039 Are Criticisms of the Book of Mormon Witnesses Defensible?
Nov 28, 2023
auto_awesome
Exploring the reliability of historical claims about Book of Mormon witnesses through critical thinking. Analyzing multiple witness testimonies and the credibility of these witnesses. Delving into the challenges and high stakes of determining truthfulness. Examining specific witness accounts and early criticisms, shedding light on internal strife within the early Mormon community.
Accounts contradicting Book of Mormon witnesses lack credibility and consistency.
Witness testimonies of Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer are rooted in personal experiences and remain consistent.
Historical tools confirm reliability and credibility of witness testimonies due to clear motives and consistency with primary sources.
Deep dives
Peter Ingersoll's Testimony
Peter Ingersoll claims that Joseph Smith joked about a golden bible made of sand, but his account is contradicted by all other historical sources and lacks credibility.
Lorenzo Saunders' Testimony
Lorenzo Saunders alleges that the plates were actually a tile in an old glass box and Martin Harris couldn't discern a gold plate from a brick. However, this account lacks credibility and contradicts the testimonies of other witnesses.
Thomas Ford's Testimony
Thomas Ford quotes Martin Harris as stating that he saw the plates in a box with only a tablecloth or handkerchief covering them, but never with his natural eyes, only in vision. However, this account is misleading and contradicted by Martin Harris' consistent testimony that he saw the plates both physically and spiritually.
Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer's consistent testimony of seeing the plates
Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer, three witnesses of the Book of Mormon, consistently testified that they saw the plates with their own eyes. Martin Harris, in a letter to Walter Conrad, stated that he saw a holy angel holding the plates and heard a voice from heaven. Oliver Cowdery, in a letter to Cornelius Blatchley, described how he and the other witnesses saw the plates in a clear, open field. David Whitmer also provided numerous testimonies, fervently asserting that he saw the angel and the plates. These witness testimonies align with their motives to proclaim the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, and they serve as primary sources for their experience.
Challenges to the witness testimonies lack evidence and consistency
While there are counter accounts challenging the witness testimonies, such as Stephen Burnett's letter to Lyman Johnson, they fail to provide substantial evidence or consistency. Burnett's account relies on hearsay and frustration with Joseph Smith. In contrast, the testimonies of Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer are rooted in personal experiences and remain consistent throughout their lives. Further examination using historical tools confirms the reliability and credibility of the witness testimonies as they align with primary sources, have clear motives, factual descriptions, and are consistent with each other.
How can we confidently discern the difference between a reliable historical claim and an unreliable one? This is what Casey and I discussed in our last episode where we introduced five source critical questions we can all ask to carefully assess the reliability of a historical truth claim.
In this episode of Church History Matters, we’re going to practice putting these five questions to work by actually using them to measure and evaluate various historical truth-claims about the witnesses of the Book of Mormon—a very high stakes topic with conflicting claims in the historical record.
