The Divinity is in the Details

We recently had an anonymous poster bring up the old anti-Mormon claim that the many witnesses of the gold plates of the Book of Mormon never physically saw the plates but just had some kind of a purely spiritual/hallucinatory experience. But the repeated affirmations of the witnesses and the many statements they left behind indicate something quite different. Critics must ignore a vast expanse of consistent detail in the historical record to offer the myth that they never actually experienced the physical reality of the plates. In this case, the divinity is in the details: details that point to the physical reality of the sacred ancient gold plates of the Book of Mormon. One important contribution in dealing with anti-Mormon efforts in this area is Richard Lloyd Anderson’s article, “Attempts to Redefine the Experience of the Eight Witnesses (PDF) (Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2005.

In surveying the extensive literature on the witnesses, it is overwhelmingly clear that these people saw and experienced something real. We can see that we are dealing with plates that weighted about 60 pounds, were made of fine, thin sheets of a deep yellow metal with engravings on both sides, and bound by 3 D-shaped rings. A miraculous spiritual experience did play a role for three of the witnesses, who not only saw the plates, but saw the Angel Moroni showing them the plates and testifying that they were of God. But though this was a spiritual experience, spiritual as well as physical eyes did the beholding. It was a real experience, not one imagined in religious frenzy. And for the many other witnesses of the plates, they were seen and handled in plain daylight and were obviously real and physical. Not one of the witnesses ever denied their testimony, even though some would have differences with the Church and leave, even in bitterness. In spite of that, none would ever deny the physical reality of what they experienced. That’s an amazing level of corroboration.

Share:

Author: Jeff Lindsay

66 thoughts on “The Divinity is in the Details

  1. Good post, Jeff. I have found the explinations against the Witnesses, well, rather lacking. They often rely on rationalizations and other unimpressive methods such as generalizations and ad hoc arguments (Dan Vogel’s “tin plates” theory comes to mind).

    The fact is that the 3 & 8 Witnesses stand as the # 1 problem for those who deny the Book of Mormon’s authenticity. They are the first thing that critics are going to have to deal with when trying to refute the Book of Mormon’s authenticity.

    The Witnesses’ testimonies stand for all the world to read. They testify to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the claims of Joseph Smith.

  2. I agree – the Witnesses are a genuine strong point for the BoM’s authenticity and deserve careful consideration. Not everyone questioning Martin Harris’ “spiritual eyes” is an anti-Mormon by default, however, as the wiki article suggests.

    Plenty of non-anti critics simply think that Martin Harris’ statement about spiritual eyes is just ambiguous and strange. Frankly, it simply doesn’t help the claim to word it that way, even if it was a common way of saying things or a product of the time – but I do know that context does matter, something that I readily acknowledge when considering the Witnesses’ claims.

    “They [the Witnesses] are the first thing that critics are going to have to deal with when trying to refute the Book of Mormon’s authenticity.”

    I don’t think that’s true. Mormons don’t first appeal to the truthfulness of the Witnesses; I see more pointing to evidences of plausibility. If this is the best argument, then why not make it the first line of defense? The answer is easy – someone’s word simply isn’t as strong as tangible evidence supporting the overall big claim of the BoM’s truthfulness.

    Someone’s word can never be proven or disproven, but historical events, details, descriptions, DNA, etc. all stand a much better chance of supporting a claim.

    I’ve said this earlier, and still think it’s a good example: plenty of UFO witnesses stand by their testimony of contacting alien life – many of whom never profited or sought profit or attention from their “encounters.” Do we place the burden on us to disprove them? No, it’s theirs. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence before people believe them.

    In the greater scheme, it should be, completely objectively, concerning that there is no solid evidence backing up the grand, historical and meaningful events described in the Book of Mormon.

  3. More than 40 years ago I was in Hyrum Andrus’ ward at BYU. He mentioned one time that when getting his Phd, he did his dissertation on the Book Of Mormon, and included the testimonies of the Book Of Mormon witnesses. He was told by his committee that he had to remove the testimony of the Eight Witnesses–which he refused to do. He said the reason the committee wanted that done was because the Three Witnesses could be explained away as hallucinations; whereas, the Eight Witnesses were not refutable. Before that I’d always thought the testimony of the Three Witnesses was the much stronger of the two.

