Videos by The Interpreter Foundation.

John Whitmer (1876): "I have never heard that any one of the three or eight witnesses ever denied the testimony that they have borne to the Book as published in the first edition of the Book of Mormon"

In 1876, John Whitmer, one of the Eight Witnesses, wrote a lengthy letter to Mark Forscutt, which included the following:

Oliver Cowdery lived in Richmond, Mo., some 40 miles from here, at the time of his death. I went to see him and was with him for some days previous to his demise. I have never heard him deny the truth of his testimony of the Book of Mormon under any circumstances whatever. . . . Neither do I believe that he would have denied, at the peril of his life; so firm was he that he could not be made to deny what he has affirmed to be a divine revelation from God. . . .

I have never heard that any one of the three or eight witnesses ever denied the testimony that they have borne to the Book as published in the first edition of the Book of Mormon. There are only two of the witnesses to that book now living, to wit., David Whitmer, one of the three, and John Wh[itmer], one of the eight. Our names have gone forth to all nations, tongues and people as a divine revelation from God. And it will bring to pass the designs of God according to the declaration therein contained.^[1]

John Whitmer's character

"Mr. [John] Whitmer is considered a truthful, honest and law abiding citizen by this community, and consequently, his appointment [to preach] drew out a large audience. Mr. Whitmer stated that he had often handled the identical golden plates which Mr. Smith received from the angel...."^[2]

Question: Did the witnesses to the Book of Mormon realize that they would be ridiculed and not believed?

The witnesses were not naive

They knew that they would not be believed by many, and would suffer ridicule or personal/professional costs. Despite this, they stuck to their claims.

David Whitmer recalled:

"When we were first told to publish our statement, we felt sure the people would not believe it, for the Book told of a people who were refined and dwelt in large cities; but the Lord told us that He would make it known to the people, and people should discover the ruins of the lost cities and abundant evidence of the truth of what is written in the Book."^[3]

Question: What might the witnesses to the Book of Mormon have gained if they had denied their testimonies?

The witnesses had much to gain by denying their experiences

Martin Harris noted that he would have been well-paid if he was willing to deny his witness:

A few hours before his death and when he was so weak and enfeebled that he was unable to recognize me or anyone, and knew not to whom he was speaking, I asked him if he did not feel that there was an element at least, of fraudulence and deception in the things that were written and told of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and he replied as he had always done so many, many times in my hearing the same spirit he always manifested when enjoying health and vigor and said: ‘The Book of Mormon is no fake. I know what I know. I have seen what I have seen and I have heard what I have heard. I have seen the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon is written. An angel appeared to me and others and testified to the truthfulness of the record, and had I been willing to have perjured myself and sworn falsely to the testimony I now bear I could have been a rich man, but I could not have testified other than I have done and am now doing for these things are true.^[4]

One non-member noted that the excommunicated Oliver Cowdery would have been the editor of a Democratic Party newspaper, "but was dropped on the discovery that he was one of the seven founders of Mormonism."^[5] Cowdery would have been advantaged to have denied his witness, but did not. Later, in 1848, an opposing political party opposed Cowdery's Democratic candidacy partly because he was "one of the three witnesses to the discovery of the Golden Plates, or Mormon Bible, by Joe Smith."^[6] Richard Anderson noted that citations from the Book of Mormon were then used as "the basis of personal sarcasm against Cowdery."^[7] Again, Oliver would have been advantaged to distance himself from his testimony and witness, but did not.

Question: Did the witnesses disagree with their testimony after it was printed in the Book of Mormon?

The witnesses never refuted their testimony in the Book of Mormon. In fact, David Whitmer even affirmed it "as then made and published"

It is claimed that no document exists of the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses which contain their actual signatures, and that this somehow invalidates their testimonies as printed in the Book of Mormon, and that the witnesses statements in the Book of Mormon manuscript are written and signed only by Oliver Cowdery.

The claim that the witnesses somehow didn't agree with their testimony as it was printed in the Book of Mormon during the entire period of their lives is nonsense.

The printer's manuscript of the Book of Mormon is entirely in Oliver Cowdery's handwriting, including the witness statements

The printer's manuscript is a copy of the original Book of Mormon manuscript. This copy was made by Oliver Cowdery and taken to the printer. Therefore, the entire document is in Oliver's handwriting. The original manuscript was placed in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House.^[8] Years later, it was removed and found to have been mostly destroyed by water damage. As a result of this, we do not have the portion of the original Book of Mormon manuscript containing the witness statements. It should be noted that in the 1830 Book of Mormon, the witness statements were included at the end of the book, rather than at the front as they are today.

Question: Did the witnesses make clear statements regarding their testimonies?

The witnesses made very clear statements regarding their testimonies

We will let the Three Witnesses speak for themselves on this issue. In each case, they made statements confirming their testimonies near the end of their lives.

• David Whitmer affirms his testimony in 1881 as it is printed in the Book of Mormon years after he left the Church:

That I have never at any time, denied that testimony or any part thereof, which has so long since been published with that book as one of the three witnesses.

Those who know me best, well know that I have adhered to that testimony.—

And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do now again affirm the truth of all my statement[s], as then made and published. ^[9]

• Oliver Cowdery in 1829, shortly after his experience as a witness:

It was a clear, open beautiful day, far from any inhabitants, in a remote field, at the time we saw the record, of which it has been spoken, brought and laid before us, by an angel, arrayed in glorious light, [who] ascend [descended I suppose] out of the midst of heaven. Now if this is human juggling—judge ye. ^[10]

• Oliver Cowdery in 1848, years after he left the Church:

I wrote, with my own pen, the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph, as he translated it by the gift and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or as it is called by the book, Holy Interpreters. I beheld with my eyes, and handled with my hands, the gold plates from which it was transcribed. I also saw with my eyes and handled with my hands the Holy Interpreters. That book is true. ^[11]

• Martin Harris, right before his death:

The Book of Mormon is no fake. I know what I know. I have seen what I have seen and I have heard what I have heard. I have seen the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon is written. An angel appeared to me and others and testified to the truthfulness of the record, and had I been willing to have perjured myself and sworn falsely to the testimony I now bear I could have been a rich man, but I could not have testified other than I have done and am now doing for these things are true. ^[12]

Richard Anderson: All eleven Book of Mormon witnesses publicly reaffirmed their testimony as printed

Richard Anderson described multiple accounts of all the Witnesses bearing testimony and reaffirming their published testimony:^[13]

The three Smiths who formally gave their names as seeing and handling the plates were the Prophet's father, Joseph Smith, Sr.; the Prophet's older brother, Hyrum; and his immediately younger brother, Samuel Harrison. They sometimes joined the other Book of Mormon witnesses to reaffirm their testimony printed in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon regarding lifting and turning the leaves of the plates. After quoting the published statements of the Three and Eight Witnesses, and describing the experience of the latter group, Lucy Smith relates, "The ensuing evening, we held a meeting, in which all the witnesses bore testimony to the facts as stated above."^[14] Two years later, in the period of dynamic preaching of the early elders, a conference was held near Cleveland, Ohio, remembered by Luke Johnson as follows: "At this conference the eleven witnesses to the Book of Mormon, with uplifted hands, bore their solemn testimony to the truth of that book, as did also the Prophet Joseph."^[15]

Question: Does Doctrine and Covenants 5 stipulate that there be only three witnesses to the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated?

Introduction to Criticism

Readers of the Doctrine and Covenants have become puzzled by a verse that, at first blush, stipulates that there be only three witnesses to the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. The text reads as follows:

10 But this generation shall have my word through you;

11 And in addition to your testimony, the testimony of three of my servants, whom I shall call and ordain, unto whom I will show these things, and they shall go forth with my words that are given through you.

12 Yea, they shall know of a surety that these things are true, for from heaven will I declare it unto them.

13 I will give them power that they may behold and view these things as they are;

14 And to none else will I grant this power, to receive this same testimony among this generation, in this the beginning of the rising up and the coming forth of my church out of the wilderness—clear as the moon, and fair as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners.

15 And the testimony of three witnesses will I send forth of my word.

This may cause some stress for readers since there were at least 24 (and perhaps more) formal and informal witnesses to the gold plates--each with different experiences to recount.

This article will examine this criticism and another, closely-related criticism. Upon a closer reading of the text of the revelation, the concern should be eliminated.

