The Three Witnesses: Unqualified and Irrelevant

[_The Mighty Builder]

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."

Blah, Blah, Blah, Mr. Darth J. But you weren't there, you don't know, nobody knows.

[_lulu]

and even the ones who said they "hefted" the plates said they did so spiritually

Do you have a reference for that?

Thanks.

[_Racer]

Even when I was a TBM, I never understood why so much weight was put behind the witnesses' testimonies. How is this any different than if I were to gather a bunch of my friends and we wrote a declaration stating the Yeti appeared to us in Park City? Three of my friends testify that they actually got to touch and feel the Yeti's fur. The other group did not get to touch him but got to see him from afar and view his footprints in the snow. We all signed the declaration testifying of this.

So by the LDS standards, this is strong evidence that there are such things as Yeti's and that they live in the Park City area.

[_Chap]

Even when I was a TBM, I never understood why so much weight was put behind the witnesses' testimonies. How is this any different than if I were to gather a bunch of my friends and we wrote a declaration stating the Yeti appeared to us in Park City? Three of my friends testify that they actually got to touch and feel the Yeti's fur. The other group did not get to touch him but got to see him from afar and view his footprints in the snow. We all signed the declaration testifying of this.

So by the LDS standards, this is strong evidence that there are such things as Yeti's and that they live in the Park City area.

Yes, but you and your friends are not relations of Joseph Smith. And you probably wouldn't be speaking with words of soberness. So your point is moot (I love that expression).

[_mikwut]

Hi Darth,

No.

foundation

1. the basis or groundwork of anything: the moral foundation of both society and religion. (my underline)
...............
1. that on which something is founded; basis

Good enough, sorry for the confusion.

They have personal knowledge as to that experience, not that their interpretation of the experience means what they claim it means.

Agreed.

I can say God told me that Elvis was Jack the Ripper. But I have no personal knowledge of that, because I wasn't there in Victorian London. And since evidence outside my claimed experience shows that what God supposedly told me is wrong (Elvis Presley wasn't alive when Jack the Ripper was killing prostitutes), it further shows that I cannot possibly be a witness of the substance of what God is supposed to have told me. I can only say that I think God told me this.

I would agree with this. So, the witnesses can testify to the experience. So the question is what weight does the experience have.

The reason why it is necessary for a person to have personal knowledge that the golden plates were an ancient artifact before purporting to be a witness of that claim is that it makes the person cease to be a witness at all. God is the witness, not the Three Witnesses. What you're talking about is exactly what a fallacious appeal to authority is.

They don't have to be witnesses with proper education and experience to validate the characters on the plates or cease to be witnesses. It is still significant that they purport to see the seemingly to them angel of God, to hear God's voice purport to them of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon as claimed by J.S. and the work of J.S. One would be making a fallacious appeal if one believed in the Book of Mormon based solely on the witnesses testimony. I haven't met a Mormon who does that yet. I have met Mormons that validate their personal knowledge experience with the witness statements, it bolsters that personal experience. They look to the witnesses as authorities on a more vivid and even possibly empirical experience of their personal spiritual experience not as authorities on the characters being reliable representations of the words found in the Book of Mormon, they still rely on their personal experience for that - or direct from God as the witness as you prefer. I again state that being cumulative as from God isn't objectionable, it is confirmatory. Not being experts on the artifact doesn't eliminate importance and significance of the experience of the three.

The experience the three witnesses purport isn't the same experience as D&C 9. They describe the appearance of an actual angel of God, hearing the actual voice of God and by the power of God they know. So they would be proper authorities (if true) of that experience. That bolsters the experiences described by J.S. The believer in the Book of Mormon is validating his less direct experiences with the three witnesses experience. If I totally agree with you it seems to me you have just set the table to discredit the personal experience of God revealing truth by ignoring that is the same avenue the witnesses learned of the reliability of the Book of Mormon. So the question reduces to the very question your leaving aside for now, the reliability of spiritual experience. I think most people who believe in God would accept God or an angel from God as a proper authority on most subjects they would articulate regarding. The church sells a chain of experience for one to build a testimony and the most important is an actual experience of revealing the truthfulness which if actual and reliable would certainly logically connect to the more vivid and less internal experience the three witnesses had. I don't accept it because I haven't had the experience. I don't mean bring up what you left aside against you, I think the order is important though.

mikwut

[_Darth J]

I can say God told me that Elvis was Jack the Ripper. But I have no personal knowledge of that, because I wasn't there in Victorian London. And since evidence outside my claimed experience shows that what God supposedly told me is wrong (Elvis Presley wasn't alive when Jack the Ripper was killing prostitutes), it further shows that I cannot possibly be a witness of the substance of what God is supposed to have told me. I can only say that I think God told me this.

I would agree with this. So, the witnesses can testify to the experience. So the question is what weight does the experience have.

Not in this thread. The question in this thread is what claim does the experience tend to prove. Or maybe there is evidence in support of the claim that Elvis was Jack the Ripper, because I am a witness that God told me this.

See, you're not relying on the knowledge of the Three Witnesses to determine that the Book of Mormon is true. You're relying on God's knowledge, and trusting them that he told them that. They don't know if the Book of Mormon is true, so they are not witnesses for that claim.

The reason why it is necessary for a person to have personal knowledge that the golden plates were an ancient artifact before purporting to be a witness of that claim is that it makes the person cease to be a witness at all. God is the witness, not the Three Witnesses. What you're talking about is exactly what a fallacious appeal to authority is.

They don't have to be witnesses with proper education and experience to validate the characters on the plates or cease to be witnesses.

