Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The Witnesses

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Response to MormonThink page "The Witnesses"

The Kinderhook Plates

A FAIR Analysis of: MormonThink A work by author: Anonymous

The First Vision

Quick Navigation

• Response to claim: "The witnesses' experiences may have only been visionary in nature"
• Response to claim: "There are also several statements saying that the only time they saw the plates was when the plates were covered in a cloth or tow frock"
• Response to claim: "God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints"
• Response to claim: "All the witnesses had close ties to Joseph and his family"
• Response to claim: "Some of the witnesses, especially Martin Harris, were easily swayed by tales of the supernatural, especially in a religious context"
• Response to claim: "By 1847 not a single one of the surviving eleven witnesses was part of the LDS Church"
• Response to claim: "Of the witnesses that left the church, most believed that Joseph was at best a fallen prophet"
• Response to claim: "There are seven witnesses that say Solomon Spalding was the author of the Book of Mormon"
• Response to claim: "There are many witnesses to James Strang's claim of having unearthed metal plates which he translated into scripture"
• Response to claim: "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"
• Response to claim: "why was 'a supernatural power' needed for the witness John Whitmer to be shown the plates?"

Sub-articles

Source quotes without critical commentary

Summary: If you would like to read all of the source quotes without wading through all of the "Critic's comments," "Apologetic rebuttals" and "Our Thoughts" sections, we present the critical web page as it would appear if only the source quotes were provided without any additional commentary. We also try to provide accurate references and direct links to the original source text rather than simply linking to other websites where you have to search for them.

Martin Harris' "Eye of Faith" and "Spiritual Eye" statements

Jump to details:

• Question: Did Martin Harris tell people that he did not see the plates with his natural eyes, but rather the "eye of faith"?
• Question: Did Martin Harris tell people that he only saw the plates with his "spiritual eye"?
• Question: Why would Martin Harris use the phrases "eye of faith" or "spiritual eye" to describe his visionary experience?
• Question: Do Martin Harris's statements related to the "spiritual eye" or "eye of faith" contradict the reality of his witness?
• Question: What did the Book of Mormon witnesses mean when they used the word "supernatural" to describe their experiences?
• Question: What did the other witnesses say regarding "spiritual" versus "natural" viewing of the plates?
• Question: How did newspaper accounts describe the nature of the witnesses experience?
• Question: How did the apostle Paul describe spiritual experiences?
• Martin Harris: "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"
• Martin Harris: "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"
• Edward Stevenson (1870): Martin Harris said "my belief is swallowed up in knowledge; for I want to say to you that as the Lord lives I do know that I stood with the Prophet Joseph Smith in the presence of the angel"

Question: Did one of the Book of Mormon witnesses actually only handle the plates while they were covered in a "tow frock"?

William Smith, who was not one of the Three or Eight Witnesses, described handling the plates covered by a "tow frock" when Joseph brought them home from the Hill Cumorah

It is claimed by some that at least one of the Book of Mormon witnesses said they only handled the plates while they were covered in a "tow frock," and that this is evidence that the witnesses were simply imagining that they saw the plates because they believed in "second sight."

All of the statements regarding seeing the plates covered by a "tow frock" come from one person: William Smith. William was Joseph Smith's younger brother, but he was not one of the Three or Eight Book of Mormon witness. William is instead describing his experience when Joseph brought the plates home from the hill later known as "Mormon Hill" and ultimately, "Hill Cumorah." Joseph had wrapped the plates in a frock in order to keep them from being seen. William was allowed to handle the plates while they were still wrapped in the frock.

Critics of the Church who employ this statement as evidence do not reveal that this report is actually from William Smith and instead attempt to portray Williams description of handling the plates as coming from one of the Three or Eight Witnesses to the Book of Mormon. They also fail to tell us that William insisted in the same statement that he was convinced Joseph was not lying about the plates. William also dismissed the Spalding hypothesis of Book of Mormon authorship as nonsense.

William Smith's statement actually confirms that Joseph did have something in his possession that fit the dimensions, form, and weight of the plates he claimed to have. So William, although not a direct witness, is an accessory who confirms Joseph Smith's story.

William Smith (1883): "he escaped to the house and brought the plates with him, wrapped up in a tow frock. He could not permit us to see them, because he said the angel told him not to do so"

William Smith describes when his brother Joseph first brought the plates home:

During this four years, I spent my time working on the farm, and in the different amusements of the young men of my age in the vicinity. I was quite wild and inconsiderate, paying no attention to religion of any kind, for which I received frequent lectures from my mother and my brother Joseph. He occupied himself part of the time working on the farm, and part of the time in Pennsylvania where he courted a young lady by the name of Emma Hale, whom he afterwards married. At the end of the appointed time he went and obtained the plates which were pointed out to him by the angel. The story being noised abroad, he was pursued while on his way home with the plates, by two persons who desired to obtain the possession of the plates to convert them into money. However, he escaped to the house and brought the plates with him, wrapped up in a tow frock. He could not permit us to see them, because he said the angel told him not to do so, and he was determined to obey strictly this time; for he had disobeyed before and was compelled to wait four years before he could come into possession of the plates.

This report that they were not allowed to see the plates applies only to when Joseph first brought the plates home. Joseph's father and two of his brothers (Hyrum and Samuel) were to be allowed to see them, and William says so explicitly later in the same work.

After the work of translation, William says:

He then showed the plates to my father and my brothers Hyrum and Samuel, who were witnesses to the truth of the book which was translated from them. I was permitted to lift them as they laid in a pillow-case; but not to see them, as it was contrary to the commands he had received.

William Smith (1884): "When the plates were brought in they were wrapped up in a tow frock. My father then put them into a pillow case. Father said, 'What, Joseph, can we not see them?'"

William Smith describes how his family was not allowed to see the plates:

The time to receive the plates came at last. When Joseph received them, he came in and said: "Father, I have got the plates." All believed it was true, father, mother, brothers and sisters. You can tell what a child is. Parents know whether their children are truthful or not. The proof of the pudding is not in chewing the string, but in eating the pudding. Father knew his child was telling the truth. When the plates were brought in they were wrapped up in a tow frock. My father then put them into a pillow case. Father said, "What, Joseph, can we not see them?" "No. I was disobedient the first time, but I intend to be faithful this time; for I was forbidden to show them until they are translated, but you can feel them." We 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 (raising 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.

William Smith (1893): "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"

William Smith describes the physical characteristics of the plates:

Bro. Briggs then handed me a pencil and asked Bro. Smith if he ever saw the plates his brother had had, from which the Book of Mormon was translated.

He replied, "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. I could tell they were plates of some kind and that they were fastened together by rings running through the back. Their size was as described in mother's history."

Bro. Briggs then asked, "Did any others of the family see them?"

"Yes," said he; "Father and my brother Samuel saw them as I did while in the frock. So did Hyrum and others of the family."

"Was this frock one that Joseph took with him especially to wrap the plates in?"

"No, it was his every day frock such as young men used to wear then."

"Din't [sic] you want to remove the cloth and see the bare plates?" said Bro. B[riggs].

"No," he replied; "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."5

"Did you not doubt Joseph's testimony sometimes?" said Bro. Briggs.

"No," was the reply. "We all had the most implicit confidence in what he said. He was a truthful boy. Father and mother believed him, why should not the children? I suppose if he had told crooked stories about other things we might have doubted his word about the plates, but Joseph was a truthful boy. That Father and mother believed his report and suffered persecution for that [p.512] belief shows that he was truthful. No sir, we never doubted his word for one minute."

William again insists that despite not seeing the plates, he and the others were convinced that Joseph had them. He talks of the future witnesses (Hyrum, Samuel, and his father) seeing through the cloth--but only when Joseph first brought them home. He includes himself and the rest of the family in this group. He is not talking about the three and eight witnesses' experience at all.

Question: Did God tell David Whitmer to leave the Church and repudiate Mormonism?

God told David Whitmer to leave Far West one month after he had already been excommunicated from the Church

David Whitmer, one of the Book of Mormon's Three Witnesses, 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, should it be done unto them."

and

In June, 1838, at Far West, Mo., a secret organization was formed, Doctor Avard being put in as the leader of the band; a certain oath was to be administered to all the brethren to bind them to support the heads of the church in everything they should teach. All who refused to take this oath were considered dissenters from the church, and certain things were to be done concerning these dissenters, by Dr. Avard's secret band. I make no farther statements now; but suffice it to say that my persecutions, for trying to show them their errors, became of such a nature that I had to leave the Latter Day Saints; and, as I rode on horseback out of Far West, in June, 1838, the voice of God from heaven spake to me as I have stated above.

God did not tell Whitmer to repudiate Mormonism

The quotations cited by the critics are taken from a pamphlet written by David Whitmer near the end of his life. In this pamphlet, called An Address to All Believers in Christ, Whitmer strongly reiterates his testimony of the Book of Mormon and his experience seeing the angel as one of the three witnesses. He then goes on to outline in detail his disagreements with the church and with Joseph Smith, Jr. It was because of these disagreements that Whitmer was ultimately excommunicated. When God told him to leave Far West, he had not been a member of the Church for weeks. God did not tell Whitmer to repudiate Mormonism.

Whitmer's safety in Far West may have been at risk after his excommunication

However, since he remained among the Saints during the month after he was excommunicated, he was at potential risk of harm. Whitmer announced that "the voice of God" told him to "separate [him]self from among the Latter Day Saints" in June 1838, after the formation of Sampson Avard's secret vigilante group. David Whitmer had been excommunicated from the Church more than a month earlier, and his only continued association with the Saints was the fact that he was still living among them in Far West.

Whitmer was not instructed to leave the Church or "repudiate Mormonism," he was instructed (by God) to leave Far West after he was already excommunicated. This was arguably a very prudent course, both for Whitmer's safety and the integrity of the Restoration witnesses. Whitmer's witness of the Book of Mormon and seeing the angel is much more powerful since he forcefully maintained it even after he left the Church and disagreed with Joseph Smith.

Question: How can we accept David Whitmer as a valid Book of Mormon witness if God told him to leave the Saints?

While God would not force Whitmer to remain in the Church, He could take steps to ensure that Whitmer was safe from harm

It is claimed that if members accept Whitmer's witness of the Book of Mormon, then they must also accept that God wanted David to repudiate the Church as false. Brent Metcalfe asserts the following:

Contemporary Mormons are left to confront Whitmer's challenge: believe that God confirmed the Book of Mormon translation and later instructed him to repudiate Mormonism or reject his testimony in toto. For Whitmer there was no distinction between the two experiences.

Both Whitmer's experience as a witness and his prompting to leave Far West can be inspired of God

Believing Latter-day Saints have no trouble seeing both of Whitmer's revelatory experiences as inspired of God. While God would not force Whitmer to remain in the Church, He might well take steps to ensure that the Three Witnesses remained alive. In fact, Whitmer's fidelity to his testimony despite great disagreements with Joseph and the Church strengthen its force.

It is disingenuous for critics to imply Whitmer did not leave the Church until God "told him to."

Question: When did God tell David Whitmer to separate himself from the Latter-day Saints?

Whitmer claimed no revelation from God at the time that he was excommunicated

Whitmer's excommunication occurred on 13 April 1838. Whitmer refused to appear at the council meeting that severed him from the Church; he wrote:

to spare you any further trouble I hereby withdraw from your fellowship and communion—choosing to seek a place among the meek and humble, where the revelations of heaven will be observed and the rights of men regarded.

Whitmer here says that he will withdraw from the Church—this would have been an excellent opportunity for him to invoke a "revelation" telling him to leave the Church, but he did not. This is not surprising, since he does not report hearing the voice until June, at least six weeks later.

Thus, when he reports being told by God to "separate himself from among" the members of the Church, Whitmer was already out of the Church, but still living in Far West among members of the Church.

Whitmer's decision to leave Far West was a wise one, since it preserved his safety

Whitmer's decision to leave Far West was arguably a wise one. Tensions were high, and there were threats of violence against apostates (including Whitmer, who had been very prominent) from people like Sampson Avard.

It was vital for the restoration that the Three Witnesses remain faithful to their testimonies of the Book of Mormon (which Whitmer did). Had Whitmer been killed in Far West in 1838, critics could forever after claim that he was a witness who would have recanted, but that he was killed by "the Mormons" to prevent him from speaking his mind.

Despite his disagreements with Joseph Smith and the Church, Whitmer maintained his testimony of the Book of Mormon

The decision to leave Far West—which Whitmer attributed to a divine voice—meant that Whitmer was kept safe. He lived longer than any witness, and never returned to the Church. Yet, he insisted to his death on the reality and truth of his statement as one of the Witnesses, and in the Book of Mormon's divine origin. And, the Saints (both those guilty of illegitimate violence, and the innocent who suffered because of their acts) did have it "done unto them" as they had plotted to do against Whitmer and other apostates: the Saints were eventually killed or driven from Missouri by violence.

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.

Question: Was Martin Harris a gullible witness who would simply believe anything he was told?

Martin was clear that he required considerable proof to support Joseph

Martin recalled his first discussions with Joseph about the claims regarding plates:

I said, if it is the devil's work I will have nothing to do with it, but if it is the Lord's, you can have all the money necessary to bring it before the world. He [Joseph] said that the angel told him, that the plates must be translated, printed and sent before the world. I said, Joseph, you know my doctrine, that cursed is every one that putteth his trust in man, and maketh flesh him [sic] arm; and we know that the devil is to have great power in the latter days to deceive if possible the very elect; and I don't know that you are one of the elect. Now you must not blame me for not taking your word. If the Lord will show me that it is his work, you can have all the money you want.

Even in religious matters then, Martin was keenly aware of the risk of mistake and deception.

Martin was actually quite skeptical in the beginning of Joseph's ability to translate

There are four specific things that Martin did in order to show (and obviously eventually allay) his own skepticism and the skepticism of his family.

1. He took a copy of characters that Joseph copied from the plates to several professors in New York in order to try and verify them.
2. Martin reported that before translating the Book of Mormon, he interrogated Emma, the Smiths, and Joseph regarding details of the Book of Mormon's appearance. All were questioned separately. Emma and the Smiths first and then Joseph last. After questioning them, he compared the accounts of Emma and the Smiths to Joseph's.
3. He took the 116 pages of manuscript that he translated to show them to his family.
4. He swapped the seer stone that Joseph was using during the Book of Mormon translation in order to test the prophet's ability.

During the translation of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith often used a small seer stone. On one occasion, Martin Harris switched the stone for another stone of the same appearance. Martin reports what happened:

Once Martin found a rock closely resembling the seerstone Joseph sometimes used in place of the interpreters and substituted it without the Prophet’s knowledge. When the translation resumed, Joseph paused for a long time and then exclaimed, “Martin, what is the matter, all is as dark as Egypt.” Martin then confessed that he wished to “stop the mouths of fools” who told him that the Prophet memorized sentences and merely repeated them.

Martin conducted a clever "blinded test" of Joseph's ability, and Joseph passed--convincing Martin further.

The story of Martin Harris' desire to take the 116 pages of Book of Mormon manuscript to convince his family and friends that Joseph was a genuine prophet is also well known. Here again, Martin sought to use empirical proof (the manuscript itself) as evidence that Joseph could do what he claimed.

Whatever critics claim about Martin's supposed "superstitions" is significantly weakened in light of the fact that Martin had four naturalistic opportunities to prove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and its translator to himself.