Response to Criticism

The Actual Experiences of the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon Plates

First, we should reacquaint ourselves with what each of the formal and informal witnesses to the gold plates actually said (as far as such can be documented) about their experience.

There are the Three Witnesses—including David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris; and there are the Eight Witnesses--including Joseph Smith Sr., Hyrum Smith, Samuel H. Smith, Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer Jr., John Whitmer, and Hiram Page. Additionally, there are several informal witnesses--people who either saw, felt, and/or hefted the plates but were not required to give their names in a formal statement testifying to the plates’ reality. These witnesses include people such as Emma Smith, Lucy Mack Smith, Katharine Smith, Mary Mussellman Whitmer, Josiah Stowell, Alvah Beaman, Joseph Knight Sr., Luke Johnson, Harrison Burgess, Lucy Harris, Joseph McKune Sr., and Lyman Johnson.

The testimony of the Three Witnesses, as printed in every edition of the Book of Mormon since its publication, reads as follows:

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.

So the Three Witnesses:

1. Saw an angel come down from heaven and lay the plates before them
2. Saw the plates
3. Saw the engravings on the plates.
4. Heard the voice of God declare that the plates were translated by His gift and power.
5. Heard the Lord command them to testify of the Book of Mormon’s divinity.

The testimony of the Eight Witnesses, as printed in every edition of the Book of Mormon since its publication, reads as follows:

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.

So the Eight Witnesses:

1. Had Joseph Smith show them the plates
2. Handled, saw, and hefted the leaves from the plates
3. Saw the engravings on the plates

The informal witnesses’ experiences are as follows:

1. Emma Smith felt the plates through a cloth as she moved them around the house while cleaning and doing other chores.^[16]
2. Katherine Smith felt the plates through a cloth as she moved them around the house.^[17]
3. William Smith, Joseph Smith's younger brother, testified in June 1884 that when Joseph first brought the plates home, that "[Joseph's family] handled them and could tell what they were. They were not quite as large as this Bible. Could tell whether they were round or square. Could raise the leaves this way [he raises a few leaves of the Bible before him]. One could easily tell that they were not a stone, hewn out to deceive, or even a block of wood. Being a mixture of gold and copper, they were much heavier than stone, and very much heavier than wood."^[18] He also stated in 1883 that he saw Joseph bring the plates home from the hill wrapped in a tow frock. According to him, they weighed about 60 pounds.^[19]
4. Josiah Stowell “caught a glimpse of their corner as the covering slipped off when Joseph handed them to him[.]”^[20] Stowell said the plates “resembled a stone of a greenish caste,” which is consistent with the plates being made of a copper alloy which had oxidized.^[21]
5. Alvah Beaman “heard the metallic clinking of the plates as he helped move them around in [a] wooden chest[.]”^[22]
6. Mary Whitmer “saw both the plates and the angel. Her experience is interesting because, even though it includes the divine messenger, even he is portrayed in rather ordinary terms. He shows up as a man while she is out milking cows, he shows her the record, and then he is gone.”^[23]
7. Joseph Knight Sr. was among those at the Smith home when Joseph first retrieved the plates in 1827. According to William Smith, those present were allowed to feel and heft the plates.^[24]
8. According to Brigham Young in 1859, Luke Johnson, in a “vision of his mind,” saw that “the angel of God came and laid the plates before him, and he saw and handled them, and saw the angel, and conversed with him as he would with one of his friends.”^[25] John D. Lee visited Luke in 1846 and “asked him if the statement he signed about seeing the angel and the plates was true, if he did see the plates from which the Book of Mormon was printed or translated.” According to Lee, Johnson said it was true.^[26]
9. According to Lucy Mack Smith, Lucy Harris, Martin Harris's wife, saw the angel and plates. “She said that a personage had appeared to her the night before and said to her that inasmuch as she had disputed the servant of the Lord, said that his word was not to be believed, and asked him many improper questions, she had done that which was not right in the sight of God. Then he said, ‘Behold, here are the plates, look upon them and believe.’”^[27] According to Martin Harris in an 1859 interview with Joel Tiffany, Lucy also had the opportunity to lift the plates while contained in a glass box.^[28] Martin appears to have affirmed the same in a conference address he gave in 1870 in Salt Lake City.^[29]
10. According to that same interview of Martin Harris done by Tiffany, Martin's daughter Lucy Harris was with her mother and Lucy Mack Smith when she had the experience of lifting the plates while contained in a glass box.^[30]
11. Harrison Burgess reported that in July 1832, he had “a glorious personage clothed in white stood before [him] and exhibited to [his] view the plates from which the Book of Mormon was taken.”^[31]
12. According to his granddaughter Mehitable Smith Many Doolittle, Joseph McKune Sr. once felt the plates. An 1887 newspaper article reported that she said that “[w]hile [McKune] was upon his farm he had the Mormon Bible. Whether he professed to find it before or after marriage Mrs. Doolittle does not remember. Her grandfather was once privileged to take in his hands a pillow-case in which the supposed saintly treasure was wrapped, and to feel through the cloth that it had leaves. From the size and the weight of the book, Mr. McKune supposed that in dimensions it closely resembled an ordinary Bible in the print of those days.”^[32]
13. Lyman Johnson and Orson Pratt embarked on a missionary journey in February 1832.^[33] On 8 February 1832, they stopped at the home of Benjamin Stokely, in Cool Spring Township, Mercer County, Pennsylvania. “According to Stokely, Lyman testified that an angel had personally shown him the Book of Mormon plates, the same as the witnesses to the Book of Mormon.”^[34] In Stokely’s own words, “An angel brought the Mormonite Bible and laid it before him (the speaker); he therefore knows these things to be true.” Of Pratt and Johnson, Stokely wrote, “They appeared to have very little learning, to be sincere in all they said. They had good manners — had been well raised — were decent and unassuming in every thing I saw, or heard them say.”^[35] In the 1880s, Edward Tullidge interviewed Lorin Farr, who by that time had served as the mayor of Ogden, Utah about his early life. Among other things, Farr recalled hearing the gospel preached by Orson Pratt and Lyman Johnson for the very first time, when he was eleven years old. It was in the spring of 1832: “Lyman Johnson arose and delivered one of the most powerful testimonies pertaining to the mission of Joseph Smith and the great work of the last days, that Lorin ever heard. [Lyman] also said that he knew the Book of Mormon was true, for he had seen an angel and he had made this known unto him.”^[36] When Lyman Johnson preached in Dalton, Coos County, New Hampshire, in July 1835, the eighteen-year-old Ethan Barrows was in the audience and listening carefully. In the “Journal of Ethan Barrows,” Journal of History 15 (January 1922): 36, written around 1892, Barrows reported that “He said that an holy angel had ministered with him and had shown him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated, and commanded him to testify to all the world that it was true.”

Tying the Experiences of the Various Witnesses to Doctrine & Covenants 5

Now, response becomes quite simple. Reviewing the experiences of each of the various witnesses, it can be seen that none of them received "the same witness" as that of the Three Witnesses. Let's quote the most relevant part of the passage in question and bold the most important parts of that passage:

12 Yea, they shall know of a surety that these things are true, for from heaven will I declare it unto them.

13 I will give them power that they may behold and view these things as they are;

14 And to none else will I grant this power, to receive this same testimony among this generation

The Three Witnesses heard the voice of God declare unto them that the translation of the Book of Mormon was done by his gift and power. None of the other witnesses received "this same testimony." That is how one may reconcile the passage with the presence of other types of witnesses to the Book of Mormon plates.

Introduction to Criticism #2

There is a related criticism to this one. It is claimed that the original revelation that was later edited and incorporated into the Doctrine and Covenants is much less open to the existence of other witnesses to the Book of Mormon plates.

See also: Doctrine and Covenants/Textual changes/Why did Joseph Smith edit revelations

The original revelation reads as follows:

yea & the testimony of three of my Servants shall go forth with my word unto this Generation yea three shall Know of A surety that those things are true for I will give them power that they may Behold & vew these things as they are & to none else will I grant this power among this Generation & the testimony of three Witnesses will I send forth & my word[.]^[37]

One can quickly see that the original revelation omits the phrases "for from heaven will I declare it unto them" and "to receive this same testimony." Thus, fitting the experiences of the other witnesses into the origins of the Book of Mormon may become trickier.

