Mormon Discussion: The Witnesses

[Prestor John]

Cuts both ways, dude.

How so?

 

[Watchmen]

How so?

You're reading historical texts and deciding yourself what they intended (while ignoring the contradictory statements).

 

[Prestor John]

You're reading historical texts and deciding yourself what they intended (while ignoring the contradictory statements).

Which are signed by the witness?

 

[Watchmen]

Which are signed by the witness?

Ha! Did you know the testimony of the eight witnesses isn't even signed by them!?!?!

Also, if someone signs a statement and gives contradictory accounts thereafter, it damages the person's credibility.

 

[Prestor John]

Ha! Did you know the testimony of the eight witnesses isn't even signed by them!?!?!

We have not been talking about the Eight Witnesses. We have all been talking about Martin Harris, one of the Three Witnesses, and what he supposedly said.

Also, if someone signs a statement and gives contradictory accounts thereafter, it damages the person's credibility.

That's the rub. Do any of these other "contradictory accounts" have Martin Harris' signature? Were they even written by him?

 

[Watchmen]

We have not been talking about the Eight Witnesses. We have all been talking about Martin Harris, one of the Three Witnesses, and what he supposedly said.

That's the rub. Do any of these other "contradictory accounts" have Martin Harris' signature? Were they even written by him?

"Signatures" aren't required. It's impeachment evidence. He signed one thing and said another (multiple accounts).

What do you think about the eight witnesses not signing their own "witness"?

 

[Prestor John]

"Signatures" aren't required. It's impeachment evidence. He signed one thing and said another (multiple accounts).

Well hold on. Him signing the testimony validates that he actually witnessed what it claimed. He declared that the testimony was true and his signing it was proof that he agreed with the testimony.

These other accounts you mentioned are unverifiable. We don't really know that he said any of those things. He did not sign any of those. It's hear-say.

What do you think about the eight witnesses not signing their own "witness"?

Were they able to write their own names?

 

[Watchmen]

Well hold on. Him signing the testimony validates that he actually witnessed what it claimed. He declared that the testimony was true and his signing it was proof that he agreed with the testimony.

These other accounts you mentioned are unverifiable. We don't really know that he said any of those things. He did not sign any of those. It's hear-say.

Were they able to write their own names?

Again, just because someone signs a statement doesn't make it true, and when others consistently tell a different story it damages credibility. "Mental state" is an exception to the rule against hearsay. The statements are also records concerning an interest and reputation, also exceptions to the rule against hearsay.

Why do you ask whether the individuals were able to write their own names? Are you suggesting (or do you have any evidence) that all eight witnesses were illiterate?

 

[Prestor John]

Again, just because someone signs a statement doesn't make it true

We are not discussing whether or not what Martin Harris claimed to have seen and heard actually happened. I never said that his signing the testimony proved that.

What we have been discussing is whether or not Martin Harris actually claimed to have both seen and heard what the testimony claims he saw and heard.

His signature upon that testimony proves that he agreed with what was contained in the testimony and that he claimed that he actually saw and heard what the testimony described.

and when others consistently tell a different story it damages credibility.

I disagree. There are levels to evidence and unverified claims about what someone did or said do not stand against a signed testimony.

"Mental state" is an exception to the rule against hearsay. The statements are also records concerning an interest and reputation, also exceptions to the rule against hearsay.

How do you figure that?

Why do you ask whether the individuals were able to write their own names? Are you suggesting (or do you have any evidence) that all eight witnesses were illiterate?

I am not suggesting anything.

My initial response upon learning that someone else had signed a document on behalf of another person would be to ascertain if the original person was literate.

Do you know whether or not they were literate?

 

[Watchmen]

We are not discussing whether or not what Martin Harris claimed to have seen and heard actually happened. I never said that his signing the testimony proved that.

What we have been discussing is whether or not Martin Harris actually claimed to have both seen and heard what the testimony claims he saw and heard.

His signature upon that testimony proves that he agreed with what was contained in the testimony and that he claimed that he actually saw and heard what the testimony described.

I disagree. There are levels to evidence and unverified claims about what someone did or said do not stand against a signed testimony.

How do you figure that?

I am not suggesting anything.

My initial response upon learning that someone else had signed a document on behalf of another person would be to ascertain if the original person was literate.

Do you know whether or not they were literate?