1. REDIRECTJoseph Smith and folk magic or the occult#Godfrey: "Martin found a rock closely resembling the seerstone Joseph sometimes used in place of the interpreters and substituted it without the Prophet’s knowledge"

FairMormon Response

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The Witnesses

FairMormon Response

FAIR Answers—back to home page

V

Articles about the Book of Mormon

Authorship	Book of Mormon Joseph Smith listed as author and proprietor Spalding theory View of the Hebrews theory Late War theory Golden Pot theory Sidney Rigdon theory Mushrooms and entheogenics theory Creative fiction theories Possible 19th Century influences on Book of Mormon Theory of Book of Mormon place names from area around Joseph Smith's home Theory of Book of Mormon place names from Comoros Islands Understanding accusations of plagiarism
Translation process	Seer stones and the Urim and Thummim Gold plates and the translation process Artistic depictions of the translation Joseph Smith and the translation process
Gold plates	Weight and size Plates too heavy to run? Engravings and sealed portion Stone box where the gold plates were deposited Attempts to steal the gold plates from Joseph Smith Gold plates and the translation process Metal plates in ancient Israel
Witnesses	Eleven official witnesses Statement of the Three Witnesses Oliver Cowdery David Whitmer Martin Harris Statement of the Eight Witnesses Christian Whitmer Jacob Whitmer Peter Whitmer Jr. John Whitmer Hiram Page Joseph Smith Sr. Hyrum Smith Samuel Smith Other witnesses to the Book of Mormon
The Bible and the Book of Mormon	Bible passages in the Book of Mormon The New Testament and the Book of Mormon KJV italicized text in the Book of Mormon KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon Joseph Smith Translation and the Book of Mormon The Apocrypha and the Book of Mormon Isaiah and the Book of Mormon The documentary hypothesis and the Book of Mormon
Language and the Book of Mormon	Hebraisms Chiasmus Names in the Book of Mormon Hebrew and Native American languages Reformed Egyptian and the Book of Mormon The Book of Mormon as an ancient text
Geography	Church statements on Book of Mormon geography Evaluating Book of Mormon geography theories Old world geography in the Book of Mormon Lehi's journey in the Old World Possible locations for the Valley of Lemuel Possible locations for Shazer Possible locations for Nahom Possible locations for Nephi's Bountiful The Hill Cumorah Mesoamerican Model Hemispheric Geography Model Great Lakes Model Heartland Model Hoaxes related to Book of Mormon geography claims Geographical issues related to DNA and the Book of Mormon
DNA	DNA and the Book of Mormon Identifying ancient DNA related to Book of Mormon people Geographical issues related to DNA and the Book of Mormon
Anachronisms	Anachronism overview Biblical texts Horses Elephants Other animals Synagogues and churches Climate Metals and materials Metal plates in ancient Israel Plants Objects and artifacts
Doctrine and teachings	Moroni's promise The fulness of the gospel The Book of Mormon as the most correct book The nature of God Name of Jesus Christ Virgin birth of Jesus Christ Jesus Christ bled from every pore The Holy Ghost Baptism Priesthood authority Temples The Book of Mormon as the Stick of Ephraim Plural marriage Freemasonry Nephite burnt offerings The great and abominable church The tree of life Baptism before or after remission of sins One versus multiple creators
Lamanites	Identity of the Lamanites Native Americans and the Lamanites Relationship of the Maya and the Olmec to the Lamanites and the Jaredites Polynesians and the Lamanites The Lamanite curse Wrath of God on the Lamanites
Other	Population and demographics The Nephite calendar Biblical archaeology compared to the Book of Mormon Thomas Stuart Ferguson and Mormon archaeology Attempt to sell the Book of Mormon copyright in Canada Textual changes The Book of Mormon as history Legal codes in the Book of Mormon Lehi's ancestry and place of residence Three days of darkness The killing of Laban Human sacrifice Warfare in the Book of Mormon Events in Ether The death of Shiz

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The Witnesses

Video from The Interpreter Foundation.

All Three Witnesses

Testimony of Three Witnesses (1829)

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Oliver Cowdery
David Whitmer

Martin Harris

Statements regarding all Three Witnesses

• Richard Anderson described multiple accounts of all the Witnesses bearing testimony and reaffirming their published testimony:

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." 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."

Who was the angel who appeared?

Tradition among Latter-day Saints posits that the angel who appeared to the Three Witnesses was the Angel Moroni. Although this is possible, there is no contemporary documentary evidence to support this claim. Thus, the Church's Saints series (specifically, volume 1) does not name the angel.

According to James Hart, who interviewed David Whitmer in 1883, David Whitmer stated that he never learned the angel's name:

"Did the personage or angel who showed you the plates tell you his name?" I asked. Mr. Whitmer replied: "No, he did not. The idea has obtained ground that it was Moroni, the last of the Nephite Prophets. It may have been M[o]roni or it may have been one of the three Nephite Apostles who were promised that they should not taste of death. It is not important who he was, but I know he was a messenger from God."

Question: Did the three witnesses's experience of seeing the plates and the angel take place only in their minds?

Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #267: Why Were Three Key Witnesses Chosen To Testify Of The Book Of Mormon? (Video)

The Three Witnesses were very explicit that they had actually seen the angel and the plates

Some critics suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two supposed quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.”

Oliver Cowdery wrote explicitly for himself and Martin Harris when he replied, in a November 1829 letter, to questions about whether "juggling" (i.e., trickery or conjuring) could have explained what they saw:

"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."

Critics impose their own interpretation on phrases that do not match what the witnesses reported in many separate interviews. When challenged on the very point which the critics wish to read into their statements—their literal reality—both Harris and the other witnesses were adamant that their experience was literal, real, and undeniable. As early convert William E. McLellin reported:

"D[avid] Whitmer then arose and bore testimony to having seen an Holy Angel who had made known the truth of this record to him. [A]ll these strange things I pondered in my heart."

Question: Does the belief by the witnesses that the experience had visionary qualities contradict the claim that the Book of Mormon plates were real?

For Joseph, the Witnesses, and the Saints, "spiritual" does not imply something other or less than "material" or "literal"; it means something additional.

Does “visionary” mean “imaginary?” The critics who resort to this tactic to discredit the witnesses are often secularists—as such, they consider any talk of the spiritual as delusion or imagination. Yet, their understanding of such terms does not match how Martin and the other witnesses meant them.

Consider: on separate occasions Harris also claimed that prior to his witnessing the plates he held them (while covered) “on his knee for an hour and a half” and that they weighed approximately fifty pounds. It seems unlikely– from his physical descriptions as well as his other testimonies and the testimonies of the other two witnesses—that he meant to imply that the entire experience was merely in his mind.

A second account claims that the two witnesses' accounts differed, but makes it clear that both Harris and Whitmer had at some point physically handled and examined the plates:

Whitmar’s [sic] description of the Book of Mormon, differs entirely from that given by Harris; both of whom it would seem have been of late permitted, not only to see and handle it, but to examine its contents. Whitmar relates that he was led by Smith into an open field, on his father’s farm near Waterloo, when they found the book lying on the ground; Smith took it up and requested him to examine it, which he did for the space of half an hour or more, when he returned it to Smith, who placed it in its former position, alledging that the book was in the custody of another, intimating that some Divine agent would have it in safe keeping.

Critics are again accustomed to seeing "spiritual" as either implying something totally "Other" from physical, tangible reality, or as something delusional. But, Joseph Smith and his contemporaries in the Church did not understand things in such a way. As Joseph was to later write:

There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; 8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.(D&C 131꞉7-8.)

Question: What did the Book of Mormon witnesses mean when they used the word "supernatural" to describe their experiences?

The term "supernatural" is used as a synonym for "miraculous"

An early hostile account of the three witnesses' testimony from February 1830 is instructive:

In the Investigator, No. 12, Dec. 11, I published, by way of caution, a letter of Oliver H.P. Cowdry, in answer to my letter to Joseph Smith, Jun. Martin Harris, and David Whitmore—the believers in said bible of gold plates—which they affirm they have miraculously, or supernaturally beheld. I sought for evidences, and such as could not be disputed, of the existence of this bible of golden plates. But the answer was—the world must take their words for its existence; and that the book would appear this month.

Clearly, the author here uses "supernatural" as a synonym for "miraculous," not an attempt to argue that the plates do not literally exist, since "their words" are intended as "evidences...for its existence."

Martin Harris was claimed to have "supernaturally" seen the plates and angel, yet he also insisted that the experience was tangible and literal

Furthermore, Martin Harris' testimony is reported in a mocking newspaper article, which still makes it clear that Harris' experience was tangible and literal:

Martin Harris, another chief of Mormon imposters, arrived here last Saturday from the bible quarry in New-York. He immediately planted himself in the bar-room of the hotel, where he soon commenced reading and explaining the Mormon hoax, and all the dark passages from Genesis to Revelations. He told all about the gold plates, Angels, Spirits, and Jo Smith.—He had seen and handled them all, by the power of God!

John Whitmer, one of the eight witnesses, did not see an angel, but he did say that he "handled those plates." Yet, Whitmer was also said by Theodore Turley to have described the plates as being shown to him by a "supernatural power".

...all I know, you have published to the world that an angel did present those plates to Joseph Smith." Whitmer replied "I now say I handled those plates. there was fine engravings on both sides. I handled them." and he described how they were hung "and they were shown to me by a supernatural power." he acknowledged all. Turley asked him why the translation is not now true, & he said "I cannot read it, and I do not know whether it is true or not.

In a letter written by Myron Bond in 1878, Whitmer is said to have "saw and handled" the plates:

John Whitmer told me last winter....[that he] 'saw and handled' [the plates and]....helped to copy [the Book of Mormon manuscript] as the words fell from Joseph’s lips by supernatural or almighty power

Main article:

Martin Harris and the literal nature of the Three Witness experience

Some who repeated John Whitmer's words may have conflated his "non-supernatural" experience in handling the plates with his "supernatural" experience of listening to Joseph dictate the Book of Mormon

Note that Bond describes how Whitmer helped to copy the manuscript as Joseph dictated the words "by supernatural or almighty power." It is possible that Theodore Turley's recollection conflated Whitmer's non-supernatural handling of the plates with the description of the translation process by a "supernatural" power.

Like Martin Harris, John Whitmer, when speaking in his own words, was very clear that he had physically handled the plates:

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.

Question: Did the Three Witnesses have personal, subjective experiences?

The Three Witnesses insisted upon the literal, physical reality of their experience, despite also affirming that their was a divine, spiritual dimension to it.

Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer saw the angel together with Joseph Smith. This rebuts the claim that their vision was "merely" internal or subjective—both Oliver and David were present and could discuss or compare what they had experienced to confirm its reality. They were sharing a view of something, not hallucinating or being caught away in a private transport.

Martin Harris received his vision apart from Whitmer and Cowdery. This provides yet another cross-check on the experience, since Whitmer described how they heard Martin describe what he had experienced, and it matched their own experience:

At that time Mr. Whitmer saw the tablet, gazed with awe on the celestial messenger, heard him speak and say: 'BLessed is the Lord and he that keeps His commandments;" and then, as he held the plates and turned them over with his hands, so that they could be plainly visible, a voice that seemed to fill all space, musical as the sighing of a wind through the forest, was heard, saying: "What you see is true: testify to the same." And Oliver Cowdrey and David Whitmer, standing there, felt, as the white garments of the angel faded from their vision and the heavenly voice still rang in their ears, that it was no delusion--that it was a fact; and they so recorded it. In a day or two after the same spirit appeared to Martin Harris while he was in company with Smith, and told him also to bear witness to its truth, which he did, as can be seen in the book. Harris described the visitant to Whitmer, who recognized it as the same that he and Cowdrey had seen (emphasis added).

A similar account repeats these same themes:

I saw this apparition [the angel] myself and gazed with awe on the celestial messenger and heard him say, "Blessed is the Lord and he that keeps his commandments." Then, as he held the plates and turned them over with his hands so that we could see them plainly, a voice that seemed to fill all space was heard, saying: 'What you see is true. Testify to the same." Oliver Cowdrey and I, standing there, felt, as the white garments of the angel faded from view, that we had received a message from God, and we have so recorded it. Two or three days later the same angel appeared to Martin Harris while he was in company with [Joseph] Smith, and placed the same injunction upon him. He described the sight and his sensations to me, and they corresponded exactly with what I had seen and heard.

In another account, David Whitmer described how Martin's face was altered and physically different than it had been before, which acted as another evidence that the experience was both real and divine:

When Martin Harris came back to them [Joseph, Oliver, and David Whitmer], they knew he had also seen the angel, because his face was radiant and he declared he had received the testimony. David Whitmer told me they knew he had also seen the vision which they had, because he explained what they had themselves seen.

Conclusion

David and Oliver could cross check each other's experience, and had the additional witness of hearing Martin Harris describe his own experience to them, and seeing his face transformed. These data points increase our confidence that these were not merely subjective, internal experiences.

Question: Did the Three Witnesses consider Joseph Smith a "fallen prophet" after they left the Church?

Some of the Three Witnesses considered Joseph Smith to be a "fallen prophet" after they left the Church

The Three Witnesses left the Church for a variety of reasons, among with was the initiation of the practice of polygamy. David Whitmer felt that Joseph had restored the true Church, but that he had ultimately taken the Church in directions that he shouldn't have. Yet, all three of the witnesses never denied their testimony of the plates and the angel.

If the witnesses felt that Joseph had perpetuated a scam, they would have exposed it after their falling out with him

Just following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness. If there was any time for them to deny their witness, this was it:

I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the 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.

The witnesses had every reason to recant their experience, and no reason to lie to support either themselves, or Joseph Smith, with whom they were at odds for many years. The only compelling reason for persisting with their story was their essential honesty and honor, and their conviction that they had indeed seen the angel and the plates, and heard the voice of God.

The charge that the witnesses abandoned their testimonies is groundless: they did not recant their story, even when given ample opportunity to do so. There is abundant evidence that the witnesses remained faithful to their testimonies. It is even more impressive that all of them left the Church, and for many years expressed extremely bitter feelings toward Joseph Smith and the Church. Despite this, they continued to insist that their experience was real and undeniable.

Question: Did the Three Witnesses each add their own signature to the original Book of Mormon manuscript?

David Whitmer (1878): "Yes, we each signed his own name"

According to David Whitmer, each of the Three Witnesses added their signatures to the original Book of Mormon manuscript:

In September, 1878, in company with Apostle Orson Pratt, the writer visited David Whitmer, at Richmond, Ray County, Missouri. In the presence of David. C. Whitmer, the son of Jacob, Philander Page, David J. Whitmer, son of David Whitmer, George Scheweich, Col. James W. Black, J. R. B. Van Cleave and some others, Father David Whitmer was asked if the three witnesses signed their own names to their testimony to the Book of Mormon? Father Whitmer unhesitatingly replied with emphasis:

"Yes, we each signed his own name."

"Then," said the questioner, "how is it that the names of all the witnesses are found here, (in D. W's manuscript) written in the same hand writing?"

This question seemed to startle Father Whitmer, and, after examining the signatures he replied:

"Oliver must have copied them."

"Then, where are the original documents?" was asked.

He replied, "I don't know."

David Whitmer (1885): they "were present and ordered Oliver Cowdry [sic] to sign for them"

By 1885, in an interview with James Henry Moyle, Whitmer seems to have been clearer on how his copy of the manuscript came to be:

"The witnesses did Dav not sign the original manuscript though [they] were present and ordered Oliver Cowdry to sign for them."

A footnote which accompanies this section reads:

Moyle himself noted in his diary, "The statement that the three witnesses did not sign the manuscript but that Oliver Cowdery signed for them and at their request is doubtless true as to the copy which David Whitmer had. The writing itself indicates that. Joseph Fielding Smith, church historian, says his father said that in his interview and that of Orson Pratt, David Whitmer admitted that the three witnesses signed the original manuscript." Whitmer was unaware that two manuscript copies of the Book of Mormon had been made and that the manuscript in his possession was the second copy that Cowdery had prepared for the printer.

Question: Did the Three Witnesses each add their own signature to the original Book of Mormon manuscript?

