metal plates, the writings on the plates weren't in English so how could he attest to the fact that the plates were of the Book of Mormon?

As a lawyer I can say that this is the highest quality witness. He's disaffected and left the organization. He wants to impeach his own testimony and retract it, but in doing so he affirms it as a non-believer.

LOL. That's wonderful. He had the good sense to know that he couldn't attest to what was written on the plates because he couldn't read the writing. Marvelous.

[Kishkumen]

Mr J. Whitmer
Sir. We were desireous of honouring you by giving publicity to your notes on the history of the Church of Latter day Saints, after such corrections as we thaught would be necessary; knowing your incompetency as a historian, and that your writings coming from your pen, could not be put to the press, without our correcting them, or elce the Church must suffer reproach; Indeed Sir, we never supposed you capable of writing a history; but were willing to let it come out under your name notwithstanding it would realy not be yours but ours. We are still willing to honour you, if you can be made to know your own interest and give up your notes, so that they can be corrected, and made fit for the press. But if not, we have all the materials for another, which we shall commence this week to write.

your humble Servents
Joseph Smith Jr
Sidney Rigdon
Presidents of the whole
Church of Latterday Saints

Now, that is what an ahole writes.

[Dr Exiled]

I agree that the witnesses' testimony doesn't prove much, especially given the dearth of evidence for actual Nephites in the new world. Perhaps it proves that people can be duped into making fantastical claims? Perhaps it proves that possible religious power and profit motivates the noble lie? Perhaps it merely proves that they saw something in their imagination after being coaxed? I think it is telling that the witnesses' statements (three and eight) were written for them. Clearly, Joseph wanted to control what was said there. Martin Harris had to be controlled for sure, otherwise, he probably would have inserted deer jesus into the mix, or perhaps an angelic rabbit. Insane or highly imaginative witnesses don't help win cases.

I wonder if Martin Harris remembered how the eight had to be convinced as to what they saw because Joseph, Oliver and David wouldn't let Martin get too far out of hand and also had to be convinced that forest animals weren't a part of his experience? In any event, for me, the fact that there isn't any proof for actual Nephites in the linguistic, archeological, or anthropological worlds and the poor showing in the DNA realm, convinces me that it was something other than what these witnesses claimed.

[Physics Guy]

It would really be quite weird, now that I think about it, for John Whitmer to recant his testimony as one of the Eight Witnesses merely on the grounds that he couldn't tell what the writing on the plates actually said. The statement of the Eight doesn't say anything about what the "engravings" might have meant. It merely attests that Smith had some engraved plates. If Whitmer had indeed seen and handled such plates then he had nothing to recant, no matter what he came to think of Joseph Smith.

This sounds rather more to me, now, as though Whitmer recanted his testimony in the plates and then tried to un-recant it again in order to profit from his status as a witness to genuine plates, while denying Joseph Smith's authority as a translator of what was on the plates.

"I only recanted because I realized I couldn't swear to what the writings meant" is a lame excuse that makes no sense when there was nothing about the meaning to recant anyway, but it might well have been the best that Whitmer could come up with to try to take back his previous recantation without admitting that he had lied at least once.

[Kishkumen]

It would really be quite weird, now that I think about it, for John Whitmer to recant his testimony as one of the Eight Witnesses merely on the grounds that he couldn't tell what the writing on the plates actually said. The statement of the Eight doesn't say anything about what the "engravings" might have meant. It merely attests that Smith had some engraved plates. If Whitmer had indeed seen and handled such plates then he had nothing to recant, no matter what he came to think of Joseph Smith.

This sounds rather more to me, now, as though Whitmer recanted his testimony in the plates and then tried to un-recant it again in order to profit from his status as a witness to genuine plates, while denying Joseph Smith's authority as a translator of what was on the plates.

"I only recanted because I realized I couldn't swear to what the writings meant" is a lame excuse that makes no sense when there was nothing about the meaning to recant anyway, but it might well have been the best that Whitmer could come up with to try to take back his previous recantation without admitting that he had lied at least once.

Of course, the witness testimonies were narrowly construed on purpose, and I don't know that recanters would necessarily feel obliged to recant precisely along the lines of the original signed statement.

[dastardly stem]

The witnesses' stories has intrigued me on a number of fronts, as a lawyer and as a marginal believer.

John Whitmer was one of the eight. He left the church. He published a retraction of his affirmation.

One of my ancestors went to visit him to ask him why he retracted his affirmation.

John Whitmer said that when he turned the leaves of the metal plates, the writings on the plates weren't in English so how could he attest to the fact that the plates were of the Book of Mormon?

As a lawyer I can say that this is the highest quality witness. He's disaffected and left the organization. He wants to impeach his own testimony and retract it, but in doing so he affirms it as a non-believer.

What did he retract? That he saw the plates? Or that he couldn't read them? If he's saying he retracted on suggesting he could read them, he never said that anyway.

[Bought Yahoo]

The witnesses' stories has intrigued me on a number of fronts, as a lawyer and as a marginal believer.

John Whitmer was one of the eight. He left the church. He published a retraction of his affirmation.

One of my ancestors went to visit him to ask him why he retracted his affirmation.

John Whitmer said that when he turned the leaves of the metal plates, the writings on the plates weren't in English so how could he attest to the fact that the plates were of the Book of Mormon?

As a lawyer I can say that this is the highest quality witness. He's disaffected and left the organization. He wants to impeach his own testimony and retract it, but in doing so he affirms it as a non-believer.

What did he retract? That he saw the plates? Or that he couldn't read them? If he's saying he retracted on suggesting he could read them, he never said that anyway.

My post is clear.