I think you're naive to think that if someone signs a document that means they agree with it, especially when they make contradictory statements thereafter. His signature "proves" nothing other than he signed a document.

Do you even know what hearsay actually means? The exceptions to the rule against hearsay that I mentioned are common for those who actually know what hearsay is.

I have no idea if they were literate or not. I do know that Oliver Cowdry "signed" the names for all eight witnesses (who happened to be close friends to those perpetuating the charade).

 

[Prestor John]

I think you're naive to think that if someone signs a document that means they agree with it...

Then a person does not need to sign a document to prove that they agree with it.

Therefore, if you claim that signing a document does not necessarily matter, then your issue with the Eight Witnesses not signing the testimony is irrelevant.

...especially when they make contradictory statements thereafter.

This showcases your naivete.

You question a signed document yet you automatically assume that any random person's unverifiable statement about something Martin Harris said or did is true.

Your bias is glaring and it robs you of credibility.

His signature "proves" nothing other than he signed a document.

You could say that about any document then.

The signing of the Declaration of Independence does not "prove" that any of those men actually agreed with what they were signing.

There are some people that claim that the U.S. founding fathers were part of some Knights Templar conspiracy, or they were being led by the nose by the Jews, or something about Masons and the Illuminati.

If we followed the example you are setting, we should automatically believe the claims of these conspiracy theorists.

Do you even know what hearsay actually means?

I'm using it in the sense of it being rumor.

The exceptions to the rule against hearsay that I mentioned are common for those who actually know what hearsay is.

Ok. Would you mind providing a source that proves that?

I have no idea if they were literate or not. I do know that Oliver Cowdry "signed" the names for all eight witnesses (who happened to be close friends to those perpetuating the charade).

The Bible records the Lord Jesus Christ only appearing to "close friends" after His Resurrection. Do you take issue with that as well?

 

[Watchmen]

Then a person does not need to sign a document to prove that they agree with it.

Therefore, if you claim that signing a document does not necessarily matter, then your issue with the Eight Witnesses not signing the testimony is irrelevant.

This showcases your naivete.

You question a signed document yet you automatically assume that any random person's unverifiable statement about something Martin Harris said or did is true.

Your bias is glaring and it robs you of credibility.

You could say that about any document then.

The signing of the Declaration of Independence does not "prove" that any of those men actually agreed with what they were signing.

There are some people that claim that the U.S. founding fathers were part of some Knights Templar conspiracy, or they were being led by the nose by the Jews, or something about Masons and the Illuminati.

If we followed the example you are setting, we should automatically believe the claims of these conspiracy theorists.

I'm using it in the sense of it being rumor.

Ok. Would you mind providing a source that proves that?

The Bible records the Lord Jesus Christ only appearing to "close friends" after His Resurrection. Do you take issue with that as well?

The problem is a signed statement contradicted by numerous and consistent accounts to the contrary. Do you not see that? I didn't see signing a document doesn't matter. The issue is with the subsequent contradictions.

I don't automatically assume anything. I examine statements from various sources that consistently contradict Harris.

I'm not aware of any accounts about those who signed the Declaration of Independence later contradicting what they signed. Do you get it yet?

Try Cornell Law for a source discussing the rule against hearsay and exceptions thereto.

Why would I take issue with the Bible? I'm not aware of consistent statements to the contrary regarding who Jesus appeared to after his resurrection.

I'm not biased. Just reasoned.

 

[Prestor John]

The problem is a signed statement contradicted by numerous and consistent accounts to the contrary.

Accounts given by whom? Did Martin Harris write any of these accounts? Were they second-hand or third-hand accounts?

The issue I take with this argument and with you is there is no reason to believe any of these accounts. Why do you believe them?

Why do you doubt Martin Harris' personal account and the many statements he made affirming that he heard the voice of God, saw the angel and handled the plates?

Not only him, but the ten other witnesses never recanted their experiences. Taken together there are far more accounts that agree with the testimonies. The only first-hand accounts of these events affirm the testimonies. There are far more second and third-hand accounts that affirm the testimonies than there are those that contradict them.

You can claim that these few second-hand and third-hand accounts somehow affect the witnesses credibility, but that would be in opposition to the majority of the evidence. It is simply you siding with your bias against the Church and the Saints.

Do you not see that?.

I see that there have always been those who were willing to stand up and declare things contradictory to the Lord's servants. This is not new and it does not prove anything.