David Whitmer (1878): "Yes, we each signed his own name"

According to David Whitmer, each of the Three Witnesses added their signatures to the original Book of Mormon manuscript:

In September, 1878, in company with Apostle Orson Pratt, the writer visited David Whitmer, at Richmond, Ray County, Missouri. In the presence of David. C. Whitmer, the son of Jacob, Philander Page, David J. Whitmer, son of David Whitmer, George Scheweich, Col. James W. Black, J. R. B. Van Cleave and some others, Father David Whitmer was asked if the three witnesses signed their own names to their testimony to the Book of Mormon? Father Whitmer unhesitatingly replied with emphasis:

"Yes, we each signed his own name."

"Then," said the questioner, "how is it that the names of all the witnesses are found here, (in D. W's manuscript) written in the same hand writing?"

This question seemed to startle Father Whitmer, and, after examining the signatures he replied:

"Oliver must have copied them."

"Then, where are the original documents?" was asked.

He replied, "I don't know."

David Whitmer (1885): they "were present and ordered Oliver Cowdry [sic] to sign for them"

By 1885, in an interview with James Henry Moyle, Whitmer seems to have been clearer on how his copy of the manuscript came to be:

"The witnesses did Dav not sign the original manuscript though [they] were present and ordered Oliver Cowdry to sign for them."

A footnote which accompanies this section reads:

Moyle himself noted in his diary, "The statement that the three witnesses did not sign the manuscript but that Oliver Cowdery signed for them and at their request is doubtless true as to the copy which David Whitmer had. The writing itself indicates that. Joseph Fielding Smith, church historian, says his father said that in his interview and that of Orson Pratt, David Whitmer admitted that the three witnesses signed the original manuscript." Whitmer was unaware that two manuscript copies of the Book of Mormon had been made and that the manuscript in his possession was the second copy that Cowdery had prepared for the printer.

Notes

Response to claim: "The witnesses, who have been heralded as good, honest, Abe Lincoln-type of men were later called liars, counterfeiters, thieves, etc. by Joseph Smith himself"

MormonThink states...

"The witnesses, who have been heralded as good, honest, Abe Lincoln-type of men were later called liars, counterfeiters, thieves, etc. by Joseph Smith himself."

FairMormon Response

• If Joseph was running a scam, why did he dare do this? Why did he attack these men's later behavior in the strongest terms, if he knew they had the means to ruin him by exposing the fraud of the Book of Mormon?
• Why didn't the witnesses turn around an denounce Joseph as a liar about the angel and the Book of Mormon plates?
• If the witnesses stuck to their story even when alienated from and harshly criticized by Joseph, doesn't this strengthen their witness?
• Why does it seem like Joseph had no worries about these men denying their testimony? It seems like he knew they would feel bound to bear it, no matter what.

Response to claim: "The 'testimony of the witnesses' is similar to testimonials which were commonly included in books"

MormonThink states...

"The "testimony of the witnesses" is similar to testimonials which were commonly included in books etc. in those days to help spur sales. And of course, the BOM's producers originally intended to sell copies for $1.75 each."

FairMormon Response

• So, if the point was simply to "spur sales" of the Book of Mormon, why did the witnesses stick to their testimonies until they died? They certainly weren't hoping to get any profits from the book by that time, right?
• Come to think of it, what was the financial motivation for all of the other witnesses with regard to sales of the Book of Mormon? Martin Harris was the only one invested in it.

Response to claim: "A personal promise (and a threat of condemnation) coming directly from God is bound to have a powerful influence on a person’s thinking"

MormonThink states...

"All three witnesses believed that God Himself had told them (through Joseph Smith) that they had been specially chosen to testify to the world that they had seen the angel and the plates –– if they had enough faith. Martin Harris was even told the exact words he must use: Joseph Smith said he had a revelation in which the Lord commanded Harris to say, “I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them.” And just to clinch the command, God threatened Martin Harris, saying, “But if he deny this he will break the covenant which he has before covenanted with me, and behold, he is condemned.” A personal promise (and a threat of condemnation) coming directly from God is bound to have a powerful influence on a person’s thinking!"

FairMormon Response

• So, are they implying that Martin deliberately lied about seeing the plates because he was afraid of being condemned by God?
• Why would Martin think that it was OK to break one of the ten commandments in order to avoid God's condemnation? Didn't the ten commandments come from God?
• Wouldn't Martin be more afraid of breaking the eighth commandment to not bear "false witness?"
• Why did Martin "stay scared" of God after leaving the Church? Why did he keep preaching the Book of Mormon and bearing his witness even when with other religious groups (much to those groups' irritation!)?
• Why would Martin believe these lines came from God unless he believed Joseph could really get revelation? Why would he fear the words of a presumed false prophet more than the ten commandments, Bible, and his own reputation?

Response to claim: "There are seven witnesses that say Solomon Spalding was the author of the Book of Mormon"

MormonThink states...

"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 a book by author Solomon Spalding that appeared to be an early draft of the BOM. In some ways they are more credible than the BOM witnesses as they each wrote their own account instead of merely signing a prepared statement."

FairMormon Response

FAIR Answers—back to home page

V

Articles about Joseph Smith

Life and Character	Status in Latter-day Saint belief Joseph's trustworthiness Money digging Folk magic or the occult The Word of Wisdom Alleged narcissism
Youth	Joseph Smith's family as trustworthy and hard-working Education Use of seer stones as a youth The Hurlbut affidavits Joseph Smith's 1826 trial
Revelations and the Church	Witness of Jesus Christ First Vision Book of Mormon Joseph Smith's inspired revision of the Bible (JST) The restoration of the priesthood Personages who appeared to Joseph Smith Production of the Book of Abraham Kinderhook Plates
Prophetic Statements	The U.S. Civil War Rocky Mountain prophecy The White Horse prophecy Alleged false prophecies of Joseph Smith Joseph Smith and Old Testament practices
Society	Legal issues 1826 trial Creation of the Kirtland Safety Society Failure of the Kirtland Safety Society Campaign for President of the United States
Plural marriage (polygamy)	Plural marriage or polygamy Polygamy navigator Plural wives of Joseph Smith
Death	The Nauvoo Expositor Events surrounding the death of Joseph Smith Firing a gun at Carthage Jail Qualification as a martyr 1844 Succession to Joseph Smith

"Hurlburt was always an unreliable fellow."

— E.D. Howe, Hurlburt's partner in the first anti-Mormon book, Mormonism Unvailed (1834).

What are the Hurlbut affidavits?

The Hurlbut affidavits are a collection of affidavits from Joseph Smith’s neighbors which claim that the Smith family possessed a number of character flaws

Many critics cite a collection of affidavits from Joseph Smith’s neighbors which claim that the Smith family possessed a number of character flaws. These affidavits were collected by Doctor Philastus Hurlbut ("Doctor" was his first name, not a title). Hurlbut had been excommunicated from the Church on charges of "unvirtuous conduct with a young lady," and for threatening the life of the Prophet.

1. There are many statements from Joseph's contemporaries attesting to his good character—These people did not sign sworn affidavits, but their accounts are recorded in their journals and histories.
2. It is also important to note that none of these statements regarding Joseph Smith, Jr. was a firsthand account from the Prophet himself, but instead represent second or third-hand accounts. It is interesting that Fawn Brodie and other modern anti-Mormons readily dismiss the affidavits supporting the Spalding theory (which has since been discredited), suggesting the Hurlbut "prompted" those making statements, yet accepts without question the affidavits attesting to the bad character of Joseph Smith and his family.
3. Finally, Hurlbut's motive in collecting the affidavits is a factor. The Hurlbut affidavits were collected by a man who not only had a grudge to settle with the Church, but who had actually been brought before a judge for issuing a death threat against Joseph Smith, Jr. His family had likewise lost a court case brought by the Smiths, and young Joseph's testimony played a significant role in their victory. (This occurred despite the Hurlbuts being more wealthy and prominent in the community than the poverty-stricken Smiths.)

Hurlbut had been hostile to the Smith family long before he collected his affidavits

Hurlbut's hostility to the Smiths may have been of long date. In 1819, the Smiths sued a local family of Hurlbuts over the sale of a pair of horses and some work they had done for him. (Aside from the name, it is not known if there was a family connection.) One author explains:

Joseph Smith's introduction to the legal system came at an early age. His father and oldest brother, Alvin, initiated a lawsuit in January 1819 against Jeremiah Hurlbut arising from his sale of a pair of horses to the Smiths for $65. The Smith boys had been working for Hurlbut to both pay down the $65 obligation and for other goods the previous summer. Twelve witnesses were called during the trial, including Hyrum and Joseph Smith Jr. Under New York law, being just thirteen, Joseph's testimony about the work he had performed was admissible only after the court found him competent. His testimony proved credible and the court record indicates that ever item that he testified about was included in the damages awarded to the Smiths. Although Hurlbut appealed the case, no records have survived noting the final disposition of that case; perhaps it was settled out of court. The significance of this case is not limited to the fact that a New York judge found the young Joseph, just a year prior to his First Vision, to be competent and credible as a witness. Also, the suit being brought against a prominent Palmyra family and involving two other prominent community leaders as sureties on appeal may have contributed to Joseph Smith Jr.'s memory of his family's estrangement from much of the Palmyra community....

Under applicable New York law, "qualified citizens" [for jury duty] were limited to male inhabitants of the county where the trial was being held between the ages of twenty-one and sixty; and who at the time had personal property in the amount of not less that $250 or real property in the county with a value of not less than $250. In the rural community of Palmyra this effectively meant that those qualified to be on the jury would be the more affluent and prominent men of the area. Ironically, none of the Smiths would have qualified to be a juror.

The trial was held on February 6, 1819. Twelve jurors were impaneled, all men and property owners. The Smiths called five witnesses, Hurlbut [the farmer they were suing] seven. Both Joseph Jr. and Hyrum were called to testify. This appears to be young Joseph's first direct interaction with the judicial [130] process. He had turned thirteen years old a month and a half previously. New York law and local practice permitted the use of child testimony, subject to the court's discretion to determine the witness' competency. The test for competency required a determination that the witness was of 'sound mind and memory.' A New York 1803 summary of the law for justices of the peace notes that 'all persons of sound mind and memory, and who have arrived at years of discretion, except such as are legally interested, or have been rendered infamous, may be improved as witnesses.' This determination of competency rested within the discretion of the judge....

From the record it appears that Judge Spear found Joseph Jr. competent, and he indeed did testify during the trial. This is evident in a review of the List of Services that was part of the court file. Joseph Jr.'s testimony would have been required to admit those services he personally performed....

Hurlbut's collection of the statements was made at the request of an anti-Mormon committee in Kirtland, Ohio

At any rate, Hurlbut's later collection of statements was made at the request of an anti-Mormon committee in Kirtland, Ohio. According to B.H. Roberts:

It was simply a matter of "muck raking" on Hurlbut's part. Every idle story, every dark insinuation which at that time could be thought of and unearthed was pressed into service to gratify this man's personal desire for revenge, and to aid the enemies of the Prophet in their attempt to destroy his influence and overthrow the institution then in process of such remarkable development.

Hurlbut was unable to publish the affidavits himself after his trial for making death threats against Joseph Smith, so he sold them to E.D. Howe for publication in his book Mormonism Unvailed

Hurlbut was unable to publish the affidavits himself after his trial for making death threats against Joseph Smith, Jr. (And, it is possible that his family's animus dated back far longer.) He sold his material to Eber D. Howe, who published it in his anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed in 1834. In addition to the affidavits attacking the character of the Smith family, Hurlbut gathered statements from the family and neighbors of Solomon Spalding in order to "prove" that Spalding's unpublished manuscript was the source for the Book of Mormon. Mormonism Unvailed contained the first presentation of the Spalding theory of Book of Mormon origin. Some critics, such as Fawn Brodie, are selective in their acceptance of Hurlbut's affidavits—They readily accept affidavits that attack the character of the Smith family, yet admit that some "judicious prompting" by Hurlbut may have been involved in those affidavits that were gathered to support the Spalding theory.

E.D. Howe thought that Joseph was "lazy," "indolent" and "superstitious"

Howe's bias is evident throughout the book. He introduces the Smith family with the following:

All who became intimate with them during this period, unite in representing the general character of old Joseph and wife, the parents of the pretended Prophet, as lazy, indolent, ignorant and superstitious—having a firm belief in ghosts and witches; the telling of fortunes; pretending to believe that the earth was filled with hidden treasures, buried there by Kid or the Spaniards.

What do the Hurlbut affidavits claim about the Smith family's character and reliability?

The affidavits claimed that the Smith family was "lazy" and "worthless" and "destitute of moral character"

A number of individuals signed the following statement, which claims that Joseph Smith's family was "destitute of moral character." This, of course, all occurred several years after the publication of the Book of Mormon. the statement appears in E.D. Howe's anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed in 1834:

We, the undersigned, have been acquainted with the Smith family, for a number of years, while they resided near this place, and we have no hesitation in saying, that we consider them destitute of that moral character, which ought to entitle them to the confidence of any community. They were particularly famous for visionary projects, spent much of their time in digging for money which they pretended was hid in the earth; and to this day, large excavations may be seen in the earth, not far from their residence, where they used to spend their time in digging for hidden treasures. Joseph Smith, Senior, and his son Joseph, were in particular, considered entirely destitute of moral character, and addicted to vicious habits.

Martin Harris was a man who had acquired a handsome property, and in matters of business his word was considered good; but on moral and religious subjects, he was perfectly visionary—sometimes advocating one sentiment, and sometimes another. And in reference to all with whom we were acquainted, that have embraced Mormonism from this neighborhood, we are compeled to say, were very visionary, and most of them destitute of moral character, and without influence in this community; and this may account why they were permitted to go on with their impositions undisturbed. It was not supposed that any of them were possessed of sufficient character or influence to make any one believe their book or their sentiments, and we know not of a single individual in this vicinity that puts the least confidence in their pretended revelations.

Joseph Smith responded direct to the accusations against his character in December 1834

Joseph Smith published the following response in the Messenger and Advocate in December 1834:

During this time, as is common to most, or all youths, I fell into many vices and follies; but as my accusers are, and have been forward to accuse me of being guilty of gross and outrageous violations of the peace and good order of the community, I take the occasion to remark, that, though, as I have said above, "as is common to most, or all youths, I fell into many vices and follies," I have not, neither can it be sustained, in truth, been guilty of wronging or injuring any man or society of men; and those imperfections to which I allude, and for which I have often had occasion to lament, were a light, and too often, vain mind, exhibiting a foolish and trifling conversation.

This being all, and the worst, that my accusers can substantiate against my moral character, I wish to add, that it is not without a deep feeling of regret that I am thus called upon in answer to my own conscience, to fulfill a duty I owe to myself, as well as to the cause of truth, in making this public confession of my former uncircumspect walk, and unchaste conversation: and more particularly, as I often acted in violation of those holy precepts which I knew came from God. But as the "Articles and Covenants" of this church are plain upon this particular point, I do not deem it important to proceed further. I only add, that (I do not, nor never have, pretended to be any other than a man "subject to passion," and liable, without the assisting grace of the Savior, to deviate from that perfect path in which all men are commanded to walk!)

If members of the Smith family had been liars, immoral, and "addicted to vicious habits," Lucy, Hyrum and Samuel would have been unable to retain their membership in the Western Presbyterian Church until 1830

Milton V. Backman wrote:

If the belittling statements by men who supposedly were acquainted with the Smith family were correct, and if members of the family had been liars, immoral, and "addicted to vicious habits," Lucy, Hyrum and Samuel would have been unable to retain their membership in the Western Presbyterian Church until 1830. In that era excommunications were frequent in most congregations, including the Presbyterian society of Palmyra. Individuals judged guilty of immorality, profanity, lying, drunkenness, gambling, and other such sins were excommunicated from this society. The reason members of the Smith family were dismissed from the Lord's Supper in the spring of 1830 was not because of any of the above charges but only because they desired to withdraw their membership and had neglected to attend church for a year and a half.

