In every copy of the Book of Mormon is the signed statement by the witnesses of the BOM. The three special witnesses saw the Angel Moroni and the plates. The eight other witnesses just saw and handled the golden plates.
The 11 witnesses were all good, honorable men and regarded as upstanding members of the community.
The three special witnesses all saw the Angel and the plates together as a group. The eight witnesses also saw the plates as a group.
Most members are aware that many of the witnesses, including all three of the special witnesses, apostatized and left the church. Oliver Cowdery and perhaps Martin Harris rejoined the church shortly before they died.
Although many of the witnesses left the church, none of them ever denied their testimony regarding seeing the plates.
The witnesses' testimonies are regarded as literally being true. They all did in fact see and touch the plates with their own eyes and hands.
The Testimony Of Three Witnesses
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, & to the Son, & to the Holy Ghost, which is One God. Amen.'
Oliver Cowdery
David Whitmer
Martin Harris
[top]And Also The Testimony Of Eight Witnesses
BE IT KNOWN unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold ; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.
Christian Whitmer Joseph Smith, Sr.
Jacob Whitmer Hyrum Smith
Peter Whitmer Hiram Page
John Whitmer Samuel H. Smith
The following two essays provide a very good analysis of the arguments against the witnesses by critics. Note: these essays are very similar with many common elements. Please do not skip reading the following essays as the information presented below is for the most part, in addition to what's presented in those two essays.
Here are a few key points from the essays listed above.
Many people that whole-heartedly believe the Book of Mormon witnesses do so because they have a hard time thinking that these people would either lie or could have been deceived. That's fair enough. But why then should we not believe the witnesses to the following stories:
SOLOMON SPALDING WITNESSES
There are seven witnesses that say Solomon Spalding was the author of the Book of Mormon. Seven people wrote affidavits testifying that they had read early drafts of the Book of Mormon by author Solomon Spalding. In some ways they are more credible as they each wrote their own account instead of merely signing a prepared statement.
Here's the testimony of the first of these seven witnesses, the brother of Solomon Spalding:
He [Solomon] then told me had he been writing a book, which he intended to have printed, the avails of which he thought would enable him to pay all his debts. The book was entitled the "Manuscript Found," of which he read to me many passages. -- It was an historical romance of the first settlers of America, endeavoring to show that the American Indians are the descendants of the Jews, or the lost tribes. It gave a detailed account of their journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till they arrived in America, under the command of NEPHI AND LEHI. They afterwards had quarrels and contentions, and separated into two distinct nations, one of which he denominated Nephites and the other Lamanites. Cruel and bloody wars ensued, in which great multitudes were slain. They buried their dead in large heaps, which caused the mounds so common in this country. Their arts, sciences and civilization were brought into view, in order to account for all the curious antiquities, found in various [280] parts of North and South America. I have recently read the Book of Mormon, and to my great surprize I find nearly the same historical matter, names, &c. as they were in my brother's writings. I well remember that he wrote in the old style, and commenced about every sentence with "and it came to pass," or "now it came to pass," the same as in the Book of Mormon, and according to the best of my recollection and belief, it is the same as my brother Solomon wrote, with the exception of the religious matter. -- By what means it has fallen into the hands of Joseph Smith, Jr. I am unable to determine.
JOHN SPALDING."
To read the rest of the witnesses claiming Solomon Spalding wrote the book that was modified into the Book of Mormon:
http://www.mormonstudies.com/witness.htm
Obviously both sets of witnesses cannot be correct. At least one set, possibly both sets, of witnesses were either lying or were mistaken or deceived. Which group is to be believed or are they both in error?
We're not saying we believe the Spalding witnesses over the Book of Mormon witnesses, but it proves the point that just because a group of people claims something extraordinary happened to them, it doesn't make it so.
For more on the Spalding theories:
http://mormonstudies.com/criddle/rigdon.htm
LDS leader Jesse Strang claimed to be the true prophet that succeeded Joseph after he was killed. Many Mormons followed Strang after he sent a letter claiming he had received a revelation that he should be prophet.
The letter convinced most of Smith's family and several other prominent Mormons that Strang's claims were genuine. John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Martin Harris, Hiram Page, John E. Page, William E. McLellin, William Smith, Smith's first wife and widow, Emma Hale Smith, the sisters of Joseph Smith, William Marks, George Miller, and others, including Joseph Smith's mother, Lucy Mack Smith. Lucy wrote to Reuben Hedlock: "I am satisfied that Joseph appointed J.J. Strang. It is verily so."(ibid) According to William Smith, all of Joseph Smith's family (excepting Hyrum Smith's widow), endorsed Strang; (Palmer, 211)
Here we have all of the living Book of Mormon witnesses, except Oliver Cowdery, as well as most of Smith's family and several other prominent members of the early LDS church accept Strang's claim of being a prophet by merely reading his letter. How much credibility can we give these people when they accept someone so easily as a prophet who later turns out to be a fraud?
In all, about 12,000 Latter-day saints recognized Strang's claims. A smaller group followed him to Beaver Island in Lake Michigan.
Most of his initial followers, including those listed above, would leave Strang's church before his death. Some eventually followed Brigham Young, but Smith's immediate family never did, and many of them formed the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints a few years later.
There are many witnesses to Jesse Strang's claim of having unearthed metal plates which he translated into scripture. Strang's translation of the metal plates was transcribed by Samuel Graham, and published as Book of the Law of the Lord, said to be the original law as it was given to Moses.
The following is from the first page of the Book of the Law of the Lord with the testimony of the witnesses to the plates from which the book was translated from. Does this sound familiar?
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, to whom this Book of the Law of the Lord shall come, that James J. Strang has the plates of the ancient Book of the Law of the Lord given to Moses, from which he translated this law, and has shown them to us. We examined them with our eyes, and handled them with our hands. The engravings are beautiful antique workmanship, bearing a striking resemblance to the ancient oriental languages; and those from which the laws in this book were translated are eighteen in number, about seven inches and three-eights wide, by nine inches long, occasionally embellished with beautiful pictures.
And we testify unto you all that the everlasting kingdom of God is established, in which this law shall be kept, till it brings in rest and everlasting righteousness to all the faithful.
SAMUEL GRAHAM,
SAMUEL P. BACON,
WARREN POST,
PHINEAS WRIGHT,
ALBERT N. HOSMER,
EBENEZER PAGE,
JEHIEL SAVAGE.
http://www.strangite.org/Law.htm
Here's the detailed accounts of several witnesses that seem very similar to the BOM witnesses:
AARON SMITH,
JIRAH B. WHEELAN,
J. M. VAN NOSTRAND,
EDWARD WHITCOMB,
http://www.strangite.org/Reveal.htm
Strang actually had his plates in a museum for all to see for a time. If he was a fraud then it was obvious that he had made a prop of sufficient quality to fool a prolonged, detailed visual inspection by the public. This shows that making a prop of ancient plates during Joseph's time wasn't all that difficult. Also Joseph's plates were never shown in public and were always covered and if they were ever actually shown to the witnesses, it was only very briefly.
