The Three Witnesses: Unqualified and Irrelevant

[_Chap]

.... The bottom line is you have eight men sign that they saw and felt the plates. ...

Corrrection: eight men signed that they saw some plates. They had no basis for testifying anything else about those plates - and certainly not that they were the source for the text of the Book of Mormon. That was just Joseph Smith's say-so.


Edited to add: by the way, we don't even know that they saw the document given in the Book of Mormon and signed it. We just know that their names are printed underneath the text.

And as Drifting notes, they are not exactly independent witnesses in any case, but were all Smith connections.

[_Fence Sitter]

.... The bottom line is you have eight men sign that they saw and felt the plates. ...

Corrrection: eight men signed that they saw some plates. They had no basis for testifying anything else about those plates - and certainly not that they were the source for the text of the Book of Mormon. That was just Joseph Smith's say-so.


Edited to add: by the way, we don't even know that they saw the document given in the Book of Mormon and signed it. We just know that their names are printed underneath the text.

And as Drifting notes, they are not exactly independent witnesses in any case, but were all Smith connections.

The bolded part is what I find as the second most problematic issue with the 8 witnesses. (The first being all of them not named Smith leaving the Church shortly after.) As Chap points out, even if we believe they actually saw some plates, there is nothing to connect what they saw with the Book of Mormon. We can see with the Kinderhook plates how easy it was to create a prop that would fool even Joseph Smith himself. We can see from the papyri that all you need is something physical to show people and they will accept any explanation given no matter how outlandish.

[_Joe Geisner]

The bolded part is what I find as the second most problematic issue with the 8 witnesses. (The first being all of them not named Smith leaving the Church shortly after.) As Chap points out, even if we believe they actually saw some plates, there is nothing to connect what they saw with the Book of Mormon. We can see with the Kinderhook plates how easy it was to create a prop that would fool even Joseph Smith himself. We can see from the papyri that all you need is something physical to show people and they will accept any explanation given no matter how outlandish.

These are such important points each of you are making. I particularly like yours FS.

All of this goes to the heart of what Dan Vogel has been writing about for years. For anyone to put faith in the witnesses statements in the divine nature of the Book of Mormon is as problematic as thinking the Gospel according to John is a historical witnesses of Jesus divinity.

[_Fence Sitter]

When you think about it, the Kinderhook Plates fooled the entire LDS Church for over a hundred years, passing off some sort of prop to 8 witnesses who had no idea what they were looking at kind of pales in comparison.

[_mikwut]

The evidence is clearly relevant. Legally, relevance simply means having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Clearly someone is over thinking the issues if they can't admit that an angel appearing to three men and offering verification of the experiences (which included angels) that J.S. claimed has a tendency to make J.S'. claims more probable. How much weight one grants for that probability is another issue. Simply ask is the Book of Mormon more (however slight or great this may be) probable in being what it purports to be with the statements of three witnesses seeing what to them was an angel of God? Of course.

Regarding hearsay, if it was brought in Court and D.J objected on hearsay grounds the three witnesses would clearly be allowed their statements on present sense impression, it would include res gestae purposes as well. (Although that word is disliked in many courts). What the angel said was contemporaneous and necessary for the story of the angel's appearance to be understood by the trier of fact.

The three could also use their signed statements as recollection recorded to refresh their memories of the event.

Historically, a legal foundation need not be laid. Hearsay is commonly accepted doing history, the reliability of the historical context and any verification that can found or the opposite is what is sought for.

regards, mikwut

[_Chap]

Let us assume that the two 'Testimonies" in the Book of Mormon really do represent documents signed by the people over whose names they appear.

Allowing that to be the case, I have about zero interest in hypothetical technical discussions about whether a judge would or would not be minded to allow an attorney to introduce them as items of evidence in his or her court. If any lawyers on this board wish to amuse themselves this way, they are of course free to do so.

For me, the only point that matters in a legal context is the amount of weight that a jury not already committed to the beliefs of the CoJCoLDS would be likely to accord to the two 'Testimonies" if asked to decide on whether or not the Book of Mormon is a genuine ancient text translated from gold plates.

