Independent of the menfolk, Mary Whitmer (wife of David Whitmer) bore her own eye witness testimony which doesn’t often get talked about.
Through her son David, she and her family became acquainted with Joseph Smith around 1828. In 1829, she was caring for three boarders (Smith, Emma Hale Smith, and Oliver Cowdery) in addition to her large household while the Book of Mormon was being translated.[3] She said that she was often overloaded with work to the extent she felt it quite a burden. During this time, the male boarders and members of her household were speaking of being shown the golden plates. One evening, when she went to milk the cows, she said that a stranger with a knapsack spoke to her, explained what was going on in her house, comforted her, then produced a bundle of plates from his knapsack, turned the leaves for her, showed her the engravings, exhorted her to faith in bearing her burden a little longer, then suddenly vanished with the plates. Whitmer always called the stranger "Brother Nephi".[4]
She was excommunicated from the church with the entire Whitmer family in 1838
So the Book of Mormon contains the testimony of unworthy excommunicated members. What to make of that…
Here’s what David Whitmer went on to say…
If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon", wrote Whitmer, "if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints
If you believe his eye witness testimony for the Book of Mormon then you seem obligated to believe that Gold told him to separate from the Church. Or you disbelieve his eye witness statement about separating the Church and acknowledge that he’s got the propensity to make a false statement.
He never recanted his testimony that God wanted him to leave the Church.
This example points out the absurdity of relying on eyewitness testimony and arguing that unrecanted testimony means it must be true. All it means is that the person thought their testimony was correct, which they could think regardless of the accuracy of their testimony, which simply returns us to the original problem: the unreliability of eyewitness testimony.
Just because a person believes to their dying day that they saw a UFO, or sasquatch, or fairies, or a unicorn, or an angel, doesn't mean they did. The sincerity of their belief is a factor in determining their belief in their story, which is NOT the same thing as determining the accuracy of their story.
IHQ:
1. Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. 2. The best evidence for The Book of Mormon is eye witness testimony, therefore… 3.The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is a type of evidence that is notoriously unreliable.
4. More than one eye witness increases likelihood that testimony is true if the testimony is corroborated by the other witnesses. More so than if the testimony relies on one eyewitness. Over time if the corroboration remains intact the testimony becomes even more reliable.
At least that’s the way I see it in this instance of the three Book of Mormon witnesses.
Let me get this straight: the claim here is that a third-hand story recorded 50 years after the fact of “brother Nephi” showing some woman the plates that Smith kept hidden from everyone except, allegedly, on two arranged occasions is somehow corroborative of Smith’s story?
It’s hard to imagine less reliable evidence. Except, perhaps, that Smith couldn’t keep his angels straight.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
IHQ:
1. Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. 2. The best evidence for The Book of Mormon is eye witness testimony, therefore… 3.The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is a type of evidence that is notoriously unreliable.
4. More than one eye witness increases likelihood that testimony is true if the testimony is corroborated by the other witnesses. More so than if the testimony relies on one eyewitness. Over time if the corroboration remains intact the testimony becomes even more reliable.
At least that’s the way I see it in this instance of the three Book of Mormon witnesses.
Regards,
MG
Special pleading is so convenient.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Let me get this straight: the claim here is that a third-hand story recorded 50 years after the fact of “brother Nephi” showing some woman the plates that Smith kept hidden from everyone except, allegedly, on two arranged occasions is somehow corroborative of Smith’s story?
It’s hard to imagine less reliable evidence. Except, perhaps, that Smith couldn’t keep his angels straight.
We’re not discussing third hand testimony supposedly given by Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner many years later. We’re discussing the corroborated testimony of the three witnesses from the occurrence/time of the primary event then on up through the latter years of their lives.
The witnesses had reason to change their stories and even though they each had their issues with Joseph or the church they didn’t deny their testimony of the angel and the plates.
Why are you bringing Mary into it? She was an individual witness separated and separate from the experience that the three eye witnesses had.
We’re not discussing third hand testimony supposedly given by Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner many years later. We’re discussing the corroborated testimony of the three witnesses from the occurrence/time of the primary event then on up through the latter years of their lives.
The witnesses had reason to change their stories and even though they each had their issues with Joseph or the church they didn’t deny their testimony of the angel and the plates.
MG,
Let me get this straight. The witnesses never publicly admitted they were lying and never admitted they were part of perpetuating a major fraud on the public, and therefore must have been telling the truth about gold plates? You know, the gold plates that teach Native American Jews' skin changed color because of sin?
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
We’re not discussing third hand testimony supposedly given by Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner many years later. We’re discussing the corroborated testimony of the three witnesses from the occurrence/time of the primary event then on up through the latter years of their lives.
The witnesses had reason to change their stories and even though they each had their issues with Joseph or the church they didn’t deny their testimony of the angel and the plates.
MG,
Let me get this straight. The witnesses never publicly admitted they were lying and never admitted they were part of perpetuating a major fraud on the public, and therefore must have been telling the truth about gold plates? You know, the gold plates that teach Native American Jews' skin changed color because of sin?
So you’re saying that because there is something in the Book of Mormon that you find troublesome that means that the plates didn’t exist? The logic escapes me as to how these two things are directly correlated.