Jesse Strang also reportedly had someone coated with phosphorescent paint to appear to be an angel in order to have witnesses that really believed in him.
Note 3: For an exemplary "amusing experiment" involving phosphorus, see Patriarch William Smith's 1849 account of how the Mormon leader James J. Strang made serruptitious use of the glowing substance in a darkened room: "The phosphorus then gave a most brilliant light upon the heads of the saints. The Holy Ghost was poured out in this way, and the sign given that Strang was a prophet." Elder J. J. Moss, who observed the advent of Mormonism at Kirtland, Ohio, provided his opinion of how the luminous angels observed thereabouts (David Whitmer saw one at the Temple) might have been similarly manufactured: "The Morley family would invite strangers... to stay with them all night & every one that stayed however strong their opposition before were baptized the next morning. Having studied in my boyhood the Black Art Ledgerdemain & jugling I had my suspicions aroused... & I told how Angels could be manufactured & strange wonders made to appear in the night & from that time forth invitations to stay over night ceased to be given & no more converts were made in that way..." etc., etc.
sidneyrigdon.com (click on the link to "RF June 12 '30")
Strang's plates have since been lost and he continues to have a following even today by those who believe his story the same as the faithful LDS believe Joseph's story, when no plates exist today to be examined for both Joseph Smith and Jesse Strang.
The Shakers felt that "Christ has made his second appearance on earth, in a chosen female known by the name of Ann Lee, and acknowledged by us as our Blessed Mother in the work of redemption" (Sacred Roll and Book, p.358). The Shakers, of course, did not believe the Book of Mormon, but they had a book entitled A Holy, Sacred and Divine Roll and Book; From the Lord God of Heaven, to the Inhabitants of Earth. More than sixty individuals gave testimony to the Sacred Roll and Book, which was published in 1843. Although not all of them mention angels appearing, some of them tell of many angels visiting them-one woman told of eight different visions.
Martin Harris joined the Shakers for about two years. Here is the statement of members of the Shakers:
We, the undersigned, hereby testify, that we saw the holy Angel standing upon the house-top, as mentioned in the foregoing declaration, holding the Roll and Book.
Betsey Boothe.
Louisa Chamberlain.
Caty De Witt.
Laura Ann Jacobs.Sarah Maria Lewis.
Sarah Ann Spencer.
Lucinda McDoniels.
Maria Hedrick.Joseph Smith only had three witnesses who claimed to see an angel. The Shakers, however, had a large number of witnesses who claimed they saw angels and the Roll and Book. There are over a hundred pages of testimony from "Living Witnesses." The evidence seems to show that Martin Harris accepted the Sacred Roll and Book as a divine revelation. Clark Braden stated: "Harris declared repeatedly that he had as much evidence for a Shaker book he had as for the Book of Mormon" (The Braden and Kelly Debate, p.173).
Why should we believe the Book of Mormon witnesses but not the Shakers witnesses? What are we to make of the reported Martin Harris's comment that he had as much evidence for the Shaker book he had as for the Book of Mormon?
http://christiandefense.org/LDS%20Three%20Witnesses.htm
The are countless stories of people, even groups of people, that claim to have see the Virgin Mary. These people are almost always Catholics and they take this as a sign that the Catholic Church is true and they are following God's correct path. Obviously if all these people are really witnessing visions of the Virgin Mary, then how can the LDS church be true?
There is a well-known vision of the Virgin Mary to three children at Fatima and subsequent regular visits and prophesies regarding world events. http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_12.htm
On November 5, 1975, seven men witnessed a spacecraft from another world hovering silently between tall pines in the Apache-Sitgreaves National forest of north-eastern Arizona. One of those men, Travis Walton, became an unwilling captive of an alien race when the other men fled in fear.
There were seven witnesses to this event. They all passed lie-detector tests and none of them have ever recounted their story. This was even made into a movie called 'Fire in the Sky' with James Garner playing the sheriff who investigated the story.
We don't know if the story is really true or not but if it is our country and even the world is in serious danger. Any human could be abducted by aliens at any time and subjected to horrific medical tests as Travis Walton claimed was performed on him by beings from another planet. Yet if it was true, wouldn't the governments and the people of the world be more concerned about this? Or is it that, despite the fact that we have seven honorable witnesses to the event and no evidence of a fraud, we really don't believe these witnesses? http://www.travis-walton.com/index.shtml
The appearance of the angel Gabriel to Muhammad and his subsequent divine commission to bring forth new scripture that, today, is revered by approximately 2 billion Muslims the world over. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#The_first_revelations
There are many, many reported witnesses to UFOs, Bigfoot, the Lochness Monster, Abominable Snowman, alien abductions, etc. There are literally hundreds of thousands of witnesses to these amazing phenomena. Should they be believed as well?
The famous Lochness Monster photo taken in 1934 by a surgeon was believed to be genuine by many people due to the credibility of the witness. It wasn't until March 1994 that it was revealed that the "surgeon's picture" was a practical joke after all by his son, Ian.
The famous 1967 Bigfoot video referred to as the Patterson video was believed by many people to be genuine as well. One of the main reasons was the credibility of one of the witnesses. He seemed very sincere in his statements and had a very good upstanding reputation as an honest man.
It wasn't until many years later that he started to believe that he was tricked. He now thinks he was carefully led down a ravine where someone had been waiting in an ape suit to purposely trick him. The best witness of course is someone that really believes he saw the event. The Book of Mormon witnesses may have been deceived as well and were not lying as far as they were concerned.
Many fantastic stories that have had numerous witnesses have been proved to be hoaxes yet many people still hold steadfast to their unbelievable claims. It just proves that there are many, many people that have said, and will say, they are witnesses to very improbable events. Many of these phenomena are in opposition to LDS church's beliefs, so all of these other amazing accounts can't be true despite the sheer number of witnesses, no matter how credible and sincere they seem to be.
We wonder how many of us would actually believe the Book of Mormon witnesses if they lived today instead of the 19th century. Would you honestly believe a group of people that all told the story of some fantastic event if they lived when you did? Frankly it's easy to believe strange things as long as they happened a long time ago - the further back, the stranger i.e. Noah's Ark. But that doesn't mean it actually happened just because it was 200 years ago and not today.
[top]In contrast to what the BOM witnesses have stated, many members of the community that knew Joseph made the following sworn statements. Go to the following link:
http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/wiki/index.php/Mormonism_Unvailed%2C_chapter_17
Many of these affidavits are in direct conflict with Joseph's account of the beginnings of the LDS Church. The following is an excerpt from just one of these affidavits. It is a signed affidavit sworn out by Peter Ingersall before Judge Baldwin of Wayne County Court in New York in December, 1833. He recounts what Joseph told him:
"As I was passing, yesterday, across the woods, after a heavy shower of rain, I found, in a hollow, some beautiful white sand, that had been washed up by the water. I took off my frock, and tied up several quarts of it, and then went home. On my entering the house, I found the family at the table eating dinner. They were all anxious to know the contents of my frock. At that moment, I happened to think of what I had heard about a history found in Canada, called the golden Bible; so I very gravely told them it was the golden Bible.
