A question for believers ...

[_Runtu]

If Joseph Smith's bringing forth of the Book of Mormon and the restoration were really a scam, what would it look like? Would it differ in any essential ways from the way it came about?

[_asbestosman]

I would expect some of the witnesses to recant on their testimonies for one.

[_Runtu]

I would expect some of the witnesses to recant on their testimonies for one.

Why? (For what it's worth, that's the first thing I thought of as well.)

[Guest]

I would expect some of the witnesses to recant on their testimonies for one.

Many, many criminals in prison will proclaim their innocence, even up to the point when they are executed, never admitting their own guilt.

Personal testimony, while an important part of determining truth, can not be trusted in the absence of other corroborating facts and evidences.

The facts, of any case, exist independent of testimony. Where testimony gives an unimpeachable account of the known facts and the physical evidence which is shown to exist independent of the testimony (say, a dead body, or a large amount of money missing from a bank), they are given great weight.

Where testimony is shown to differ from the known facts (or from each other i.e. physical eyes versus spiritual eyes), or where the physical evidence attested to by the witness is missing and uncorroborated, the testimonies relevancy and reliability must be called in to question.

That there are 11 witnesses to the Book of Mormon is interesting, but given the nature of the testimonies, their familial relations to each other and their initial positions of power in the church, not to mention the total lack of the physical evidence to which they claim to be testifying about, seriously undermines their credibility.

Simply not denying their testimony is proof that they never denied their testimonies. What they testified ABOUT it still seriously in doubt.

[_Who Knows]

I would expect some of the witnesses to recant on their testimonies for one.

What would they have gained by recanting their witness testimonies? More importantly, what would they have lost?

[_asbestosman]

I would expect some of the witnesses to recant on their testimonies for one.

What would they have gained by recanting their witness testimonies?

Peace of mind? Petty revenge?

More importantly, what would they have lost?

If people already thought they were lying or nuts, perhaps nothing. Even then, I think they could have confessed and yet mitigated other difficulties to some degree by claiming that Joseph Smith tricked them and it was only later that they discovered how he could have done it (drugs, hypnosis) or claimed that he even threatening their lives/families.

Furthermore, why would Harris return to a group he knew to be false? Why not join some nicer, less-persecuted group? I think if nothing else that Harris truly believed, even if one argues that he was decieved. But then remember that there were 10 others. Can Joseph Smith really fool that many people so well that they saw geniune plates, or were the rest of them in on it too? If so, why didn't anyone squeal?