Contrast the accusations against the achievements of the family during the few years of their residence in Palmyra

B.H. Roberts contrasts the achievements of the Smith family with the accusations made against them:

Against this large collection of evil report and false interpretation of the character of the Smiths while at Palmyra, prompted as it was by prejudice and collected by malice, the evidence of accomplished fact, and the subsequent lives of the family may be opposed. Take for example the achievements of the family during the few years of their residence in Palmyra. They arrived there penniless, as all admit, with nothing but their bare hands with which to help themselves. Yet in a few years they built two homes in the wilderness; they cleared sixty acres of heavy timber land, and converted it into a tillable farm. In addition to their farming and gardening, they had a sugar orchard of from twelve to fifteen hundred maple trees, from which they gathered the sap and converted it into syrup or sugar. To aid in making the annual payments upon their farm, as well as to help sustain the family until the farm could be made productive, they took an occasional day's work among the neighboring farmers or the Palmyra village folk, sometimes engaged to dig a well, or harvest a field of grain. It is conceded, in the main, that they did all this; and one marvels in the face of it that the charge of laziness and thriftlessness should be made. But the wonder grows when to all this is to be added the stories of the affidavits about the Smith's "money digging" enterprises. "They * * * spent much of their time in digging for money which they pretended was hid in the earth, and to this day large excavations may be seen in the earth not far from their residence, where they used to spend their time digging for hidden treasures." fn Truly if the half of what is told in the affidavits about these exploits, usually carried on at night, is to be believed, then it would be utterly impossible to believe the Smiths to be idle or habitually lazy.

Replies to these claims

Wiki links	Joseph Smith's family as trustworthy and hard-working Joseph Smith's trustworthiness
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young

What did Henry Harris claim about Joseph Smith in the Hurlbut affidavits?

Henry Harris claimed that Joseph was lazy, and that he was required to be married in order to see the plates

In the anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed, Henry Harris had this to say about Joseph Smith:

Joseph Smith, Jr. the pretended Prophet, used to pretend to tell fortunes; he had a stone which he used to put in his hat, by means of which he professed to tell people's fortunes.

Harris made the following assertions:

• Claimed that the Smith family "labored very little."
• Claimed that the Smith family primarily "dug for money."
• Claimed that Joseph Smith, Jr. "pretended to tell fortunes."
• Claimed that Joseph Smith, Jr. "he had a stone which he used to put in his hat, by means of which he professed to tell people's fortunes."
• Claimed that Joseph was required to be married in order to obtain the plates.
• Claimed that Joseph and Martin Harris (and others) "were regarded by the community in which they lived, as a lying and indolent set of men and no confidence could be placed in them."
• Claimed that "He said it was revealed to him, that no one must see the plates but himself and wife [Emma]."

Harris claimed to have conversed with Joseph Smith regarding the plates:

After he pretended to have found the gold plates, I had a conversation with him, and asked him where he found them and how he come to know where they were. He said he had a revelation from God that told him they were hid in a certain hill and he looked in his stone and saw them in the place of deposit; that an angel appeared, and told him he could not get the plates until he was married, and that when he saw the woman that was to be his wife, he should know her, and she would know him. He then went to Pennsylvania, got his wife, and they both went together and got the gold plates—he said it was revealed to him, that no one must see the plates but himself and wife.

Responses to Harris' claims

• The claim that the Smith's were lazy and rarely worked it clearly false—their farm and its improvements was worth more than most of their neighbors.
• Many testified to how diligent a worker Joseph was.
• Martin Harris was respected and admired greatly—until he became associated with the Book of Mormon. He was otherwise trusted and well-regarded, which is why critics found his participation so baffling.
• Emma testified she never saw the plates; the claim about her and Joseph seeing them is thus false.

Replies to these claims

Wiki links	Joseph Smith's family as trustworthy and hard-working Joseph Smith's trustworthiness
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young

What did Parley Chase claim about Joseph Smith in the Hurlbut affidavits?

Parley Chase claimed that the Smiths were lazy, intemperate that they "boasted of their skill" at lying

Parley Chase made the following claims about the Smith family on 2 December 1833, three years after the publication of the Book of Mormon:

I was acquainted with the family of Joseph Smith, Sen., both before and since they became Mormons, and feel free to state that not one of the male members of the Smith family were entitled to any credit, whatsoever. They were lazy, intemperate and worthless men, very much addicted to lying. In this they frequently boasted of their skill. Digging for money was their principal employment. In regard to their Gold Bible speculation, they scarcely ever told two stories alike. The Mormon Bible is said to be a revelation from God, through Joseph Smith Jr., his Prophet, and this same Joseph Smith Jr. to my knowledge, bore the reputation among his neighbors of being a liar. The foregoing statement can be corroborated by all his former neighbors.

Hugh Nibley: "Skillful liars don't boast about it"

Hugh Nibley notes:

"Frequently"? A liar's "skill"...consists in not being recognized as a liar. Skillful liars don't boast about it.

What did Barton Stafford claim about Joseph Smith in the Hurlbut affidavits?

Barton Stafford claimed that Joseph Smith, Sr. was a "drunkard"

• Claimed that Joseph Smith, Sr. was a "drunkard."
• Claimed that Joseph Smith, Jr. was "addicted to intemperance."

John Stafford, on the other hand, said that it was common then for everybody to drink, and to have drink in the field

John Stafford, eldest son of William Stafford, was later asked "What was the character of [Joseph] Smith [Jr.], as to his drinking?" Replied Stafford, "It was common then for everybody to drink, and to have drink in the field; one time Joe, while working for some one after he was married, drank too much boiled cider. He came in with his shirt torn." When asked if this meant Joseph had been drunk and fighting, Stafford insisted, "No; he had been scuffling with some of the boys. Never saw him fight; have known him to scuffle...." Thus, while Joseph likely drank (as did everyone, a point which the affidavits gloss over) to describe him as 'addicted to intemperance' is likely a gross exaggeration. John Stafford seems to have remembered this event because it was remarkable and fairly minor—hardly the sign of Joseph being perpetually drunk.

• The lack of other claims in the affidavits that Joseph Jr. was a drunk is also telling—this would have been widely known and widely claimed in the affidavits if true.

What did David Stafford claim about Joseph Smith in the Hurlbut affidavits?

David Stafford claimed that Oliver Cowdery was a "worthless person" who was "not to be trusted"

• That Joseph Smith, Sr. was a "drunkard," a "liar," and a "gambler."
• That the "general employment" of the Smith family was "money digging" and "fortune telling."
• That Oliver Cowdery was a "worthless person" who was "not to be trusted."

John Stafford, on the other hand, stated that Oliver Cowdery was a man of good character

John Stafford, William Stafford's eldest son, would later say that Oliver Cowdery "taught school on the Canandaigua road, where the stone school-house now stands...Cowdery was a man of good character."

What did Willard Chase claim about Joseph Smith in the Hurlbut affidavits?

Willard Chase claimed that he discovered Joseph's seer stone, and that it belonged to him

Willard Chase and Joseph Smith were digging a well together when one of Joseph's seer stones was discovered. When it became known that Joseph was able to use the stone, Chase later claimed that Joseph had stolen it from him.

• Claimed that he discovered Joseph Smith's seer stone.
• Claimed that the seer stone rightfully belonged to Chase.

Willard Chase claimed that Joseph Smith, Sr. told him that Moroni appeared in the form of a toad

Chase claimed that the Prophet's father told him that certain "magical" practices had to be performed in order for Joseph to obtain the plates.

• Claimed that Joseph Smith, Sr. told him that Joseph Jr. removed the plates from the stone box, set them on the ground, and that they went back into the stone box on their own.
• Claimed that Joseph Smith, Sr. told him that Joseph Jr. was required to wear certain clothes and perform certain actions in order to obtain the plates.
• Claimed that Joseph Smith, Sr. told him that the angel Moroni appeared in the form of a toad.

Replies to these claims

Wiki links	Joseph Smith and seer stones Joseph Smith and "folk magic"
Online	Mark Ashurst-McGee, "Moroni as Angel and as Treasure Guardian," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 34–100. [{{{url}}} off-site] wiki Larry E. Morris, "'I Should Have an Eye Single to the Glory of God’: Joseph Smith’s Account of the Angel and the Plates (Review of: "From Captain Kidd’s Treasure Ghost to the Angel Moroni: Changing Dramatis Personae in Early Mormonism")," FARMS Review 17/1 (2005): 11–82. off-site
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young

What did Peter Ingersoll claim about Joseph Smith in the Hurlbut affidavits?

Peter Ingersoll claimed that the Smiths' "general employment" was money digging

• Claimed that the Smith family's general employment was "digging for money."
• Claimed that Joseph Smith, Sr. taught him to use a divining rod.
• Claimed that Joseph Smith, Sr. and Alvin Smith used a stone in a hat to see things.
• Claimed that Joseph Smith, Sr., was engaged in "divination."

The Smith farm was improved to the point that it was worth more than 9 out of 10 farms in the region. Given that the Smiths' property was worth more than most of their neighbors, it is difficult to credit the after-the-fact claims by some neighbors in the Hurlbut affidavits that the Smiths were lazy ne'er-do-wells who spent all of their time "money digging."

Ingersoll claimed that Joseph admitted to his father-in-law that he was a fraud

• Claimed that Joseph Smith, Jr. admitted to his father-in-law that he only pretended to be able to see things in the stone.
• Claimed that Joseph Smith, Jr. fooled his family into thinking that a frock full of sand was the "Gold Bible."
• Claimed that Joseph told his family that nobody could see the "Gold Bible" and live.

On the threat that no one could see the "gold bible" and live, see: Viewing gold plates would result in death

Ingersoll claimed that the story of the gold plates was created as a joke

• Claimed that Joseph made up the story of the gold plates on the spot, after which he is supposed to have said, "I have got the damned fools fixed, and will carry out the fun." However, Ingersoll is discredited on his claim that Joseph made the story of the "gold bible" up on the spot as a way to have "fun" with his family. Joseph was telling various people about his Moroni visits well before recovering the plates (see for example various Knight family recollections). Note also that the name "Moroni" appears in the claim made by Lemon Copley.
• Claimed that Joseph told him that "he had no such book, and believed there never was any such book."
• Claimed that Joseph Smith, Sr. said that there had been a book found in a hollow tree in Canada that described the "first settlement of this country before it was discovered by Columbus."

It is very difficult to believe that Joseph would have privately confided to Ingersoll that the plates didn't exist, when he told everyone else that they did.

Replies to these claims

Online

Mark Ashurst-McGee, "Moroni as Angel and as Treasure Guardian," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 34–100. [{{{url}}} off-site] wiki Larry E. Morris, "'I Should Have an Eye Single to the Glory of God’: Joseph Smith’s Account of the Angel and the Plates (Review of: "From Captain Kidd’s Treasure Ghost to the Angel Moroni: Changing Dramatis Personae in Early Mormonism")," FARMS Review 17/1 (2005): 11–82. off-site

Navigators

Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young

What did William Stafford claim about Joseph Smith in the Hurlbut affidavits?

William Stafford claimed that Joseph could see "spirits" guarding treasures

(uncle to C.R. Stafford)

• Claimed that the family of Joseph Smith, Sr. devoted a "great part of their time" to "digging for money."
• Claimed that he was told that Joseph Smith, Jr. could see "large caves" in "nearly all the hills in this part of New York."
• Claimed that Joseph could see "spirits" guarding great treasures.
• Claimed that Joseph Smith, Sr. told him that treasure could "sink" into the ground.
• Claimed that Joseph Smith, Sr. took one of his sheep on the pretense of using it to search for money by cutting its throat.
• Claimed that Joseph promised to show him the gold plates.

The claim that the Smiths were lazy is belied by objective financial data showing them to be more hard-working than most of their neighbors

The claim that the Smiths were lazy is belied by objective financial data showing them to be more hard-working than most of their neighbors. The attacks on their industry date from after they had become notorious for the Book of Mormon and the Church, and probably spring from religious hostility more than truth.

Replies to these claims

Wiki links	Joseph Smith's family as trustworthy and hard-working
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young

William Stafford's story contradicts Peter Ingersoll's story

William Stafford's claim that Joseph promised to show him the gold plates directly contradicts Peter Ingersoll's claim that Joseph confided to him that there were no plates.

Stafford claimed that "The two Josephs and Hiram, promised to show me the plates, after the book of Mormon was translated. But, afterwards, they pretended to have received an express commandment, forbidding them to show the plates."

Ingersol,on the other hand, said that Joseph confided to him that "he had no such book, and believed there never was any such book."

Stafford's oldest son John: "I have heard that story [about the black sheep] but don't think my father was there at the time they say Smith got the sheep"

Stafford's oldest son John would later say "I have heard that story [about the black sheep] but don't think my father was there at the time they say Smith got the sheep. I don't know anything about it....They never stole one [a sheep], I am sure; they may have got one sometime....I don't think it [the story of the sheep] is true. I would have heard more about it, that is true."

Replies to these claims

Wiki links	Joseph Smith's family as trustworthy and hard-working
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young

What did the Hurlbut affidavits say about Martin Harris?

Lucy and Abigail Harris claimed that Martin Harris said that Mormonism was false and that he could "make money out of it"

Claimant	Claims	Comments
Abigail Harris (28 Nov. 1833)	Claimed that Martin Harris said regarding Mormonism: "What if it is a lie; if you will let me alone I will make money out of it!"	Abigail embellishes her version of what she heard by implying that Martin Harris "admitted" that Mormonism was a lie.
Lucy Harris (29 Nov. 1833) (Wife of Martin Harris)	Claimed that Martin Harris said that he could make money out of Mormonism, and that "if you would let me alone, I could make money by it." Claimed that Martin Harris "has whipped, kicked, and turned me out of the house." Claimed that Martin Harris may or may not (though clearly using language that favors the former) have had an affair with a neighbor's wife (a "Mrs. Haggard"). She wrote: "If his intentions were evil, the Lord will judge him accordingly, but if good, he did not mean to let his left hand know what his right hand did."	Despite the fact that Lucy Harris makes no mention of the lost 116 pages of manuscript from the Book of Mormon, Fawn Brodie in her book No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith actually concludes that Harris beat his wife in order to get her to divulge what she had done with the lost 116 pages of manuscript.

Lucy and Abigail Harris are the only two individuals who claimed that Martin Harris was hoping to make money from Mormonism

It is interesting to note the similarity between the testimony for both women. It is more interesting however, to note how Abigail Harris has added the phrase "What if it is a lie," while Martin's wife, Lucy, did not. Abigail states that she stated what she did "for the good of all mankind". If Martin actually believed that Mormonism was a lie, why would his wife Lucy not have mentioned this?. She in fact makes it clear in her affidavit that Martin did believe in Mormonism to the point of having "no one in his house that did not believe in Mormonism"

With regards to the motives to make money, it makes sense that both Abigail and Lucy would testify this way against Martin. But they may have been selectively remembering this. Keep in mind that Martin had a firm conviction of the Book of Mormon, which Lucy makes more than clear in her statement. What if Martin, in the first instance of the statement being made, meant to assuage Lucy's concern over mortgaging the Harris farm to fund the publication of the Book of Mormon? It's a plausible interpretation that can cut back some of the exaggerations in their statements fomented by Howe's impetus and their shared prejudice of Martin looking back. It would be especially understandable if Martin's history of abuse reported by Lucy is true (which it likely is).

Martin may have had feelings towards the supposed "Mrs. Haggard" but evidence of adultery is simply inconclusive.

In regard to Mrs. Haggard, it seems as though Martin may have had some feelings for this woman. Lucy seems to be very honest in her portrayal of Martin's behavior. Additionally, a contemporary revelation given to Joseph Smith (summer of 1829) states: "25 And again, I command thee that thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife; nor seek thy neighbor’s life." (D&C 19:25). Beyond this, however, there does not seem to be any conclusive evidence of Martin committing adultery with this woman.