To my surprise, they were credulous enough to believe what I said. Accordingly I told them that I had received a commandment to let no one see it, for, says I, no man can see it with the naked eye and live. However, I offered to take out the book and show it to them, but they refuse to see it, and left the room." Now, said Jo, "I have got the damned fools fixed, and will carry out the fun." Notwithstanding, he told me he had no such book, and believed there never was any such book, yet, he told me that he actually went to Willard Chase, to get him to make a chest, in which he might deposit his golden Bible. But, as Chase would not do it, he made a box himself, of clap-boards, and put it into a pillow case, and allowed people only to lift it, and feel of it through the case.
Why should we believe all the Book of Mormon witnesses over the sworn affidavits of over dozens of unrelated townspeople?
Note: The LDS church must find Ingersoll's affidavit somewhat credible as the Ensign magazine quoted from it, as well as Isaac Hale's affidavit, as historical sources in an article about Joseph Smith's early years.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/msg/98349bc70c2eb0ad
[top]If someone was going to have witnesses to some earth-shattering event, and they wanted people to believe them, they would have done it very differently than Joseph did. The whole witnesses' portion of the BOM would have been much better served if the following things had been done:
The governor of Illinois, Thomas Ford, who was very aware of the Mormon movement in his state, had given his own opinion as to how Joseph Smith collected the testimony of the witnesses, having known several well-known men of Smith's acquaintance:
... the witnesses were "set to continual prayer and other spiritual exercises." Then at last "he assembled them in a room, and produced a box, which he said contained the precious treasure. The lid was opened; the witnesses peeped into it, but making no discovery, for the box was empty, they said, "Brother Joseph, we do not see the plates." The prophet answered them, 'O ye of little faith! how long will God bear with this wicked and perverse generation? Down on your knees, brethren, every one of you, and pray God for the forgiveness of your sins '.. The disciples dropped to their knees, and began to pray in the fervency of their spirit, supplicating God for more than two hours with fanatical earnestness; at the end of which time, looking again into the box, they were now persuaded that they saw the plates."
Through the sheer force of Smith's suggestions, coercive threats and their own earnest desire to see what he said was there, yet obscured by their "sinfulness", the eight men "saw" the plates. This certainly is what Harris meant by seeing "plates" with the "eyes of faith" that did not exist. Cowdery's own admission that he didn't see the plates at all during the translation work and his spasms of wavering faith that they existed certainly aren't faith building for Mormons, but they are disarmingly candid admissions. What all of these men actually did was to help create a bogus set of testimonials to events and objects that never existed, except in their minds.
Note: Some LDS apologists state that Governor Ford did not make this hypothesis or at least he wasn't the first person to suggest this. Whether or not that is true, this hypothesis is a reasonable one and cannot be dismissed - regardless of who may have said it first.
No Man Knows My History by Fawn McKay Brodie
http://www.spiritwatch.org/mobehbom.htm
[top]Here is some compelling testimony against Martin Harris, by two witnesses that knew him best:
Mrs. Abigail Harris: a sister-in-law of Martin Harris:
"... Martin Harris and Lucy Harris, his wife, were at my house [early part of winter, 1828]. In conversation with the Mormonites, she [Lucy Harris] observed that she wished her husband would quit them, as she believed it all false and a delusion. To which I heard Mr. Harris reply: 'What if it is a lie; if you will let me alone I will make money out of it!' I was both an eye- and ear-witness of what has been above stated, which is now fresh in my memory, and I speak the truth and lie not, God being my witness."
Lucy Harris: wife of Martin Harris:
"Whether the Mormon religion be true or false, I leave the world to judge; for its effects on Martin Harris have been to make him more cross, turbulent and abusive to me. His whole object was to make money out of it. I will give a proof of this. One day at Peter Harris' house (Abigail Harris' husband) I told him he had better leave the company of the Smiths, as their religion was false. To this he replied, "If you would let me alone, I could make money out of it.' It is in vain for the Mormons to deny these facts, as they are well known to most of his former neighbors."
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/miscNYC4.htm
http://www.carm.org/lds/unveiled2.htm
[top]As an analogy, say that 11 witnesses claimed to have seen a murder. Would that be enough evidence to have somebody executed?
To make this comparable to the Book of Mormon witnesses, let's add some details. There are two stores across the street from each other, and the respective owners don't get along too well. One of the owners claims that his rival committed murder, and says that he can prove it because he captured the act on his store's video surveillance camera. Rather than submitting the tape to the police, he invites over 11 of his good friends and family members. He shows them the tape, and then asks that they sign a joint statement that he had earlier prepared. He then erases the tape.
No other evidence exists-there is no blood on the ground, no gunpowder residue on the hand of the accused, and no murder weapon. In fact, there isn't a body. There isn't even any evidence that the alleged victim even ever existed. All we have is the statement written by the shop owner and signed by his friends that they saw the video tape which then conveniently vanished.
Based solely on their joint statement, would you convict?
We're trying to illustrate a couple of things here. First, the testimony of the eleven witnesses has a contrived feeling to it. Usually, Joseph went to great lengths to prevent anybody from seeing the plates. There aren't any witnesses who were independent observers, much less reports from the careful examination of independent experts. We just have a couple of carefully orchestrated and contrived events followed by jointly signing previously-prepared statements.
Secondly, we're trying to illustrate what Grissom said, "Normally, an eyewitness is the least reliable evidence we have." If there were literally no physical evidence to support an eyewitness account of an event, and if the event in question is fantastical in nature, then the reasonable thing to do would be to disregard the witnesses.
Analytics
Even if all of that were true, Joseph had a remarkable talent to be able to persuade people to believe what most people would consider totally absurd.
[top]The following summary of the witness's lives was posted by 'justmythoughts' on Nov. 8, 2003 on the LDS critic's web site RFM:
OLIVER COWDERY - Was born in Wells, Vermont in 1806. He learned about JS and his alleged vision, when he was boarding in the home of JS's parents. Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith were third cousins. At the time, his profession was as a clerk, and schoolteacher. In 1829 he was baptized. He signed his name as witness to the BoM in 1830 at the age of 24. On December 18, 1832, he married Elizabeth Ann Whitmer, who was the daughter of Peter Whitmer [one of the 8 witnesses to the BoM] and sister of David Whitmer [one of the 3 witnesses]. He and Elizabeth had six children. Only one daughter, Maria Louise Cowdery, reached adulthood. In 1834 he served as Assistant President of the Church. Oliver had many issues with the early church, as well as personally with JS. Many say his final breaking point with the church stemmed from his unwillingness to accept the revelation concerning plural marriage. He was EXCOMMUNICATED on April 12, 1838. After his excommunication he studied law and became an attorney. In 1848, ten years after he was excommunicated, Oliver re-applied for membership in the church and was re-baptized. He never again held office within the church. Oliver Cowdery died in March of 1850 in Richmond, Missouri at the age of forty-three. He did not die in Utah, but at the home of fellow witness David Whitmer, who had been excommunicated from the church.