These second and third-hand contradictory accounts do not prove that any of the witnesses actually recanted their testimonies nor do they prove that the events described in the testimonies did not happen.

I didn't [say] signing a document doesn't matter. The issue is with the subsequent contradictions.

You said, "His signature "proves" nothing other than he signed a document."

You made it clear that you believe that his signing the testimony does not prove that he agreed with the testimony.

I'm still confused on why you instantly believe these second and third-hand accounts as if they are undoubtedly true when there is no evidence that any of those accounts are true. Nothing.

You can claim that Martin Harris said everything contained in these second and third-hand accounts, but that does not make it true. You have nothing to support them. I, on the other hand, have first-hand accounts signed by the witnesses.

I don't automatically assume anything. I examine statements from various sources that consistently contradict Harris.

While completely ignoring all those that agree with what Harris said.

You disregard the first-hand account signed by him and all the other accounts of him testifying to the truthfulness of what he had witnessed. You do so because of your bias. Then you automatically assume that these second and third-hand accounts are true even though you have no evidence of that. It is all "he said" or "he told me that he said".

You also ignore all the other evidence. Martin Harris mortgaged his farm to print the Book of Mormon. He also left his home and family to travel with the Saints. Even though he had been excommunicated from the Church, He still testified that the Book of Mormon was true and that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. He even came back to the Church.

None of his actions, which speak louder than words, are consistent with the second and third-hand accounts you have shared.

Also, since you don't know much about LDS doctrine or terminology, using the phrases "eye of faith" and "spiritual eyes" do not mean that he did not see and handle the plates physically.

It's this laziness of thought that confirms your bias.

I'm not aware of any accounts about those who signed the Declaration of Independence later contradicting what they signed. Do you get it yet?

Even if there were second or third-account accounts claiming that they later contradicted what they signed - I would not doubt them nor consider those accounts as damages to their credibility. Rumors and slander do not establish fact.

I bet if there were second or third-hand accounts contradicting what the Founding Fathers signed you would give your "research" a little more effort.

You are so silly to immediately believe any account as long as it attempts to make the Church or its leaders look bad.

Try Cornell Law for a source discussing the rule against hearsay and exceptions thereto.

I patiently await your sharing a relevant quote from that source and a link to it.

Why would I take issue with the Bible? I'm not aware of consistent statements to the contrary regarding who Jesus appeared to after his resurrection.

Nice dishonesty. Taking my argument and applying it to something else. That's great.

One of your arguments against the Witnesses of the gold plates was that they all were "close friends" to the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Therefore, I applied this argument to the Resurrection of our Lord and the fact that He only showed Himself to his "close friends".

If you believe that the fact that the Witnesses were "close friends" to the Prophet somehow damages their credibility, then in order for you to remain consistent and honest, you should also believe that the Lord appearing to only his "close fiends" should damage the credibility of the Resurrection of Christ.

Not only that, but you being unaware of the many statements made by Jewish and Romans leaders about the body of our Lord being taken in the night by His disciples to "prove" that He had risen does not make them vanish.

I'm not biased. Just reasoned.

You are incredibly biased. You have every right to be. I don't know anyone who does not have bias.

However your bias causes you to put on big blinders and to be dishonest. Which is not good. Not good at all.

 

[Watchmen]

Accounts given by whom? Did Martin Harris write any of these accounts? Were they second-hand or third-hand accounts?

The issue I take with this argument and with you is there is no reason to believe any of these accounts. Why do you believe them?

Why do you doubt Martin Harris' personal account and the many statements he made affirming that he heard the voice of God, saw the angel and handled the plates?

Not only him, but the ten other witnesses never recanted their experiences. Taken together there are far more accounts that agree with the testimonies. The only first-hand accounts of these events affirm the testimonies. There are far more second and third-hand accounts that affirm the testimonies than there are those that contradict them.

You can claim that these few second-hand and third-hand accounts somehow affect the witnesses credibility, but that would be in opposition to the majority of the evidence. It is simply you siding with your bias against the Church and the Saints.

I see that there have always been those who were willing to stand up and declare things contradictory to the Lord's servants. This is not new and it does not prove anything.

These second and third-hand contradictory accounts do not prove that any of the witnesses actually recanted their testimonies nor do they prove that the events described in the testimonies did not happen.