The revelation is dated March 1829. The translation of the Book of Mormon took place between late April 1829 to June 1829.^[38] The translation actually commenced with Mosiah being translated first, getting all the way to Moroni, then going back to 1 Nephi, and finishing with Words of Mormon.^[39] There are three passages in the Book of Mormon that refer to the witnesses of the Book of Mormon: Ether 5:2–4, 2 Nephi 11:3, and 2 Nephi 27:12–14.

Ether 5:2–4 reads:

2 And behold, ye may be privileged that ye may show the plates unto those who shall assist to bring forth this work;

3 And unto three shall they be shown by the power of God; wherefore they shall know of a surety that these things are true.

4 And in the mouth of three witnesses shall these things be established; and the testimony of three, and this work, in the which shall be shown forth the power of God and also his word, of which the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost bear record—and all this shall stand as a testimony against the world at the last day.

2 Nephi 11:3 reads:

And my brother, Jacob, also has seen him as I have seen him; wherefore, I will send their words forth unto my children to prove unto them that my words are true. Wherefore, by the words of three, God hath said, I will establish my word. Nevertheless, God sendeth more witnesses, and he proveth all his words.

2 Nephi 27:12–14 reads:

12 Wherefore, at that day when the book shall be delivered unto the man of whom I have spoken, the book shall be hid from the eyes of the world, that the eyes of none shall behold it save it be that three witnesses shall behold it, by the power of God, besides him to whom the book shall be delivered; and they shall testify to the truth of the book and the things therein.

13 And there is none other which shall view it, save it be a few according to the will of God, to bear testimony of his word unto the children of men; for the Lord God hath said that the words of the faithful should speak as if it were from the dead.

14 Wherefore, the Lord God will proceed to bring forth the words of the book; and in the mouth of as many witnesses as seemeth him good will he establish his word; and wo be unto him that rejecteth the word of God!

Given the timeline for translation, Joseph would have received D&C 5 in March 1829, then translated Ether, and then translated 2 Nephi. Reading the passages in that order and looking at the explicit flow of ideas, one might surmise that Joseph Smith at first believed that only three people were going to see the Book of Mormon plates and then, over time, revised his plan to include more witnesses to the Book of Mormon plates.

Response to Criticism #2

Focus on the Phrases "my word unto this Generation" and "Behold & [view] these things as they are"

To respond to this criticism, one can easily fit the uniqueness of the experience of the Three Witnesses in particular into the phrase "[the Lord's] word unto this Generation". The Lord's word unto this generation was the declaration in his own voice to the Three Witnesses that the Book of Mormon was translated by his gift and power through Joseph Smith and that the Book of Mormon should go to the ends of the earth with the witnesses declaring it to those ends. Knowing that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God was the Three Witnesses' opportunity to "Behold & [view] these things as they are" as promised in the original draft of the revelation.

Interpret "three" in Ether 5 not as stipulating that only three shall see the plates by the power of God, but that three as a set will be given the opportunity to see the plates together and act as formal witnesses to God's work through the Book of Mormon

This doesn't entirely resolve the criticism because it may appear to some that Ether 5 is saying that only three witnesses will see the plates. Ether 5 says that the plates will be shown unto three. But this three does not need to be interpreted to mean that only three will see the plates by the power of God. Indeed, it seems more likely that it just means that three witnesses will receive a unique testimony from God and, following God's law of witnesses that two or three shall establish his words,^[40] hear a declaration from God's own voice that the Book of Mormon was translated by his gift and power and that the Book of Mormon should be declared to the ends of the earth; that they should formally act as a set of three that receive the same declaration from God's voice and testify of that declaration to all people.

Look again at verse 2: "And behold, ye may be privileged that ye may show the plates unto those who shall assist to bring forth this work". That's open language. It seems like viewing the plates is open to anyone who assists in bringing forth the work. That can include the eight witnesses and the informal witnesses.

Then there's verse 3: "And unto three shall they be shown by the power of God; wherefore they shall know of a surety that these things are true." How do they know of a surety? The original manuscript of Doctrine & Covenants 5 above says that it's because God will give the three witnesses his word unto this generation that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God.

Close out with verse 4: "And in the mouth of three witnesses shall these things be established; and the testimony of three, and this work, in the which shall be shown forth the power of God and also his word, of which the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost bear record—and all this shall stand as a testimony against the world at the last day." Some might take that initial 'And in the mouth of three witnesses shall these things be established' as clarifying that only three shall be given power to establish God's word. But that initial statement just echoes the stipulations of Deuteronomy, 2 Corinthians, Timothy, and even Doctrine and Covenants 6 that God establishes his word by the testimony of two or three witnesses. It's not saying that only three shall see the plates. It's saying that a group of three will be given the same testimony that the Book of Mormon is divine from God's own voice and formally represent a fulfillment of the requirement that God's word be established by two or three witnesses. Relevantly, that seems to be how 2 Nephi 11:3 treats this passage in Ether.

William Owen (skeptical account): "Ten persons say they have seen them and hefted them, three declare that an angel of God appeared to them and showed them to them"

A skeptical account from a reader in 1831 demonstrates that the witnesses' contemporaries understood the experience to be a literal one:

The plates from which Smith, the author translates his book are said to be in his possession. Ten persons say they have seen them and hefted them, three declare that an angel of God appeared to them and showed them to them, and told them that God had given Smith power to be able to read them, understand them, and translate them. The names of those persons are signed to the certificates in the book.^[41]

Question: Is someone unreliable because they practiced "treasure hunting" and believed in the use of seer stones to find lost objects?

To imply that someone is unreliable simply because of things that they believed were valid is a ad hominem attack

Some of Joseph Smith's associates practiced "treasure hunting" and believed in the use of seer stones to locate lost objects. Some claim that many of these individuals believed in "second sight." Do these characteristics make these men unreliable witnesses?

Those who accuse people of being unreliable witnesses because they believed in "treasure hunting" or "second sight" are employing what is known as a "ad hominem" attack on the witnesses' character. The term "ad hominem" is defined, according to Merriam-Webster, as:

1. appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect.
2. marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.

One can see that this accusation applies both of these definitions:

1. The terms "treasure hunter" and "second sight" are intended to evoke feelings of prejudice in the 21st-century reader. We typically reject such things as "superstition." Applying these attitudes to how we view 19th-century individuals is called "presentisim."
2. One critic implies that, despite the fact that the witnesses never denied what they said, that "in light of their superstitions and reputations," we will somehow find their testimony to have less value. The witnesses, incidentally, had reputations for honesty. ^[42]

How exactly does the belief that one can locate buried treasure by means of a seer stone speak to one's character or honesty?

Some have claimed that this rebuttal is a misapplication of the ad-hominem fallacy. It's easy to claim that an ad-hominem fallacy is misapplied by invoking the fallacy fallacy, which means that an argument can still be true even if it contains a logical fallacy. Thus, even if it's an ad hominem attack, it may still be true and necessary for evaluating someone! This is a common counterclaim to make when an interlocutor accuses you of ad hominem. But let's revert to the original argument being made here. The original argument states that the witnesses are unreliable because some of them hunted for treasure occasionally. It is ad hominem to claim this and does not address the consistency of the witnesses, even when their feelings for Joseph turned sour at different points of their lives. It does not address the multiplicity of occasions when they went on record to testify, the occasions when they went our of their way to correct their testimony when misrepresented by the public press, the both tangible and revelatory nature of their experience, the witnesses other than the 11 that saw the plates and handled them, and so forth. The argument is bunk.

All Three Witnesses left the Church after disagreements with Joseph Smith, yet they never denied having seen the plates and the angel

One must also consider this: The Three Witnesses all left the Church after serious disagreements with Joseph Smith, and yet never denied that they had seen the plates and the angel, even near the end of their lives.

The fact that three different men allowed their name to be printed below a statement saying that they saw an angel, and then continued to affirm that they had seen the angel in public statements (some of them even published in newspapers) until the end of their lives, tends to tip the scale more toward "it really happened" than "it didn't happen." That's the point of a signed statement after all.

Is someone's ability to see something affected by their seeing something else?

