The Three Witnesses: Unqualified and Irrelevant

[_Darth J]

In May, Reverend Kishkumen posted a thread relating to the concept of evidence: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23924

The thread was regarding a blog post in which it was claimed that "the testimony of the Book of Mormon witnesses" is evidence (but not proof!) for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. On the first page of Kishkumen's thread, I summarized two crucial concepts about the use of purported evidence to support a given claim: foundation and relevance. The thread then went into a discussion about whether the so-called testimony of the Eight Witnesses is evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon (as asserted in the blog post referenced in Kishkumen's OP).

There are many issues with the credibility of the testimonial of the Three Witnesses. One place those issues are summarized is here: http://mormonthink.com/witnessesweb.htm. But these issues all have to do with the weight or reliability of what these three people claim to have experienced. A different question is whether their testimonial is even evidence of the Book of Mormon at all. Using the principles of foundation and relevance (go read the first page of that previous thread), let's look at whether, under its own terms, the testimonial of the Three Witnesses actually qualifies as evidence in favor of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Oliver Cowdery
David Whitmer
Martin Harris

It is immediately obvious that the Three Witnesses are not witnesses to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, because they had no personal knowledge of that. They had no way of knowing whether the plates were an authentic historical artifact. They had no way of knowing if the printed Book of Mormon was an accurate translation of those plates (assuming the plates were an authentic artifact that had an actual written language on them). They had no way of knowing whether the Nephite or Jaredite civilizations ever existed. On its face, the only thing their testimonial says is that God told them these things. The Three Witnesses are not witnesses to the Book of Mormon at all, because they don't know anything about the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonial is hearsay.

hearsay

1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.
2. an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.

Their attributing this hearsay to God does not change the fact that under its own terms, their testimonial says that someone other than themselves is the one who has personal knowledge about whether the Book of Mormon is true. The testimonial of the Three "Witnesses" has no foundation as evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon, because the men making the statement were not speaking to facts that they knew for themselves.

But surely we can trust hearsay if it's from God? Well, then we need to determine whether God really told them the Book of Mormon is true. How do we that? By going to God. But then if we ask God if he really told the Three Witnesses that the Book of Mormon is true, then we're not relying on the Three Witnesses. We're relying on God. This means that the testimony of the Three Witnesses is irrelevant. God, who does have personal knowledge whether the Book of Mormon is true, is the one witnessing to us that it is true. We are in the same epistemological place without the Three Witnesses as we are with them.

With the Three Witness:
1. I have a printed copy of the Book of Mormon.
2. I have no personal knowledge whether the Book of Mormon is true.
3. The Three Witnesses had no such personal knowledge, either.
4. They claim that God told them it is true.
5. The only way I can verify this is by asking God.
6. So God, not the Three Witnesses, is who I am relying on to find out if the Book of Mormon is true.

Without the Three Witnesses:
1. I have a printed copy of the Book of Mormon.
2. I have no personal knowledge whether the Book of Mormon is true.
3. The only way I can verify this is by asking God.
4. God is who I am relying on to find out if the Book of Mormon is true.

(For the purposes of this discussion, it is a separate issue whether Moroni's Promise is a valid epistemological technique regarding claims of fact.)

Like the testimonial of the Eight Witnesses, the testimonial of the Three Witnesses lacks foundation as to whether the Book of Mormon is true (because they didn't know that) and is irrelevant (because you are not relying on them to find out if the Book of Mormon is true).

Mormons are supposed to apply Moroni's Promise to learn that the Book of Mormon is true. Then, after the fact, you go back and point to the Three Witnesses as "evidence" that the Book of Mormon is true, when you did not rely their testimonial. Ask any believing Mormon how they know that the Three Witnesses are more reliable than UFO abductees, people who say they saw the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot, people who say they've seen an apparition of the Virgin Mary, etc. The answer you will get is that they have a "testimony" of the Three Witnesses, which is another way of saying God told me, which is another way of saying that the Three Witnesses are irrelevant. I don't need the Three Witnesses when I can have personal revelation from God.