July 1938 - The Church's Elders' Journal stated "... on account of the unfaithfulness of Oliver Cowdery ... and [his] opposition to our beloved brother Joseph Smith, Jr ... [he has] been excluded from fellowship."
In 1841 the Mormons published a poem which stated "... Or Book of Mormon not his word, because denied by Oliver...". Seasons and Times, Vol 2, p482.
DAVID WHITMER - Was born in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in 1805 and was raised in a Presbyterian home. In 1828 he heard about JS through Oliver Cowdery, while visiting Palmyra NY, on a business trip. He served as a scribe to JS during the alleged translation period in 1829 at the age of 24. He was baptized into the church in 1830. He married Julia Ann Jolly 1831, and they had two children. He left the church in 1937 and was labeled an apostate. He was subsequently EXCOMMUNICATED in 1838. He was requested to lead the RLDS church, but declined their offer and any affiliation with them. He died in Richmond Missouri in 1888 at the age of 83 years old and never re-joined the church.
"If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; 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'... [Address to all believers in Christ, p27, 1887.]
MARTIN HARRIS - Was born in Easttown, New York in 1783. He moved with his family to Palmyra NY when he was 9 years old. He met JS in 1827 at the age of 44. At the time he was married to his first-cousin, Lucy Harris and they had three children together. Harris served as JS's first scribe for the alleged BoM in 1828 at the age of 45, but was removed shortly thereafter, for making sarcastic remarks. He was later re-instated as a scribe shortly after providing JS with $3,000 for expense of printing the first edition of the BoM. In [D&C Sec. 58 - 35] it talks about Harris being the first one called of God, by name to set the example before the church in laying his money before the Bishop. After the death of his wife Lucy, he married Caroline Young in 1837 and had 5 children with her. He was EXCOMMUNICATED in 1837. Five years after his excommunication, he was re-baptized in 1842. He was excommunicated AGAIN for the SECOND TIME, in 1842. He was subsequently re-baptized in 1870, 28 years after his second excommunication. During his life span, Harris changed his religious affiliation over 13 times. He died in 1875 in Clarkston Utah at the age of 92 years old after suffering a debilitating stroke.
The Mormons stated of Martin Harris, and a few other men within the pages of the church's official newspaper at the time, "a lying deceptive spirit attend them ... they are of their father, the devil ... The very countenance of Harris will show to every spiritual-minded person who sees him, that the wrath of God is upon him." [Latter-Day Saint's, Millennial Star, Vol 8 pp124-128.]
CHRISTIAN WHITMER - born Jan 18, 1798 Penn.- Married Feb 22, 1827 to Anne Schott. Baptized April 11, 1830 - June 1830 / ordained teacher, 1831 ordained elder, Aug 21, 1833 ordained high priest - Died Nov 27, 1835 - Died 6 years after his testimony in the BOM ... BEFORE his other family members were Excommunicated.
JACOB WHITMER - born Jan 27, 1800 Penn - Married Sept 29, 1825 - Baptized April 11, 1830 - 1838 - VOLUNTARILY LEFT THE CHURCH - Died April 21, 1856
PETER WHITMER, JR. - born Sept 27, 1809 Fayette, Seneca Co, NY - Married Oct 14, 1832 Vashti Higley - June 9, 1830 baptized & ordained elder - Oct 25, 1831 ordained high priest - Died Sept 22, 1836 - Died 7 years after his testimony in the BOM ... BEFORE his other family members were Excommunicated.
JOHN WHITMER - Son of Peter Whitmer, Sr. and Mary (Musselman). Born August 27, 1802. Married Sarah Maria (Jackson). EXCOMMUNICATED in 1838. Died on 11 July 1878.
HIRAM PAGE - Born 1800 Vermont - Married Nov 10, 1825 to Catherine Whitmer - Baptized April 11, 1830 - June 9, 1830 ordained teacher - Hiram remained affiliated with David Whitmer while considering the possibility of establishing a religious alternative to institutional Mormonism. In 1838 VOLUNTARILY LEFT THE CHURCH when members of Whitmer family were excommunicated. Died Aug 12, 1852
JOSEPH SMITH, SR. - [Father of JS] - Born 1771, Topsfield, Massachusetts - Married Lucy Mack 1796; eleven children - Baptized April 6, 1830 - Mission to St. Lawrence County, New York 1830 - Ordained to the High Priesthood 1831 - Ordained Patriarch to the Church 1833 - Appointed Assistant Counselor to First Presidency 1837 - Died 1840 of consumption, Nauvoo, Illinois.
HYRUM SMITH - [Brother to JS] - Born 1804 Tunbridge, Vermont - Baptized 1829 - Assistant President of the Church, 1834 - Counselor in the First Presidency - Patriarch to the Church - Named Second Elder of the Church following Oliver Cowdery's excommunication - Associate President of the Church - Died in 1844 Carthage, Illinois with his brother JS.
SAMUEL H. SMITH - [Brother to JS] - born March 13, 1808 - b. Tunbridge, Orange Co, VT - Married Aug 13, 1834 Mary Bailey - June 9, 1830 ordained elder - June 3, 1831 ordained high priest - 1834-38 member of Kirtland High Council - March 1838 moved to Far West - January 1841 called to Presiding Bishopric of church - Died July 30, 1844.
The following quote comes from one of the most noted pro-LDS Mormon historians and apologists, Richard Bushman:
“Now, most historians, Mormon or not, who work with the sources, accept as fact Joseph Smith’s career as village magician. Too many of his closest friends and family admitted as much, and some of Joseph’s own revelations support the contention.”
- Richard L. Bushman, Mormon historian, “Treasure-seeking Then and Now,” Sunstone, v. 11, September 1987, p. 5
We've all seen very impressive things that magicians can do from baffling us with amazing street magic to making the Statue of Liberty disappear. And most magic is not done with high-tech devices. Most magic is done with props and tricks possible to perform in the 19th century when Joseph lived.
In Michael's Quinn's book Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, he talks about a man named Walter the Magician who knew Joseph. He was reportedly skilled in the art of hypnotism. He briefly joined the church. It's quite possible that Joseph may have learned enough hypnotism from Walters the magician and used some form of it on the witnesses. Also possible that he used other magician's tricks learned from Walters to make the witnesses believe they saw an angel.
Reference: Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, Quinn. (starting on page 117)
There is no hardcore evidence that Oliver denied his testimony. The church has always maintained that Oliver held true to his testimony even after he left the church and this is supported by statements made by David Whitmer and others. But there are several reports that perhaps Oliver did deny his testimony, if only briefly or in confidence.
The following poem was published in the Church-owned newspaper Times and Seasons in 1841 (vol. 2, p.482):
Or does it prove there is no time,
Because some watches will not go?
............................................................
Or prove that Christ was not the Lord
Because that Peter cursed and swore?
Or Book of Mormon not His word
Because denied, by Oliver?
A poem is hardly convincing evidence but the fact that it was printed in the LDS Church-owned newspaper (Joseph Smith was an editor of the Times and Seasons) gives it some credibility.