Lucy still testifies to Martin's industriousness and implies that he was a respected individual in the community prior to publication of the Book of Mormon.

Lucy wrote:

Martin Harris was once industrious[ly] attentive to his domestic concerns, and thought to be worth about ten thousand dollars.

[. . .]

It is in vain for the Mormons to deny these facts; for they are all well known to most of his former neighbors. The man has now become rather an object of pity; he has spent most of his property, and lost the confidence of his former friends. If he had labored as hard on his farm as he has to make Mormons, he might now be one of the wealthiest farmers in the country. He now spends his time in travelling through the country spreading the delusion of Mormonism, and has no regard whatever for his family.

Lucy implies that Martin was considered respected in the community prior to the mortgaging of his farm in support of the Book of Mormon.

Addressing the Abuse

Lucy's report of abuse is the most disheartening of the affdavit. While on one hand Lucy may have exaggerated some of the elements about Martin, these claims are those to take most seriously. She stated:

He is naturally quick in his temper and his mad-fits frequently abuses all who may dare to oppose him in his wishes. However strange it may seem, I have been a great sufferer by his unreasonable conduct. At different times while I lived with him, he has whipped, kicked, and turned me out of the house. About a year previous to the report being raised that Smith had found gold plates, he became very intimate with the Smith family, and said he believed Joseph could see in his stone any thing he wished. After this he apparently became very sanguine in his belief, and frequently said he would have no one in his house that did not believe in Mormonism; and because I would not give credit to the report he made about the gold plates, he became more austere towards me. In one of his fits of rage he struck me with the but end of a whip, which I think had been used for driving oxen, and was about the size of my thumb, and three or four feet long. He beat me on the head four or five times, and the next day turned me out of doors twice, and beat me in a shameful manner.—

The next day I went to the town of Marion, and while there my flesh was black and blue in many places. His main complaint against me was, that I was always trying to hinder his making money.

When he found out that I was going to Mr. Putnam's, in Marion, he said he was going too, but they had sent for him to pay them a visit. On arriving at Mr. Putnam's, I asked them if they had sent for Mr. Harris; they replied, they knew nothing about it; he, however, came in the evening. Mrs. Putnam told him never to strike or abuse me any more; he then denied ever striking me; she was however convinced that he lied, as the marks of his beating me were plain to be seen, and remained more than two weeks. Whether the Mormon religion be true or false, I leave the world to judge, for its effects upon Martin Harris have been to make him more cross, turbulent and abusive to me. His whole object was to make money by it.

Perhaps we can demonstrate a little skepticism towards the event since it comes years after the fact. But that should be balanced with how we've interpreted Lucy's statements in the rest of the affidavit—as reliable. If we rely on her to dispel the claim from Abigail, and we rely on her to not give a definitive declaration of Martin's involvement with Mrs. Haggard, and if we rely on her as reliable to establish Martin as industrious and well-respected, then we should give Lucy some trust in stating that she was abused. Abuse connected to disagreement over the legitimacy of Joseph's claims is a more than plausible reason for Lucy and Martin's separation in 1830. While on one hand we may use Lucy's affirmation of Harris' industriousness and his firm conviction of the Book of Mormon as a positive evidence for the Book of Mormon, we should also recognize, like two accomplished historians noted about Martin, that "Martin was certainly not free from inherent human frailties and foibles, some of which are enumerated in Mormonism Unvailed." We can recognize his contributions to the Book of Mormon and the work of God while also condemning and also extending charity to his more negative qualities.

What do the Hurlbut affidavits say about Joseph Smith claiming that he was "as good as Jesus Christ"?

Three individuals who made their depositions together said that Joseph Smith claimed that he was "as good as Jesus Christ"

Claimant	Claims	Comments
Levi Lewis	Claimed that Joseph Smith, Jr. and Martin Harris said that "adultery was no crime." Claimed that he "knows Smith to be a liar." Claimed that he heard Joseph Smith say that he "was as good as Jesus Christ." Claimed that Joseph Smith, Jr. told him "[w]ith regard to the plates, Smith said God had deceived him."	Martin Harris would later be charged with slander for accusing a woman (Eliza Winters) of having a "bastard child." He was acquitted of this charge, but it is inconsistent with Lewis' claim for Martin to suffer jail and risk slander charges over an issue which he regards as "no crime." The story is implausible. Joseph repeatedly testified (as did others) that he had the plates, and that others and seen them. That Lewis claims otherwise is likewise implausible. Joseph's early private letters reveal him to be humble and painfully aware of his dependence on God. The claim about him being "as good as Jesus Christ" is inconsistent with this private, contemporary evidence.
Sophia Lewis	Claimed that Joseph Smith, Jr. said that he "was as good as Jesus Christ." Claimed that Joseph Smith, Jr. said that "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."	On the threat that no one could see the gold plates and live, see: Viewing gold plates would result in death
Hezekiah M'Kune	Claimed that Joseph Smith said "he was nearly equal to Jesus Christ."	Joseph's early private letters reveal him to be humble and painfully aware of his dependence on God. The claim about him being "as good as Jesus Christ" is inconsistent with this private, contemporary evidence. Gregory L. Smith, A review of Nauvoo Polygamy:...but we called it celestial marriage by George D. Smith. FARMS Review, Vol. 20, Issue 2. (Detailed book review)

Hezekiah M'Kune, Levi Lewis and Sophia Lewis went together to make their depositions before the justice and their testimonies bear a remarkable similarity

• 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.

What do the Hurlbut affidavits say about the Spalding manuscript and the Book of Mormon?

Hurlbut's affidavits regarding the Spalding manuscript consist of interviews with family and associates of Solomon Spalding

Claimant	Claims
Artemas Cunningham	Claimed to have "partially examined" the "Mormon Bible." Claimed that Spalding's manuscript was called "Manuscript Found." Claimed "to remember the name of Nephi" as the "principal hero."
Nahum Howard	Claimed to have "lately read the Book of Mormon." Claimed that it was the same as Spalding wrote, "except the religious part."'
Henry Lake	Claimed to have recently "commenced reading [The Book of Mormon] aloud." Claimed that Spalding's work frequently used the words "it came to pass."
John Miller	Claimed to have "recently examined the Book of Mormon." Claimed that the Book of Mormon was "mixed up with scripture and other religious matter, which I did not meet with in the "Manuscript Found." Claimed that "Nephi, Lehi, Moroni" were the "principal names" in Spalding's book.
Oliver Smith	Claimed that "Nephi and Lehi were by [Spalding] represented as leading characters." Claimed that Spalding included "no religious matter" in his book. Claimed that "I obtained the book [of Mormon], and on reading it, found much of it the same as Spalding had written."
John Spalding (Brother of Solomon Spalding)	Claimed to have "recently read the Book of Mormon." Claimed that Spalding's book was entitled The Manuscript Found. Claimed that the book attempted to show that the American Indians are the descendents of the Jews. Claimed that the leaders of the group were called "Nephi" and "Lehi." Claimed that the book described two nations called the "Nephites" and the "Lamanites." Claimed that the people described in Spalding's book buried their dead in large mounds. Claimed that many sentences in Spalding's book began with "it came to pass."
Martha Spalding (wife of Solomon Spalding)	Claimed that she had "read the Book of Mormon." Claimed that the Book of Mormon was based upon Spalding's story. Claimed that "the names of Nephi and Lehi are yet fresh in my memory, as being the principal heroes of his tale." Claimed that Spalding's characters separated into two nations, "one of which was called Lamanites and the other Nephites." Claimed that Spalding's tale told of the dead "being buried in large heaps was the cause of the numerous mounds in the country." Claimed that Spalding's manuscript used the words "it came to pass."
Aaron Wright	Claimed that the Book of Mormon following the Spalding story, "excepting the religious matter." Claimed that "the names more especially are the same without any alteration."

⍗

Learn more about Book of Mormon authorship claims: Spalding manuscript

Key sources	Andrew H. Hedges, "Review of View of the Hebrews," FARMS Review 9/1 (1997). [63–68] link Online text of "Manuscript Found", the Spaulding document discovered in 1884 and published by the RLDS Church.off-site
FAIR links	FairMormon Topical Guide: Spaulding Theory FairMormon link John K. Wise, "Clouds Without Water, Zeal Without Knowledge" FAIR link Matthew B. Brown, "Solomon Spaulding and the Book of Mormon" FAIR link
Online	"Origins of the Spaulding Manuscript", by Professor A. S. Root, Oberlin College, 12 May 1927.off-site Jeff Lindsay, "Plagiarism in the Book of Mormon: Is It Derived from Modern Writings?, jefflindsay.com (accessed 5 October 2005).off-site “Considerable Excitement,” The Evening and the Morning Star (Kirtland, Ohio) 2, no. 19 (April 1834): 150. off-site Matthew B. Brown, "The Spalding-Rigdon Theory," in Plates of Gold: The Book of Mormon Comes Forth (American Fork, UT: Covenant, 2003), 185–201. ISBN 1591563704. Gary F. Novak, "Naturalistic Assumptions and the Book of Mormon," Brigham Young University Studies 30 no. 3 (1990), 23–40.off-site Spencer J. Palmer and William L. Knecht, "View of the Hebrews: Substitute for Inspiration?," Brigham Young University Studies 5 no. 2 (1964), 105–113. off-site Brigham H. Roberts, "A Brief Debate on the Book of Mormon," in Defense of the Faith and the Saints, 2 vols. (1907), 1:365. Vol 1 GL direct link Vol 2 GL direct linkGL direct link Brigham H. Roberts, "The Origin of the Book of Mormon," in Defense of the Faith and the Saints, 2 vols. (1907), 2:95–229. Vol 1 GL direct link Vol 2 GL direct linkGL direct link Lester Bush, "The Spalding [sic] Theory Then and Now," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 10 no. 4 (Autumn 1977), 40–69.off-site Bruce D. Blumell, "Would you respond to the theories that the Book of Mormon is based on the Spaulding manuscript or on Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews?," Ensign (September 1976): 83.off-site Orson Scott Card, "News of the Church: Spaulding Again?," Ensign 7 (September 1977): 94.off-site L. Ara Norwood, "Book of Mormon Authorship: A Closer Look (Review of Book of Mormon Authorship: A Closer Look by Vernal Holley)," FARMS Review of Books 1/1 (1989): 80–88. off-site Matthew Roper, "The Mythical "Manuscript Found" (Review of: Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? The Spalding Enigma)," FARMS Review 17/2 (2005): 7–140. off-siteGL direct link (Key source) President Joseph F. Smith, "The Manuscript Found," Improvement Era 33 no. 4 (February 1900), ? page.off-site Anonymous, "A Summary," Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate 1 no. 5 (February 1835), 76–77. off-site G. Bruce Schaalje, Matthew Roper, and Paul Fields, "Examining a Misapplication of Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification to Investigate Book of Mormon Authorship (A review of "Reassessing authorship of the Book of Mormon using delta and nearest shrunken centroid classification" by: Matthew L. Jockers, Daniela M. Witten, and Craig S. Criddle)," Mormon Studies Review 23/1 (2011): 87–111. off-site wiki G. Bruce Schaalje, Matthew Roper, and Paul Fields, "Examining a Misapplication of Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification to Investigate Book of Mormon Authorship (A review of "Reassessing authorship of the Book of Mormon using delta and nearest shrunken centroid classification" by: Matthew L. Jockers, Daniela M. Witten, and Craig S. Criddle)," Mormon Studies Review 23/1 (2011): 87–111. off-site wiki Matthew Roper, and Paul Fields, "The Historical Case against Sidney Rigdon's Authorship of the Book of Mormon (A review of "Reassessing authorship of the Book of Mormon using delta and nearest shrunken centroid classification" by: Matthew L. Jockers, Daniela M. Witten, and Craig S. Criddle)," Mormon Studies Review 23/1 (2011): 113–125. off-site wiki Matthew Roper, and Paul Fields, "The Historical Case against Sidney Rigdon's Authorship of the Book of Mormon (A review of "Reassessing authorship of the Book of Mormon using delta and nearest shrunken centroid classification" by: Matthew L. Jockers, Daniela M. Witten, and Craig S. Criddle)," Mormon Studies Review 23/1 (2011): 113–125. off-site wiki Brigham H. Roberts, "Counter Theories of Origin," in New Witnesses for God, 3 Vols., (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1909[1895, 1903]), 3, Chapter XLIV:347–406. ISBN 0962254541.GL direct link Francis Kirkham, A New Witness for Christ in America: The Book of Mormon, 2 vols., (Salt Lake City: Utah Printing, 1959[1942]), 2:391–400. ASIN B000HMY138. L. Ara Norwood, "Book of Mormon Authorship: A Closer Look (Review of Book of Mormon Authorship: A Closer Look by Vernal Holley)," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1/1 (1989). [80–88] link View of the Hebrews: 1825 2nd Edition Complete Text by Ethan Smith, edited by Charles D. Tate Jr., (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1996), 1. ISBN 1570082472. off-site wikisource
Print	Ariel Crowley, About the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1961). Benjamin Winchester, The Origin of the Spaulding Story, Concerning the Manuscript Found, (Philadelphia: Brown, Bicking & Guilfert, 1840). Dean C. Jessee, 'Spalding theory' re-examined,' Church News (20 August 1977): 3–5. Ethan Smith, View of the Hebrews : exhibiting the destruction of Jerusalem; the certain restoration of Judah and Israel; the present state of Judah and Israel; and an address of the prophet Isaiah relative to their restoration (Poultney, (Vt.) : Printed and published by Smith & Shute, 1823). [1st edition] Hugh Nibley, "The Comparative Method," in Hugh W. Nibley, The Prophetic Book of Mormon (Vol. 8 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1989),193–206. ISBN 0875791794. John W. Welch, "An Unparallel: Ethan Smith and the Book of Mormon," (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1985); republished in John W. Welch, "An Unparallel: Ethan Smith and the Book of Mormon," in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, edited by John W. Welch (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1992), 83–86.GL direct link Sidney B. Sperry, Answers to Book of Mormon Questions (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1967), 176–79. PDF link Solomon Spaulding (Rex C. Reeve, ed), Manuscript Found: The Complete Original "Spaulding" Manuscript, (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1996). William L. Riley, "A Comparison of Passages from Isaiah and Other Old Testament Prophets of Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon," master's thesis, Brigham Young University, 1971. Benjamin Winchester, The Origin of the Spaulding Story, Concerning the Manuscript Found, (Philadelphia: Brown, Bicking & Guilfert, 1840). Dean C. Jessee, 'Spalding theory' re-examined,' Church News (20 August 1977): 3–5.
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young Book of Mormon Book of Mormon: authorship

Most of the Spalding-related affidavits make very similar claims, such as the repeated statements that "Nephi" and "Lehi" figured prominently in Spalding's story

Most of the Spalding-related affidavits make very similar claims, such as the repeated statements that "Nephi" and "Lehi" figured prominently in Spalding's story and that the person making the claim had "recently" read the Book of Mormon and recognized it as being similar to Spalding's work. The recovered Spalding manuscript, however, bears no resemblance to any of these claims. For this reason, critics who support the Spalding theory have assumed the existence of a second Spalding manuscript, despite absolutely no evidence to support this.

The Spalding theory requires that Sidney Rigdon secretly meet Joseph Smith before the organization of the Church

The Spalding theory requires that Sidney Rigdon secretly meet Joseph Smith before the organization of the Church, and provide him with the Book of Mormon manuscript. John Stafford, oldest son of William Stafford was asked about this:

Q — If young Joseph — Smith , Jr. — was as illiterate as you say, Doctor, how do you account for the Book of Mormon?

A — "Well, I can't; except that Sidney Rigdon was connected with them."

Q — Was Rigdon ever around there before the Book of Mormon was published?

A — "No; not as we could ever find out. Sidney Rigdon was never there, that Hurlbut, or Howe, or Tucker could find out."