As it regards the witnesses, the extent to which any were involved is not certain. Even among historians today, the extent to which Joseph Smith was involved is in dispute. It was originally the idea of his father to undertake the practice. It is in doubt if many of the witnesses were involved at all in treasure seeking. For instance, there is no record of the Whitmers being involved in treasure seeking and magic before the organization of the Church (Not to say that they absolutely weren't. Just that there is no evidence.)But let's think of it this way

As it regards the eight witnesses, even if all of them were treasure hunters, is their ability to see something affected by their seeing something else? It's just a silly question to imply that these eight men can't look at a physical object with their physical eyes when they looked at something else with their physical eye. According to John Whitmer, none of them ever denied seeing the physical plates with their physical eyes.

In the case of the three witnesses, some people have suggested that these men may have hallucinated their experience or only seen things with their "spiritual eyes". Aside from "spiritual eyes" being scriptural language that they were commanded to use, there has never been documented case in the history of scrying of two people hallucinating the same thing at the same time.^[43]

It strains credulity to suggest that these men could do that and hold their testimony of the Book of Mormon after falling away from Joseph and the Church.

The following video introduces all witnesses, both formal and informal, to the Book of Mormon, examines several of the hardest-hitting claims against them, and demonstrates the emergent strength of their composite testimonials.

Question: Is a man unreliable because he lived in the 19th-Century?

To imply that someone is unreliable simply because of the era they lived in is a ad hominem attack

Were the Book of Mormon witnesses not "empirical" or "rational" because they lived in the 19th-Century during a time when "folk magic" was practiced?

• One critic of Mormonism claims "The mistake that is made by 21st century Mormons is that they’re seeing the Book of Mormon Witnesses as empirical, rational, twenty-first century men" (The claim was modified to read "nineteenth-century men" in later revisions)^[44]

To imply that nineteenth-century men are intrinsically unreliable is both an ad hominem (an attack against the character of person making the claim, rather than the claim itself) and sets an impossible standard of evidence for the gospel inasmuch as they were the only men available as witnesses at the time. Thus the author is using a screening argument (dates of life) that can be used to exclude whatever evidence he wishes to ignore.

Some have claimed that this rebuttal is a misapplication of the ad-hominem fallacy. It's easy to claim that an ad-hominem fallacy is misapplied by invoking the fallacy fallacy, which means that an argument can still be true even if it contains a logical fallacy. Thus, even if it's an ad hominem attack, it may still be true and necessary for evaluating someone! This is a common counterclaim to make when an interlocutor accuses you of ad hominem. But let's revert to the original argument being made here. The original argument states that the witnesses are unreliable because they lived in the 19th century, sought for treasure, and/or (may have) practiced folk magic. It is ad hominem to claim this and does not address the consistency of the witnesses, even when their feelings for Joseph turned sour at different points of their lives. It does not address the multiplicity of occasions when they went on record to testify, the occasions when they went our of their way to correct their testimony when misrepresented by the public press, the both tangible and revelatory nature of their experience, the witnesses other than the 11 that saw the plates and handled them, and so forth. The argument is bunk.

The following video introduces all witnesses, both formal and informal, to the Book of Mormon, examines several of the hardest-hitting claims against them, and demonstrates the emergent strength of their composite testimonials.

Question: Could Joseph Smith have hypnotized the witnesses to the Book of Mormon?

The Three Witnesses had the opportunity to qualify their testimony, but all of them insisted that their vision was literal and unmistakable

It is claimed that the Book of Mormon witnesses may have been sincere in their testimony, but were actually the victims of 'hallucination' or 'hypnosis' induced in them by Joseph Smith.

The Three Witnesses had the opportunity to qualify their testimony, but all of them insisted that their vision was literal and unmistakable. In addition, they each verified the literalness of the event by stating that their physical ears heard a heavenly voice. Critics twist the historical record in their effort to eliminate the troublesome witnesses but their testimonies cannot be convincingly dismissed.

(Note: All emphasis in the following quotes has been added.)

David Whitmer—like the other witnesses—had been charged with being deluded into thinking he had seen an angel and the plates. Joseph Smith III remembered when David was such accused, and said:

"How well and distinctly I remember the manner in which Elder Whitmer arose and drew himself up to his full height—a little over six feet—and said, in solemn and impressive tones: 'No sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes, and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!'."^[45]

Martin Harris used the same qualifying statements to describe his experience in 1829:

"In introducing us, Mr. Godfrey said, 'Brother Harris, I have brought these young men to hear your statement as to whether or not you believe the Book of Mormon to be true.' His face was turned to the wall. He turned and faced us and said, 'Now I don't believe, but I know it to be true, for with these eyes I saw the angel and with these ears (pointing to them) I heard him say it was a true and correct record of an ancient people that dwelt upon this the American continent'."^[46]

Oliver Cowdery was asked, “Was your testimony based on a dream, was it the imagination of your mind, was it an illusion”? He responded with the exact same qualifying statements as the other two Witnesses:

"My eyes saw, my ears heard, and my understanding was touched, and I know that whereof I testified is true. It was no dream, no vain imagination of the mind—it was real."^[47]

Only 3% of people are capable of experiencing a visual hallucination, and only 9% of the population can hallucinate a voice speaking to them while under the influence of hypnosis

Research by Ernest Hilgard at Stanford found that only 3% of people are capable of experiencing a visual hallucination, and only 9% of the population can hallucinate a voice speaking to them while under the influence of hypnosis. These statistics just further refute psychological arguments against the validity of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon.^[48]

Question: Are the Book of Mormon witnesses unreliable because many of them were related?

To imply that someone is unreliable simply because of who they are related to is a ad hominem attack

It is claimed that because many of the witnesses are related, this means they are not to be trusted.

Mark Twain made fun of this very issue:

And when I am far on the road to conviction, and eight men, be they grammatical or otherwise, come forward and tell me that they have seen the plates too; and not only seen those plates but "hefted" them, I am convinced. I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified. ^[49]

This is what is known as a "ad hominem" attack on the witnesses' character. The term "ad hominem" is defined, according to Merriam-Webster, as:

1. appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect.
2. marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.

How, exactly, does being related to someone else who is viewing the same thing that you are make one less honest or reliable? This is simply an irrelevant distraction. When you are going to show something sacred to someone, you certainly don't show it to strangers but to those with whom you are familiar and who you can trust. As such, one would not expect anyone but close acquaintances and family to be so trusted. The witnesses, incidentally, had reputations for honesty.

Some have claimed that this rebuttal is a misapplication of the ad-hominem fallacy. It's easy to claim that an ad-hominem fallacy is misapplied by invoking the fallacy fallacy, which means that an argument can still be true even if it contains a logical fallacy. Thus, even if it's an ad hominem attack, it may still be true! But that is not the point of the original argument being made here. The original argument states that the witnesses are unreliable because they are related to each other and their love and bias for Joseph somehow weakens their efficacy. It is ad hominem to claim this and does not address the consistency of the witnesses, even when their feelings for Joseph turned sour at different points of their lives. It does not address the multiplicity of occasions when they went on record to testify, the occasions when they went our of their way to correct their testimony when misrepresented by the public press, the both tangible and revelatory nature of their experience, the witnesses other than the 11 that saw the plates and handled them, and so forth. The argument is bunk.

The witnesses would, of necessity, be those who were close to Joseph. Recall the fact that the witnesses eventually had disaffected members among them because of disagreements with Joseph Smith, yet they never denied their witness. This gives credence to their testimony over time.

Relationships among the Three and Eight Witnesses

Three of the witnesses were related to Joseph Smith:

• Joseph Smith, Sr. [father]
• Hyrum Smith [brother]
• Samuel H. Smith [brother]

Five of the eleven witnesses were sons of Peter Whitmer, Sr., who had provided Joseph and Oliver a place to translate:

• David Whitmer
• Christian Whitmer
• Jacob Whitmer
• Peter Whitmer, Jr.
• John Whitmer

Two of the witnesses married into the Whitmer family:

• Oliver Cowdery would marry Elizabeth Ann Whitmer in 1832.^[50]
• Hiram Page married the oldest Whitmer daughter, Catherine, on 10 November 1825.^[51]

The following video introduces all witnesses, both formal and informal, to the Book of Mormon, examines several of the hardest-hitting claims against them, and demonstrates the emergent strength of their composite testimonials.

Question: Did Joseph Smith say that viewing the gold plates would result in death?

