Mormon Early Historical Events and Witnesses

[malkie]

I’ve been thinking for a while that the principle of having witnesses to important events is an area of church teaching that, apart from the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses, is often overlooked.

The Lord’s Use of Witnesses

Paul taught the principle that “in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” (2 Corinthians 13:1). President Joseph Fielding Smith said of this law: “In giving the world the testimony of three witnesses in addition to Joseph Smith, the Lord fulfilled the law. We are called upon in this life to walk by faith, not by sight, not by the proclamation of heavenly messengers with the voice of thunder, but by the proclamation of accredited witnesses whom the Lord sends and by whom every word shall be established.”

[my bolding]
Student Manual: D&C Section 5, The Testimony of the Three Witnesses

Although Pres Smith does not define “accredited witnesses”, it would appear that they are quite special, in that they are needed in order to establish the facts of certain events. He tells us that they are provided for us so that we do not each require an individual visit by “heavenly messengers”. They are not just any Thomas, Richard, and Harold. Might it be fair to expect them to be, in effect, expert witnesses to what they have experienced? If not, what exactly are their qualifications?

Gospel Topics: Witness

A witness is a statement or other evidence that something is true. It can also refer to someone who gives a statement based on personal knowledge. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, witness often refers to someone who bears witness, or testimony, of something he or she has experienced and knows to be true.

The Lord taught early Church leaders that “in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” Most of the important events in the Restoration of the Church followed the pattern of having multiple witnesses testify of their truthfulness. The Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon testified that an angel showed them the gold plates and that the record was “translated by the gift and power of God” to become the Book of Mormon. The Eight Witnesses testified that Joseph Smith showed them the gold plates and that they were able to touch them and examine the engravings. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were present at and testified of the restoration of the priesthood and priesthood keys.

[my bolding]
Gospel Topics: Witness

Note the 2nd sentence in the para 2: “Most of the important events in the Restoration of the Church followed the pattern of having multiple witnesses testify of their truthfulness.” That is, many important events but not all. The topic does not expand on the implications of several important events have no qualified witnesses.

According to the standard taught by the Lord, how should we regard events that do not have such witnesses? Are such events not “established”? Do they not meet the standard for doctrine, and/or is it not required for members to accept them? Or what?

Witnesses not available to be questioned
When I think about the testimony of a witness who cannot be questioned, I ask myself several questions.

• If I had been present and experienced what they said they experienced:
• What questions would I have asked myself about my experience?
• What conclusions would I have felt able to draw from it?
• What would it take for me to draw the same conclusions as they say they did?
• If I were able to question the witnesses, what would I ask to establish the credibility of their testimony?
• Is there any reason to believe (from the record) that they could have satisfied me?

What makes an event important?
I consider an event to be important if it is a significant event in church history which, if disproved, seriously damages the official narrative, or casts serious doubt on the veracity of witnesses to these or other events.

This post is about important events in church history that involve an apparent or claimed physical manifestation of some sort that is, at least in principle, capable of being observed by a witness, whether we have documented witness testimony or not.
So, for example, I’m ignoring “straight” revelation, where there is no reasonable expectation that the “event”, which may have no physical manifestation, can be witnessed by someone else.

Some Important Events
Some events are important in and of themselves; some seem to be important only as part of a larger important narrative. Number of “*”s in the Importance column shows how important I think an event is for the “truth” claims of the LDS church. YMMV.

First Vision ***** 1820 Spring - No witnesses
Moroni’s visits **** 1823-07-21 - Potential witnesses but no statement
Joseph’s discovery of plates & box ** 1823-07-22 + 1824,25,26 - No witnesses
Joseph takes possession of the plates & box **** 1827-07-21 - Potential witness but no statement
Joseph runs for 3 miles carrying gold plates and fighting off attackers * 1827 Fall - No witnesses
Anthon Transcript **** 1828-02 - No unbiased/unimpeachable witnesses
Angel takes gold plates and interpretation device as punishment for lost 116 pages ** 1828 Spring - No witnesses
Angel returns gold plates and interpretation device ** 1828-09-22 - No witnesses
Translation - word-for-word - on stone in hat **** 1828 on - Potential witnesses but no first hand statement
Restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood ***** 1829-05-15 - Oliver Cowdery present/participant
Three witnesses statement ***** 1829-06 - No qualified witnesses
Eight witnesses statement ***** 1829-06 - No qualified witnesses
Restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood ***** likely in late 1829 or early 1830 - Oliver Cowdery present/participant
Angel with drawn sword ** 1841-10-27 ?? - No witnesses

Events added after original post
Thanks - IHQ.