  4. Dan that phrase,

    “the reason the committee wanted that done was because the Three Witnesses could be explained away as hallucinations; whereas, the Eight Witnesses were not refutable”

    is hilarious. That is up there with ministers of congregations asking investigators of the BOM not to pray about it.

  5. I do believe Joesph saw something, whether than angel was of God or not is another story. I have my doubts as the teachings of Joesph contradict scripture. A true prophet of God’s words never contradicted scripture, however the scriptures do warn us about listening to angels preaching a different gospel.

  6. “I have my doubts as the teachings of Joesph contradict scripture.”

    I have my doubts about the New Testiment because it contradicts the Old Testiment and a true prophet of God’s words never contradicted scripture.

  7. The old testament does not contradict the new new testament. The new testament fulfills the old testament law.

  8. The New Testament contradicts itself over and over. Even Paul wrote things that contradicted himself.

    The four Gospel writers even got some details different. One said there was one angel at the empty tomb, one said there were two.

    That being said, I still believe the New Testament, as far as it is translated correctly.

  9. Yeah, I don’t think it’s fair to say Joseph Smith was wrong because of a contradiction here or there. Genesis contradicts itself in the first two chapters if you read it closely.

  10. I don’t think that’s true. Mormons don’t first appeal to the truthfulness of the Witnesses; I see more pointing to evidences of plausibility. If this is the best argument, then why not make it the first line of defense?

    Actually, in my experience, most Mormons appeal to the power of the doctrines found within the Book of Mormon, and show how they stand as another witness that Jesus is the Christ.
    Most Mormons don’t give two hoots for plausibility and other evidences, because they have received a witness from the Spirit which they cannot deny.
    Most Mormons don’t care about the spiritual witnesses Muslims have concerning the Koran, because, for most Mormons, they have a hard enough time worrying about themselves and their families.

    That being said, there are still plenty of Mormons who do care about these issues, and find topics like this fascinating.

  11. It’s all semantics, if you ask me. Somebody said X and I assume they mean Y because I mean Y when I say X, but they actually mean Z. Or maybe they mean X–that would make more sense.

  12. Great post. Believing that the 3 witnesses were hallucinating is quite a stretch. First, Martin Harris excused himself from the others because he didn’t feel worthy, but later he received the same manifestation as the other witnesses. Second, as Jeff pointed out, not one of the m ever denied their witness. Even when doing so would’ve been easier, i.e. when some fell away from the church, they still didn’t deny what they saw and knew to be true.

    Having witnesses corresponds to the New Testament where it says, “Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.”

  13. That’s the thing about “manifestations”. It makes it difficult to separate fact from fantasy. Sounds like something from the Twilight Zone.

  14. Dan & Wendy: “Believing that the 3 witnesses were hallucinating is quite a stretch.”

    For a non-Mormon (of any religion or no religion) I don’t think it would be a stretch at all to believe the 3 were hallucinating. After all, the three witnesses claimed it to be a supernatural experience in addition to actually physically happening in 3-dimensional space.

    Non-believers will say that supernatural experiences just don’t happen. And even many believing Christians say that supernatural experiences were done away with after the original apostles died off.

    I think it’s covering all the bases for the Lord to ordain two sets of witnesses, the set of three men with a supernatural (but still physically real) experience where they beheld the glory of an angel, and the set of eight men with “just” a temporal or non-supernatural experience.

    If it were only the 8, then it could be said that Joseph and/or Martin Harris merely assembled the items themselves, making it look like gold plates with engravings.

    Perhaps the Lord foresaw the objections and granted both sets or types of experiences.

    But Elder Ballard said it best in one of the Public Affairs videos on YouTube, the Lord just doesn’t work by showing conclusive evidence to everybody, because then faith wouldn’t be necessary. And in addition, people still wouldn’t believe if they saw the gold plates.

    If the plates came forth now, in a temporal non-supernatural way, people would just say that the church has had 178 years to “invent” reformed-Egyption and “concoct” something that matches the Book of Mormon.

    And if the Angel Moroni took the gold plates around to every temple-recommend holding Mormon’s house and showed them, and 100,000+ Latter-day saints said “Hey! I met Moroni, and saw the plates!”, then the world would still disbelieve, saying “Yeah, right, you saw an angel.”

    And if Moroni took the plates and showed the Pope, and the Pope joined the church, people would say, “Well, he’s LDS now, and so of course he’s biased.”

