CWK: Witnesses to History or Witnesses of Faith?

[Kishkumen]

Premiering this evening (10 pm Mountain Time) at CWK on YouTube:

https://youtu.be/CUChWs8Toao

At the age of 19, I gained a strong spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon. It propelled me out into the mission field, where I got other people to read and pray about the Book of Mormon. Now that I am a historian, I use additional tools to analyze texts. Are the Book of Mormon witnesses testifying of spiritual truth, historical fact, or both?

[drumdude]

A couple thoughts after viewing:

I don't think the Witnesses are/were claiming to testify of the book's historicity. And I don't think apologists are making that claim either. In fact, the naiveté of both Joseph and the Witnesses further the apologist's goals.

The LDS apologist cares about the witnesses for only one reason - they testify to the physicality of the golden plates. The witnesses testify that the plates were real physical objects (or so the apologists claim).

Once you have physical gold plates, everything else follows as a consequence. Joseph couldn't have written the book, so it must have been written by someone else. Joseph couldn't have made the plates, and Joseph couldn't have known ancient history, so the plates must be an authentic ancient artifact. And that implies that the book is historical.

It's a giant causal chain that begins with the witnesses testifying that the plates were real and ends with the book being historical.

I only know this because DCP has been harping on it for years. For him the plates are the foundational artifact that require convoluted explanations to argue that the plates were fake or didn't exist.

So to go back to your title - the Witnesses were neither witnesses to history or faith, they were witnesses to plates.

The 8 witnesses testimony in particular drives this home. They leave behind all of the miraculous elements of the 3 witness testimony:

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.

[Kishkumen]

Indeed, drumdude! I did the three because of time constraints, but I need to do the eight. Still, my point about them not being witnesses to ancient history stands in that they had no idea what they were actually looking at.

[drumdude]

Indeed, drumdude! I did the three because of time constraints, but I need to do the eight. Still, my point about them not being witnesses to ancient history stands in that they had no idea what they were actually looking at.

Of course, completely agreed there. Do you think they were looking at a hastily produced prop or do you think Joseph convinced them they saw something when nothing was there?

[Physics Guy]

What about the possibility that the Eight simply didn't protest too loudly about their names appearing printed after a weasel-worded statement that they interpreted differently from most readers?

Most readers might well take the Statement to mean that the Eight all handled the plates themselves. And it seems to me that it's the handling that is most important. Even a yokel might be expected to distinguish weird golden plates from crude props if he actually handled them. The other assertions in the Statement are perfectly consistent with the plates being props that could be hefted and that looked plausibly ancient and curious to uneducated viewers at a distance. It's the handling of the plates by eight witnesses that seems most convincing in the account.

It's a little odd, though, to call the plates "plates" everywhere else in the statement, but switch to "leaves" for the handling. And if the plates themselves were really handled, then why only handle the ones that Smith had translated? Why not handle them all? Finally, if the plates were indeed the leaves that were handled, then why finish with the weaker statement that the plates had been hefted?

I can't help suspecting that the Eight got to handle a stack of paper—the paper leaves of Smith's translation up to that point—but only saw any plates from a distance, and hefted them inside an opaque container.

That way the Eight could have been persuaded to let their names remain on a statement that agreed with what they remembered, at least closely enough that there was no point in making a fuss that would only get them into more trouble. But they wouldn't even really have been making a historical judgement beyond their ability to make accurately. They would just have been manipulated into endorsing an ambiguous statement that sounded to most readers as if it meant more than the witnesses actually meant.

[drumdude]

I can't help suspecting that the Eight got to handle a stack of paper—the paper leaves of Smith's translation up to that point—but only saw any plates from a distance, and hefted them inside an opaque container.

Interesting idea, I hadn't thought about the leaves vs plates distinction before.

[Gadianton]

Enjoyed the episode. Having seen drumdudes reaction, I had that in mind while listening. I had to actually go back and watch parts of it again to convince myself I was following Kish's point. Kish reads the statement of the three witnesses.

The witnesses testify that the plates were real physical objects (or so the apologists claim).

Well that's just it. My impression is that Kish may be intentionally not starting the conversation where the apologists want to start it. The three witness statement says that they saw the plates, plates contain history of Nephites, know that it was translated by the gift and power of God by his very voice, know of a surety the work is true, saw the engravings by the power of God not man (WTF?), angel came down and showed them plates and engravings, voice of Lord bears record.

This is one convoluted "witness".

Dan wants them to be witnesses like David Fravor engaging a tic-tac. Unfortunately, that just isn't possible given what they are attesting to.

It would be like claiming to see and engage a tic tac, that the hive mind of the Grays spoke to his mind of it's origins from Zeta Reticula and that it travelled by anti-gravity, knows of surety that element 115 powered it, that the tic-tac was shown by the power of the Gray hive mind and not the instruments of man, that a Gray alien appeared personally and showed the tic-tac and the element 115 that powers it, not the instruments of man, that the hive mind of the Grays spoke to his mind that what was happening was real, as it was happening.

It's not a an eye witness testimony of plates.

[drumdude]

You’re correct, Dan has been putting forth his own argument about the witnesses for so long that I had forgotten how different the accounts are. He puts everything into the second account and very rarely does he ever mention the miraculous elements of the first account.

[I Have Questions]

There’s another way of thinking about the witness statements. That to be a witness was a status thing. Like being in the Platinum Lounge, or on the Main Board etc.

The eight witnesses, all members of the Smith and Whitmer families, could have been put out that non family members, Harris and Cowdrey, were witnesses yet they were not. The eight witnesses statement might simply have been pandering to the family. To include them and make them feel part of it. Smith needed to keep the two key families onside.

The statement might well have had a number of drafts until all the family members agreed on the wording.

[Kishkumen]

What about the possibility that the Eight simply didn't protest too loudly about their names appearing printed after a weasel-worded statement that they interpreted differently from most readers?

Most readers might well take the Statement to mean that the Eight all handled the plates themselves. And it seems to me that it's the handling that is most important. Even a yokel might be expected to distinguish weird golden plates from crude props if he actually handled them. The other assertions in the Statement are perfectly consistent with the plates being props that could be hefted and that looked plausibly ancient and curious to uneducated viewers at a distance. It's the handling of the plates by eight witnesses that seems most convincing in the account.

It's a little odd, though, to call the plates "plates" everywhere else in the statement, but switch to "leaves" for the handling. And if the plates themselves were really handled, then why only handle the ones that Smith had translated? Why not handle them all? Finally, if the plates were indeed the leaves that were handled, then why finish with the weaker statement that the plates had been hefted?

I can't help suspecting that the Eight got to handle a stack of paper—the paper leaves of Smith's translation up to that point—but only saw any plates from a distance, and hefted them inside an opaque container.

That way the Eight could have been persuaded to let their names remain on a statement that agreed with what they remembered, at least closely enough that there was no point in making a fuss that would only get them into more trouble. But they wouldn't even really have been making a historical judgement beyond their ability to make accurately. They would just have been manipulated into endorsing an ambiguous statement that sounded to most readers as if it meant more than the witnesses actually meant.

I have no doubt that wrangling was involved in getting all of the witnesses to sign these statements. That is my understanding of the best research on the topic.