The only first-person account—that made by Joseph Smith himself—says that it was Joseph who would be destroyed if he showed the plates to any other person unless commanded to do so by the Lord

It is claimed that Joseph Smith said that the penalty for viewing the gold plates was death, and that this was just a way for Joseph to hide the fact that the plates really didn't exist. However, the only first-person account—that made by Joseph Smith himself—says that it was Joseph who would be destroyed if he showed the plates to any other person unless commanded to do so by the Lord. Many accounts attributed to Joseph in which he is supposed to have claimed that anyone else who viewed the plates would die originated with people who were hostile to Joseph and the Church. Significantly, Emma's statement makes no mention of the alleged penalty associated with the unauthorized viewing of the plates.

Primary source: Joseph Smith's own words

Joseph Smith-History 1:42 describes the conditions under which Joseph was to handle the plates:

Again, he told me, that when I got those plates of which he had spoken—for the time that they should be obtained was not yet fulfilled—I should not show them to any person; neither the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim; only to those to whom I should be commanded to show them; if I did I should be destroyed. While he was conversing with me about the plates, the vision was opened to my mind that I could see the place where the plates were deposited, and that so clearly and distinctly that I knew the place again when I visited it. (emphasis added)

According to this, it was Joseph who risked destruction if he showed the plates to anyone unless explicitly commanded to do so by the Lord, not the person to whom he showed them.

Of course, we also have the testimony of the Three and Eight witnesses, who all viewed the plates without any threat of destruction.

The idea that God would "strike down" anyone who viewed the plates came from a hostile secondary source

Fawn Brodie claimed that Joseph told Martin Harris that God's wrath would strike him down if he examined the plates or looked at him while he was translating. This is supported by a second-hand source: Charles Anthon's statement regarding the visit of Martin Harris in Eber D. Howe's anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed. Anthon stated:

I adverted once more to the roguery which had been in my opinion practised upon [Harris], and asked him what had become of the gold plates. He informed me that they were in a trunk with the large pair of spectacles. I advised him to go to a magistrate and have the trunk examined. He said the "curse of God" would come upon him should he do this. ^[52]

In the critical bookMormonism Unvailed, Peter Ingersoll and Sophia Lewis claimed that Joseph told them that anyone who viewed the plates would perish.

Peter Ingersoll was a hostile source. Here is what he claims that Joseph said to him:

...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....(emphasis added)^[53]

Here we have a statement alleged to have been made by Joseph Smith that "no man can see it with the naked eye and live." However, we also see that, according to Peter Ingersoll, Joseph came up with the entire idea of the "golden bible" on the spur of the moment as a way to have "fun." Then he claims that Joseph confided to him that the plates didn't actually exist at all. There are so many inconsistencies between this story and the statements of numerous other witnesses that one wonders if Peter Ingersoll was the one who was having some "fun" with his audience. Ingersoll can also be discredited on his claim that Joseph made the story up on the spot, because Joseph was telling various people about his Moroni visits well before recovering the plates (see for example various Knight family recollections).

Examining the testimony of Sophia Lewis we find:

SOPHIA LEWIS, certifies that she "heard a conversation between Joseph Smith, Jr., and the Rev. James B. Roach, in which Smith called Mr. R. a d-----d fool. Smith also said in the same conversation that he (Smith) was as good as Jesus Christ;" and that she "has frequently heard Smith use profane language. She states that she heard Smith say "the Book of Plates could not be opened under penalty of death by any other person but his (Smith's) first-born, which was to be a male." She says she "was present at the birth of this child, and that it was still-born and very much deformed."(emphasis added)^[54]

Here we find that not only could the plates not be viewed by another person, but that the only person who could "open" them would be Joseph's first-born child. Sophia Lewis's testimony is suspicious however. Hezekiah M'Kune, Levi Lewis and Sophia Lewis went together to make their depositions before the justice. Their testimonies bear a remarkable similarity and contain the unique claim that Joseph claimed to be "as good as Jesus Christ." This claim is not related by any other individuals who knew the Prophet, suggesting that these three individuals planned and coordinated their story before giving their depositions. ^[55]

Joseph's wife Emma did not recall any specific threat of destruction associated with the unauthorized viewing of the plates

It is interesting to note that Emma Smith, admittedly much closer to her husband Joseph than the hostile sources previously quoted, never mentioned a penalty for viewing the plates. In fact, in an interview with her son Joseph Smith III in 1879, the following conversation was recorded:

[Joseph Smith III} Q: I should suppose that you would have uncovered the plates and examined them?

[Emma Smith Bidamon] A. I did not attempt to handle the plates, other than I have told you, nor uncover them to look at them. I was satisfied that it was the work of God, and therefore did not feel it to be necessary to do so.

Major Bidamon here suggested: Did Mr. Smith forbid your examining the plates?

[Emma] A. I do not think he did. I knew that he had them, and was not specially curious about them. I moved them from place to place on the table, as it was necessary in doing my work.

[JS III] Q. Mother, what is your belief about the authenticity, or origin, of the Book of Mormon?

[Emma] A. My belief is that the Book of Mormon is of divine authenticity - I have not the slightest doubt of it. I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his scribe, your father would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he could at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him. This was a usual thing for him to do. It would have been improbable that a learned man could do this; and, for one so ignorant and unlearned as he was, it was simply impossible.(emphasis added)^[56]

Emma, therefore, did not recall any specific threat of destruction associated with the unauthorized viewing of the plates.

Question: Were the Book of Mormon witnesses not neutral because they were members of the Church and believers in Joseph's mission?

The witnesses did not believe they had seen plates because they believed in the restoration; they believed in the restoration because they had seen plates

It is claimed that because the witnesses are "interested"—i.e., they were members of the Church and believers in Joseph's mission—they are therefore not reliable, since they cannot be "neutral" or "disinterested."

• The critics have the sequence reversed: the witnesses did not believe they had seen plates because they believed in the restoration; they believed in the restoration because they had seen plates. It would be a strange witness if realizing the Joseph had actual plates and divine aid to translate them did not compel them to become members of the restored gospel.
• As Pratt points out above, the Book of Mormon is something about which one cannot be neutral or disinterested—if one is convinced that it is what it claims to be, then this requires action.
• Given that many witnesses were subsequently disaffected from Joseph Smith and the Church (some permanently), and yet never denied their witness, this attack has been robbed of much of whatever force it previously had. The disaffected witnesses had many reasons to be "interested" in denouncing Joseph Smith and the faith he founded. Yet, they did not—this argues for the reality of their experience and the sincerity of their witness despite any beliefs they had when they first gave it.
• Why didn't Martin expose the Book of Mormon as a scam after he lost his investment?
• Why didn't Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and some of the eleven witnesses expose Joseph as a fraud after they left the Church?
• If they all knew together that it was a hoax, why didn't any one of them say anything?

Parley P. Pratt replied to this assertion, which was frequently the main means of dismissing the witnesses in early anti-Mormon writing:

Mr. L. complains of all the witnesses to the Book of Mormon being interested witnesses; that is, they are all followers of, and believers in, that system. But, I enquire, who would be a disinterested witness? If all Christendom were to see the original document, and be convinced of its truth, they would all see the original document, and be convinced of its truth, they would all be as much interested in it as those who first witnessed it. The Lord never chose a disinterested witness of his resurrection or any other truth. Would Mr. L. have a witness who would say the thing is true to be sure, but does not concern me, I purpose never to obey it myself, but to go down to hell, for the sake of giving others a disinterested testimony of its truth? But after all, the first witnesses to the Book of Mormon were not members of this church when they gave their testimony; for there was no such church in existence until some time after their testimony had been published.^[57]

Question: How do the witnesses of the Book of Mormon compare to the witnesses of Philemon Stewart's A Holy, Sacred and Divine Roll and Book; From the Lord God of Heaven, to the Inhabitants of Earth?

Cover of Philemon Stewart's A Holy, Sacred, and Divine Roll and Book. Click to enlarge. Click here to read for free online.