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech5a.htm
http://www.centerplace.org/history/ts/v2n18.htm
Stephen Van Eck, in his article, "The Book of Mormon: One Too Many M's," writes that Oliver Cowdery admitted to his law firm colleague, Judge W. Lang, that the Book of Mormon was a hoax, manufactured from Solomon Spalding's unpublished novel, "Manuscript Found": [note this is not referring to the novel called "Manuscript Story" which was found and published by the LDS and RLDS Church under the name "Manuscript Found". This refers to another undiscovered novel originally called "Manuscript Found"].
" ... W. Lang, whose law firm the excommunicated Oliver Cowdery joined, ... wrote, 'The plates were never translated and could not be, and were never intended to be.' (This suggests that Cowdery still believed that there were actually plates.)
"'What is claimed to be a translation is "The Manuscript Found" worked over by C.' (Cowdery) 'He was the best scholar among them.'...
"'Rigdon got the original at the job printing office in Pittsburgh ... Without going into detail or disclosing a confidential word, I can say to you that I do know, as well as can now be known, that C. revised the manuscript and that Smith and Rigdon approved of it before it became the Book of Mormon.'
Eck concludes from Lang's confession the following:
"Apparently Cowdery had admitted the hoax to Lang, but took all the credit for it.
"This is not consistent with Cowdery being the servile follower of Smith that he had been. Had Cowdery given Smith the completed manuscript, furthermore, losing the first 116 pages of the dictated 'translation' would have scarcely been a problem. Cowdery, despite his apparent boasting to Lang, can be considered a collaborator at best, but a conspirator at least."
Also, former apostle William McLellin, who left the church and later wrote against it, once remarked that Oliver Cowdery would bear strong testimony of the BOM when amongst the saints, but when he was half-drunk, he would admit that it was all "a bottle of smoke." http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/UT/tribune1.htm
Lorenzo Saunders, a neighbor of the Smith's, gave statements in 1885 and 1887 implicating both Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon in the production of the Book of Mormon.
In his 1885 statement, Saunders said:
“As respecting Oliver Cowdery, he came from Kirtland in the summer of 1826 and was about there [i.e. the Smith’s farm] until fall and took a school in the district where the Smiths lived and the next summer he was missing and I didn’t see him until fall and he came back and took our school in the district where we lived and taught about a week and went to the schoolboard and wanted the board to let him off and they did and he went to Smith and went to writing the Book of Mormon and wrote all winter. The Mormons say it wasn’t wrote there but I say it was because I was there. I saw Sidney Rigdon in the spring of 1827, about the middle of March. I went to Smiths to eat maple sugar, and I saw five or six men standing in a group and there was one among them better dressed than the rest and I asked Harrison Smith who he was and he said his name was Sidney Rigdon, a friend of Joseph’s from Pennsylvania.
I saw him in the Fall of 1827 on the road between where I lived and Palmyra, with Joseph. I was with a man by the name of Ingersol. They talked together and when he went on I asked Ingersol who he was and he said it was Rigdon. Then in the summer of 1828 I saw him at Samuel Lawrence’s just before harvest. I was cutting corn for Lawrence and went to dinner and he took dinner with us and when dinner was over they went into another room and I didn’t see him again till he came to Palmyra to preach. You wanted to know how Smith acted about it. The next morning after he claimed to have got plates he came to our house and said he had got the plates and what a struggle he had in getting home with them. Two men tackled him and he fought and knocked them both down and made his escape and secured the plates and had them safe and secure. He showed his thumb where he bruised it in fighting those men.
After [he] went from the house, my mother says ‘What a liar Joseph Smith is; he lies every word he says; I know he lies because he looks so guilty; he can’t see out of his eyes; how dare [he] tell such a lie as that.’ The time he claimed to have taken the plates from the hill was on the 22 day of September, in 1827, and I went on the next Sunday following with five or six other ones and we hunted the side hill by course [i.e. “in a search pattern”] and could not find no place where the ground had been broke. There was a large hole where the money diggers had dug a year or two before, but no fresh dirt. There never was such a hole; there never was any plates taken out of that hill nor any other hill in country, was in Wayne county. It is all a lie. No, sir, I never saw the plates nor no one else. He had an old glass box [i.e. a box used for holding plates or panes of glass] with a tile in it, about 7x8 inches, and that was the gold plates[;] and Martin Harris didn’t know a gold plate from a brick at this time.
Smith and Rigdon had an intimacy but it was very secret and still and there was a mediator between them and that was Cowdery. The manuscript was stolen by Rigdon and modelled over by him and then handed over to Cowdery and he copied them and Smith sat behind the curtain and handed them out to Cowdery and as fast as Cowdery copied them, they was handed over to Martin Harris and he took them to Egbert Granden [sic], the one who printed them, and Gilbert set the type.”
Lorenzo Saunders, Letter to Thomas Gregg, 28 January 1885 , Charles A. Shook, The True Origin of the Book of Mormon (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Co., 1914, p. 132-33). Cited in: Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1996-2000, 3:177-79.
Critic's comment: Although the reported admission by Oliver Cowdery from Judge Lang and William McLellin are only the testimonies of two men, why should they be merely dismissed? Their testimonies, as well as others that corroborated their stories such as Lorenzo Saunders, should be given consideration as much as Oliver's testimony in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Why did Oliver rejoin the Saints?
The question many people have is why did Oliver rejoin the saints if he was an apostate or if he was a co-conspirator? Some people believe that when Oliver rejoined the saints he did it because he was hoping he could convince the saints to abandon polygamy which he was strongly against. Unfortunately Oliver died in Missouri shortly after attempting the journey out West at age 43.
It's interesting to note that Cowdery's funeral was conducted by a Methodist church and not the Mormon church.
More on Oliver Cowdery's life.
We regret that we could not find this issue discussed in sufficient detail in any church publication or web site. We have, however, discussed this issue with several true-believing members to get their input as well as LDS apologists and summarized their positions.
There are many statements saying the witnesses really saw and handled the plates with their own eyes and hands. Why should I discount these statements because some other visionary statements may have also been made by the witnesses?
If the plates were real then why would the following phrases also be used when the witnesses described seeing the plates; 'While praying I passed into a state of entrancement, and in that state I saw the angel and the plates', 'I never saw the gold plates, only in a visionary or entranced state', 'he only saw the plates with a spiritual eye', 'a visionary experience', 'seeing with the eyes of understanding', 'as shown in the vision', ' never saw the plates with his natural eyes but only in vision or imagination', 'I did not see them uncovered, but I handled them and hefted them while wrapped in a tow frock', 'they were shown to me by a supernatural power', 'No, I saw them with a spiritual eye', "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.
In the times Joseph lived people believed in magic. Having visions was not that uncommon. Joseph's family also believed in magic and the power of seer stones. Oliver Cowdery used a divining rod. People believed in something called 'second sight' where people would see things as a vision in their mind. Joseph and his peers believed in it so strongly that they would actually go and try to dig up treasure that they saw in their minds - always to no avail.
To these people that believed in 'second sight', saying they saw something with their natural eyes or in this 'second sight' made no difference to them. To them it was real either way so they would often for simplicity sake say they saw something and leave it at that, which gives the impression that they saw something with their natural eyes as they would see anything else, yet they may have only saw it as a 'second sight' experience.