To avoid making the OP too long, I’ll put some information in comments later - especially concerning:

• Joseph taking possession of plates & box
• The Translation - word-for-word - on the stone in the hat
• The Three Witnesses
• The Eight Witnesses

In each of these cases there was at least one other person present with Joseph.
Also, the case of the Anthon Transcript is complicated by contradictory statements.

What do you think about the fact that several events that appear to be important to establish the truth claims of the church do not follow Mormon god’s pattern of “having multiple witnesses testify of their truthfulness”? Is the pattern of not following god’s pattern something to worry about?

[I Have Questions]

A very good OP malkie. A very interesting topic. I'm looking forward to see where this goes. I hope kishkumen weighs in on this topic, and Dan Vogel would have some valuable contributions I'm sure.

The Church has a habit of playing fast and loose with definitions and requirements, especially if those requirements were outlined by a Prophet who is now dead. The notion of "witnesses" is no different. I think of the policy decision change that ended the racist Priesthood Ban. 12 blokes in a room agreeing the decision appears to have been what constitutes a "witness" on that occasion. The ending of plural marriage and the start of plural marriage - witnesses, or no witnesses? Nelson's late night pen scrawling about the children of gay couples - Wendy had to leave the room, so no witnesses. It would be interesting to note the key events that have taken place across Mormon history and log which purported to have been verified by two or three witnesses, and which haven't. I predict it will be an inconsistent mess.

As for the validity of "witnesses" - my signature line sums up my thinking quite nicely.

[malkie]

A very good OP malkie. A very interesting topic. I'm looking forward to see where this goes. I hope kishkumen weighs in on this topic, and Dan Vogel would have some valuable contributions I'm sure.

The Church has a habit of playing fast and loose with definitions and requirements, especially if those requirements were outlined by a Prophet who is now dead. The notion of "witnesses" is no different. I think of the policy decision change that ended the racist Priesthood Ban. 12 blokes in a room agreeing the decision appears to have been what constitutes a "witness" on that occasion. The ending of plural marriage and the start of plural marriage - witnesses, or no witnesses? Nelson's late night pen scrawling about the children of gay couples - Wendy had to leave the room, so no witnesses. It would be interesting to note the key events that have taken place across Mormon history and log which purported to have been verified by two or three witnesses, and which haven't. I predict it will be an inconsistent mess.

As for the validity of "witnesses" - my signature line sums up my thinking quite nicely.

Thanks, IHQ. If you have any events to add to the list, please feel free. I've stuck to events that are from the time of the FV up to (mostly) 1830 as events that are well known and are included in the topics that are usually introduced to investigators as evidence of the involvement of Mormon god and his messengers in the founding of the church.

I ought to mention that your excellent work on witness reliability allowed me to effectively ignore that topic and concentrate on other ideas.

[I Have Questions]

I’d think the restorations of the two priesthoods would class as significant events, requiring witnesses to attest if its validity, should be included. It is worth noting that Cowdrey failed to mention John The Baptist initially, referring instead to “an angel”. It was only later that he started calling that angel “John The Baptist”.

It is an event that was crucial to the restoration, but which did not have the required witnesses present.

[huckelberry]

I’d think the restorations of the two priesthoods would class as significant events, requiring witnesses to attest if its validity, should be included. It is worth noting that Cowdrey failed to mention John The Baptist initially, referring instead to “an angel”. It was only later that he started calling that angel “John The Baptist”.

It is an event that was crucial to the restoration, but which did not have the required witnesses present.

Questions I certainly think you are right to look at this matter for witnesses. Especially since changes in D and C were made to accommodate the event.

It would be stronger than witness to plates which the witnesses had no way to identify.

[sock puppet]

As for those events for which there are witness accounts, the problem with such testimony it has not been tested critically per cross-examination, such as--

The instances of conflicting other statements made by some of those witnesses
Probing the witness's biases and interests to favor the account attested to, such as personal relationships, financial interests, or even fear.
Delving into what impairments of perception and memory there were--did the witness have the ability to see and remember such accurately? What were the circumstances such as a cloth over the plates and peer pressure to sign? Was there alcohol involved like the Kirtland Temple incident?