Introduction to Question

One critic of the Church asks how we can believe in the Book of Mormon witnesses and not the witnesses to Philemon Stewart's A Holy, Sacred and Divine Roll and Book; From the Lord God of Heaven, to the Inhabitants of Earth (hereafter Holy Roll).^[58] The critic mistakenly attributes authorship for the book to Ann Lee: founder of the Shaker movement during the late 1700s.^[59] However, "[the book] was written in 1843, and Ann Lee died in 1784. The book came out during a period in Shaker history known as the Era of Manifestations, wherein multiple people claimed visionary experiences and revelations that they believed were being sent to them by Ann Lee, who they believed was a secondary Christ figure. This era occurred between 1837 and the mid-1850s. It was such a confusing time that many members didn’t know what was actual revelation and what was hallucination.^[60] Those 'visions' were being used to 'expose sins' of others and force them out of the community[.]"^[61] The book "contains moral counsel, biblical quotations, historical observations, and theological reflections, all represented as the product of spirit revelation."^[62] One can read the book for free online at this link. Stewart claimed that on May 4, 1842, an angel named Al'sign te're Jah' appeared to him and led him to a fountain named the Holy Fountain at New Lebanon. The fountain was located at a site called Holy Mount where, three days prior on May 1, the Shakers had celebrated the first passover feast. There, Stewart claimed to have scribed the revelation as dictated by the angel over the course of fourteen days for six hours a day. The original version totaled over 400 pages. The first 200 or so pages of the book is the revelation as delivered by the angel. The other 200 or so pages document more than ninety testimonies attesting to the authenticity of the book and other things. The individuals who gave these testimonies claim to have witnessed different things. Some witnesses don't compare at all with what the Book of Mormon witnesses saw while others compare more closely. For instance, eight women give their names and testify that they saw the angel that appeared to Stewart holding the Holy Roll while on top of a house. How should a person claim that the Book of Mormon witnesses are superior to the witnesses to Philemon Stewart's book?

Response to Question

The Divine Roll and Book Fell out of Favor with Leaders, Members, and Witnesses of the Shaker Movement

The first point is made succinctly by Book of Mormon scholar Matthew Roper. He responded back in 1993 to the same criticism as made by Gerald and Sandra Tanner. He wrote:

The Tanners attempt to downplay the significance of the witnesses’ written testimony by noting similarities between it and several nineteenth-century Shaker writings in which some Shaker believers claimed to have seen angels and visions. “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 book. [In Shaker writings,] there are over a hundred pages of testimony from ‘Living Witnesses.’“^[63] But the quantity of witnesses has little meaning if those witnesses afterwards admit that they were wrong. Unlike the Book of Mormon, the Shaker Roll and Book afterwards fell into discredit and dishonor among the Shakers themselves and was abandoned by its leaders and most believers,^[64] while the Book of Mormon continued to be a vitally important part of Mormon scripture to which each of the witnesses, including Martin Harris, continued to testify, even while outside of the Church.^[65]

It should be emphasized that this discredit and skepticism among believers in the Shaker movement was quick. In fact, it started during the printing and publication process of the Holy Roll. The late American religious historian Stephen J. Stein in his book The Shaker Experience in America observes that the Shakers believed that sacred scripture could be produced through revelation of dead spirits (a belief known as spiritualism) to "instruments" or "visionists": mortal people and followers of the Shaker movement. When revelation was claimed to be produced in the name and authority of the instruments or visionists themselves and not the spirits, that revelation's authenticity was questioned. This questioning and skepticism was directed towards Stewart's Holy Roll, "no doubt fueled by personal animosities toward" Stewart himself.^[66] Stein observes in another presentation (and probably the best source of information on the Holy Roll) that the Shaker society's leaders accused Stewart of "elevating his own role in the revelation and for soliciting too many testimonies in support of it" as well as "self-enhancement and of a lack of humility." Stewart's book, along with the testimonials of the other visionists attesting to the book's divinity, was published in 1843. Stewart wrote to the ministry at New Lebanon, NY asking them to reprint the Holy Roll in 1848—a request that was not pursued further by the Shakers. Stewart, in time, became a critic of the establishment's leadership and remained so until his death in 1875.^[67] In 1874 (31 years after the Holy Roll was published), Charles Nordhoff was told by one of the Shaker elders that the best use for copies of the Holy Roll was to burn them.^[68] So whatever the testimony and visitations of these visionists that gave their names to Stewart's revelation were, it apparently wasn't enough to convince them to remain committed to stalwartly defending that testimony. The only one that appears to have remained committed to the book's authenticity was Stewart.

Comparison of the Different Testimonies

When comparing the testimonies of the experiences of the Book of Mormon Witnesses and the Shaker witnesses, Brian Hales offers this easy-to-read chart:

A comparison of the Book of Mormon witnesses and Philemon Stewart's witnesses. Courtesy of Brian Hales.

The Shakers are a Now Defunct and Discredited Religious Movement

As author Jim Bennett observed about this criticism:

So we shouldn’t accept the testimony of Book of Mormon witnesses because the Shakers, who no longer exist and who’s central claims have been completely discredited by the passage of time, claimed to see angels? How is that anything but a non sequitur? Each testimony should be evaluated on its own merits. As it stands, the Shakers no longer exist, so I don’t see much value in reviewing their testimonies.^[69]

Assuming that the Shaker Testimony is Actually True

Let's assume that the Shaker testimony is true and the Holy Roll actually did have divine origins, does that really impinge on the witnesses credibility? Of course not! That some people claim to see one thing is not evidence that others can't see and experience something different. To say otherwise is just a non-sequitir.

Additionally, Latter-day Saints are open to other people having spiritual manifestations, revelations, and visions in other religions. The prophet Nephi in the Book of Mormon teaches that God has inspired the production of many religious books.^[70] Along similar lines, the prophet Alma teaches that “the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true.”^[71] Additionally, the Book of Alma teaches that the Spirit of God can be poured out on non-covenant people so that their hearts can be softened and thus prepared to receive the Gospel.^[72] Doctrine & Covenants teaches that "we believe religion is instituted of God[.]"^[73] Other biblical scriptures clearly indicate that God inspires other groups outside of his covenant group with truth, light, and miracles.^[74] A 1978 official statement from the First Presidency of the Church states that "[t]he great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals."^[75] Latter-day Saints could accept at least some of the visions of the Shakers without having to feel that any of their theological commitments are being compromised.

Conclusion

It's clear that comparisons between the Book of Mormon witnesses and the witnesses to Philemon Stewart's book intended to discredit the former are likely going to be guilty of the false equivalency logical fallacy. Even if we are to accept the truthfulness of what the Shaker witnesses claimed, it does not need to be threatening in any way to the credibility of the Book of Mormon witnesses nor any of the theological commitments held by orthodox Latter-day Saints.

Richard Anderson: All eleven Book of Mormon witnesses publicly reaffirmed their testimony as printed

Richard Anderson described multiple accounts of all the Witnesses bearing testimony and reaffirming their published testimony:^[76]

The three Smiths who formally gave their names as seeing and handling the plates were the Prophet's father, Joseph Smith, Sr.; the Prophet's older brother, Hyrum; and his immediately younger brother, Samuel Harrison. They sometimes joined the other Book of Mormon witnesses to reaffirm their testimony printed in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon regarding lifting and turning the leaves of the plates. After quoting the published statements of the Three and Eight Witnesses, and describing the experience of the latter group, Lucy Smith relates, "The ensuing evening, we held a meeting, in which all the witnesses bore testimony to the facts as stated above."^[77] Two years later, in the period of dynamic preaching of the early elders, a conference was held near Cleveland, Ohio, remembered by Luke Johnson as follows: "At this conference the eleven witnesses to the Book of Mormon, with uplifted hands, bore their solemn testimony to the truth of that book, as did also the Prophet Joseph."^[78]

Question: Did the Witnesses who left the Church continue to maintain their witness of the Book of Mormon?

All of the Three Witnesses and three of the Eight Witnesses left the Church in 1838 and were hostile, at least for a time, against Joseph Smith. Yet, they clung to their witness and continued to affirm it

Three Witnesses

Oliver Cowdery

Oliver would later return to the Church and seek rebaptism.

During his estrangement from the Church, he insisted upon his witness as true.

Main article: Extensive Oliver Cowdery statements

Martin Harris

Martin Harris would later return to the Church and seek rebaptism.

During his estrangement from the Church, he insisted upon his witness as true, and sought to bear his witness often.