Q — Well; you have been looking out for the facts a long time, have you not, Doctor?

A — "Yes; I have been thinking and hearing about it for the last fifty years, and lived right among all their old neighbors there more of the time."

Q — And no one has ever been able to trace the acquaintance of Rigdon and Smith, until after the Book of Mormon was published, and Rigdon proselyted by Parley P. — Pratt, in Ohio?

A — "Not that I know of.""

— John Stafford, cited in William H. Kelly, "The Hill Cumorah, and the Book of Mormon," Saints' Herald 28 (1 June 1881): 167.

⍗

Learn more about responses to: Hurlbut-Howe

Wiki links	The Hurlbut affidavits
Online	Richard Lloyd Anderson, "Review of Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reexamined by Rodger I. Anderson," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 3/1 (1991). [52–80] link Richard L. Anderson, "Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reappraised," Brigham Young University Studies 10 no. 3 (1970), 283–314. PDF link Discusses content of Hurlbut ‘affidavits’ / Stafford, Chase, Ingersoll, Deming ‘affidavits’ – money digging / other Smith family with seerstone. Richard L. Anderson, "The Mature Joseph Smith and Treasure Searching," Brigham Young University Studies 24 no. 4 (1984). PDF link Caution: this article was published before Mark Hofmann's forgeries were discovered. It may treat fraudulent documents as genuine. Click for list of known forged documents. Discusses money-digging; Salem treasure hunting episode; fraudulent 1838 Missouri treasure hunting revelation; Wood Scrape; “gift of Aaron”; “wand or rod”; Heber C. Kimball rod and prayer; magic; occult; divining lost objects; seerstone; parchments; talisman Richard Lloyd Anderson, "Review of Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reexamined by Rodger I. Anderson," FARMS Review of Books 3/1 (1991): 52–80. off-site Richard Lloyd Anderson, "The Reliability of the Early History of Lucy and Joseph Smith," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 4 no. 2 (Summer 1969), 13–28. Thomas G. Alexander, "Review of Dan Vogel (Editor) Early Mormon Documents, Vol. 2," Journal of Mormon History 26/2 (Fall 2000): 248–252. Donald L. Enders, "The Joseph Smith, Sr., Family: Farmers of the Genesee," in Joseph Smith: The Prophet, the Man, ed. Susan Easton Black and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1993), 213—25. David W. Grua, "Joseph Smith and the 1834 D.P. Hurlbut Case," Brigham Young University Studies 44 no. 1 (2005), 33–54. PDF link Marvin S. Hill, "review of Roger Anderson, Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reexamined," Brigham Young University Studies 30 no. 4 (Fall 1990). PDF link Daniel C. Peterson and Donald L. Enders, "Can the 1834 Affidavits Attacking the Smith Family Be Trusted?" in Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon: The FARMS Updates of the 1990s, ed. John W. Welch and Melvin J. Thorne (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), 286—87. Hugh W. Nibley, The Myth Makers (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1961). Hugh W. Nibley, Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass: The Art of Telling Tales About Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (Vol. 11 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by David J. Whittaker, (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1991). ISBN 0875795161. GL direct link Richard Van Wagoner and Steven Walker, "Joseph Smith: 'The Gift of Seeing," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15 no. 2 (Summer 1982), 49–68. off-site
Video	Revised or Unaltered?: Joseph Smith's Foundational Stories, Matthew Brown, 2006 FAIR Conference Part 1: Revised or Unaltered?: Joseph Smith's Foundational Stories Part 2: Revised or Unaltered?: Joseph Smith's Foundational Stories Part 3: Revised or Unaltered?: Joseph Smith's Foundational Stories Part 4: Revised or Unaltered?: Joseph Smith's Foundational Stories Part 5: Revised or Unaltered?: Joseph Smith's Foundational Stories Part 5: Revised or Unaltered?: Joseph Smith's Foundational Stories
Print	Daniel C. Peterson and Donald L. Enders, "Can the 1834 Affidavits Attacking the Smith Family Be Trusted?" in Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon: The FARMS Updates of the 1990s, ed. John W. Welch and Melvin J. Thorne (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), 286—87.
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young

Notes

Response to claim: "There are many witnesses to James Strang's claim of having unearthed metal plates which he translated into scripture"

MormonThink states...

"There are many witnesses to James Strang's claim of having unearthed metal plates which he translated into scripture."

FairMormon Response

Question: Of what did the Strangite witnesses testify?

Four witnesses who testified that they themselves had dug the Voree Plates from the ground where Strang said that they would be discovered

It is claimed that break-off sects like James Strang's produced eyewitnesses of buried records, and that because of this, Joseph's ability to produce witnesses is neither surprising nor persuasive.

We should not lose sight of what it was to which the Strangite witnesses bore their testimony. In a manner clearly intended to replicate the Three and the Eight Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, J. J. Strang produced four witnesses who testified that they themselves had dug the Voree Plates from the ground where he said that they would be discovered. Their detailed written testimony was used by Strang in the Voree Herald, January 1846; Zion's Reveille, 1 April 1847; and Gospel Herald, 4 May 1848 and reads as follows:

On the thirteenth day of September, 1845, we, Aaron Smith, Jirah B. Wheelan, James M. Van Nostrand, and Edward Whitcomb, assembled at the call of James J. Strang, who is by us and many others approved as a Prophet and Seer of God. He proceeded to inform us that it had been revealed to him in a vision that an account of an ancient people was buried in a hill south of White River bridge, near the east line of Walworth County; and leading us to an oak tree about one foot in diameter, told us that we would find it enclosed in a case of rude earthen ware under that tree at the depth of about three feet; requested us to dig it up, and charged us to so examine the ground that we should know we were not imposed upon, and that it had not been buried there since the tree grew. The tree was surrounded by a sward of deeply rooted grass, such as is usually found in the openings, and upon the most critical examination we could not discover any indication that it had ever been cut through or disturbed.

We then dug up the tree, and continued to dig to the depth of about three feet, where we found a case of slightly baked clay containing three plates of brass. On one side of one is a landscape view of the south end of Gardner's prairie and the range of hills where they were dug. On another is a man with a crown on his head and a scepter in his hand, above is an eye before an upright line, below the sun and moon surrounded with twelve stars, at the bottom are twelve large stars from three of which pillars arise, and closely interspersed with them are seventy very small stars. The other four sides are very closely covered with what appear to be alphabetic characters, but in a language of which we have no knowledge.

The case was found imbedded in indurated clay so closely fitting it that it broke in taking out, and the earth below the soil was so hard as to be dug with difficulty even with a pickax. Over the case was found a flat stone about one foot wide each way and three inches thick, which appeared to have undergone the action of fire, and fell in pieces after a few minutes exposure to the air. The digging extended in the clay about eighteen inches, there being two kinds of earth of different color and appearance above it.

We examined as we dug all the way with the utmost care, and we say, with utmost confidence, that no part of the earth through which we dug exhibited any sign or indication that it had been moved or disturbed at any time previous. The roots of the tree stuck down on every side very closely, extending below the case, and closely interwoven with roots from other trees. None of them had been broken or cut away. No clay is found in the country like that of which the case is made.

In fine, we found an alphabetic and pictorial record, carefully cased up, buried deep in the earth, covered with a flat stone, with an oak tree one foot in diameter growing over it, with every evidence that the sense can give that it has lain there as long as that tree has been growing. Strang took no part in the digging, but kept entirely away from before the first blow was struck till after the plates were taken out of the case; and the sole inducement to our digging was our faith in his statement as a Prophet of the Lord that a record would thus and there be found.

Question: What are the differences between the Strangite witness statements and those of the Three and Eight Witnesses to the Book of Mormon?

Strang's witnesses saw nothing supernatural

No one doubts that Strang had a set of a few very small metallic plates in his possession, or that they were removed from the earth in the manner reported above. In that sense, there would be nothing for his witnesses to deny.

Wrote Daniel C. Peterson in "Defending the Faith: The story behind James Strang and his sect," Deseret News (9 June 2011) off-site

The two sets of inscribed plates that Strang claimed to have found in Wisconsin and Michigan beginning in 1845 almost certainly existed. Milo Quaife's early, standard biography of Strang reflects that, while Strang's angelic visitations "may have had only a subjective existence in the brain of the man who reported them, the metallic plates possessed a very material objective reality."

And they were almost certainly forgeries.

The first set, the three "Voree" or "Rajah Manchou" plates, were dug up by four "witnesses" whom Strang had taken to the plates' burial place. Illustrated and inscribed on both sides, the Rajah Manchou plates were roughly 1.5 by 2.75 inches in size — small enough to fit in the palm of a hand or to carry in a pocket.

Some of Strang's witnesses later repudiated their testimonies, and one witness later admitted helping to fabricate the plates

Ex-strangite Isaac Scott, who was once a leader in the Strangite Church, stated that Caleb P. Barnes told him that he and Strang had actually fabricated the plates. According to Scott, the men,

made the 'plates' out of Ben [Perce]'s old kettle and engraved them with an old saw file, and ... when completed they put acid on them to corrode them and give them an ancient appearance; and that to deposit them under the tree, where they were found, they took a large auger ... which Ben [Perce] owned, put a fork handle on the auger and with it bored a long slanting hole under a tree on 'The Hill of Promise,' as they called it, laying the earth in a trail on a cloth as taken out, then put the 'plates' in, tamping in all the earth again, leaving no trace of their work visible.

Peterson continues:

Among the many who saw them was Stephen Post, who reported that they were brass and, indeed, that they resembled the French brass used in familiar kitchen kettles. "With all the faith & confidence that I could exercise," he wrote, "all that I could realize was that Strang made the plates himself, or at least that it was possible that he made them." One source reports that most of the four witnesses to the Rajah Manchou plates ultimately repudiated their testimonies.

The 18 "Plates of Laban," likewise of brass and each about 7.5 by 9 inches, were first mentioned in 1849 and were seen by seven witnesses in 1851. These witnesses' testimony was published as a preface to "The Book of the Law of the Lord," which Strang said he derived from the "Plates of Laban." (He appears to have begun the "translation" at least as early as April 1849. An 84-page version appeared in 1851; by 1856, it had reached 350 pages.) Strang's witnesses report seeing the plates, but mention nothing miraculous. Nor did Strang supply any additional supporting testimony comparable to that of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon.

One of the witnesses to the "Plates of Laban," Samuel P. Bacon, eventually denied the inspiration of Strang's movement and denounced it as mere "human invention." Another, Samuel Graham, later claimed that he had actually assisted Strang in the creation of the plates.

Chauncy Loomis reports that Samuel Graham described how the Plates of Laban were fabricated, and Samuel Bacon finds remnants of the plates hidden in Strang's ceiling

Chauncy Loomis, in a letter to Joseph Smith III dated 10 Nov. 1888 and published in the Saint's Herald, talked of a conversation that he had with George Adams. Adams described how Strang had asked him to dress in a long white robe and use phosphorous to impersonate an angel. Adams also reported that Samuel Graham talked about how he and Strang fabricated the Plates of Laban. Loomis reported that Samuel Bacon discovered fragments of the plates hidden in the ceiling of Strang's house, and then left the Strangite Church.

At this time George [Adams] was gone from the island on some business. When he returned and saw how things were going he left the island with his family. I saw him and wife after this on Mackinaw Island. He said to me, “Brother Loomis, I always thought you to be an honest man, but you are like poor dog Tray; you have been caught in bad company, and now my advice to you is to leave the island, for I tell you Strang is not a prophet of God. I consider him to be a self-confessed imposter. Strang wanted me to get a couple of bottles of phosphoros and dress myself in a long white robe and appear on the highest summit on the island, called Mount Pisgah, break the bottles, make an illumination and blow a trumpet and disappear so that he might make it appear that an angel had made them a visit; that it might beget faith in the Saint.” I said to him, “Brother Adams, how is it that you deny the testimony given by you so long ago, that you knew Strang was a prophet of God?” “Well, brother Loomis, I will tell you: I was in the spirit of Strang then.” I have since thought that if he ever spoke the truth it was then. I speak of these things that you may see how we were Strang led. I was in the spirit of Strang and foretold some things that would befall us which never came to pass; but I believe that myself and another brother at one time had the Spirit of God, for we prophesied that Strang would be killed, and the Saints would be driven from the island, which truly did come to pass. I shall now make some statement in regard to others who were the chief men of the kingdom. Bro. Samuel Graham, I think, president of the Twelve, declared that he and Strang made those plates that Strang claimed to translate the Book of the Law from. But they in the first place prepared the plates and coated them with beeswax and then formed the letters and cut them in with a pen knife and then exhibited them to the rest of the Twelve. The facts were Graham apostatized and left the island, taking his family and Strang’s first wife, Mary, with him to Voree, Wisconsin. At this time Strang was at Detroit, Michigan. His wife never returned to him; he had four others besides and some concubines. Bro. Samuel Bacon says that in repairing Strang’s house he found hid behind the ceiling the fragments of those plates which Strang made the Book of the Law from. He turned infidel and left the island.

Image of page 719 of the Saint's Herald dated 10 Nov. 1888.

Peterson concludes,

"We can hardly escape the conclusion," writes Quaife, "that Strang knowingly fabricated and planted them for the purpose of duping his credulous followers" and, accordingly, that "Strang's prophetic career was a false and impudent imposture." A more recent biographer, Roger Van Noord, concludes that "based on the evidence, it is probable that Strang — or someone under his direction — manufactured the letter of appointment and the brass plates to support his claim to be a prophet and to sell land at Voree. If this scenario is correct, Strang's advocacy of himself as a prophet was more than suspect, but no psychological delusion."

Thus, Strang's plates were much less numerous than those of the Book of Mormon, his witnesses saw nothing supernatural and his translation required the better part of a decade rather than a little more than two months. (Quite unlike the semi-literate Joseph Smith, Strang was well-read. He had been an editor and lawyer before his involvement with Mormonism.) Perhaps most strikingly, unlike the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, some (at least) of Strang's witnesses later denied their testimonies.

The contrasts work very much in Joseph Smith's favor.

In summary, Strang and his witnesses:

• had no supernatural component to their witness
• had fewer plates in his possession
• took the better part of 10 years to complete his translation project
• had one who later denounced his project as mere "human invention"
• had one who later confessed to helping fabricate the plates

The collective testimony of the Book of Mormon Witnesses is, in terms of its evidentiary value and strength, far more challenging to critics than is the testimony of James J. Strang's witnesses.

Response to claim: "Travis Walton, became an unwilling captive of an alien race when the other men fled in fear"

MormonThink states...

"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."

FairMormon Response

• We have a result of Joseph's efforts - the Book of Mormon itself. Show us the tangible evidence of alien abduction.
• We're comparing seeing space aliens with the Book of Mormon witnesses?? Really?

Response to claim: "just because a group of people claims something extraordinary happened to them, it doesn't make it so"

MormonThink states...

"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."

FairMormon Response

• The Spalding witnesses didn't claim that anything "extraordinary" happened to them - they claimed that Spalding had read them a manuscript. What's so extraordinary about that?
• Seeing an angel is extraordinary—hearing a manuscript read is not.
• Why not mention that all of these Spalding witnesses testimonies came through Dr. Phiastus Hurlbut, and that they were published in the first true anti-Mormon work, Mormonism Unvailed, by Eber D. Howe?
• Why not mention that the Spalding manuscript was in Howe's possession, but he didn't use it because it bore no resemblance to the Book of Mormon? And that it was lost for years only to turn up later, and that it can be read today and that it still doesn't resemble the Book of Mormon?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
There are many, many reported witnesses to UFOs, Bigfoot, the Lochness Monster, Abominable Snowman, alien abductions, gurus with magic powers, psychics, etc. There are literally hundreds of thousands of witnesses to these amazing phenomena. Should they be believed as well?

FairMormon commentary

• Have any UFO's, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, the Abominable Snowman, aliens, gurus or psychics produced a work comparable to the Book of Mormon?
• Does it sound like someone here is throwing every oddball thing they can at the witnesses and hoping that something "sticks?"