Either the plates existed or they didn't. Either the three witnesses were independently telling the truth or they weren’t. There is no middle ground that one can stand on and say simply, “I don’t like what’s inside the Book of Mormon, ergo, the plates didn’t exist.”
The testimony of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon stands forth in great strength. Each of the three had ample reason and opportunity to renounce his testimony if it had been false, or to equivocate on details if any had been inaccurate. As is well known, because of disagreements or jealousies involving other leaders of the Church, each one of these three witnesses was excommunicated from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by about eight years after the publication of their testimony. All three went their separate ways, with no common interest to support a collusive effort. Yet to the end of their lives—periods ranging from 12 to 50 years after their excommunications—not one of these witnesses deviated from his published testimony or said anything that cast any shadow on its truthfulness.
Let me get this straight: the claim here is that a third-hand story recorded 50 years after the fact of “brother Nephi” showing some woman the plates that Smith kept hidden from everyone except, allegedly, on two arranged occasions is somehow corroborative of Smith’s story?
It’s hard to imagine less reliable evidence. Except, perhaps, that Smith couldn’t keep his angels straight.
We’re not discussing third hand testimony supposedly given by Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner many years later. We’re discussing the corroborated testimony of the three witnesses from the occurrence/time of the primary event then on up through the latter years of their lives.
The witnesses had reason to change their stories and even though they each had their issues with Joseph or the church they didn’t deny their testimony of the angel and the plates.
Why are you bringing Mary into it? She was an individual witness separated and separate from the experience that the three eye witnesses had.
Regards,
MG
I must have hallucinated someone discussing her upthread.
You don’t know at all whether the witnesses had a motive to change their story. You don’t know their internal processes any more than I do. Not denying their witness statement is a pretty low bar for the three witnesses. How often do people make that kind of formal denial of past statements? What’s hard to believe about the three is their behavior after seeing the angel and the book. Whitmer’s statement isn’t any kind of ringing endorsement. Wasn’t Cowdry pretty reluctant to talk about the whole thing in later life? Even Harris’s life e trajectory was pretty odd for someone who had seen an angel and a gold book that was the source of scripture.
If you look at what at least two of three did, they look as much like the actions of people who suspected they’d been played than people who were certain they’d personally witnessed an angel and a gold book of new scripture.
Repeating the “never denied” trope misses the point: after such a dramatic event in their lives, did the three men conduct themselves as if they were convinced they’d really seen an angel and a gold book of new scripture?
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Let me get this straight: the claim here is that a third-hand story recorded 50 years after the fact of “brother Nephi” showing some woman the plates that Smith kept hidden from everyone except, allegedly, on two arranged occasions is somehow corroborative of Smith’s story?
It’s hard to imagine less reliable evidence. Except, perhaps, that Smith couldn’t keep his angels straight.
We’re not discussing third hand testimony supposedly given by Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner many years later. We’re discussing the corroborated testimony of the three witnesses from the occurrence/time of the primary event then on up through the latter years of their lives.
what corroboration existed when they said the event occurred? What was the corroboration that was given "up through the latter years of their lives"?
The witnesses had reason to change their stories and even though they each had their issues with Joseph or the church they didn’t deny their testimony of the angel and the plates.
How does one's belief in a story that may or may not be correct matter in determining the accuracy of the story? Specifically, are you arguing that the more consistently someone believes in something like, for example, UFOs, the more likely it is that UFOs exist?
Let me get this straight. The witnesses never publicly admitted they were lying and never admitted they were part of perpetuating a major fraud on the public, and therefore must have been telling the truth about gold plates? You know, the gold plates that teach Native American Jews' skin changed color because of sin?
So you’re saying that because there is something in the Book of Mormon that you find troublesome that means that the plates didn’t exist? The logic escapes me as to how these two things are directly correlated.
Either the plates existed or they didn't. Either the three witnesses were independently telling the truth or they weren’t. There is no middle ground that one can stand on and say simply, “I don’t like what’s inside the Book of Mormon, ergo, the plates didn’t exist.”
The testimony of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon stands forth in great strength. Each of the three had ample reason and opportunity to renounce his testimony if it had been false, or to equivocate on details if any had been inaccurate. As is well known, because of disagreements or jealousies involving other leaders of the Church, each one of these three witnesses was excommunicated from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by about eight years after the publication of their testimony. All three went their separate ways, with no common interest to support a collusive effort. Yet to the end of their lives—periods ranging from 12 to 50 years after their excommunications—not one of these witnesses deviated from his published testimony or said anything that cast any shadow on its truthfulness.
What you’re doing here is a massive equivocation on the conclusion you are trying to prove. You aren’t trying to prove the existence of plates. You are trying to prove the existence of a very specific plates: a set of gold plates buried in a specific location, found by Smith at the direction of an angel, and containing a history of the ancestors of Native Americans that was translated into the Book of Mormon.
Evidence that the Book of Mormon is not a history of the ancestors of Native Americans is absolutely evidence that the plates that you are trying to prove existed did not, in fact, exist.
The evidence is pretty overwhelming that the Book of Mormon is not a history of any peoples in the Americas, let alone the natives in the geographical area claimed by Smith. That’s strong evidence that whatever the witnesses saw, it thought they saw, it was not what you claim they saw.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