I'd bet that would be pretty close to zero.

[_mikwut]

Chap,

I responded legally because that is the only understanding I can relate to D.J.'s use of foundation etc... I am responding to the OP you know.

I also responded using historical means of assessing the evidence of such statements which aren't limited by legal constructions.

You make the proper point of when it is presented to a group of hopefully level headed people what weight does it receive? You say zero, no doubt based on your personal perspective. I would think it would depend on the person. People open to supernatural occurences might afford more weight than those that don't. The statements also have to be weighed against other relevant evidence (J.Smith's proclivities towards con games etc.. the credibility of the witnesses etc...). I don't accept the statements of the three based on that analysis (a balancing of all the historical evidence). When I was member I found the statements to be a big part of the construction of positive evidence for my belief. I understood many other believers afforded and still do afford them great weight.

I just find it problematic to attempt whether legally, historically or through common lay sense to reduce the testimony to nothing at all. I say that while rejecting the testimony as reliable towards the truth of the Book of Mormon as strongly as you reject it and D.J. rejects it. I think it more true and respectful to the opponent (better for dialogue) to afford it to found under the large umbrella of "evidence" and then proceed to weigh the value of the evidence.

mikwut

[_Chap]

Chap,

...
You make the proper point of when it is presented to a group of hopefully level headed people what weight does it receive? You say zero, no doubt based on your personal perspective. ....

I actually worded my response quite carefully, and said this:

For me, the only point that matters in a legal context is the amount of weight that a jury not already committed to the beliefs of the CoJCoLDS would be likely to accord to the two 'Testimonies" if asked to decide on whether or not the Book of Mormon is a genuine ancient text translated from gold plates.

I'd bet that would be pretty close to zero.

I see that we don't disagree a lot on that point.

[_mikwut]

Sorry for the equivocation it wasn't intentional. We do seem to agree.

Mikwut

[_Darth J]

Chap,

I responded legally because that is the only understanding I can relate to D.J.'s use of foundation etc... I am responding to the OP you know.

I also responded using historical means of assessing the evidence of such statements which aren't limited by legal constructions.

Mikwut, you're not responding to the OP, because the OP does propose the idea you are reading into it. I used the dictionary definition of hearsay, not Federal Rule of Evidence 801. There's not a single thing I said that purports to limit historical evidence by legal constructions.

You make the proper point of when it is presented to a group of hopefully level headed people what weight does it receive? You say zero, no doubt based on your personal perspective. I would think it would depend on the person. People open to supernatural occurences might afford more weight than those that don't. The statements also have to be weighed against other relevant evidence (J.Smith's proclivities towards con games etc.. the credibility of the witnesses etc...). I don't accept the statements of the three based on that analysis (a balancing of all the historical evidence). When I was member I found the statements to be a big part of the construction of positive evidence for my belief. I understood many other believers afforded and still do afford them great weight.

The issue is not whether supernatural occurrences happen in general. The issue is whether based on this claimed supernatural experience, the Three Witnesses in fact had any personal knowledge that the Book of Mormon is true. They did not; the witness is God, not them.

I just find it problematic to attempt whether legally, historically or through common lay sense to reduce the testimony to nothing at all. I say that while rejecting the testimony as reliable towards the truth of the Book of Mormon as strongly as you reject it and D.J. rejects it. I think it more true and respectful to the opponent (better for dialogue) to afford it to found under the large umbrella of "evidence" and then proceed to weigh the value of the evidence.

mikwut

It's not about reducing the testimony to nothing at all. It's a question of what they were witnesses of. They were not witnesses of the existence of the Nephites or the Jaredites, the correctness of the claimed translation, or the authenticity of the golden plates. They were witnesses to a purported supernatural experience (and it wasn't one singular experience, either, since Martin Harris was separate from the other two). Since you have to look at evidence outside of their claimed experience to determine if the Book of Mormon is true, and they could not say for themselves they knew the Book of Mormon is true, you're in the same place without the Three Witnesses as you are with them.