On the other hand, if they simply saw the plates just like everyone sees any tangible object then why on earth would they say any of these strange statements indicating it was not a normal experience like 'I never saw them only as I see a city through a mountain?' Have you ever tried to look at a city through a mountain???
If these were real tangible plates then none of those absurd statements would have ever been made by the witnesses. Why would you need a vision to see real, physical plates that Joseph said were in a box that he carried around? When Martin Harris was asked "Martin, did you see those plates with your naked eyes?" Martin looked down for an instant, raised his eyes up, and said, 'No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.' Why wouldn't Martin have simply said 'Yes'?
Another possibility is that Joseph simply made a prop sufficient to fool people if shown to them briefly. After working people up into a frenzy through constant, intense prayer, he may have uncovered the prop plates he made for a quick viewing. Jesse Strang and the hoaxers involved in the Kinderhook Plates both made fake plates sufficient to fool the public under a detailed visual inspection. It would not be that hard for Joseph to make a prop that was perhaps only exposed once very briefly for a minute or so and maybe was under dimly-lit circumstances. Joseph also had $5,000 given to him by Martin Harris for the production of the Book of Mormon so he may have even used a small portion of that money for this purpose.
Some doubters once asked a world-famous psychologist how three or more people could be simultaneously deceived by an identical vision. His answer was that the vision must have occurred. Plates could have been faked but how about convincing three people that they had all seen an angel?
I've heard the psychologist argument many times but why doesn't it also apply to the Shakers that saw angels together or other groups of people that claim to see the Virgin Mary, Big Foot, The Lochness Monster, UFOs, aliens, etc.? Latter-day Saints seem to discount those people easy enough as liars, conspirators, delusional or gullible but for some reason they believe the BOM witnesses for equally fantastic claims.
The three witnesses didn't even see the angel all at the same time. Only David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery reportedly saw the angel together and Martin some time later perhaps as long as three days later. It is likely they were fasting, engaged in fervent prayer for a long time maybe several hours. Through the power of suggestion, Joseph may have influenced them enough that they thought they saw something. This is exactly what Joseph and the money diggers did. They saw treasure in their minds, convinced themselves it was real and then actually tried to dig it up.
Now if just Oliver was in on it, and said he was seeing something, that may have been enough to convince David Whitmer that he was seeing something too or maybe he would just go along with it so they wouldn't think he was unworthy or lacking faith like they thought of Martin which us why he had to leave the group.
There are so many other possibilities such as the influence of alcohol, drugs, hypnotism, second-sight 1800s thinking, the power of suggestion, they simply lied, dreams, hallucination, hallucinogenic mushrooms or other plants, an accomplice dressed up as angel, money scheme, magician's tricks, peer pressure by witnesses colluding with Joseph, etc. to explain their testimonies. To readily believe the witnesses reported story based merely on reading their testimonies in a book, without looking at all the related facts, is a bit premature.
One important thing to remember is the times that these people lived. If three people today said they saw an angel, and if we actually believed them, we would think they saw it with their own eyes as if we would see anything else. But if someone in the early 1800s said they saw an angel, it may have been a 'second sight' or visionary experience that may have not been real.
See this very interesting Sunstone Symposium article discussing possible drug use by the early saints:
Also, please read this article discussing the visions reported by many of the early saints and possible links to alcohol and hallucinogenic mushrooms : Mormon Visions and the Gift of the Holy Ghost
Some of the witnesses left the church and had a severe falling out with Joseph. If just one of the witnesses had admitted it was all a hoax, that would have destroyed the church. Why wouldn't any of these people, that later resented Joseph, have done this to get back at him?
Of course his father and brothers would probably always be loyal to Joseph no matter what. But assuming the witnesses were lying, why would the witnesses that were not loyal to Joseph, just admit the truth some time in the future to expose Joseph after leaving the church?
We can think of a few reasons. Many people hated the Mormons. Can you imagine what would happen if Oliver Cowdery had said "I helped create the Mormon hoax. I lied and as a result many of your daughters ended up in polygamous marriages and some of your husbands and sons were killed in skirmishes with the Mormons - please come and tar and feather me at your convenience".
Also fear of the more zealous members of the church such as the Danites or 'Whistlers' which took matters into their own hands when they perceived threats to the church. Also, why would they want to admit they are liars and possibly hurt their careers or reputations when they could simply say nothing further about the matter and get on with their lives?
Note: Many critics don't think the witnesses lied but rather they may have been misled by Joseph. They probably earnestly believed they saw plates or an angel and in the times they lived, seeing strange, supernatural events or visions wasn't all that unusual.
Joseph had the plates in a box and at times left the box under a bed or exposed where his wife Emma could have looked into it if she really wanted to. Wasn't Joseph taking a huge risk if he did not have the golden plates in the box?
Joseph had everyone so afraid that they would be killed instantly if they looked at the plates without God's permission that most would not dare look. They probably thought about the story of Lot's wife that turned to a pillar of salt after looking back at Sodom and Gomorrah. This further illustrates the magical mindset that these people that lived in the early 1800s had.
Also, given Joseph's other absurd explanations to events like why he didn't simply retranslate the lost 116 pages of the BOM, we could picture Joseph saying something like "Oh Emma, the Lord told me you would be tempted to look at the plates and if you did he would have to destroy you. I was desirous that would not happen so I substituted rocks for the plates in the box so you would not be destroyed as I love you so."
More likely at some point he did make a prop that he kept in the box and that may have been sufficient to fool his wife or anyone else that was able to get a glimpse of what was in the box.
[top]What are the facts? Eleven men claimed to witness the existence of plates they believed were the source for the Book of Mormon. Three of these men admitted the experience was subjective and visionary. Each of the first three witnesses saw the plates in a vision for the first time in a different place and time. The other eight witnesses were closely related to Joseph Smith either by blood or marriage. Only three of them claimed to see and handle that which had the appearance of being plates of gold, and could testify Joseph did have something that resembled plates with etchings after signing their name to the testimony document. Many of these witnesses left Joseph Smith and the organization that he started, believing at best that he was a fallen and false prophet. Joseph Smith himself, called into question the general character and reliability of several of these men. This, in spite of the fact that they were close friends and family of Joseph Smith.
By 1847 not a single one of the surviving eleven witnesses (except those related to Joseph Smith) was part of the Mormon Church. Five of these witnesses joined The Church of Christ started by William McLellin; Oliver Cowdery indicated he was supportive of this group though he never joined (BYU Professor D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy, 1994, p. 188). If these men were alive today, the LDS church would label them apostates. They would be cut off from the LDS church and condemned to outer darkness, regardless of whether or not they still believed in the Book of Mormon.
The LDS Church wants an investigator to accept the testimony of these men as reliable; however, it does not want us to accept their later statements that the Church had lapsed into error and blindness.
These historical facts highlight another thread of Mormon history that has been misrepresented by LDS Church leaders. The witnesses' testimonies as a whole are presented as objective, solid, and irrefutable, but upon close examination are seen to be subjective, ambiguous and, at times, contradictory.