Main article: Extensive Martin Harris statements

David Whitmer

David Whitmer never returned to the Church, but left an extensive record validating his testimony. When Thomas B. Marsh, an excommunicated apostle, approached Whitmer and Cowdery to learn "the real truth" about the Book of Mormon (since they, like him, were now excommunicated and hostile to it) Marsh reported:

I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to his testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book. I asked him, if so, how did he not stand by Joseph? He answered, in the days when Joseph received the Book of Mormon, and brought it forth, he was a good man filled with the Holy Ghost, but he considered he had now fallen. I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.^[79]

Main article: Extensive David Whitmer statements

Eight Witnesses

Hiram Page

Hiram Page never returned to the Church, but continued to bear his witness. Even when approached by the excommunicated William McLellin, Page replied:

As to the Book of Mormon, it would be doing injustice to myself, and to the work of God of the last days, to say that I could know a thing to be true in 1830, and know the same thing to be false in 1847.^[80]

Main article: Hiram Page witness statements

Jacob Whitmer

Jacob Whitmer never returned to the Church, but bore his testimony on his deathbed, with no record of denial.

Main article: Jacob Whitmer witness statements

John Whitmer

John Whitmer never returned to the Church, but maintained his testimony as the second-longest lived witness (after his brother David Whitmer).

When asked how he could leave in view of his testimony of the plates' literal reality, John rationalized his choice to disbelieve the translation of the Book of Mormon (despite knowing that the plates were literal and physical):

I cannot read it, and I do not know whether it is true or not.^[81]

Whitmer would not, then, deny what he had seen and hefted, even when estranged from Joseph and the Church.

After leaving the Church, John said:

It may not be amiss in this place, to give a statement to the world concerning the work of the Lord, as I have been a member of this church of Latter Day Saints from its beginning; to say that the book of Mormon is a revelation from God, I have no hesitancy; but with all confidence have signed my named to it as such; and I hope, that my patrons will indulge me in speaking freely on this subject, as I am about leaving the editorial department. Therefore I desire to testify to all that will come to the knowledge of this address; that I have most assuredly seen the plates from whence the book of Mormon is translated, and that I have handled these plates, and know of a surety that Joseph Smith, jr. has translated the book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, and in this thing the wisdom of the wise most assuredly has perished: therefore, know ye, O ye inhabitants of the earth, wherever this address may come, that I have in this thing freed my garments of your blood, whether you believe or disbelieve the statements of your unworthy friend and well-wisher.^[82]

Main article: John Whitmer witness statements

Question: What did the Book of Mormon witnesses say about the faithfulness of other witnesses?

Some Book of Mormon witnesses emphasized that they had never renounced their testimony, and insisted that they had never heard other witnesses do so either.

• John Whimter: "I have never heard that any one of the three, or eight witnesses ever denied the testimony that they have borne to the Book as published in the first edition of the Book of Mormon."^[83]

• David H. Cannon: The thing which impressed me most of all was, as we stood beside the grave of Oliver Cowdery the other Witness, who had come back into the Church before his death, and [David Whitmer] in describing Oliver[']s action, when bearing his testimony, said to the people in his room, placing his hands like this upon his head, saying 'I know the Gospel to be true and upon this head has Peter[,] James and John laid their hands and confer[r]ed the Holy Melchisedic Priesthood.' ^[84]

• David Whitmer, interview with James H. Hart: "Mr Whitmer felt very indignant while speaking of certain statements published recently to the effect that he and Oliver Cowdery had denied their statement as published in the Book of Mormon. This he denounced as false in every particular. He said: "Oliver never wavered in his testimony, and when he was on his death bed, I was there, with many of his friends, until he passed away. He bore the same testimony on his dying bed that he had always borne through life, and earnestly called upon all to cleave to the truth revealed through the Prophet Joseph, and to serve the Lord. As for myself, I have never denied my testimony that is published in the Book of Mormon, for I know that God has revealed these things for the salvation of the children of men, and to Him belongs all the honor, the power and the glory."^[85]

• Said Oliver Cowdery of a testimony by John Whitmer: "A thousand things may be conjectured, but when a man declares openly, candidly, and seriously, of what he has seen, hefted and handled with his own hands, and taht in the presence of a God who sees and knows the secrets of the heart, no man possessed of common reason and common sense, can doubt, or will be so vain as to dispute."^[86]

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Faithful members would likely come up with explanations to counter these claims like the 3+8 witnesses signed a single statement because they so strongly agreed with their unified experience. However this comparison shows some of the inherent weaknesses of the using just witnesses to prove historical events. This also underscores the weaknesses in the BOM process to obtain witnesses to verify the BOM.

FairMormon commentary

• A witness is "One who can give a firsthand account of something seen, heard, or experienced." That's what they did. That's what witnesses do. That's why they call them "witnesses," because they witnessed the events that they are relating as part of history.
• What does MormonThink all history is based on? First person witnesses. People witness history, and they leave behind documents: journals, government records, art, etc. If you get rid of witnesses, then there's hardly any such thing as "history" at all. It is only very recently that we have things like photographs or video—and even these are records made by witnesses at the time.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Why should we believe all the Book of Mormon witnesses over the sworn affidavits of over dozens of unrelated townspeople?

FairMormon commentary

• Were any of these dozens of unrelated townspeople there when the angel was present? How would they know?
• Why are you comparing the witnesses to the plates to the Hurlbut-Howe affidavits anyway? One group said they saw the plates (and some an angel), the other group said that they heard a manuscript read.
• Why is it that when we try to verify matters in the affidavits that we can verify, they aren't confirmed? For example, those who wrote the affidavits claimed that the Spalding manuscript matched the Book of Mormon—but it doesn't, and even anti-Mormons abandoned this argument more than a century ago. So, why should we uncritically accept those claims in the affidavits that we can't verify?

Additional information

• Rejection of the Spaulding theory by critics of the Book of Mormon—Many critics of the Book of Mormon reject the Spaulding theory as unworkable. If Mormonism's most prominent critics find the Spalding theory unworkable, then what motivates those who tenuously hold to this theory and continue to pursue it? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
None of the witnesses should have been related to Joseph or each other. Most of the witnesses were either related or good friends. Having unrelated people as witnesses would be far more effective than using your brothers and father.

FairMormon commentary

• Why should Joseph go off and find a bunch of total strangers to witness such a miracle? Wouldn't he want to have his family and friends share the experience? After all, he had not been allowed to show them the plates for many months.
• Who would you rather share such an amazing experience with? Your brother, or some total stranger who doubts everything you say?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The witnesses should not have already been eager believers. There should have been some skeptics.

FairMormon commentary

• Why would an angel show up for skeptics? Are these men then supposed to immediately convert and risk their reputations by declaring to the world that they saw an angel?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
There should have been no financial motive. Martin Harris mortgaged his farm and invested at least $3,000 of his own money into printing the Book of Mormon, so of course he had incentive to 'promote' the book.

FairMormon commentary

• Show how was the Book of Mormon supposed to get published? Was a printer supposed to magically do the work for free?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Each of the witnesses should each have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a prepared statement written by Joseph. If the prepared document wasn't 100% accurate many people would simply sign it anyway as it would be too much of a hassle to have it completely rewritten by hand - especially in the 1800s.

FairMormon commentary

• Really? Would it really have been "too much of a hassle" to completely rewrite one paragraph of text consisting of only 300 words?
• If you were going to be inaccurately quoted in a book for which you hoped to sell hundreds of copies, wouldn't you have taken the time to insist that either the paragraph be rewritten or take the time to write your own version of it?
• Oliver Cowdery rewrote almost the entire manuscript of the Book of Mormon (the "printer's manuscript") so they would always have a copy of the translation in their possession. How likely is he to be put off from rewriting a 300 word document that he's going to sign as a solemn witness?
• Were people "in the 1800s" really less concerned with the accuracy of their signed statements than we are now? Think about it.
• If this was true, why didn't the witnesses complain about it, especially later when they were alienated from Joseph Smith? Instead, they consistently referred people to their statement and affirmed its accuracy.
• Remember that Joseph needed Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris to act as scribes for the Book of Mormon (and David Whitmer helped a bit too). How likely is it that Joseph sat down and wrote out the statement for them to sign? Isn't it more likely that one or more was involved in at least acting as scribe, and that they may have even participated in drafting it? Oliver Cowdery would help draft some sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, for example.
• Where's MormonThink's evidence that Joseph wrote the statement with no input from the witnesses?
• Does it seem like MormonThink is grasping at straws?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The witnesses should have been much more detailed about this amazing event. What did the angel look like? What exactly did he say? How did he speak? There are almost no details provided which can be analyzed and compared. If each witness had simply written their own account and provided significant details then their individual testimonies could corroborate each other.