So what's the point of the Three Witnesses? It is to give the illusion of evidence. I feel safe in saying that there has not been a single person who has ever joined the LDS Church (or any other branch of Mormonism) because he or she took the Three Witnesses' word for it. But confirmation bias is a powerful thing. "I had a subjective emotional experience that I interpreted the way the Church told me to interpret it, so I 'know' the Church is true. And the testimony of the Three Witnesses is evidence of what I already believed! See? My religion is totally rational and logical!" Unfortunately, having neither foundation nor relevance, the testimonials of the Three and the Eight Witnesses are nothing more than a fallacious appeal to authority: "Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made."

[_Fence Sitter]

Waiting for the inevitable & inane "Oh but they never denied their testimony" response, which not only misses Darth's point but shows the poster for the troll he is.

[_Drifting]

I agree that people decide to believe in the Book of Mormon for reasons other than what the Three/Eight Witnesses supposedly testified to.

In fact the Book of Mormon itself explicitly states that one needs to get the low down about its truthfulness straight from God Himself by reading the Book and then assessing how one feels about it.

I know this method has been shown countless times to be ineffective and unreliable, but that is the only officially sanctioned method by which the Book's truthfulness is to be judged.

I used that method and, along with the overwhelming majority of people who are exposed to its contents, found the Book to not be true.

[_DrW]

Darth J,

Thanks for an insightful OP. I greatly enjoy reading your little tutorials and essays here on MDB.

This one showed a nice practical application of your earlier discussion on foundation and relevance in determining the value of evidence when it is presented.
_____________________

Are you by any chance old enough to remember when the LDS Church included the story of the Book of Mormon on Trial as an integral part of its Book of Mormon mythology?

http://bookofmormontrial.com/jack-west.html

The Jack West mock trial comes to mind quite often when I read your posts. With folks like you around, I can see why this story has been largely dropped as proffered evidence for the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

[_robuchan]

The three witness event is pretty sketchy. When you read the primary accounts, it totally reads like a con on Martin Harris.

The eight witnesses, on the other hand, I find one of the most compelling evidences for Mormonism. To put in perspective, of the 100 most important evidences for or against Mormonism, let's say 95 go against Mormonism and five go for it. The eight witnesses would be one of the five.

[_Drifting]

The three witness event is pretty sketchy. When you read the primary accounts, it totally reads like a con on Martin Harris.

The eight witnesses, on the other hand, I find one of the most compelling evidences for Mormonism. To put in perspective, of the 100 most important evidences for or against Mormonism, let's say 95 go against Mormonism and five go for it. The eight witnesses would be one of the five.

Why?

[_robuchan]

Which part of my post are you asking why about?

[_Drifting]

Which part of my post are you asking why about?

Why you find the eight witnesses one of the most compelling evidences for Mormonism?

[_robuchan]

Which part of my post are you asking why about?

Why you find the eight witnesses one of the most compelling evidences for Mormonism?

Well first of all, I say this relatively. The evidence, IMHO, is overwhelmingly against Mormonism. And the top five evidences against it (such as Book of Abraham, lack of Book of Mormon evidence in America, etc) are crushing, while the top five evidences for Mormonism are more like "OK yeah that's kind of hard to explain, I guess that's a good one."

And I understand the critical arguments against the eight witness accounts (Palmer, Vogel, etc), but I still find it somewhat compelling. The bottom line is you have eight men sign that they saw and felt the plates. And none of them clearly and obviously recanted that.

[_Drifting]

The bottom line is you have eight men sign that they saw and felt the plates. And none of them clearly and obviously recanted that.

Well firstly they didn't sign anything.
Secondly, in terms of their relationships with Joseph, they weren't just eight men.
Thirdly, a number did recant their testimony by leaving the Church.
Fourthly, they said a number of things that may be seen as contradictory in relation to 'seeing' the plates.

But I get your point now.