    And Moroni wouldn’t go around in public showing everybody the plates, because that’s not what angels do. If angels were supposed to prove God’s true religion to everyone, then Peter, James, John, Paul, John the Baptist, Moses, Isaiah, and the rest would be going around “proving” God and Jesus.

    Only a select few get to be direct witnesses. Of the rest of us, faith is required. And if we exercise faith, then oftentimes a testimony of the Spirit is granted. And only after someone proves himself in all things, does he then get to be a direct witness.

  15. The 12 witnesses is an important part because it is one the things that help me to pray about the BoM. If you look also ath the lives of the 12 witnesses many had many other experiences that testify to Joseph Smiths work. One would have to discard all these experiences also. If you do this you might as well throw out all spiritual experiences after the Bible.

  16. Fortunately, the internet provides access to other sources of information for those searching for the truth….instead of having to rely on the church’s filtered version.

  17. I am not troubled in the least about throwing out the specifics of the Bible and treating it like a useful allegory and folktales with messages. OTOH, there’s entirely too much about the Book of Mormon that sounds like the current spate of televangelists, most of whom have a legions who swear to their various miracles and godly annointing.

    In particular, Joseph Smith’s polygamy, herding people from place and the martyrdom he took on from the very beginning strike me as very much like the misguided Jim Jones of the Ghana and KoolAid fame who may very much have felt that he had the interests of his followers at heart when he got started but who got drunk on the power and lost his way.

    I’m sorry to be so blunt. I suppose that will be hard to hear. But it’s my honest assessment when the claims for “truth” are made and people are leaned on for tons of free service and hard earned dollars for an organization with no more accountability than the televangelists provide and a lust for right wing political influence in the bargain.

  18. In particular, Joseph Smith’s polygamy,

    Like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, King David, Solomon, etc.

    herding people from place

    Like Moses and Joshua.

    and the martyrdom he took on

    Like John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, etc.

    from the very beginning strike me as very much like the misguided Jim Jones of the Ghana and KoolAid fame

    That’s GUYANA where they drank the Kool-Aid(tm), not Ghana.

    … and people are leaned on for tons of free service and hard earned dollars …

    Like the Israelites stealing the Egyptian riches and using it to build the tabernacle, or maybe like King Solomon forcing his people to contribute to and build the temple; and maybe like Jesus asking the one guy to sell all he had, and then the apostles telling their followers to put everything in common, kind of like communism.

    Sounds like you’d have trouble with the whole Bible, not just Mormonism.

    I’ve read the Bible and accepted/believed the Bible, and that gives me a framework for understanding the kinds of things God has done and would do. Those biblical things then prepared the way for me to accept the Book of Mormon.

    Christianity doesn’t seem to be a good fit for everyone. And Mormonism doesn’t seem to be a good fit for all Christians.

    And you didn’t even get to the parts about giving up Starbucks, Earl Grey, and Samuel Adams, having to go to church for THREE WHOLE HOURS (sheesh!) on Sunday, letting church “spies” (aka home teachers) come into your home once a month, going “spying” on others once a month, and wearing special underwear.

    But there is a short-cut answer to all those things. It’s the Book of Mormon. If the Book of Mormon is true, then JS was a prophet, and then the church is true, and all those things are proper.

    So it’s really not necessary to investigate and argue all those points. It all boils down to getting a spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon.

    IMO, the whole point of apologetics is merely to rule out the things that critics point to when they claim the BoM can’t be true.

    Jeff’s, or any apoligist’s, points are that the so called “evidences” that the critics use are not really proofs that the Bom can’t be true.

    You could spend a whole life analyzing all the points and counter-points, and you’d still not know the spiritual status of the Book of Mormon.

    Reading, pondering, praying really is the only way to find out.

    Moving around, dietary laws, meetings, service to others, tithing, and wearing special clothing is all in the Bible, so it’s really not worth arguing over.

    And all those requirements pale into insignificance under the burning light of a genuine spiritual witness.

  19. Anonymous @ 6:05 said:
    “Fortunately, the internet provides access to other sources of information for those searching for the truth….instead of having to rely on the church’s filtered version.”

    Whoa, the internet? Well, if its on the internet, then its GOTTA be true!

