But what do the witnesses' testimony prove?
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:29 pm
A few days ago, a blogger wrote an article entitled, But what do the witnesses’ testimonies prove?
It was a pretty good article, as such things go. There seemed to be an honest endeavor to engage with a few responses critics make to the testimonies. However, it still misses the mark, so I offer the following to continue the conversation.
The blogger’s main point comes down to this: “The facticity of the plates (a great word, that—“facticity”) forces a stark either/or choice: Either Joseph (perhaps aided by one or more of the witnesses themselves) was a deliberate and conscious liar who somehow created or obtained a set of bogus metal plates, or he was telling the truth about them.”
Here is the way I look at it.
First, we know that ancient cultures didn’t keep records on metal plates that were bound in books: we know that Nephi didn’t steal a copy of the old testament written on brass plates that contained an anachronistic reworking of Isaiah (see David P. Write’s definitive work on the topic). Lehi didn’t keep a journal on one set of metal plates while his son Nephi was keeping another journal on metal plates. And there weren’t then multiple volumes of large plates and small plates that contained the record of a civilization for a thousand years, which were then abridged onto yet another set of plates that Moroni eventually buried.
If the Book of Mormon universe with ubiquitous books written on metal plates were real, archeologists would have stumbled upon some of them by now, just as the people of Limhi stumbled upon even more plates—the 24 golden plates that tell the story of the Jaredites.
Understanding that golden plates are merely an imaginary artifact of the imaginary world of The Book of Mormon, what do the witnesses’ testimony prove? Maybe it proves that there really were plates in the 1800's, but that doesn’t lend any credence whatsoever to the plates being of ancient origin, much less to the assertion that they have anything to do with the text of the Book of Mormon itself.
So the testimonies don't really prove anything of significance.
Nevertheless, they are fishy.
A prosecutor named Joseph wants to prove that John committed murder. Joseph claims he has definitive forensic evidence that John did it: DNA evidence. John’s fingerprints in the victim’s blood on the murder weapon. A video of the whole thing happening from a security camera. Everything. Joseph briefly shows the evidence to eleven of his closest friends, writes a statement about what he showed them, and had the friends sign the statement.
Joseph then deliberately destroys all of the evidence, except for this statement. We are left with no forensic evidence. No murder weapon. No video. No body. No missing person. Not even evidence that a crime was committed.
Yes, the witness testimony is impressive evidence when viewed in isolation. But in context it is problematic; the person who is trying to prove his assertions is deliberately withholding infinitely better evidence that would support his own case. If the plates were genuine, why would he go through this charade? There is no good reason, which is why almost everybody disbelieves the witnesses with a shrug.
The plates being fake is plausible. The witnesses being coconspirators is plausible. The plates being of ancient origin is not.
It was a pretty good article, as such things go. There seemed to be an honest endeavor to engage with a few responses critics make to the testimonies. However, it still misses the mark, so I offer the following to continue the conversation.
The blogger’s main point comes down to this: “The facticity of the plates (a great word, that—“facticity”) forces a stark either/or choice: Either Joseph (perhaps aided by one or more of the witnesses themselves) was a deliberate and conscious liar who somehow created or obtained a set of bogus metal plates, or he was telling the truth about them.”
Here is the way I look at it.
First, we know that ancient cultures didn’t keep records on metal plates that were bound in books: we know that Nephi didn’t steal a copy of the old testament written on brass plates that contained an anachronistic reworking of Isaiah (see David P. Write’s definitive work on the topic). Lehi didn’t keep a journal on one set of metal plates while his son Nephi was keeping another journal on metal plates. And there weren’t then multiple volumes of large plates and small plates that contained the record of a civilization for a thousand years, which were then abridged onto yet another set of plates that Moroni eventually buried.
If the Book of Mormon universe with ubiquitous books written on metal plates were real, archeologists would have stumbled upon some of them by now, just as the people of Limhi stumbled upon even more plates—the 24 golden plates that tell the story of the Jaredites.
Understanding that golden plates are merely an imaginary artifact of the imaginary world of The Book of Mormon, what do the witnesses’ testimony prove? Maybe it proves that there really were plates in the 1800's, but that doesn’t lend any credence whatsoever to the plates being of ancient origin, much less to the assertion that they have anything to do with the text of the Book of Mormon itself.
So the testimonies don't really prove anything of significance.
Nevertheless, they are fishy.
A prosecutor named Joseph wants to prove that John committed murder. Joseph claims he has definitive forensic evidence that John did it: DNA evidence. John’s fingerprints in the victim’s blood on the murder weapon. A video of the whole thing happening from a security camera. Everything. Joseph briefly shows the evidence to eleven of his closest friends, writes a statement about what he showed them, and had the friends sign the statement.
Joseph then deliberately destroys all of the evidence, except for this statement. We are left with no forensic evidence. No murder weapon. No video. No body. No missing person. Not even evidence that a crime was committed.
Yes, the witness testimony is impressive evidence when viewed in isolation. But in context it is problematic; the person who is trying to prove his assertions is deliberately withholding infinitely better evidence that would support his own case. If the plates were genuine, why would he go through this charade? There is no good reason, which is why almost everybody disbelieves the witnesses with a shrug.
The plates being fake is plausible. The witnesses being coconspirators is plausible. The plates being of ancient origin is not.