[malkie]

As for those events for which there are witness accounts, the problem with such testimony it has not been tested critically per cross-examination, such as--

The instances of conflicting other statements made by some of those witnesses
Probing the witness's biases and interests to favor the account attested to, such as personal relationships, financial interests, or even fear.
Delving into what impairments of perception and memory there were--did the witness have the ability to see and remember such accurately? What were the circumstances such as a cloth over the plates and peer pressure to sign? Was there alcohol involved like the Kirtland Temple incident?

Even a charitable reading of some of the witnessed events leaves one with a lot of unanswered questions. IHQ handily demolished the reliability of the witnesses some time ago, which is why I'm ignoring general reliability as a criterion for the events in question, and concentrating on other aspects of the events.

[Res Ipsa]

The church's claim that most of the important events of the restoration are supported by the testimony of several witnesses is stunningly false. Malkie, your list of events for which there are no witnesses makes a strong statement. in my opinion, including some events as not having "qualified" witnesses weakens that statement. The events that occurred didn't require some kind of scientific or other specialized training. I think it's better simply to take the witnesses for who they were and what they witnessed. The statements of the Book of Mormon witnesses reflect witnessing events staged by Smith. Something Smith staged is not an important event of the restoration. The important events were the first vision, Moroni's appearance, finding the plates, priesthood restoration, etc. By and large, the important events were either not witnessed or we don't have witness testimony of them.

[malkie]

The church's claim that most of the important events of the restoration are supported by the testimony of several witnesses is stunningly false. Malkie, your list of events for which there are no witnesses makes a strong statement. in my opinion, including some events as not having "qualified" witnesses weakens that statement. The events that occurred didn't require some kind of scientific or other specialized training. I think it's better simply to take the witnesses for who they were and what they witnessed. The statements of the Book of Mormon witnesses reflect witnessing events staged by Smith. Something Smith staged is not an important event of the restoration. The important events were the first vision, Moroni's appearance, finding the plates, priesthood restoration, etc. By and large, the important events were either not witnessed or we don't have witness testimony of them.

I believe I understand your point, Res. However, I prefered to mention the actual witnesses for two reasons:

• I cannot be accused later of ignoring the important events for which there were witnesses
• I believe I can make the case that having witnesses who can be shown to be unqualified may be perceived as worse than not having witnesses at all

It is sometimes said that the 3 + 8 witnesses are the best "evidence" for the existence of the Book of Mormon plates. In effect I want to be able to say: "Is this the best you've got?", and show the weakness of their testimony.

[Res Ipsa]

The church's claim that most of the important events of the restoration are supported by the testimony of several witnesses is stunningly false. Malkie, your list of events for which there are no witnesses makes a strong statement. in my opinion, including some events as not having "qualified" witnesses weakens that statement. The events that occurred didn't require some kind of scientific or other specialized training. I think it's better simply to take the witnesses for who they were and what they witnessed. The statements of the Book of Mormon witnesses reflect witnessing events staged by Smith. Something Smith staged is not an important event of the restoration. The important events were the first vision, Moroni's appearance, finding the plates, priesthood restoration, etc. By and large, the important events were either not witnessed or we don't have witness testimony of them.

I believe I understand your point, Res. However, I prefered to mention the actual witnesses for two reasons:

• I cannot be accused later of ignoring the important events for which there were witnesses
• I believe I can make the case that having witnesses who can be shown to be unqualified may be perceived as worse than not having witnesses at all

It is sometimes said that the 3 + 8 witnesses are the best "evidence" for the existence of the Book of Mormon plates. In effect I want to be able to say: "Is this the best you've got?", and show the weakness of their testimony.

I think it does depend on the claim you are responding to. If the claim is that the 3+8 are the best evidence, I would respond the same way -- attack the weakness of the evidence. If the claim is that all important events in the restoration are backed up by the testimony of several witnesses, I'd attack the 3+8 as not addressing an important event. I think it's two different arguments -- both of them strong. But mixing them without being clear weakens both. Let me illustrate:

Church: There is testimony of several witnesses supporting every important event in the restoration.
Me: Not the first vision, not Moroni's visitation, not receiving the plates, etc.
Church: What about the 3+8?
Me: They're not qualified.
Church: Now you're moving the goalposts. The issue was whether there was witness testimony, but when I refer you to witness testimony, you introduce the new concept of "qualified."

That would be a valid objection.

What I''m suggesting instead:

Church: What about the 3+8?
Me: All they witnessed was a staged event -- not an important event in the restoration. If you take away the events the witnesses witnessed, all of the important events of the restoration would still have occurred.

This response stays within the bounds of the church's original claim: that all important events of the restoration are backed up with the testimony of several witnesses.