Do the 11 witnesses help the case for the Book of Mormon?

[_Mad Viking]

If a stranger knocked on my door making extraordinary supernatural claims and proposing that I take as evidence for his claims the testimonies of 11 of his close associates or family members I would laugh him off of my front step. This would be compounded if two young kids made such a claim about someone that they had never met, and proposed that I take as evidence for their claims the testimonies of 11 people that they had never met and that just so happened to be the close associates or family members of the individual they were making claims about. Do the 11 witnesses help the case for the Book of Mormon?

[_antishock8]

I can't tell you, literally, how many times I was "laughed off a front step" when I presented this part. It doesn't take a genius to know that family members and friends are exactly the most honest nor objective witnesses to extraordinary claims. This was a very difficult part of the missionary discussions, so I would say that it hurt Joseph Smith's claims to divine intervention.

Could Joseph Smith have passed the following standards?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment

[_Boaz & Lidia]

The only help those who have an explicit need to believe.

Grant Palmer put their "testimony" of the plates in perspective by pointing out the fact that many of these same witnesses put the same belief and support behind the claims of James Strang.

[_Trevor]

While the testimony of the Book of Mormon Witnesses is not worthless, I don't account it as being of much worth. Why?

1. They were friends and family. These are not exactly objective, disinterested bystanders here.

2. Their statements were written up for them and then put before them to sign.

3. The eagerness of some to witness to other things later-things that Mormons do not regard as legitimate-raises further questions.

4. Many are describing what appears to be a visionary experience.

5. They had no expertise to determine the authenticity of whatever "artifacts" were placed before them.

In other words, there are many different kinds of problems that must be taken into account when one approaches the question of precisely what kind of value this testimony holds. I take it as proof that they were sufficiently convinced by whatever experience they had at the time to sign their names to these affidavits. That is about all I think they are good for.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

Great points as usual Trevor.

One very significant related person who was never included in Smith's witnesses was his father-in-law, Isaac Hale.

Why? Because he saw through the scam from the first time he had the misfortune of meeting Smith.