You said, "His signature "proves" nothing other than he signed a document."

You made it clear that you believe that his signing the testimony does not prove that he agreed with the testimony.

I'm still confused on why you instantly believe these second and third-hand accounts as if they are undoubtedly true when there is no evidence that any of those accounts are true. Nothing.

You can claim that Martin Harris said everything contained in these second and third-hand accounts, but that does not make it true. You have nothing to support them. I, on the other hand, have first-hand accounts signed by the witnesses.

While completely ignoring all those that agree with what Harris said.

You disregard the first-hand account signed by him and all the other accounts of him testifying to the truthfulness of what he had witnessed. You do so because of your bias. Then you automatically assume that these second and third-hand accounts are true even though you have no evidence of that. It is all "he said" or "he told me that he said".

You also ignore all the other evidence. Martin Harris mortgaged his farm to print the Book of Mormon. He also left his home and family to travel with the Saints. Even though he had been excommunicated from the Church, He still testified that the Book of Mormon was true and that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. He even came back to the Church.

None of his actions, which speak louder than words, are consistent with the second and third-hand accounts you have shared.

Also, since you don't know much about LDS doctrine or terminology, using the phrases "eye of faith" and "spiritual eyes" do not mean that he did not see and handle the plates physically.

It's this laziness of thought that confirms your bias.

Even if there were second or third-account accounts claiming that they later contradicted what they signed - I would not doubt them nor consider those accounts as damages to their credibility. Rumors and slander do not establish fact.

I bet if there were second or third-hand accounts contradicting what the Founding Fathers signed you would give your "research" a little more effort.

You are so silly to immediately believe any account as long as it attempts to make the Church or its leaders look bad.

I patiently await your sharing a relevant quote from that source and a link to it.

Nice dishonesty. Taking my argument and applying it to something else. That's great.

One of your arguments against the Witnesses of the gold plates was that they all were "close friends" to the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Therefore, I applied this argument to the Resurrection of our Lord and the fact that He only showed Himself to his "close friends".

If you believe that the fact that the Witnesses were "close friends" to the Prophet somehow damages their credibility, then in order for you to remain consistent and honest, you should also believe that the Lord appearing to only his "close fiends" should damage the credibility of the Resurrection of Christ.

Not only that, but you being unaware of the many statements made by Jewish and Romans leaders about the body of our Lord being taken in the night by His disciples to "prove" that He had risen does not make them vanish.

You are incredibly biased. You have every right to be. I don't know anyone who does not have bias.

However your bias causes you to put on big blinders and to be dishonest. Which is not good. Not good at all.

I'll reply in detail but thought I'd point out its you who is blind. You mention Harris mortgaged his farm. That means he had a financial incentive to keep up the charade.

More later.

 

[Prestor John]

I'll reply in detail but thought I'd point out its you who is blind. You mention Harris mortgaged his farm. That means he had a financial incentive to keep up the charade.

More later.

Sure. Sure. That "financial incentive" also caused him to leave his family and journey with the saints half across the country.

It caused him to testify of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the calling of Joseph Smith up until his death.

What a shallow argument.

 

[Katzpur]

I'll reply in detail but thought I'd point out its you who is blind. You mention Harris mortgaged his farm. That means he had a financial incentive to keep up the charade.

At that point, Watchmen, it would have been much, much easier for Martin Harris to simply back out of the "charade," citing Charles Anton's final statement as a reason. You're being unreasonable to assert that, that early in the Church's history, he had anything at all to gain by sticking with Joseph Smith, when in fact the reality is that he had everything to lose.

 

[Watchmen]

At that point, Watchmen, it would have been much, much easier for Martin Harris to simply back out of the "charade," citing Charles Anton's final statement as a reason. You're being unreasonable to assert that, that early in the Church's history, he had anything at all to gain by sticking with Joseph Smith, when in fact the reality is that he had everything to lose.

He already lost everything by mortgaging his farm. He had to stick with it.

 

[Prestor John]

He already lost everything by mortgaging his farm. He had to stick with it.

He was not some common farmer. He had more assets than his farm. He had not lost everything.

 

[Katzpur]

He already lost everything by mortgaging his farm. He had to stick with it.

No, he wouldn't have mortgaged his farm in the first place had he not been convinced that the Book of Mormon was actually an ancient record. He went to see Charles Anton prior to making the decision to mortgage his farm.