FairMormon commentary

• There are many later accounts by the witnesses that corroborate each other. Yet, MormonThink does not mention these, or consider that to increase the witnesses' credibility. Isn't this a double standard?
• If there were lots of details in the printed edition of the Book of Mormon, wouldn't MormonThink just turn around and claim that this close match was evidence of collusion? Or, they could always claim (without evidence) that Joseph wrote or dictated all the statements. It's easy to find "reasons" to dismiss evidence you don't want to accept.
• Does it seem like MormonThink is impossible to satisfy, no matter what evidence is presented?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The witnesses should have been interviewed independently immediately after going public. They should have been interviewed the same way police do with witnesses to crimes or that investigators do with UFO cases. Ask questions to see if their stories match; How was the angel dressed? How tall was he? How did he speak?, etc.

FairMormon commentary

• And, if these things matched, would MormonThink be convinced?
• The Mormons are not to be blamed because the non-believing townfolk in Joseph's area didn't interview the witnesses the way MormonThink believes they should have been.
• If the interviews matched, couldn't MormonThink just use that as evidence that Joseph and the witnesses had conspired together to concoct a story? And, if the witnesses had different perspectives, wouldn't that be used as evidence they were making it up?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The witnesses should not have used subjective language and say strange things like comparing seeing the plates with seeing a city through a mountain or using spiritual eyes instead of their natural eyes to view physical plates

FairMormon commentary

• Why not? How can anyone not describe their own experience in "subjective language?"
• The word "subjective" means "Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world." How can one describe one's own experience in anything other than subjective terms?

Additional information

• "Eye of Faith" and "Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris—Martin Harris frequently told people that he did not see the golden plates and the angel with his natural eyes but rather with “spiritual eyes” or the “eye of faith.” (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The witnesses should not have been gullible people that believed in things like 'second sight', divining rods, finding treasure by placing a rock in a hat, etc. 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).

FairMormon commentary

• Martin Harris was considered a wealthy man. How did he get that way if he was so gullible?
• Did the witnesses remain convinced that the girl was a prophet? Did they dedicate the rest of their lives to insisting that her experience was legitimate?
• By 1837, the witnesses were all opposed to and alienated against Joseph Smith. This incident illustrates that beautifully--so, why did they not follow up and finish off Joseph's destruction by admitting to the fraud?
• Members of the Church would not be surprised that those who apostatize can come to believe all sorts of absurd things to explain and justify their unbelief--MormonThink is, in fact, a good example of that phenomenon. This does not impact the truthfulness of the witnesses' accounts--in fact, it increases them since they would have been highly motivated to find a way to explain away what they had seen. But they did not.

Additional information

• Did the Book of Mormon witnesses ever recant?—Critics have tried to argue that some or all of the Witnesses recanted concerning their testimony. They were all faithful to their testimonies to the end of their lives, even though many of them had personal disagreements with Joseph Smith that caused them to leave the Church. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
All of the witness should have been much more vocal and been interviewed much more often. There are very few interviews done with the witnesses that provide any additional information or corroboration of their statements. You would think that these people, after seeing such a magnificent sight, would spend their time testifying to the world about their experience instead of largely just signing a prepared statement and avoiding interviews by the media. Only three of the eight witnesses made separate statements that they had handled the plates. They were Joseph's two brothers, Hyrum and Samuel, and John Whitmer.

FairMormon commentary

• What? You mean they didn't? There are many testimonies and statements of the witnesses—especially David Whitmer.
• So, are we supposed to believe that these men would simply put their lives on hold for the next 50 years or so and just continue talking about their experience endlessly?
• They gave all the detail that there was to be had—what more are you looking for? There are only so many ways to describe an angel and a set of plates.
• Who said that they avoided interviews with "the media" (a 20th-century term if there ever was one). There are well-documented interviews with some of the witnesses in "the media." (See, for example, Lyndon Cook (editor), David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness (Orem, Utah: Grandin Books, 1991).)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
And of course it would have helped had all the witnesses remained loyal to the Church for the rest of their lives instead of having most of them abandon it later on. It doesn't make much sense to leave the one, true Church of God if you have really received an indisputable witness that it was true. Why would these people risk being cast in Outer Darkness for all eternity for denying what they KNEW to be true unless they maybe had some doubts or knew it really wasn't true?

FairMormon commentary

• If the witnesses did not really see what they claimed to have seen, then why did they not expose the deception when they had their fallings out with Joseph Smith and the Church? Why didn't a single witness expose the sham?
• Why not correctly state that the witnesses were not witnesses of the "one, true Church of God?" They were witnesses to the angel and the existence of the gold plates. That is all. They never denied their witness.
• Isn't it more persuasive to be alienated from Joseph Smith and the Church, and yet continue to insist that you'd seen the plates (and, for the three, the angel)?
• If the witnesses had all remained faithful for their entire lives, wouldn't MormonThink now be claiming that they had a "vested interest" in sticking to their story?
• Do you get the feeling that MormonThink wants to get rid of the witnesses however they can—even if the arguments contradict each other, and even if the complaints don't make sense?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
It's also quite possible that Oliver was in on a deception with Joseph, assuming the BOM story isn't true. If so, he could have helped convince the others that they were seeing experiencing something not real, like the second-sight experiences many people had at the time.

FairMormon commentary

• If Oliver was "in on a deception" with Joseph, then why didn't he expose the deception after he had his falling out with Joseph?
• Why did Oliver continue to hold to his story of being a witness of the plates?
• Why didn't Oliver denounce the statement signed by him in every copy of the Book of Mormon?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
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

FairMormon commentary

•   The author has misquoted the source  —Because the critic simply copies what they think are source quotes from other web sites, the quote does not match the source.
  No, Richard Bushman did not say that. The quote does not appear in the cited source. It appears to be a critic's paraphrase of what Bushman said.
• Here is the cited source: Richard Bushman, "Treasure-seeking Then and Now," Sunstone, v. 11, September 1987 (PDF)
• Here is what the article says,

That scholarship helped me understand Joseph Smith, because the sources made it clear that not just the Smith family but many people in the neighborhood were invoking spells and rituals to find buried treasure while still claiming to be believing Christians....But what intrigues me still more is that nowhere, so far as I can see, did the revelations ever repudiate treasure-seeking Joseph had no reason to believe that it was all superstitious hogwash, as we are inclined to think today.

== Notes ==

1. [note] Interview with Joseph Smith III et al. (Richmond, Missouri, July 1884), originally published in The Saints' Herald (28 January 1936). Also quoted in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), p. 88.
2. [note] Chicago Times Correspondent Interview, 14 October 1881, Richmond, Missouri, Chicago Times, 17 October 1881, in Lyndon W. Cook, ed. David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness (Orem, UT: Grandin, 1991), 75 76.
3. [note] James H. Hart Interview, 21 August 1883, Richmond, Missouri, James H. Hart Notebook, in Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, 96.
4. [note] David Whitmer to Anthony Metcalf, March 1887, in Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years before the Mast (Malad, IN: n.p., 1888), 73 74.
5. [note] Nathan Tanner Jr. to Nathan A. Tanner, 17 February 1909, in Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, 192 93.
6. [note] Joseph Smith III et al., Interview, July 1884, Richmond Missouri, in Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, 134 35.
7. [note] "Statement of William M. Glenn to O. E. Fischbacher, 30 May 1943, Cardston, Alberta, Canada," Deseret News, 2 October 1943, Church Section, p. 6.
8. [note] Remarks of Oliver Cowdery, 21 October 1848, Misqueto Creek, Council Bluffs, Iowa, Reuben Miller Journal, 21 October 1848, Latter day Saint Church Archives. Miller's account later appeared in the Millennial Star 21 (1859): 544 46, and in the Deseret Evening News, 20 February 1910, 8.
9. [note] Jacob Forsberry Gates (son of Jacob Gates), signed and notarized affidavit, 30 January 1912, LDS Church Archives; published in Improvement Era (March 1912): 418-19.
10. [note] David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1887.
11. [note]  William B. Smith, William Smith on Mormonism (Lamoni, Iowa: Herald Steam Book and Job Office, 1883), 5-19, emphasis added. Reproduced in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 1:497.