Another thread of the traditional Mormon story that is seriously misrepresented by the LDS church has to do with the discovery and translation of the supposed gold plates of the Book of Mormon. The testimony of those who were closest to Joseph Smith state unequivocally that Joseph never used the plates while doing the translation, he used his seer stone in his hat to both discover and translate the Book of Mormon. (Richard Van Wagoner & Steve Walker, "Joseph Smith: 'The Gift of Seeing,'" in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 15:2, Summer 1982, p. 53) If the plates were never used in the translation process, why the need for witnesses? Does this prove the plates were a true historical artifact versus a prop Joseph put together? No. The witnesses could only testify as to appearance, and Joseph Smith himself was later duped by forged plates in the Kinderhook incident.
- Joel B. Groat
That the Three Witnesses were a gullible sort is illustrated by an incident in July, 1837. Joseph had left on a five-week missionary tour to Canada, only to find on his return that all three of the Witnesses had joined a faction opposing him. This faction rallied around a young girl who claimed to be a seeress by virtue of a black stone in which she read the future. David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and Oliver Cowdery all pledged her their loyalty, and Frederick G. Williams, formerly Joseph's First Counselor, became her scribe. The girl seeress would dance herself into a state of exhaustion, fall to the floor, and burst forth with revelations. (See Lucy Smith: Biographical Sketches, pp. 211-213).
http://trialsofascension.net/mormon/defections.html
Why would Joseph's brother William, who also claimed to be a witness to the plates, make the following statement:
"I did not see them uncovered, but I handled them and hefted them while wrapped in a tow frock and judged them to have weighed about sixty pounds. ... Father and my brother Samuel saw them as I did while in the frock. So did Hyrum and others of the family." (Zion's Ensign, p. 6, January 13, 1894).
When William was asked if he wanted to remove the cloth . he replied . "No, for father had just asked if he might not be permitted to do so, and Joseph, putting his hand on them said; 'No, I am instructed not to show them to any one. If I do, I will transgress and lose them again.' Besides, we did not care to have him break the commandment and suffer as he did before." (Zion's Ensign, p. 6, January 13, 1894, cited in Church of Christ broadside.)
Joseph's brother Samuel and Joseph's father are listed as two of the eight witnesses, but based on brother William's statement it appears that Samuel and Joseph Sr. did not see the plates uncovered.
Several other accounts say Joseph had the plates wrapped up in a "tow frock" and would allow people to heft them and feel their weight--but not view them. Many other statements and interviews exist that contradict the official witness' testimonies. While one may attempt to claim the debatable point that none of the witnesses ever denied their testimony, I would point out that to admit to falsifying a written, sworn oath of such importance would be so damaging to the witnesses' reputation that he would never recover from it, and therefore it would be better to remain silent.
Another piece to this baffling puzzle is supplied with a letter by Stephen Burnett:
"I have reflected long and deliberately upon the history of this church & weighed the evidence for & against it loth (sic) to give it up - but when I came to hear Martin Harris state in public that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver [Cowdery] nor David [Whitmer] & that the eight witnesses never saw them & hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it, the last pedestal gave way, in my view our foundation was sapped & the entire superstructure fell in heap of ruins. "(Stephen Burnett letter to Lyman E. Johnson dated April 15, 1838. Typed transcript from Joseph Smith Papers, Letter book, April 20, 1837 - February 9, 1843, microfilm reel 2, pp. 64-66, LDS archives.)
(Also quoted in Persuitte's Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon, p. 47)
Do you think there is any evidence the plates actually existed? Do you think it is possible that the witness' faith deceived them into thinking the plates existed? My own interpretation of the evidence is that Smith put a heavy object in a box, wrapped a cloth around it and allowed people to lift it but not look inside, claiming conveniently a God-given commandment to show no one lest they be destroyed. He used his substantial manipulative powers, as well as the witnesses' own strong desire to believe, to coach and prod them into thinking they had received revelation. He used the concepts of God, faith, prayer, and guilt to his advantage.
We're told to walk by faith and not to base our testimony on archeological or other physical evidence (or the lack of it) and yet the church uses the witnesses as 'evidence' that the church is true. Defenders of the faith often demand that critics explain the witnesses' statements, yet ignore all the other evidence against the church.
Many critics believe think Rigdon and Cowdery were in on it, although there's no evidence to prove that they met prior to their official meeting according to church history. Cowdery and Smith were distant cousins, and they knew each other prior to Oliver becoming his scribe. Church history paints them as meeting up for the first time as relatively unknown to each other, not as familial relations.
Harris was a religious fanatic that Smith may have used as a mark to extort for money. Once he paid into Smith's scam, he had a vested interest in making Smith's claims a reality. Harris was out of reality in many ways. Martin Harris claimed to have seen Jesus in the form of a deer and walked along side and conversed with him for two or three miles. (Interview with John A. Clark, Episcopal priest from Palmyra, found in two Ohio newspapers printed Harris's descriptions of Jesus and the devil, both of whom he had claimed to see. See Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents Vol 2 page 271.) This man was not mentally sound, and Smith knew it and took advantage of him.
Also, former apostle William McLellin, who left the church and later wrote against it, once remarked that Oliver Cowdery would bear strong testimony of the BOM when amongst the saints, but when he was half-drunk, he would admit that it was all "a bottle of smoke." Ref: http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/UT/tribune1.htm
No objective party was ever allowed to see the golden book because it was too sacred. However, Joseph had to keep changing the hiding place so it wouldn't get stolen. How is a book is too sacred to be seen, but not to be stolen?
Joseph claimed that he had in his possession a sacred manuscript written by Abraham and Joseph who was sold into Egypt. Did he hide the papyri and have a few of his followers sign a paper that they had seen it? No, he put it on display and charged 25 cents to see it. It was there for the world to see. So we see how Joseph Smith treats REAL ancient documents when he has them.
[top]Many of us use to hold on to the witnesses' testimonies as a solid rock when evaluating our own testimonies. Now we're not so sure. There are many things that conflict with the standard accounts told in church regarding their testimonies. In support of the story as told within the church, are statements from witnesses saying things like 'the plates were uncovered into our hands, and we turned the leaves sufficient to satisfy us'.
Yet, if the plates were real then why would the following phrases also be used when describing seeing the plates; 'While praying I passed into a state of entrancement, and in that state I saw the angel and the plates', 'I never saw the gold plates, only in a visionary or entranced state', 'he only saw the plates with a spiritual eye', 'a visionary experience', 'seeing with the eyes of understanding', 'as shown in the vision', ' never saw the plates with his natural eyes but only in vision or imagination', 'I did not see them uncovered, but I handled them and hefted them while wrapped in a tow frock', 'they were shown to me by a supernatural power', 'No, I saw them with a spiritual eye', "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.
There are just so many accounts from nonbiased sources like John H. Gilbert, the typesetter for the Book of Mormon, who did not really say anything disparaging about Mormons or the Book of Mormon, yet said the following: Martin was in the office when I finished setting up the testimony of the Three Witnesses-- ([Martin] Harris--[Oliver] Cowdery and [David] Whitmer). I said to him, "Martin, did you see those plates with your naked eyes?" Martin looked down for an instant, raised his eyes up, and said, "No, I saw them with a spiritual eye." http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/JHGilbert.html
So why not simply say YES Martin? Why do people need a vision to see metal plates?