    Bookslinger, thanks for all of your insightful comments. Joseph Smith said, “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” That’s one of the many witnesses to me that the Book of Mormon is truly what it claims to be: when I read it, study it, ponder it and strive to live by the teachings found in its pages (ie, the Gospel of Jesus Christ), I feel a greater measure of God’s Spirit in my life and feel closer to the Savior. By their fruits…

  20. “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

    Funny because Jesus said HE is the chief cornerstone of the true church, a church which is based on faith in Him and that he was God in the flesh, who died on the cross and in three days rose again and conquered death. Whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

    Could the gospel that whoever calls on the name of the Lord REALLY have disappeared from the face of the earth for 1800 years? Definately not.

  21. annon @5:15
    there is a major difference between a keystone and a cornerstone.
    A keystone is the central stone at the top of an arch
    the cornerstone is “the chief foundation on which something is constructed or developed” [dictionary.com]
    I’m failing to see the conflict

  22. Anyone know why they changed the introduction to the BofM? If the intro was accurate for past printings, why change it now?

  23. “Whoa, the internet? Well, if its on the internet, then its GOTTA be true!”

    Never said everything on the net is true, but merely pointed out people have other sources for information about the LDS church; rather than rely on what comes out of SLC.

  24. Anon 8:29

    “Never said everything on the net is true, but merely pointed out people have other sources for information about the LDS church; rather than rely on what comes out of SLC.”

    That would be horrible to depend on information about an organization to come from that organization. Maybe we should find out the truth about all organizations by going to other sources. Maybe find out about Catholics from anti Catholic web pages or about Mormons from anti Mormons. The antis would definitely have the final word and definite authority on truth about the people they aim to “help” or “save”. It would be more accurate to say smear.

  25. Are you sure you want to live in a world divided into the LDS and “antis”? There ARE objective independent sources.

    When I’m buying a car I may listen to what the salesman has to say but I certainly am not ready to make a decision until I’ve verified the claims and heard the downside as well from an independent source. If your whole orientation is salesmen and “antis” you’ve put yourself in a real bind.

  26. I haven’t found any anti-sites or “non” anti-sites yet that give the LDS a “fair shake”. Why would they? The LDS Church is a “cult”. Devoid of truth and light in their eyes. Even as we claim to believe one thing they call us liars and claim we believe another. Even as we claim to be Christian they say “You are mistaken. Your church is a cult!”. We say we worship Christ. They say we worship a “different” Christ. Not the one in the New Testament. All of these neutral sites, as they claim or act to be, are not aiming to give an unbiased report on LDS belief. What they report is what they think is our belief and how it is wrong. And if it is reported correctly then that belief is wrong too. I would like to find a supposed non-anti site that is objective that gives “unfiltered” information. The sites you most likely find to be the most truthful and unbiased will most likely be the ones I find to be untruthful and deceiving.

    Sorry for the rambling and poor writing.

  27. Anonymous is calling oranges and apples the same thing: “Chief cornerstone” is not the same as “keystone”–Cornerstone: A stone in the exterior of a large and important building; usually carved with a date and laid with appropriate ceremonies; Keystone: The central, wedge-shaped stone at the top of an arch that locks the arch together. Such an inaccurate conclusion as this one was, showing no research to get an understanding of those two terms, makes your other arguments highly suspect, as it indicates that it’s also possible (probable?) that the same lack of research and understanding has also made them flawed.

  28. Anon 9:57pm

    Buying a car is much different than choosing a religion. In choosing a religion we should do what it says in James 1:5. and Ask of God. Ask in Faith nothing wavering. To do this we have to be willing to accept the answer that we recieve. If the Holy Spirit isn’t a good enough compass, then I don’t know what is.

  29. “If the Holy Spirit isn’t a good enough compass, then I don’t know what is.”

    That and living it by faith to see it’s fruits of blessings. There are some that it takes time for the Holy Spirit to give His witness.

  30. Anon @ 8:29

    If you accuse pro-Mormon websites to be filtered then non-pro-Mormon sites are filtered even more.

    Most pro sites I’ve seen present at least part of both sides of an argument. The non-pro sites seem to present only the critical arguments — this isn’t filtering???

    Can you give us an example of one of these non-biased “neutral” sites? It doesn’t matter who makes a presentation, they will all be biased, even if unintentionally.

    Another reason you will never find a truly neutral site is that they never resolve anything — all they can do is inform and if there are issues BOTH sides of the issue must be presented EQUALLY and without bias.

    The only real chance to get to the truth of something is to see both sides of an argument/counterargument, each presented by their respective proponents, keeping an open mind and trying both sides as presented. If done with true sincerity you can now know who is right, wrong, both right, or both wrong.