They do if they purport to be witness of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. That's the only way they could be witnesses for the purpose of that claim. But then again, I don't need any particular training or education in forensics, rock and roll, or history to assert that God revealed to me that Elvis was Jack the Ripper.

It is still significant that they purport to see the seemingly to them angel of God, to hear God's voice purport to them of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon as claimed by J.S. and the work of J.S.

You mean their purporting that someone else told them the Book of Mormon is true, which they could not have known for themselves. You can't be a witness to something you don't know. Unless you are willing to grant that I am a witness to Elvis Presley murdering several prostitutes in London because I think God told me it happened---as opposed to, say, I saw it happen. Or I did forensic testing that shows it happened.

One would be making a fallacious appeal if one believed in the Book of Mormon based solely on the witnesses testimony. I haven't met a Mormon who does that yet. I have met Mormons that validate their personal knowledge experience with the witness statements, it bolsters that personal experience.

Yes, mikwut. That's what confirmation bias is. "I find the Three Witnesses to be credible because they are saying something I already believe."

They look to the witnesses as authorities on a more vivid and even possibly empirical experience of their personal spiritual experience not as authorities on the characters being reliable representations of the words found in the Book of Mormon,

The underlined word is why the testimony of the Three Witnesses is a fallacious appeal to authority.

they still rely on their personal experience for that - or direct from God as the witness as you prefer. I again state that being cumulative as from God isn't objectionable, it is confirmatory.

You can state that, but it begs the question of why I need another person to tell me that God told him the Book of Mormon is true when God already told me that the Book of Mormon is true. How can a mortal man "confirm" by his claimed experience what I already think the Holy Ghost told me?

Not being experts on the artifact doesn't eliminate importance and significance of the experience of the three.

No, it just eliminates what they are really witnesses of.

The experience the three witnesses purport isn't the same experience as D&C 9. They describe the appearance of an actual angel of God,

Of course, that depends on when you ask them. Sometimes David Whitmer says the angel had no form or shape.

hearing the actual voice of God and by the power of God they know. So they would be proper authorities (if true) of that experience.

And I would be a proper authority that Elvis Presley was a serial killer in Victorian England, because I heard the voice of God and by the power of God I know that Elvis was Jack the Ripper.

That bolsters the experiences described by J.S. The believer in the Book of Mormon is validating his less direct experiences with the three witnesses experience.

Confirmation bias

If I totally agree with you it seems to me you have just set the table to discredit the personal experience of God revealing truth by ignoring that is the same avenue the witnesses learned of the reliability of the Book of Mormon. So the question reduces to the very question your leaving aside for now, the reliability of spiritual experience. I think most people who believe in God would accept God or an angel from God as a proper authority on most subjects they would articulate regarding.

Therefore, most religious people would accept that the King of Rock and Roll was Jack the Ripper, because God told me that and he is a proper authority on most subjects. So we have evidence (but not proof!) that Elvis murdered several hookers in London in the 19th century.

The church sells a chain of experience for one to build a testimony and the most important is an actual experience of revealing the truthfulness which if actual and reliable would certainly logically connect to the more vivid and less internal experience the three witnesses had. I don't accept it because I haven't had the experience. I don't mean bring up what you left aside against you, I think the order is important though.

mikwut

No, the LDS Church sells a set of logical fallacies, including fallacious appeals to authority (e.g., Book of Mormon "witnesses") and non sequiturs (e.g., if the Book of Mormon is true, then the modern LDS Church is true). The most important part is telling you that you will have a subjective emotional experience while praying about the Book of Mormon, and on the basis of ipse dixit, this emotional experience means what the LDS Church tells you it means.

[_Turkey]

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.

One interesting thing to note, is that Joseph Smith seemed to believe the plates were genuine. If he knew his own story to be a farce, why would he believe another, knowing his reputation was at stake?

[_Racer]

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.

One interesting thing to note, is that Joseph Smith seemed to believe the plates were genuine. If he knew his own story to be a farce, why would he believe another, knowing his reputation was at stake?

On the same token, why did he claim to know what the Greek Psalter that was presented to him said? It turns out he was wrong, but that didn't seem to stop him from saying it was an Egyptian alphabet which by the way looked nothing like the one he created later, or like the symbols on the Book of Abraham papyri. I think he was just a pathological liar. Eventually those people begin to believe their own stories.

[_Chap]

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.

One interesting thing to note, is that Joseph Smith seemed to believe the plates were genuine. If he knew his own story to be a farce, why would he believe another, knowing his reputation was at stake?

On the same token, why did he claim to know what the Greek Psalter that was presented to him said? It turns out he was wrong, but that didn't seem to stop him from saying it was an Egyptian alphabet which by the way looked nothing like the one he created later, or like the symbols on the Book of Abraham papyri. I think he was just a pathological liar. Eventually those people begin to believe their own stories.

I'd modify that to say that a major and essential element in believable and long-term lying is that the liar has sufficient mental flexibility to believe in what he is telling other people.

For a number of years I frequently saw a person who was involved in major and systematic lying (mainly, I think, to make his life seem much more interesting than it was). It seemed to me that he was not coldly and cynically conscious of deceit, but acted rather as if his stories were a kind of magic that created an alternative - and better - reality. Having got people to believe in this other world, he seemed to almost feel a duty to keep the illusion going, out of kindness to those who were pleased and comforted by the beliefs he induced.

I think this kind of thing is much more common in human cultures than we tend to think, and explains several aspects of some religious phenomena. It would not surprise me if Joseph Smith was a person of this kind.

[_Drifting]

Paul H Dunn anyone...