Perhaps like Governor Ford may have suggested, the witnesses, after being in fervent prayer and fasting were persuaded that they saw the plates in a box when they really didn't or they got a glimpse of a prop of the plates. But there was obviously something in the box or tow frock. Too many people claim to have seen a container (a box, tow frock, etc.) that they were told held the plates. When Joseph was being chased through the woods, he had to carry the plates. When people came looking for the plates, he had no choice but to hide them in the woods or in some other real, earthly place. He couldn't whisk them away into heaven or some other dimension so whatever he had was a real tangible object. Now the question is what was in the box he claimed held the plates?
If the plates weren't real golden plates, Joseph could may just have had rocks or sand in a box as some claimed then later on he built a simple prop that would work fine if someone briefly felt them through a cloth container but would probably fail under a close, detailed visual inspection. Jesse Strang and the hoaxers involved in the Kinderhook Plates both made fake plates sufficient to fool the public under a detailed visual inspection so how hard would it be for someone to make a prop that was always kept in a cloth or box?
Why would 2/3 of the Book of Mormon be sealed? The sealed portion was never translated and never will be. It would make sense that if 2/3 of the book were sealed, Joseph would not need to make a lot of individual plates if he made a prop. He could have a solid block of iron or some other metal that would give his plates a lot of weight, but only make a few plates on top with engravings on them to be felt through a cloth or even briefly shown to the witnesses.
The plates were not obviously made of solid gold as that would weigh too much and be too malleable to be useful. The plates were estimated, by heaving the container they were placed in, to be between 40 and 60 pounds. It could have been an alloy. If they were real then an alloy of gold and a lighter metal would be possible. If it was a prop, then polished copper or even tin plates painted gold would have been sufficient to give 'the appearance of gold' for the few plates needed at the top of the block of 'sealed' plates.
The experiences of the 3 and 8 witnesses should really be looked at separately. The 8 witnesses claimed to have seen some plates. OK, how significant is that? Joseph or others could have fabricated a set of plates sufficient to fool people if shown to them briefly as discussed above. The 8 witnesses may have really saw some plates but they could not possibly ascertain that the plates were the word of God written thousands of years ago.
The 3 witnesses should really be the only focus of real discussion as faking an angel is a lot more difficult than a set of plates. Also 3 witnesses are a lot less impressive than 11 especially when the 3 witnesses didn't even see the angel all at the same time. So we think their stories are very compelling but every potentially relevant detail of their alleged experience should be scrutinized.
If the angel portion isn't real, then why did these men say they saw one? It's harder to fake seeing an angel than fabricating some metal plates. Of course it's also easier to conspire with three people than it is with 11.
When Joseph was asked about what Martin Harris saw, as Martin did not see the angel until perhaps three days later than Oliver and David reportedly did, Joseph described the angelic appearance and said that he didn't know what Martin saw, I can only tell you what I saw. This seems to suggest that it was a vision and not a real physical event otherwise why say he couldn't tell what Martin saw when Martin was in the same place as Joseph? If it was simply one of the visions that people of that time period often say they saw, then whatever Martin saw was likely coming from his own mind. Also Martin had a big financial stake in the success of the Book of Mormon and that could have influenced him.
In the times Joseph lived people believed in magic. Having visions was not that uncommon. Joseph's family also believed in magic and the power of seer stones. Oliver Cowdery used a divining rod. People believed in something called 'second sight' where people would see things as a vision in their mind. Joseph and his peers believed in it so strongly that they would actually go and try to dig up treasure that they saw in their minds - always to no avail. So the witnesses may have very well have seen this event as a visionary experience just like many people of that era claim to see strange visions and have 'second-sight' experiences.
We think David Whitmer's statements are particularly interesting when he said "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; 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, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them."
If David Whitmer was telling the truth then that means the LDS church after that time was not God's favored church and can't be so today. Or perhaps if he could be deluded enough to believe that God was speaking to him then, he could be deluded enough to claim he saw an angel. If David Whitmer was lying about saying God spoke to him telling him to leave the church, then why believe his statements about him being a witness to the divinity of the Book of Mormon?
The FAIR apologists say that Whitmer was excommunicated the month before God supposedly told him to separate himself from the saints. They believe God told him that so he wouldn't be killed by 'Danite-type' LDS who wished to kill him for some reason.
If God was actually going to make one of his rare direct communications with this elect man, maybe he would have told him to get himself back into his one, true church. Instead he tells him merely to leave the area. Would God want Brother Whitmer to remain out of the church and therefore end up in Outer Darkness as he would be considered someone who knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that the church was true but still left it? Either God isn’t very caring or this never happened as FAIR theorizes it did. Either way it doesn’t sound like he’s the most reliable witness.
Whitmer's main assertion was that the BOM was true but that the church had fallen into apostasy with the changing revelations, adoption of polygamy, etc. That of course is a possibility also. Click here to see a critic's response to FAIR's defense of Whitmer's statement.
Mark Twain had read the Book of Mormon and commented on the witnesses. Twain rejected the Book of Mormon as scripture. Regarding the testimony of the witnesses, he quipped "I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified." http://www.helpingmormons.org/twain.htm
This echoes our feeling about the nature of the eleven witnesses - five were Whitmers, three were Smiths (Joseph's brothers and father) and Hiram Page, who was married to the Whitmer's sister, Catherine. Another Whitmer sister, Elizabeth, married Oliver Cowdery who was also a distant cousin to Joseph Smith himself. So, all the witnesses, except Martin Harris, were related to one another.
After examining all the information we could find on the witnesses, the testimony of the three witnesses come into greater focus and context: rather than being ironclad proclamations of objective truth, they instead are the fruit of popular sentiment based upon blind faith in a lie. They wanted to believe and Smith wanted them to believe. Such a situation could only lead in one direction: that of self-fulfilling prophecy. Unfortunately this "testimony" has no basis in fact whatsoever and proves nothing, except that when people are determined to believe in something, no matter how questionable, nothing will stop them.
To be totally objective, we would conclude that the witnesses neither prove nor disprove the Book of Mormon. It does provide compelling circumstantial evidence to support Joseph. Yet the simple story of the witnesses told in Sunday School is incomplete and there are some issues that make the story seem much less believable once the rest of the history is known. As some church members have said 'the witnesses are not supposed to prove the BOM true' - and they don't.
So in conclusion, we think the witnesses testimonies should be definitely considered when evaluating the validity of the Book of Mormon. However, the testimonies of the witnesses do not appear to be the factual, unquestionably objective event the LDS Church often portrays it to be.
[top]Supporting the critics:
Supporting the church:
__________________
More Topics
__________________
Other
RSS | Site Map | Links
Print
Mapping Book of Mormon Historicity Debates
Michael Quinn
Richard Bushman
Lyndon Lamborn
The Joseph Smith Papers Project