Response to claim: "Just because three witnesses signed a statement saying they saw an angel, doesn't mean it really happened or that it didn't happen either"

MormonThink states...

"Just because three witnesses signed a statement saying they saw an angel, doesn't mean it really happened or that it didn't happen either."

FairMormon Response

FAIR Answers—back to home page

V

Articles about the Book of Mormon

Authorship	Book of Mormon Joseph Smith listed as author and proprietor Spalding theory View of the Hebrews theory Late War theory Golden Pot theory Sidney Rigdon theory Mushrooms and entheogenics theory Creative fiction theories Possible 19th Century influences on Book of Mormon Theory of Book of Mormon place names from area around Joseph Smith's home Theory of Book of Mormon place names from Comoros Islands Understanding accusations of plagiarism
Translation process	Seer stones and the Urim and Thummim Gold plates and the translation process Artistic depictions of the translation Joseph Smith and the translation process
Gold plates	Weight and size Plates too heavy to run? Engravings and sealed portion Stone box where the gold plates were deposited Attempts to steal the gold plates from Joseph Smith Gold plates and the translation process Metal plates in ancient Israel
Witnesses	Eleven official witnesses Statement of the Three Witnesses Oliver Cowdery David Whitmer Martin Harris Statement of the Eight Witnesses Christian Whitmer Jacob Whitmer Peter Whitmer Jr. John Whitmer Hiram Page Joseph Smith Sr. Hyrum Smith Samuel Smith Other witnesses to the Book of Mormon
The Bible and the Book of Mormon	Bible passages in the Book of Mormon The New Testament and the Book of Mormon KJV italicized text in the Book of Mormon KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon Joseph Smith Translation and the Book of Mormon The Apocrypha and the Book of Mormon Isaiah and the Book of Mormon The documentary hypothesis and the Book of Mormon
Language and the Book of Mormon	Hebraisms Chiasmus Names in the Book of Mormon Hebrew and Native American languages Reformed Egyptian and the Book of Mormon The Book of Mormon as an ancient text
Geography	Church statements on Book of Mormon geography Evaluating Book of Mormon geography theories Old world geography in the Book of Mormon Lehi's journey in the Old World Possible locations for the Valley of Lemuel Possible locations for Shazer Possible locations for Nahom Possible locations for Nephi's Bountiful The Hill Cumorah Mesoamerican Model Hemispheric Geography Model Great Lakes Model Heartland Model Hoaxes related to Book of Mormon geography claims Geographical issues related to DNA and the Book of Mormon
DNA	DNA and the Book of Mormon Identifying ancient DNA related to Book of Mormon people Geographical issues related to DNA and the Book of Mormon
Anachronisms	Anachronism overview Biblical texts Horses Elephants Other animals Synagogues and churches Climate Metals and materials Metal plates in ancient Israel Plants Objects and artifacts
Doctrine and teachings	Moroni's promise The fulness of the gospel The Book of Mormon as the most correct book The nature of God Name of Jesus Christ Virgin birth of Jesus Christ Jesus Christ bled from every pore The Holy Ghost Baptism Priesthood authority Temples The Book of Mormon as the Stick of Ephraim Plural marriage Freemasonry Nephite burnt offerings The great and abominable church The tree of life Baptism before or after remission of sins One versus multiple creators
Lamanites	Identity of the Lamanites Native Americans and the Lamanites Relationship of the Maya and the Olmec to the Lamanites and the Jaredites Polynesians and the Lamanites The Lamanite curse Wrath of God on the Lamanites
Other	Population and demographics The Nephite calendar Biblical archaeology compared to the Book of Mormon Thomas Stuart Ferguson and Mormon archaeology Attempt to sell the Book of Mormon copyright in Canada Textual changes The Book of Mormon as history Legal codes in the Book of Mormon Lehi's ancestry and place of residence Three days of darkness The killing of Laban Human sacrifice Warfare in the Book of Mormon Events in Ether The death of Shiz

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The Witnesses

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.

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...."

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."

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.

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." 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." Richard Anderson noted that citations from the Book of Mormon were then used as "the basis of personal sarcasm against Cowdery." 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. 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

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:

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." 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."

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.
2. Katherine Smith felt the plates through a cloth as she moved them around the house.
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." 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.
4. Josiah Stowell “caught a glimpse of their corner as the covering slipped off when Joseph handed them to him[.]” 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.
5. Alvah Beaman “heard the metallic clinking of the plates as he helped move them around in [a] wooden chest[.]”
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.”
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.
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.” 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.
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.’” 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. Martin appears to have affirmed the same in a conference address he gave in 1870 in Salt Lake City.
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.
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.”
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.”
13. Lyman Johnson and Orson Pratt embarked on a missionary journey in February 1832. 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.” 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.” 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.” 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.

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[.]

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. 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. 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, 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.

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.

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.

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)

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!'."

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'."

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."

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.

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.

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.
• Hiram Page married the oldest Whitmer daughter, Catherine, on 10 November 1825.

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.

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)

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)

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.

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)

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.

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). The critic mistakenly attributes authorship for the book to Ann Lee: founder of the Shaker movement during the late 1700s. 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. Those 'visions' were being used to 'expose sins' of others and force them out of the community[.]" The book "contains moral counsel, biblical quotations, historical observations, and theological reflections, all represented as the product of spirit revelation." 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.’“ 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, 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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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.” 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. Doctrine & Covenants teaches that "we believe religion is instituted of God[.]" Other biblical scriptures clearly indicate that God inspires other groups outside of his covenant group with truth, light, and miracles. 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." 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:

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." 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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

Jacob Whitmer

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

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.

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.

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."

• 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.'

• 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."

• 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."

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?

Response to claim: "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"

MormonThink states...

"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 Response

Question: Did Martin Harris tell people that he did not see the plates with his natural eyes, but rather the "eye of faith"?

A former pastor, John A. Clark, said that a "gentleman in Palmyra" told him that Harris said that he saw the plates with the "eye of faith"

John A. Clark, a former pastor who considered Joseph Smith a fraud and the Book of Mormon “an imposture,” states,

To know how much this testimony [of three witnesses] is worth I will state one fact. A gentleman in Palmyra, bred to the law, a professor of religion, and of undoubted veracity told me that on one occasion, he appealed to Harris and asked him directly,-”Did you see those plates?” Harris replied, he did. “Did you see the plates, and the engraving on them with your bodily eyes?” Harris replied, “Yes, I saw them with my eyes,-they were shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.” “But did you see them with your natural,-your bodily eyes, just as you see this pencil-case in my hand? Now say no or yes to this.” Harris replied,-”Why I did not see them as I do that pencil-case, yet I saw them with the eye of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see any thing around me,-though at the time they were covered over with a cloth.

John A. Clark did not interview Martin Harris - he was repeating what someone else told him

The source cited is “Martin Harris interviews with John A. Clark, 1827 & 1828,” Early Mormon Documents 2:270. However, rather than being an interview between Clark and Harris, as implied by the title of reference work using in the citation, Clark’s actual statement clearly says that he received his information from a “gentleman in Palmyra…a professor of religion,” who said that he had talked with Harris. This is not an interview between Clark and Harris.

Larry E. Morris notes that the “claim that ‘Harris told John A. Clark’ is not accurate. This is not secondhand testimony but thirdhand—’he said that he said that he said.’….As if that weren’t enough, Clark does not name his source—making it impossible to judge that person’s honesty or reliability. What we have is a thirdhand, anonymous account of what Martin Harris supposedly said.” (Larry E. Morris, FARMS Review, Vol. 15, Issue 1.)

Clark's account mixes elements from both before and after Harris viewed the plates as one of the Three Witnesses and portrays Harris as contradicting himself

The two elements that are mixed together in Clark's account are the following:

1. Martin Harris said that he only saw the plates through the "eye of faith" when they were covered with a cloth prior to his experience as a witness.
2. Martin Harris saw the plates uncovered as one of the three witnesses.

Note also that the date assigned to these comments places them prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon, yet Clark’s statement appears to include elements from both before and after Harris viewed the plates as a witness. Harris “saw them” with his eyes when he acted as one of the Three Witnesses, but he only saw them through the “eye of faith” when they were covered with a cloth prior to his being a witness. Clark’s third-hand hostile relation of another hostile source, makes no distinction between these events, and instead portrays Harris as contradicting himself.

When Martin Harris said that he had seen the angel and the plates with his "spiritual eyes" or with an "eye of faith" he may have simply been employing some scriptural language that he was familiar with. Such statements do not mean that the angel and the plates were imaginary, hallucinatory, or just an inner mental image—the earliest accounts of Martin Harris' testimony makes the literal nature of the experience unmistakable.

Rather than being hallucinatory or "merely" spiritual, Martin claimed that the plates and angel were seen by physical eyes that had been enhanced by the power of God to view more objects than a mortal could normally see (cf. D&C 76꞉12; D&C 67꞉10-13).

Question: Did Martin Harris tell people that he only saw the plates with his "spiritual eye"?

John H. Gilbert, who printed the Book of Mormon, reported that Harris said that he saw the plates with his "spiritual eye"

John H. Gilbert:

Martin was in the office when I finished setting up the testimony of the three witnesses,—(Harris—Cowdery and 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 spir[i]tual eye."

Pomeroy Tucker told of Harris using the phrase "seeing with the spiritual eye"

Pomeroy Tucker in his book Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism (1867) also refers to Harris using the phrase "spiritual eye":

How to reconcile the act of Harris in signing his name to such a statement, in view of the character of honesty which had always been conceded to him, could never be easily explained. In reply to uncharitable suggestions of his neighbors, he used to practise a good deal of his characteristic jargon about "seeing with the spiritual eye," and the like.

Martin elsewhere emphasized that the vision was also with the "natural eye," to enable them to "testify of it to the world"

In 1875, Martin said:

"The Prophet Joseph Smith, and Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer and myself, went into a little grove to pray to obtain a promise that we should behold it with our eyes natural eyes, that we could testify of it to the world (emphasis added)."

Harris did not, then, see "spiritual eye" and "natural eye" as mutually exclusive categories. Both described something about the witness experience.

Question: Why would Martin Harris use the phrases "eye of faith" or "spiritual eye" to describe his visionary experience?

Martin Harris was using scriptural language to describe his visionary experience

Why did Martin Harris use the particular phraseology that he did in describing his experience? Perhaps the answer lies in another passage found in the book of Ether 12꞉19.

And there were many whose faith was so exceedingly strong, even before Christ came, who could not be kept from within the veil, but truly saw with their eyes the things which they had beheld with an eye of faith, and they were glad.

Here it is noted that those people who have "exceedingly strong" faith can see things "within the veil." But even though they see things in the spiritual realm "with their eyes" it is described as beholding things with "an eye of faith."

Another possibility can be seen in the text of Moses 1꞉11. It reads:

But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face.

This dovetails nicely with the description of David Whitmer who "explained that he saw the plates, and with his natural eyes, but he had to be prepared for it—that he and the other witnesses were overshadowed by the power of God."

Question: Do Martin Harris's statements related to the "spiritual eye" or "eye of faith" contradict the reality of his witness?

Some wish to make it appear as though the statements made by Martin Harris about the Three Witnesses’ manifestation discount its reality. Doing so pulls Harris’ statements out of their proper context. This vital viewpoint can be regained by simply taking a look at several passages from the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants—which all predate Martin’s public statements about the nature of his experience.

The scriptural witnesses

Ether 5꞉2–3

This prophetic passage had a direct application to Martin Harris as one of the Three Witnesses. It said: “the plates . . . . unto three shall they be shown by the power of God”

D&C 5꞉11,13,24–26

“unto [three of my servants] I will show these things . . . . I will give them power that they may behold and view these things as they are.” Speaking specifically of Martin Harris: “then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man. And I the Lord command him, my servant Martin Harris, that he shall say no more unto them concerning these things, except he shall say: I have seen them, and they have been shown unto me by the power of God; and these are the words which he shall say.”

D&C 17꞉1–3,5

All three of the witnesses were told: “you shall have a view of the plates . . . . And it is by your faith that you shall obtain a view of them, even by that faith which was had by the prophets of old . . . . And after that you have obtained faith, and have seen them with your eyes, you shall testify of them . . . . And ye shall testify that you have seen them, even as my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., has seen them; for it is by my power that he has seen them, and it is because he had faith”

From these scriptural texts it is evident that:

• The Three Witnesses were required by God to exercise faith like “the prophets of old” in order to view the angel and the plates (cf. Moroni 7꞉37; D&C 20꞉6).
• God would exercise His power to enable the Three Witnesses to see things that were not usually visible to mortal eyes.
• Nevertheless, the Three Witnesses would see the angel and the plates “with [their] eyes” and “as they are” in objective reality.

Contemporary witnesses

Joseph Smith was an eyewitness to what Martin Harris said at the exact moment that the manifestation took place. He reported that Martin's words were: "Tis enough; mine eyes have beheld". Another eyewitness, named Alma Jensen, saw Martin Harris point to his physical eyes while testifying that he had seen both the angel and the plates.

Oliver Cowdery wrote a letter to a skeptical author in November 1829, and spoke for both himself and Harris on the question of whether there was some trickery or "juggling" at work:

"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".

Question: What did the Book of Mormon witnesses mean when they used the word "supernatural" to describe their experiences?

The term "supernatural" is used as a synonym for "miraculous"

An early hostile account of the three witnesses' testimony from February 1830 is instructive:

In the Investigator, No. 12, Dec. 11, I published, by way of caution, a letter of Oliver H.P. Cowdry, in answer to my letter to Joseph Smith, Jun. Martin Harris, and David Whitmore—the believers in said bible of gold plates—which they affirm they have miraculously, or supernaturally beheld. I sought for evidences, and such as could not be disputed, of the existence of this bible of golden plates. But the answer was—the world must take their words for its existence; and that the book would appear this month.

Clearly, the author here uses "supernatural" as a synonym for "miraculous," not an attempt to argue that the plates do not literally exist, since "their words" are intended as "evidences...for its existence."

Martin Harris was claimed to have "supernaturally" seen the plates and angel, yet he also insisted that the experience was tangible and literal

Furthermore, Martin Harris' testimony is reported in a mocking newspaper article, which still makes it clear that Harris' experience was tangible and literal:

Martin Harris, another chief of Mormon imposters, arrived here last Saturday from the bible quarry in New-York. He immediately planted himself in the bar-room of the hotel, where he soon commenced reading and explaining the Mormon hoax, and all the dark passages from Genesis to Revelations. He told all about the gold plates, Angels, Spirits, and Jo Smith.—He had seen and handled them all, by the power of God!

John Whitmer, one of the eight witnesses, did not see an angel, but he did say that he "handled those plates." Yet, Whitmer was also said by Theodore Turley to have described the plates as being shown to him by a "supernatural power".

...all I know, you have published to the world that an angel did present those plates to Joseph Smith." Whitmer replied "I now say I handled those plates. there was fine engravings on both sides. I handled them." and he described how they were hung "and they were shown to me by a supernatural power." he acknowledged all. Turley asked him why the translation is not now true, & he said "I cannot read it, and I do not know whether it is true or not.

In a letter written by Myron Bond in 1878, Whitmer is said to have "saw and handled" the plates:

John Whitmer told me last winter....[that he] 'saw and handled' [the plates and]....helped to copy [the Book of Mormon manuscript] as the words fell from Joseph’s lips by supernatural or almighty power

Main article:

Martin Harris and the literal nature of the Three Witness experience

Some who repeated John Whitmer's words may have conflated his "non-supernatural" experience in handling the plates with his "supernatural" experience of listening to Joseph dictate the Book of Mormon

Note that Bond describes how Whitmer helped to copy the manuscript as Joseph dictated the words "by supernatural or almighty power." It is possible that Theodore Turley's recollection conflated Whitmer's non-supernatural handling of the plates with the description of the translation process by a "supernatural" power.

Like Martin Harris, John Whitmer, when speaking in his own words, was very clear that he had physically handled the plates:

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.

Question: What did the other witnesses say regarding "spiritual" versus "natural" viewing of the plates?

David Whitmer clarified the idea of "spiritual" versus "natural" viewing of the plates

David Whitmer helps clear up the "spiritual" vs. "natural" viewing of the plates. Responding to the questions of Anthony Metcalf (the same Metcalf who interviewed Harris) Whitmer wrote:

In regards to my testimony to the visitation of the angel, who declared to us three witnesses that the Book of Mormon is true, I have this to say: Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time. Martin Harris, you say, called it 'being in vision.' We read in the Scriptures, Cornelius saw, in a vision, an angel of God. Daniel saw an angel in a vision; also in other places it states they saw an angel in the spirit. A bright light enveloped us where we were, that filled at noon day, and there in a vision, or in the spirit, we saw and heard just as it is stated in my testimony in the Book of Mormon. I am now passed eighty-two years old, and I have a brother, J. J. Snyder, to do my writing for me, at my dictation. [Signed] David Whitmer.

And to leave absolutely no doubt about the nature of the manifestation Whitmer explained, "I was not under any hallucination . . . . I saw with these eyes."

The young James Henry Moyle would write of a visit he had with Whitmer:

I inquired of those whom I met: What kind of man is David Whitmer? From all I received the same response, that he was a good citizen, an honest man, and that he was highly respected in the community....

I wanted to know from him...what he knew about the Book of Mormon, and what about the testimony he had published to the world concerning it. He told me in all the solemnity of his advanced years, that the testimony he had given to the world, and which was published in the Book of Mormon, was true, every word of it, and that he had never deviated or departed from any particular from that testimony, and that nothing int he world could separate him from the sacred message that was delivered to him. I still wondered if it was no possible that he could have been deceived. I wondered if there was not something in that psychological operation which some offer as the cause of these miraculous declarations and by which he could have been deceived...so I induced him to relate to me, under such cross-examination as I was able to interpose [Moyle had just graduated from law school], every detail of what took place. He described minutely the spot in the woods, the large log that separated him from the angel, and that he saw the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated, that he handled them [this may be in error, given that the contemporaneous record says otherwise], and that he did hear the voice of God declare that the plates were correctly translated. I asked him if there was any possibility for him to have been deceived, and that it was all a mistake, but he said, "No."

He also wrote later:

He said that they (Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and Martin Harris) were out in the primitive woods in Western New York; that there was nothing between them and the Angel except a log that had fallen in the forest; that it was broad daylight with nothing to prevent either hearing or seeing all that took place...he did see and hear the Angel and heard the declaration that the plates had been correctly translated; that there was absolutely nothing to prevent his having a full, clear view of it all. I remember very distinctly asking him if there was anything unnatural or unusual about the surroundings or the atmosphere. He answered that question. I do not remember exactly the words he used, but he indicated that there was something of a haze or peculiarity about the atmosphere that surrounded them but nothing that would prevent his having a clear vision and knowledge of all that took place. He declared to me that the testimony which he published to the world was true and that he had never denied any part of it.

We note here that the experience is very literal and real--but there is also a difference in atmosphere or "haze" that renders it different from day-to-day life. This dovetails well with the Three Witnesses' insistence that there was a spiritual component to their experience, though it was also literal and "real."

Main articles:	James Henry Moyle's visit to David Whitmer
	David Whitmer quotes on literal nature of Three Witnesses
	Oliver Cowdery on literal nature of Three Witnesses

Question: How did newspaper accounts describe the nature of the witnesses experience?

Hostile newspaper accounts clearly stated that both Harris and Whitmer physically handled and examined the plates

Early hostile newspapers claimed that the witnesses' descriptions did not match, but were clear that both Harris and Whitmer had at some point physically handled and examined the plates:

Whitmar’s [sic] description of the Book of Mormon, differs entirely from that given by Harris; both of whom it would seem have been of late permitted, not only to see and handle it, but to examine its contents. Whitmar relates that he was led by Smith into an open field, on his father’s farm near Waterloo, when they found the book lying on the ground; Smith took it up and requested him to examine it, which he did for the space of half an hour or more, when he returned it to Smith, who placed it in its former position, alledging that the book was in the custody of another, intimating that some Divine agent would have it in safe keeping.

David, like Martin, had been charged with being deluded into thinking he had seen an angel and the plates. One observer remembers when David was so 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!" (Joseph Smith III, et al., Interview, July 1884, Richmond Missouri, in Lyndon W. Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, 134-35)

On another occasion in which Whitmer was asked about the plates, the interviewer recorded:

He then explained that he saw the plates, and with his natural eyes, but he had to be prepared for it--that he and the other witnesses were overshadowed by the power of God and a halo of brightness indescribable.

Question: How did the apostle Paul describe spiritual experiences?

The apostle Paul understood the difficulty of describing spiritual experiences

Paul understood the difficulty of describing spiritual experiences when he wrote:

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) 2 Corinthians 12꞉2

Paul's vision was real, yet he was unsure whether he had the experience in or out of his body. Harris may have felt a similar experience. He knew the plates were real, yet he also knew that when the angel showed him the plates he was only able to see them by the power of God. On a separate occasion Harris testified to the reality of his vision. The scene as recorded by Edward Stevenson was instrumental in getting Harris to re-enter the Church.

On one occasion several of his old acquaintances made an effort to get him tipsy by treating him to some wine. When they thought he was in a good mood for talk they put the question very carefully to him, "Well, now, Martin, we want you to be frank and candid with us in regard to this story of your seeing an angel and the golden plates of the Book of Mormon that are so much talked about. We have always taken you to be an honest good farmer and neighbor of ours but could not believe that you did see an angel. Now, Martin, do you really believe that you did see an angel, when you were awake?" "No," said Martin, "I do not believe it." The crowd were delighted, but soon a different feeling prevailed, as Martin true to his trust, said, "Gentlemen, what I have said is true, from the fact that my belief is swallowed up in knowledge; for I want to say to you that as the Lord lives I do know that I stood with the Prophet Joseph Smith in the presence of the angel, and it was the brightness of day."

Martin Harris: "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"

George Godfrey, and Martin Harris's response to him, after Godfrey suggested that Harris had been deceived:

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.

George Mantle (1888): Martin Harris said "Do you know that is the sun shining on us? Because as sure as you know that...he translated that book by the power of God"

When in England to preach for an LDS splinter group, Martin Harris was ejected from a meeting of Latter-day Saints. He left, and began to loudly criticize the Church leadership. Critics of Mormonism arrived quickly.

George Mantle to Marietta Walker, 26 December 1888:

When we came out of the meeting Martin Harris was beset with a crowd in the street, expecting he would furnish them with material to war against Mormonism; but when asked if Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, he answered yes; and when asked if the Book of Mormon was true, this was his answer: "Do you know that is the sun shining on us? Because as sure as you know that, I know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, and that he translated that book by the power of God."

Edward Stevenson (1870): Martin Harris said "my belief is swallowed up in knowledge; for I want to say to you that as the Lord lives I do know that I stood with the Prophet Joseph Smith in the presence of the angel"

Elder Edward Stevenson reported in 1870:

On one occasion several of his old acquaintances made an effort to get him tipsy by treating him to some wine. When they thought he was in a good mood for talk they put the question very carefully to him, ‘Well, now, Martin, we want you to be frank and candid with us in regard to this story of your seeing an angel and the golden plates of the Book of Mormon that are so much talked about. We have always taken you to be an honest good farmer and neighbor of ours but could not believe that you did see an angel. Now, Martin, do you really believe that you did see an angel, when you were awake?’ ‘No,’ said Martin, ‘I do not believe it.’ The crowd were delighted, but soon a different feeling prevailed, as Martin true to his trust, said, ‘Gentlemen, what I have said is true, from the fact that my belief is swallowed up in knowledge; for I want to say to you that as the Lord lives I do know that I stood with the Prophet Joseph Smith in the presence of the angel, and it was the brightness of day.”

Response to claim: "why was 'a supernatural power' needed for the witness John Whitmer to be shown the plates?"

MormonThink states...

"One of the eight witnesses, John Whitmer claimed, "I now say, I handled those plates; there were fine engravings on both sides. ...they were shown to me by a supernatural power" (History of the Church, Vol. 3, p. 307) The obvious question is, why was “a supernatural power” needed for the witness John Whitmer to be shown the plates? If he handled the plates, did he handle them while in a visionary state of mind, or in his imagination?"

FairMormon Response

Question: Did John Whitmer, one of the Eight Witnesses, actually say that he saw the plates by a "supernatural power"?

The "supernatural power" quote is actually reported by Theodore Turley six years after getting the information from Whitmer

Some critics of the Restoration have focused on a single statement reportedly made by John Whitmer in 1839 to make it appear as though the Eight Witnesses of the Book of Mormon did not have a physical encounter with the golden plates (as they testified on the pages of the book itself).

Instead, the critics hope that we will believe they had a 'spiritual' or 'visionary' experience only. Detractors advocate this viewpoint to persuade their audience that the golden plates did not truly exist. This tactic also has the benefit for making it appear that the Witnesses themselves were delusional or hallucinatory and, therefore, should not be trusted to provide accurate testimony.

The key to properly understanding the nature of the alleged 1839 John Whitmer statement is to see it in its historical context. The quotation in question is not a contemporaneous declaration, but was instead reported by eyewitness Theodore Turley about six years after the information was relayed by Whitmer. Three years prior to giving this verbal account, however, John Whitmer published a firsthand explanation of his experience. It is reproduced here because its content is crucial to analyzing the Turley reminiscence.

ca. 27 March 1836

“I desire to testify unto all . . . that I have most assuredly seen the plates from whence the Book of Mormon [was] 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.”

It is clear in this primary source that John Whitmer not only saw the Book of Mormon plates without any hint of 'spiritual' overtones but also physically “handled” them.

For our present purposes, it is also important to note the phraseology that Whitmer uses next. He indicates that he knew beyond doubt that Joseph Smith translated the plates “by the gift and power of God” – i.e., by a supernatural power.

Theodore Turley states that John Whitmer saw the plates by a "supernatural power"

Now for the Turley statement:

5 April 1839

“[Theodore] Turley said, ‘Gentlemen, I presume there are men here who have heard [John] Corrill say, that Mormonism was true, that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and inspired of God. I now call upon you, John Whitmer: you say Corrill is a moral and a good man; do you believe him when he says the Book of Mormon is true, or when he says it is not true? There are many things published that they say are true, and again turn around and say they are false.’ Whitmer asked, ‘Do you hint at me?’ Turley replied, ‘If the cap fits you, wear it; all I know is that you have published to the world that an angel did present those plates to Joseph Smith.’ Whitmer replied: ‘I now say, I handled those plates; there were fine engravings on both sides. I handled them;’ and he described how they were hung [on rings], and [said] ‘they were shown to me by a supernatural power;’ he acknowledged all.”

Whitmer clearly states that he "saw and handled" the plates

Whitmer makes it clear that he "handled" the plate; he also describes the physical appearance. The attempt to put words in his mouth, however, and make the experience into a "spiritualized" one simply doesn't work, even if we twist "shown...by a supernatural power." There is another later Whitmer statement that undermines this readingmdash; testimony recorded by Myron Bond only about seven months after the information was verbalized (much closer in time than Turley's somewhat distorted account). It reads:

21 December 1877–21 March 1878

“John Whitmer told me last winter . . . [that he] ‘saw and handled’ [the plates and] . . . helped to copy [the Book of Mormon manuscript] as the words fell from Joseph’s lips by supernatural or [A]lmighty power.”

Again, John Whitmer testified that he “saw and handled” the golden plates without any spiritual or visionary overtones. He also used language about the translation process that unmistakably matches what Theodore Turley reported in his late recollection. Both quotations speak of a supernatural power. But the more recent reminiscence of Myron Bond matches the firsthand published information provided by John Whitmer in 1836.

Both of these sources identify the supernatural power as the power of God which was manifest through the translation process. (And, since John was one of the scribes for Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon, it is not surprising that he would choose to repeatedly emphasize that the translation was done with divine aid. This aspect of his witness is conceptually distinct from his witness of the plates' reality.)

Question: What did the Book of Mormon witnesses mean when they used the word "supernatural" to describe their experiences?

The term "supernatural" is used as a synonym for "miraculous"

An early hostile account of the three witnesses' testimony from February 1830 is instructive:

In the Investigator, No. 12, Dec. 11, I published, by way of caution, a letter of Oliver H.P. Cowdry, in answer to my letter to Joseph Smith, Jun. Martin Harris, and David Whitmore—the believers in said bible of gold plates—which they affirm they have miraculously, or supernaturally beheld. I sought for evidences, and such as could not be disputed, of the existence of this bible of golden plates. But the answer was—the world must take their words for its existence; and that the book would appear this month.

Clearly, the author here uses "supernatural" as a synonym for "miraculous," not an attempt to argue that the plates do not literally exist, since "their words" are intended as "evidences...for its existence."

Martin Harris was claimed to have "supernaturally" seen the plates and angel, yet he also insisted that the experience was tangible and literal

Furthermore, Martin Harris' testimony is reported in a mocking newspaper article, which still makes it clear that Harris' experience was tangible and literal:

Martin Harris, another chief of Mormon imposters, arrived here last Saturday from the bible quarry in New-York. He immediately planted himself in the bar-room of the hotel, where he soon commenced reading and explaining the Mormon hoax, and all the dark passages from Genesis to Revelations. He told all about the gold plates, Angels, Spirits, and Jo Smith.—He had seen and handled them all, by the power of God!

John Whitmer, one of the eight witnesses, did not see an angel, but he did say that he "handled those plates." Yet, Whitmer was also said by Theodore Turley to have described the plates as being shown to him by a "supernatural power".

...all I know, you have published to the world that an angel did present those plates to Joseph Smith." Whitmer replied "I now say I handled those plates. there was fine engravings on both sides. I handled them." and he described how they were hung "and they were shown to me by a supernatural power." he acknowledged all. Turley asked him why the translation is not now true, & he said "I cannot read it, and I do not know whether it is true or not.

In a letter written by Myron Bond in 1878, Whitmer is said to have "saw and handled" the plates:

John Whitmer told me last winter....[that he] 'saw and handled' [the plates and]....helped to copy [the Book of Mormon manuscript] as the words fell from Joseph’s lips by supernatural or almighty power

Main article:

Martin Harris and the literal nature of the Three Witness experience

Some who repeated John Whitmer's words may have conflated his "non-supernatural" experience in handling the plates with his "supernatural" experience of listening to Joseph dictate the Book of Mormon

Note that Bond describes how Whitmer helped to copy the manuscript as Joseph dictated the words "by supernatural or almighty power." It is possible that Theodore Turley's recollection conflated Whitmer's non-supernatural handling of the plates with the description of the translation process by a "supernatural" power.

Like Martin Harris, John Whitmer, when speaking in his own words, was very clear that he had physically handled the plates:

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.

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 strange or frankly false 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

• Log in

Footer

FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Our Friends

• BYU Religious Studies Center
• BYU Studies
• Book of Mormon Central
• TheFamilyProclamation.org
• Interpreter Foundation
• Wilford Woodruff Papers Project

Follow Us

• Facebook
• Twitter
• iTunes
• YouTube

Donate to FAIR

We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.

Donate Now

Donate to us by shopping at Amazon at no extra cost to you. Learn how →

Site Footer

Copyright © 1997-2023 by The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

The views and opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of FAIR, its officers, directors or supporters.

No portion of this site may be reproduced without the express written consent of The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, Inc.

Any opinions expressed, implied, or included in or with the goods and services offered by FAIR are solely those of FAIR and not those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

FAIR is controlled and operated by the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR)