Did the Book of Mormon Witnesses Really See the Plates? (w/ Bill McKeever)

Now, I'm going to start this presentation off with a quotation from an LDS historian, Marvin S. Hill. Marvin S. Hill. And he wrote an article that was published in Dialogue, a journal of Mormon thought, as you can see from the reference there. And he is doing a a um another look, you might say, at Fawn McKay Brody's book, No Man Knows My History. Anybody read that book? It it's probably one of the classics. It came out in the 1940s. It actually got Fawn McKay Broaddy in a lot of trouble even though she was the niece of Mormon President David O McKay. Uh, but she had a lot of information in there that shocked a lot of Latter-day Saints. And this was during a time the 40s when you just didn't do that. Uh, nowadays I will admit that they do seem to have a bit more transparency when it comes to their history and theology. I personally think they could they have a long way to go in doing that, but still, they are much more transparent than they used to be. And you might say that Marvin Hill was probably considered by many Latter-day Saints as a revisionist historian. But when you're dealing with those who write about Mormon history, that is something that probably was really needed. And Marvin Hill would be among those historians that kind of upset the apple cart. And we're going to see by some of the statements that he makes in this article that he wrote for uh dialogue that probably shook up a lot of people and really um set their testimony on edge, you might say.

Well, this is what he says, and this is uh found on pages 83 and 84 of his dialogue article. "What of the prophet's story about gold plates? And what about his witnesses? Given Brody's assumptions, was there not deception here, if not collusion? Brody maintains that the prophet exercised some mysterious influence upon the witnesses, which caused them to see the plates, thus making Joseph Smith once more the perpetrator of a religious fraud. The evidence is extremely contradictory in this area. But there is a possibility that the three witnesses saw the plates in vision only." In vision only >> ignore.

Okay. Um, let me just comment on a couple of things here. When he says the evidence is extremely contradictory in this area, I would totally agree with that. When you look at a lot of the statements that were made by the 11 men whom who were given the opportunity to see the plates, the way they explain this experience sounds very confusing. And this is what we're going to be looking at this morning. But when he says there is a possibility that the three three witnesses saw the plates in vision only, of course, for many faithful Latter-day Saints, that's just not something they want to entertain. They want to believe that that these men actually saw physical plates, and sometimes they describe the plates as if they really did. But we need to look closely at what they said to other people as well, not just the statements that you find at the beginning of every edition of the Book of Mormon.

Now, I'm going to do a lot of reading to just bring everybody up to speed. And I have a reason for this because there's details in these stories that we've probably read a lot if you've done a lot of studying on the early history of Mormonism that are that is very familiar to you. We go back, for instance, to September 21st, 1823. Moroni shows up and has a long conversation with Joseph Smith in the upstairs bedroom of the Smith cabin. And I've often said that I think the real miracle in this whole story is that his siblings were sleeping in the same room and they don't wake up. Okay, but that's another issue. All right, but Moroni apparently says to "What's going on here? Peace." >> "It came back." >> "I don't know why it's doing that." Um, he said that there was a book deposited written upon gold plates. That's one issue that we need to zero in in on. Okay, gold plates. Of course, most Latter-day Saints don't believe that anymore because they weren't gold plates. They were some alloy. One one apologist actually argues that the plates only had about a 12% gold content to them. Okay. Why do they do that? Because they know they'd be too heavy. But that's another that's another presentation. Um, "He told me that when I got those plates of which he had spoken, for the time that they should be obtained was not yet fulfilled, I should not show them to any person, neither the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim. Only to those to whom I should be commanded to show them, if I did, I should be destroyed."

Okay. Notice he also mentions the Urim and Thummim. This was also allegedly buried with the plates in the stone box. We do read the story about how Joseph Smith went in a wagon with his wife Emma. Uh, and he gets out of the wagon. He goes up to the place where the stone box is supposedly located. He takes the plates out of the stone box, puts them in a hollow log for some reason. I have no idea why he does that, but he doesn't mention anything about transferring the the Urim and Thummim and the breastplate. No mention of even carrying those the three miles home on that on the at the time when he goes back to get the plates, but he doesn't get them on that on that uh particular time. He goes back and then for some reason after knowing how heavy these plates are, he goes back to the place where they are in the hollow log, but he walks. Why would you walk three miles knowing how heavy these plates are supposed to be and you're going to carry them back to the uh the Smith home 3 miles way? Another presentation. All right. Anyway, I'm just throwing in these little teasers.

Now, this gives us a little idea of the history of the translation of the plates. It basically starts in this recreated building that is in Harmony, Pennsylvania. That's what it was called at the time. It's now called Oakland, Pennsylvania. And the LDS church has recreated this home that was built by Emma Smith's brother, Jesse. And they lived, Emma and Joseph lived there for a while after they got married. Just down the street from this home is another house that they've recreated, and that's the Isaac Hale home. Isaac and Elizabeth Hale, Emma's parents lived down there. Now, if you know anything about the relationship between Isaac and Joseph, it was not very good. Okay. Isaac did not like Joseph Smith. One of the reasons being he did not like the business he was involved in. Joseph Smith was known as a money digger. Now, I know in his testimony he says that he got that title because he was hired by Josiah Stole to look for this alleged Spanish silver mine that Stole thought was in the area. And Smith in his testimony, which is in their scripture, Joseph Smith said it was because he hired himself out to this man that he got the reputation of being a money digger. That is not true. And the Joseph Smith papers prove this. Josiah Stole hired Joseph Smith because he already had the reputation of being a money digger. That's why he hired him in the first place. So Isaac doesn't really get along with his his son-in-law over this issue. And I might mention that Isaac Hale on his deathbed warned his family about staying away from this this guy's religion. Stick to the Bible. Isaac Hale was a very strong Methodist. And basically he dies with this friction. Uh, and of course, Joseph Smith isn't in the area at that time. He leaves with Emma many years earlier, never to go back again. So, you can see how this would probably cause a rift between this man who he believes conned his wife or his daughter and took her away from him. So, there's a lot of familial problems here.

Well, he starts the translation in this building. Emma Hale was one of his scribes. And then later on, Martin Harris becomes one of his scribes. Martin Harris was a farmer that had a a home in Palmyra, New York. That home still exists, although it's not open for tours. It's owned by it's a private residence, but they do allow LDS tour buses to park on the property and such. So, it's still there. Um, but then he starts it here, but he finishes it. The translation ends up getting finished in Fayette, New York. Now, what you see in that upper right-hand corner is a recreated cabin of the Peter Whitmer cabin, and it's a two-story cabin. And if you were to take a tour there, you would go upstairs and they would point out a small bedroom. And okay, I don't know why. Uh, they would point out a small bedroom here. And as you can see in the lower left, there's a table that you were told by the tour guide is kind of giving you an idea of how it looked when Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were doing the finishing touches on the translation of the gold plates. Now, I was this picture I took uh I can't remember if this was just in June or in 2022 when I was with Eric. I can't remember, but doesn't matter. The picture on the right is a picture that I took of the room when I was there in the early 1990s. Do you see a difference? In in the early 1990s, they had a blanket hanging there, which Martin Harris said that there was a curtain or a blanket that prevented him from even seeing Joseph Smith during the time of the translation. Now, the church obviously doesn't deny this because if you were to go on their official website today, they do have pictures of this blanket. In fact, we have some of those recreated up here on the wall if you want to check those out later on. So, obviously, they're not wanting people to think that there was something preventing the scribe from seeing Joseph Smith on the other side. Although Emma said there was no curtain during the time she was doing the uh writing for Joseph Smith. However, the way she explains how he does it is of course using the seer stone in the hat, and the plates were covered up, as other people said that as well.

Now let's move on. June 1829. We're reading from the History of the Church, volume 1, page 52. So, this is one of their books that they have produced and referenced for many, many years. Now, we know in recent years the documentary History of the Church, as it's known, has kind of been set off to the side, and they've introduced this new four-volume set called Saints. I personally don't like the new one. I I think it's written for fifth graders, and it doesn't get into a lot of detail. It doesn't really uh specifically lay out the dates and a lot of the quotations that I think are necessary if we're going to adequately study the history of this movement. But the History of the Church, uh volume 1, page 52 says this: "In the course of the work of translation, now they're at in Fayette, New York, at this time, they're at the Peter Whitmer farm, we ascertained that three special witnesses were to be provided by the Lord, to whom he would grant that they should see the plates from which this work, the Book of Mormon, should be translated, and that these witnesses should bear record of the same."

So, let's understand what's going on. They're translating, and every time I use that word, imagine little air quotes up there, okay? They're translating the plates in the Peter Whitmer cabin, and they get to a portion of this translation, and this is what they find. This is what the Book of Mormon says. Now, what are they looking at? They're actually at this time looking at Ether 5:2-3. This actually tells us this. This is what they were translating. And this is how it reads in the Book of Mormon today: "And behold, you may be privileged that you may show the plates unto those who shall assist to bring forth this work. And unto thee shall they be shown by the power of God. Wherefore they shall know of a surety that these things are true."

Now we go on in the History of the Church, and it says this: "Almost immediately after we had made this discovery, it occurred to Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and the aforementioned Martin Harris, who had come to inquire after our progress in the work, that they would have me inquire of the Lord to know if they might not obtain of him the privilege to be these three special witnesses. And finally they became so very solicitous and urged me so much to inquire that at length I complied, and through the Urim and Thummim I obtained of the Lord for them the following."

Now I want to give you a little background here because the Urim and Thummim that's mentioned here. Joseph Fielding Smith, the 10th president of the church, he said this: "That the Urim and Thummim, or two stones given to the brother of Jared." The brother of Jared is a story in the Book of Mormon. He's not given a name, although Joseph Smith, I believe by revelation, gave the brother a a name, the brother of Jared a name. It was Mahonri Moriancumer, a household name that everybody knows, I'm sure. Okay. And anyway, these two stones were the Urim and Thummim, which we assume these are the two stones that were buried in the stone box. But these are the stones that he that Joseph Fielding Smith said uh the brother of Jared had in his possession. And he says, um, "I'll read it again. Given to the brother of Jared were those in the possession of Mosiah, appears evident from the Book of Mormon teachings. The brother of Jared was commanded to seal up his writings of the vision he had when Christ appeared to him, so that they could not be read by his people. Odd. Why would you write a book if you don't want it read? It just seems a little odd to me. Um, this vision was recorded in a language which was confounded, for it was not to go forth until after the resurrection of Christ. The Urim and Thummim were also sealed up so that they could not be used for the purpose of interpreting those sacred writings of this vision until such time as the Lord should grant to man to interpret them. When they were to be revealed, they were to be interpreted by the aid of the same Urim and Thummim." That's Doctrines of Salvation, volume 3, page 224. So this is kind of the backstory on this.

Well, let's go back. Doctrine and Covenants 17. This is what Joseph Smith allegedly was told after he inquired of the Lord using this Urim and Thummim. It's it's recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 17. We're going to read verses 1-4. "Behold, I say unto you, that you must rely upon my word, which if you do with full purpose of heart, you shall have a view of the plates. And it is by your faith that you shall obtain a view of them, even by that faith which was had by the prophets of old. And after that you have obtained faith and have seen them with your eyes, you shall testify of them by the power of God. And this you shall do that my servant Joseph may not be destroyed, that I may bring about my righteous purposes unto the children of men in this work."

Now, there's some interesting statements here that I think are often overlooked by many people. First of all, "It is by your faith that you shall obtain a view of them." Why would you need faith to see something that is tangible that >> Well, the good news is it always comes back. >> "It comes back." I I don't know why it's doing that, but anyway, why would you need faith to see something that's tangible? Now, you could argue, well, Joseph Smith wanted to make sure he had people who believed in what he was saying, and if they proved that they had that kind of faith, they would be allowed to see them. But that doesn't really seem like what we're talking about here. And I'll explain later. He's going they're going to see them with their eyes. But notice this. "And this you shall do that my servant Joseph Smith may not be destroyed." If you had a love or just were close friends with Joseph Smith, wouldn't that bother you? If I don't see these things, my friend, or in the case of Oliver Cowdery, his third cousin, because he was his third cousin on his mother's side, my cousin will be killed. That gives you a pretty strong motivation to make sure you want to see these things. At least you would think so. Now, so they're going to need faith in order to see these.

Now, we go back to the History of the Church that explains this. And it says, "Not many days after the above commandment was given, we for that is Martin Harris, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and myself, because Joseph Smith allegedly is writing this. Of course, that's a controversy in and of itself. Agreed to retire into the woods and try to obtain by fervent and humble prayer the fulfillment of the promises given in the above revelation that they should have a view of the plates. We accordingly made choice of a piece of woods convenient to Mr. Whitmer's house to which we retired. And having knelt down, we began to pray in much faith to Almighty God to bestow upon us a realization of the promises."

Now, I want to stop there. Um, Aaron and Bradley and myself were back East in this area. We were at the Peter Whitmer farm and we were standing on the second floor near the bedroom that had that desk and uh, and of course, they were telling us about the translation of the plates. Before you go into the Whitmer farm in the Whitmer cabin, you go into a visitor center that is there, quite elaborate, and you watch a film. In this film, it shows the translation of the plates and then it talks about how they're going to be people who are going to see these plates. And in one of the scenes, it shows Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris going off into the woods with nothing in their hands. >> Does that not sound odd? Mainly I say that because we know that the translation of the plates was in the upstairs bedroom. This is where they find out about men's special witnesses who are going to see the plates. Why didn't Joseph Smith just have the three come upstairs and see the plates? That's where they were. But no, they leave the cabin, they leave the plates, and they go out into the woods with nothing in their hands. That seems very strange to me if you're going to see tangible plates.

Well, going on, it says, "According to previous arrangement, I commenced prayer to our heavenly Father and was followed by each of the others in succession." Again quoting from the History of the Church, "We did not at the first trial, however, obtain any answer or manifestation of divine favor in our behalf. We again observe the same order of prayer, each calling on and praying fervently to God in rotation." So you can imagine they're, you know, sitting around like we do in our little prayer meetings. You know, we go around a circle and we all pray, each calling on and praying fervently to God in rotation, but with the same result as before. In other words, they go out and they pray and nothing happens. "Upon this, our second failure, Martin Harris proposed that he should withdraw himself from us, believing as he expressed himself that his presence was the cause of our not obtaining what we wished for. He accordingly withdrew from us. And we knelt down again and had not been many minutes engaged in prayer when presently we beheld a light above us in the air of exceeding brightness. And behold, an angel stood before us. In his hands he held the plates which he had been which we had been praying for these to have a view of."

The question I asked our tour guide when we were there was, in the film, it shows the men walking out into the woods with nothing in their hands and then all of a sudden this angel shows up holding the plates. Did he come into the cabin, go up the stairs into this room and get the plates off of the table? Now I knew he they don't have an answer for that. And he admitted he's a very nice tour guide, very nice guy. We saw him again later on at another spot. He said, 'We don't know. They don't, but they don't often seem to raise these kind of questions that keep me up at night.' All right. So, I mean, this kind of bothers me if we're talking about literal tangible plates. It doesn't sound like this is what we're discussing here.

Well, History of the Church, again, again, we're sticking with their material. "I now left David and Oliver." This is Joseph Smith. "And went in pursuit of Martin Harris, whom I found at a considerable distance, fervently engaged in prayer. He soon told me, however, that he had not yet prevailed with the Lord, and earnestly requested me to join him in prayer, that he also might realize the same blessings which we had just received. We accordingly joined in prayer." Again, I ask, why do you need prayer to see tangible plates? I mean, whenever I've showed my replica plates to Latter-day Saints, I said, "Did you have to pray to see my plates? Did you have to have faith to see my plates?" And they always say, "No." And then my next line is, "That's because mine are real." Okay. Okay. We're going on. "Ultimately obtained our desire, for before we had yet finished, the same vision was open to our view." You catching that word? "The same vision was open to our view." At least it was again open to me. And I once more beheld and heard the same things. Wils, at the same moment, Martin Harris cried out, apparently in an ecstasy of joy, "It is enough. It is enough. Mine eyes have beheld. Mine eyes have have beheld." And jumping up, he shouted, "Hosanna, blessing God." And otherwise rejoiced exceedingly.

All right. Now, let's go back to the testimony of the three witnesses. Let's look at a very important excerpt from this testimony that is found in every edition of the Book of Mormon. In modern editions, it's found in the front. In the 1830 edition, the testimony of the three and the eight was found in the back. This is what it says: "And we declare with words of soberness that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes that we beheld and saw the plates and the engravings thereon. And we know that it is by the grace of God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ that we beheld and bear record that these things are true."

Now when you read that at face value, it certainly does seem to give the impression that they are seeing physical plates. That's how most people understand this testimony. If you talk to most Latter-day Saints, they will tell you, "See, this proves that they saw tangible plates." However, there are examples that exist that tend to undermine that assumption. Let me point out this. This is um we call it the the Warren Parish letter. Uh, this was written on March 13, 1838. It was published in a newspaper called the Waldo Patriot from Belfast, Maine, on May 4th, 1838. Now let me give you a little background of Parish. Parish Warren Parish was a member of the LDS church. He was a member of the First Quorum of the Seventies and he was a scribe to Joseph Smith. Now, he became disillusioned with Joseph Smith when the Kirtland Safety Society, the Kirtland Bank, or the anti-bank, however you want to describe it, failed in 1837. He lost his faith in Joseph Smith, as did many others at that time, and he leaves the church. Now, in this letter that Warren Parish sends to this newspaper, he talks about a conversation that he had with Martin Harris. And in it, he says, "Martin Harris, one of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, told me and others a few days since that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes, but in a vision."

Now, if he used the word vision, that matches what's in the documentary History of the Church, page 55, in volume 1. He also said that Joseph nor any other man ever saw them in any other way. Now, that's an interesting comment. Not even Joseph Smith saw them. Now, I have a hard time believing that because I do believe he carried with him a prop, and I know he saw them because he made them, in my opinion. You want to argue with me on that? Glad to talk about it. But Martin Harris didn't think so because according to I think it's D&C 17 that we looked at earlier, everybody was supposed to see them in the same way. Well, if Martin Harris knew he didn't see them, he assumes Joseph Smith didn't see them. See, there's a a connection here with this kind of language.

We also have this. This is a letter that was written from Steven Burnett and uh written on April 15th, 1838. Now, let me just say that Burnett also lost his faith in Joseph Smith over the Kirtland bank failure in 1837. So, we're talking about not quite a year after uh that happened that he writes this letter. He's writing this letter to Lyman E. Johnson. Lyman E. Johnson. Now, he doesn't know at this time that Lyman had been excommunicated from the church two days before. He's not aware of that at this time. But Lyman Johnson also has lost faith in Joseph Smith and ultimately is excommunicated from the church. Burnett. He joined the LDS church in 1830 when it began, and he was an elder. He was immediately made an elder in 1831, and he served on a mission uh between 1832 to to 1834. So we assume from this that Burnett really believed in Joseph Smith and was faithful to the cause that he would go and serve on a mission. Now I want you to look closely at what Burnett says to Lyman Johnson in this letter: "I have reflected long and deliberately upon the history of this church and weighed the evidence for and against it, loath to give it up." Now that sounds very close to a lot of statements that I have heard from former Mormons who, when they started looking at the evidence, started seeing problems, didn't want to leave, but felt that they had to because perhaps they felt that believing in something that was not true was not being honest, obviously, but it doesn't honor God. But he not notice he says here, "loath to give it up." He's not looking to leave. He doesn't want to leave. "But when I came to hear Martin Harris state in public that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes, only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver nor David, and also that the eight witnesses never saw them, and hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason." That would be their testimony, but were persuaded to do it. The last pedestal gave way in my view, our foundations.

Now this is coming from someone who we assume is reluctant to leave. He wants to believe, but the evidence forces him to make a course correction here. Now let's go on here. Let me uh Burnett reported Harris saying. Now this is Marvin Hill talking now. We're going back to the historian. Marvin Hill states in his article, "Brody Revisited," "Burnett reported Harris saying that he had 'hefted the plates repeatedly in a box with only a tablecloth or handkerchief over them, but he never saw them, only as he saw a city through a mountain.' Nonetheless, Harris said he believed the Book of Mormon to be true."

Now, when they say, "We believe the Book of Mormon to be true," that language is interesting in and of itself. Are they trying to imply, would some assume that that Joseph Smith's translation was true, or just the fact that they said they saw them is true? It would be difficult, and we're going to see later, that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for them to say that the translation is true because how would they know that they were written in a reformed Egyptian, a language nobody's ever heard of, can only be understood by using special instruments, either a seer stone or the or the spectacles uh that were referred to as the Urim and Thummim. So again, this language needs to be examined a little more closely.

According to Marvin Hill, there is testimony from several independent interviewers, all non-Mormon, and he's right because a lot of them at this time, they had left the church, that they would be considered non-Mormon. And there were some that would you you could say were hostile, that Martin Harris and David Whitmer said they saw the plates with their spiritual eyes only. Among others, there was a Metaf. This is a reference to Anthony Metcalfe. He was a a retired sailor who included an interview with Martin Harris in a book he wrote called "10 Years Before the Mast." Um, Anthony Metcalfe lived in uh Malad, Idaho. At the time Martin Harris was living in Clarkston, Utah. This is where uh he would ultimately die, and he's buried in Clarkston. And um, he goes and he interviews uh Martin Harris. He also mentions John Gilbert. John Gilbert was the typesetter for the Book of Mormon. He was working for uh Grandin at the time in Palmyra, setting the type for the Book of Mormon. And we'll talk about him a little bit in the next slide. As well as there's a Reuben P. Harmon. Now, Reuben P. Harmon was a prominent resident and landowner in Kirtland, Ohio. And he also mentions a Jesse Townsend. Jesse Townsend was a Presbyterian minister in Palmyra, New York. He knew Harris personally from what we understand. Now he goes on to say uh that they all gave testimonies to this effect, that Martin Harris said he only saw them with spiritual eyes. He Hill goes on to say, "This is contradicted, however, by statements like that of David Whitmer in the Saints' Herald in 1882, where he says, 'These hands handled the plates, these eyes saw the angel.'" And then Hill goes on to say, "But Z.H. Gurley." Now Z.H. Gurley, his name is Zenos Hovi, I think is how we might pronounce it, Zenos Hovi Gurley. He was an early Mormon leader who helped organize the RLDS church, and he actually came to believe that Joseph Smith III, Joseph Smith's son, should be the rightful new prophet, if you will. And of course, he was the the leader of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, later to become the Community of Christ. So they still, you would think he would have a dog in this fight because the two groups tend to want to agree on the early history of this movement, especially when it comes to the plates and Joseph Smith. Well, Z.H. Gurley, he said, elicited from Whitmer a not-so-positive response to the question, "Did you touch them?" His answer was, "We did not touch nor handle the plates." Okay. Did you or did you not? Here you make it sound like you did, and now you're making it sound like you didn't. This is why Hill says it's a lot of contradiction, and I would totally agree with him on that.

Now let's go back and let's look at what typesetter John Gilbert had to say. Remember, he's the one setting the type for the publication of the Book of Mormon. There would be 5,000 copies made. If you're ever in Palmyra, I would strongly encourage you to go visit the Grandin shop. It's quite fascinating to watch how they did it. Well, John Gilbert was there, and he said that Martin was in the office when I finished setting up the testimony of the three witnesses. Now, what timing? Okay, he's setting up the type for the three witnesses, and who walks in but Martin Harris. I said to him, "Martin, did you see those plates with your naked eyes?" Martin looked down for an instance, raised his eyes up, and said, "No, I saw them with a spiritual eye."

Now, why would why would Gilbert ask that question? I think he asked that question because what he's setting the type for, and what he read, gives the impression he actually saw them. But when he asks the very person whose name is in the testimony, that individual says, "No, I saw them with a spiritual eye." Um, we have again Anthony Metcalfe, that I had mentioned earlier. This is when Martin Harris meets him. I'll give you a little background on that. As I mentioned, Anthony Metcalfe was a sailor uh who lived in Malad, Idaho. And in 1888, he published an autobiographical profile titled "10 Years Before the Mast and Other Sketches." The book was self-published and it describes life on merchant and whaling ships and his voyages across the Pacific Ocean. But the "Other Sketches" part, that's what becomes interesting, I think, to us. That part of the book contained commentary on social and political life, pioneer life in Idaho and Utah, and an interview he had with Book of Mormon witness Martin Harris, who at the time, as I said, was living in Clarkston, Utah.

Now, this is what we find. Martin Harris explains to Metcalfe how he saw the plates. He said, "I never saw the golden plates, only in a visionary or entranced state. I wrote a great deal of the Book of Mormon myself as Joseph translated or spelled the words out in English. Sometimes the plates would be on a table in the room in which Smith did the translating, covered over with a cloth. I was told by Smith that God would strike him dead if he attempted to look at them. And I believed it. I believed it." >> "Yeah."

Now, now think about this. "I believed it." And remember, Joseph Smith is basically telling them by revelation that you better see these things, or Joseph's is going to be destroyed. Well, these guys have a very strong friendship, regardless of the fact that Martin Harris really blew it with that 116 pages episode, but that's another issue. But still, he believes this. He really believes this. "When the time came for the three witnesses to see the plates, Joseph Smith, myself, David Whitmer, and Oliver Cowdery went into the woods to pray. When they had engaged in prayer, they failed at the time to see the plates or the angel who should have been on hand to exhibit them."

Now, that sounds very close to what we read in the History of the Church, volume 1. But then he goes on, "They all believed it be it was because I was not good enough, or in other words, not sufficiently sanctified." Now, this is where the story changes a little bit. History of the Church makes it sound like Martin Harris voluntarily felt he was the problem, the hindrance, and he excuses himself. But it says, "They all believed it was because I was not good enough, or in other words, not sufficiently sanctified. I withdrew. As soon as I had gone away, the three others saw the angel and the plates." And then listen to this. "In about three days, I went into the woods to pray that I might see the plates. While praying, I passed into a state of entrancement. And in that state, I saw the angel and the plates."

That's not the way it reads in the History of the Church. It gives the impression this all happens within minutes of each other. And yet, Martin Harris telling this story later, and I know LDS uh apologists love to say, well, you know, that's later on. Memory could be, you know, uh, you know, playing tricks on them and stuff. I would agree memory does do that, and you tend to forget some details, think some details are different than they really were. I will I will not argue that question. But what's fascinating though is for the most part, his story matches what the church is perpetrating in its volume 1, pages 54 and 55 of the History of the Church. Uh, but he says, and it seems to match again in this area when it talks about that word vision. "While praying, I passed into a state of entrancement." Now you would think that if this is the way it really was, the church probably could have gotten itself, at least with Martin Harris, out of a bit of a jam by saying, well, yeah, but Martin Harris wasn't there. He comes back days later, and what he saw was of course different than what the other men saw. But that's not the way they record the history. They make it appear that they were all kind of together at this time. In fact, when you read the testimony in every edition of the Book of Mormon, that is certainly the impression that you are given, that they were all there together. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

Now, David Whitmer, another one of the three witnesses, he uh has a letter to Anthony Metcalfe. So, we already have Martin Harris. And I might mention Martin Harris, we have more regarding Martin Harris than all the other guys. Um, I I guess because Harris liked to talk, and uh Harris is an interesting character, too. I I will freely admit of all the three that seems to be doing all the talking, I wish it wasn't Harris. Uh, Harris was kind of a drama queen, and he was he was an interesting character, easily influenced. One account says that he changed his religion probably around 13 times during his lifetime. He was known to be kind of a religious fanatic among others that lived in Palmyra. Probably not the best example out of the three that we could have, but we do have him. Outside of his religious beliefs, those who knew Martin Harris said for the most part he wasn't a bad guy. Okay, a successful farmer and such, but anyway, this is what we have to work with.

Now, um, let's see. Uh, this is David Whitmer. Now, I'm I'm switching gears. David Whitmer tells Anthony Metcalfe, "In regards to my testimony to the visitation of the angel, who declared to us three witnesses that the Book of Mormon is true, I have this to say. Of course, we were in the spirit when we had this view, for no man can behold the face of an angel except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us as it is at any time." As natural to us as it is at any time. A bright light enveloped us where we were that filled at noon day, and there in a vision or in the spirit, we saw and heard just as it is stated in my testimony in the Book of Mormon."

Well, it doesn't say vision in his statement. Okay, it doesn't say that. But here he is saying that to Anthony Metcalfe. Um, how do you want to take that? David Whitmer is talked about by BYU professor Milton V. Backman in a book that he wrote called "Eyewitness Accounts of the Restoration." And this is what Backman said: "Although there is no reliable evidence that David Whitmer repudiated his testimony as published in the Book of Mormon, a few interviewers assume that he was contradicting his published declaration when he told them that he saw the plates with his spiritual rather than his natural eyes." Now, why would they think that that was a contradiction? It's because they're going by the testimony that's in the Book of Mormon. Obviously, it would seem that's that's what they're comparing this through to, and they're given the impression by the testimony that they are seeing physical plates. But yet, when they would ask or what someone would ask later on, give me more details, they find out that doesn't seem to be the way it's reported. That's where they're getting this contradiction idea. I can totally understand that because just about every Latter-day Saint that I talk to assumes the same thing, and they've never read anything about Anthony Metcalfe or John Gilbert. They don't even know who these people are.

Well, we have um back um Backman going on explaining what he meant by this statement. David Whitmer wrote in 1887, "Of course, we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also." I think I've gone over this. This is this is Backman's account. So, he hence to to concur with this. And he says, "And everything was as natural to us as it is at any time." Martin Harris called it being in vision. A bright light enveloped us where we were, and there in the vision or in the spirit, we saw and heard just as it is stated in my testimony of the Book of Mormon. So Backman is is basically supporting what we've read earlier.

Now let's go on to the eight witnesses. Who were they? Who were they? First of all, notice the last names. Christian Whitmer, the brother of David Whitmer. Jacob Whitmer, the brother of David Whitmer. Peter Whitmer, the brother of David Whitmer. John Whitmer, the brother of David Whitmer. Hiram Page, brother-in-law to the Whitmer brothers, because Hiram Page, I think he married Katherine, was her name? Yes. Yeah. November 10th, 1825, he marries Katherine Whitmer. So even Hiram Page, you could say, is a part of this family. Then who do we have? Joseph Smith Sr., Joseph Smith's father. Hyrum Smith, Joseph Smith's brother. Samuel Smith, Joseph Smith's brother. Now, I didn't mention here Oliver Cowdery. Oliver Cowdery married a Whitmer. He married a Whitmer. Okay. So here's what we have outside of Martin Harris. We have basically two families here. So Smith is pretty clever to pick people that he feels are going to be believers and loyal to him that would certainly not want to see Joseph Smith destroyed, as he's telling these men, "If you don't say that you see these things, I'm going to be destroyed." You can understand they have something at stake here if they have any type of love for Joseph Smith or friendship for Joseph Smith, whatever. So this I think becomes a bit suspicious.

Now why did Smith need eight more witnesses? Doesn't that ever bother you? Okay. The Book of Mormon allegedly says that there are going to be three special witnesses. If that's the case, wouldn't that have been enough? But no, Joseph Smith, for some reason, feels he needs eight more. That the three that are mentioned in the Book of Mormon is not going to be enough to convince people that this writing coming from gold plates is actually true. Well, B.H. Roberts gives us a reason, as well as Joseph Fielding Smith, the 10th president of the church. B.H. Roberts, in his "New Witnesses for God," volume 2, page 275, he says, "In addition to the three witnesses who beheld the plates by the power of God and heard the voice of the angel, eight other witnesses were permitted to see and handle the plates under ordinary conditions." Under ordinary conditions. So that the testimony to the world might not rest wholly upon a supernatural manifestation. He just admitted that the three saw them by means of a supernatural manifestation. It appears that B.H. Roberts doesn't believe that the three saw tangible plates. So Smith is now going to correct that by calling on these other eight who we are led to believe are going to see them more in a natural uh state. 10th President Joseph Fielding Smith. "The Lord chose witnesses to testify the Book of Mormon both by heavenly vision and by the seeing and handling of the plates in a natural way." Which seems to imply the others did not see them in a natural way. "In this manner, there could be no valid excuse for disbelief. The world would have both spiritual and physical witnesses to this great work."

Now, this is what puzzles me. The three witnesses are mentioned, not by name, but the three are mentioned specifically in the Book of Mormon, and they only get to see them in a vision. But yet, eight others that I guess Joseph Smith just gets to arbitrarily pick, they get to see something even more than the three that are mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Does that not sound a little odd? You would think the three special witnesses would be able to see tangible plates, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

This is the excerpt that I picked that really zeros in on what we're talking about, which is in the witnesses uh the eight witnesses' testimony found in the front of every edition of the Book of Mormon. "In 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."

Now let's go back to the Warren Parish, Steven Burnett letters. "Martin Harris told me and others a few days since that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes, but in a vision. He also said that Joseph nor any other man ever saw them in any other way." >> But that's not the way the testimony of the eight witnesses seems to say. It doesn't seem to say that. But Martin Harris is saying, "Look, no, I didn't see him physically, and no one else saw them physically." And then and then it goes on, "When I came to hear Martin Harris state in public that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes, only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver nor David. And also that the eight witnesses never saw them and hesitated to sign."

That instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it. The last pedestal gave way in my view or foundation."

So, we're finding here that Harris is saying, "Look, I don't it. I guess he didn't care what it says, but he knows being a contemporary probably has conversations with these guys that they never saw the plates either, even though the testimony gives the impression that they did."

Now, John Whitmer, one of the eight witnesses, has a conversation with a man named Theodore Turley. I want to give you a little background him. He was a former Methodist minister who converted to Mormonism on March 1st, 1837. He meets John Whitmer and they have this conversation.

Now, there's a video produced by Saints Unscripted. I don't know if you're familiar with their videos, but the apologist, the Mormon apologist in this particular video is talking about this conversation. His name is David Snell. And this is what David Snell says in the video.

"There's one cool story about John Whitmer that occur occurred in 1839 in Missouri, not long after he'd been excommunicated. The Saints had been forced out of Missouri, but a guy named Theodore Turley stuck around to settle up some of the church's financial business. John Whitmer shows up with five other guys. And in this story, the infamous anti-Latter-day Saint Samuel Bog Bogart was among them. And these guys start pressuring Turley to deny his testimony. Turley turns to John and asks John what he thinks about the Book of Mormon."

He goes on to say, "Having been one of the witnesses of the plates," John replies. Remember, this is Snell still talking. John replies, "I now say I handled those plates. There was fine engravings on both sides. I handled them naturally."

Turley then asked him if he accepted the translation of the plates. Speaking of the engravings on the record, John said, "I cannot read it and I do not know whether it is true or not."

"That would make sense. In other words, even at his worst," Snell says, "in a strictly anti-Latter-day Saint community, right in front of people hostile to the faith, all John can say is, 'Well, yes, the plates are absolutely real, but I couldn't read the engravings, so who knows what they said?'"

But that wasn't all John said. And that doesn't get brought out in this video. Let me read to you from the History of the Church, Volume 3, page 307 to 308.

On April 4th, 1839, Theodore Turley confronted John Whitmer, saying, "All I know is that you have published to the world that an angel did present those plates to Joseph Smith." Whitmer replied, "I now say I handled those plates. They were fine engravings on both sides. I handled them." And he described how they were hung.

And this is what was left out. "They were shown to me by a supernatural power." That's not in the video. He acknowledged all. Turley said, "Why is not the translation now now true?" He said, "I could not read it in the original and I do not know whether it speaking of the translation is true or not." Whitmer testified all this in the presence of eight men. That's an important portion to leave out. Uh, this supernatural power because this is the language that we see over and over again that tends to imply they're not seeing the plates naturally.

Okay. Now, historian Marvin Hill then comments, and this is again in his Dialogue article on a letter to the Ends of Liberty. This was written in 1848. It was written by witness Hyram Page. Hyram Page, as I mentioned, was married to a Whitmer, Catherine. So, he's part of the Whitmer family. And this is how he interprets what Hyram Page says in this letter.

"With only a veiled reference to what I saw, Paige does not say he saw the plates, but that angels confirmed him in his faith. Neither does he say that any coercion was placed upon him to secure his testimony." Remember that's a controversy because it's implied that Joseph Smith kind of forced them into doing this and they, the the eight signed the document against their will. Uh, I'm sorry, I don't have any evidence to to prove that one way or the other. Maybe you know of some that I could probably uh look at and maybe include in this. But still, that's that's not a big issue.

But despite Paige's inconsistency, according to Hill, it is difficult to know what to make of Harris's affirmation that the eight saw no plates in the face of John Whitmer's testimony. The original testimony of these eight men in the Book of Mormon reads somewhat ambiguously, not making clear whether they handled the plates or the leaves of the translated manuscript.

Hill goes on to say, "Thus, there were some puzzling aspects to the testimonies of the witnesses. If Bernett's statement is given credence, it would appear that Joseph Smith extorted a deceptive testimony from the eight witnesses. But why should John Whitmer and Hyram Page adhere to Mormonism and the Book of Mormon so long if they only gave their testimony reluctantly?" He answers that question. He says, "It may be that like the three witnesses, they expressed a genuine religious conviction. The particulars may not have seemed as important as the ultimate truth of the work."

I might also add, it may be because Joseph Smith said, "If you guys don't say you saw these things, I'm going to be destroyed." And if you're of that kind of a mindset, you could see what might motivate you to go along with that and see an emperor that's not wearing any clothes. Okay, so this becomes important.

Now, William Smith, Joseph Smith's brother, he was interviewed by a man named Edmund C. Briggs. Edmund C. Briggs was one of the RLDS Church's 12 apostles. Uh, he was also ordained a patriarch in the RLDS Church.

Um, this is what goes on in in this interview. Brother Briggs asked Brother Smith if he ever saw the plates his brother had had from which the Book of Mormon was translated. And he responds, "I did not see them uncovered, but I handled them and hefted them, same language as in the testimony of the eight, while wrapped in a tow frock and judged them to have weighed 60 lb."

M uh brother Briggs then asked, "Did any others of the family see them?" "Yes," said he, "father," that would be Joseph Smith's father, his father, Joseph Smith, Senior, "father, and my brother Samuel saw them as I did while in the frock. So did Hyram and others of the family."

Did you just catch that? He just listed the Smith portion of the testimony of the eight witnesses. And according to William, they saw them the same way under a cloth. So if they hefted them, they hefted something they were probably told were the plates. It's kind of like the story uh uh well, I I'll give you this in uh exact experience. When we were at the Isaac Hale House in uh now Oakland, Pennsylvania, they have a box there on a table that they want you to lift. This kind of stuff just drives me nuts. So they want tourists to lift the box. I remember when I was there with Eric in 2022, there was a group of young men, melonic priesthood holders were there and they were all excited lifting this box, you know, and they could lift it. Oh yeah, this is kind of heavy, but you know, it's not impossible. And they were all kind of giddy over this thing. And I'm in the other room watching this and I'm trying to and I I was polite. I didn't say much of anything at that time. What's in the box, guys? is what I could have asked them. They don't know. They weren't allowed to see what's in the box. They were told it was gold plates, but they don't know. Can you imagine in a court of law? Well, I lifted a box. Well, what was in the box? Gold plates. Well, did you see the gold plates in the box? Well, no. Well, how do you know they were gold plates? Well, because Joseph Smith told me they were. What kind of a jury would take that seriously? But unfortunately, when you have young, impressionable children lifting up a box, being told that's what they would have weighed, you can see how this could carry a lot of weight. Okay, that was bad. All right, I know. Horrible.

Um, so again, this testimony now we have William Smith's interview. We're still going on with Edmond C. Briggs. "Didn't you want to remove the cloth and see the bare plates?" said Brother Briggs. "No," he replied, "for Father had just asked if he might not be permitted to do so. And Joseph, putting his hand on them, said, 'No, I am instructed not to show them to anyone. If I do, I will transgress and lose them again. Besides, we did not care to have him break the commandment and suffer as he did before.'"

For. So you can see there's this this love and I can understand this as a family member, this love for Joseph Smith. They don't want to see because they believe if they transgress the commandment that was given to Joseph Smith, he would face consequences and they don't want to see that happen. So it makes I think a lot of sense that they would answer this way.

Well, in light of all this, what do we take away from it? Except for Martin Harris, let's not forget all of the men involved are are family members uh by I should say family in there by blood or marriage. Two families are involved here. The Smiths and the Whitmers. There seems to be enough corroborating evidence to conclude that the three witnesses did not see physical gold plates. We even have the admission of B.H. Roberts and Joseph Fielding Smith saying that that must have been the case uh because that's why he needed eight more witnesses. So we have their testimony too. And I don't think most Latter-day Saints would would blithely dismiss these statements from two very well-respected leaders in the church. Uh, but apparently maybe they don't know about these statements, which I think that probably is the case.

This fact leads Smith to find eight more men to confirm the existence of the plates in a way that appears more tangible. It seems odd, and this is another part that pro uh another area that bothers me. It seems odd for any of the witnesses to use language that could be construed as a spiritual experience if in fact the plates were seen naturally. Expressions like "supernatural power," "being in entrancement," "spiritual eyes," "being in vision." Those kind of statements don't help us believe the men saw physical gold plates. But yet, that's the language we find being used. And I think that's troubling if you're going to hope that they saw physical tangible plates. Those that kind of language doesn't help. Why would you even say that if you saw them physically? There would be no need to say anything like that.

Now, let's consider John Whitmer's reply to Theodore Turley. On April 4th, Turley asked him, "Why is not the translation why is not the translation now true?" He said, "I could not read it in the original, and I do not know whether the translation is true or not."

Um, while all of the witnesses insisted the plates were true, no one could read them. They had to trust what Joseph Smith told them. And since we no longer have the plates, it is impossible to verify what the engraving characters actually said, if anything.

Now, again, I've been accused on some of these videos that are out there of saying that Joseph Smith didn't have plates. No, he had a prop. I do believe he did and he carried these things around. But that's not the real issue, is it? The issue is did people see these things? That obviously is important to Smith to even have their testimonies in the Book of Mormon to begin with. It must be important because it's used as a proselytizing tool by LDS missionaries. Men saw the plates. It's a big issue.

But I want to conclude with this, and you may some of you may have heard me use this analogy before, but I I want you to consider this. You're on a jury. The defendant is charged with murder and witnesses are called to testify. One witness said they saw the defendant commit the crime while in a state of entrancement. Another witness insisted they saw the defendant kill the victim by means of a supernatural power. A third witness states it was with spiritual eyes that they saw the defendant commit the crime. A fourth witness was sure he saw the defendant kill the victim in a vision. Would you convict?

Now, let's turn the tables. What if you were the defendant? Would you feel justice was served if you're found to be guilty based on this kind of evidence?

Now, some have asked, but the witnesses said they really saw them. And I was telling Bradley and Eric just last night, and I was watching this this movie, okay, called The Triangle. I don't know if you've ever seen it, it's about the Bermuda Triangle. There's a character in this movie named Emily Patterson. All right? And there's another character in the movie named Stan Laam. Stan Laam has these kind of supernatural powers or ability to find kidnapped children. And this is kind of his reputation. That's his character in the film. And and they're supposed to figure out at the behest of this very wealthy ship owner why the Bermuda Triangle does what it does because he's lost several ships. And this is why he's hired these guys to to find out the answer. There's a line in there that caught my attention. Emily, the character Emily says to Stan Laam, the visionary person, "When you see what you see, do you know their visions or whatever? >> Do you know they're absolutely real?" His answer, "As real as I'm looking at you now."

When I heard that, you can understand. I went, "Whoa, I got to play that back." And uh because that's the kind of language we see when it comes to the witnesses. Sadly, a lot of Latter-day Saints have assumed by reading the testimony of the witnesses and seeing a lot of these apologetic videos that are out there have drawn the conclusion that they saw plates just like you're seeing me now, just like you see our replica plates in the back. But it appears from the testimony of these men themselves that that was not the case.

So it goes back to what I asked earlier. Does it honor God to believe something that is not true? This could be, I think, a soft underbelly that we can use when talking with Latter-day Saints about the plates and why we struggle with believing that they were really true or that they even existed. Have the Latter-day Saint convince us why we should believe this, especially when we have all these comments from the very men who they believe saw them. It doesn't sound like they saw them tangibly or physically.

Any questions on this? 10:15. We've got 15 minutes.

>> Rob,

>> Yeah, that quote from um Evening News.

>> Yes.

>> Smith's interview with Edmund Briggs.

>> Briggs. Yes.

>> He said that uh I will transgress and lose them again. According that's what Joseph Smith said.

>> Yeah. What what did he mean by that?

>> What what happened where they actually saw them and then Joseph Smith lost them and had to get them back. Is that what's being said?

>> I, you know, I'm not sure, but I do know that after Martin Harris lost the pages that there was a time that Smith was prohibited. How did how did it go again? He was prohibited from translating for a while. He lost some ability. I I need to go back and verify that. But that could be what he was referring to. I don't know, Rob. I think that's a valid question though. Yes.

>> How long after the three witnesses did the eight witnesses see them?

>> Uh, don't know exactly, but it was after the translation was finished. That that much we do know. Um, the testimony of the three witnesses, it sounds like it happened right before it was finished.

>> Okay. But the eight the eight was after it was finished. Don't I don't have an exact date for you.

Who was the woman that said an old man brought the plates and showed them to?

>> That was Mary Muscleman Whitmer. Another Whitmer family. Uh, um, yeah, I I had some slides on that. Uh, if you I'll hit it very quickly. All right. I didn't know if I'd have time and I I'll squeeze it in.

In the January 1st, 1889 edition of The Juvenile Instructor, an article titled "The 13th Witness to the Plates of the Book of Mormon" by Edward Stevenson appears on page 22. In the article, Stevenson spoke of visiting Uncle David Whitmer, family member, in 1887. Uncle David said, "My mother went to the barn to milk the cows, where she met a mysterious personage who showed her the golden plates, turning them over leaf by leaf, with the exception of a portion of them which were fastened together with rings, the sealed part of the plates."

Now, I might as well, since I've started this, I'm going to I'm going to go and I'm going to give you the whole story here. Um, Joseph Smith is going to identify this mysterious personage that appears to Mary Muscleman Whitmer. Now, remember, if you read the whole account, she's outside. She's in the barn. All right? And this old man with a backpack shows up and pulls the gold plates out of his backpack. My goodness, what a strong backpack that must be. But he pulls them out and he shows her the plates. Now again, my question is, did this old man go into Mary's house upstairs into the bedroom where the plates were at this time and then bring them down? Of course, a Latter-day Saint would say, "We don't know." But David said this occurred. Okay.

Um, let me see if I have that. David said this occurred after he had seen the same messenger on the way from Harmony to Fayette. When he brought Joseph and Oliver in his wagon from Harmony, he appeared, this same old man appeared walking with a knapsack on his back with the straps crossed on his breast. Uncle David asked him to ride with them, to which he replied, "No, I am going over to Cumorah." and suddenly disappeared in the midst of a plain. David said that they felt a very strange feeling come over them. And Joseph the prophet inquired of the Lord concerning it and then said to the brethren that the mysterious stranger was Moroni with the plates of gold.

Now I read this account and I'm thinking Zelf the white Lamanite.

>> Remember Zion's camp?

>> Yeah.

>> They find a skeleton. What is this? Joseph Smith. Oh, that's Zelfe the white Lamanite. And based on a skeleton gives a whole history about this individual. Well, Joseph Smith is pulling the same thing here. All right.

Um, now let's think about this. They're going from Harmony to to uh what uh what did I say? Harmony to Fayette. Okay, that's a distance of about 106 miles. You know, we we have a hard time believing that Joseph Smith could have carried the plates three miles. This guy's going to carry him over a 100 miles. Okay. Now, he's got them in a backpack, which it's going to make it easier, which Joseph Smith did not claim having a backpack. But this this is who it's supposed to be. Now, um, it will be remembered that Joseph the prophet was beset with a wicked class of men who sought to steal the plates from him so much that his life was in danger. Therefore, he sought to know of the Lord the best mode of transferring the plates from Harmony to Fayette. They were finally taken in charge by the angel to deliver them to the prophet again at the end of their journey. So, that's how they got from Harmony to to uh Fayette. The angel Moroni carried him. Now, the argument, well, maybe this angel's of course much stronger than a human being, but this is the the story that they tell.

Now again, I think the question needs to be asked. If the three special witnesses did not seem to see tangible plates, why is Mary being allowed to see tangible plates? It doesn't seem to make sense. I mean, she's not mentioned. She wasn't one of them that was chosen to see the plates, but yet she apparently tells this story. And I might mention that this story was also told again by uh Mary's grandson, John C. Whitmer, I think was his name. So, this has been handed down uh in the in the family, but it was also uh in uh I think it was in a recent Liahona magazine uh several months ago. But yeah, this story has been circulating around as well. So, again, should we place a lot of credence in that story? We can't seem to place a lot of credence in the testimony of three or the testimony of eight. I would tend to say no, we shouldn't.

Any Erin, can you summarize again the manipulative threats here. So Smith says if I let you see the plates naturally if you don't testify the plates I'll be killed.

>> Yeah, that's Doctrine and Covenants 17.

>> Reminds me of the polygamy.

>> Uh, yeah, the same thing, the same same thing where he manipulates these women to be his wife, a plural wife.

>> "I will be destroyed."

>> "I will be destroyed."

>> He uses the same manipulation tactic. So he also says if I show you the plates, there's another manipulation there. Was that another threat there?

>> Yes, I believe so. Yes.

>> He says I

>> "I'll be destroyed."

>> "I'll be destroyed."

>> Yeah.

>> Yes.

>> That's DNC 17. You said

>> 17. Yeah. Did I Did I show you that that one there?

>> Yeah.

>> So if you don't testify, I'll be destroyed. If I show you the plates.

>> Yeah. The angel said he's not allowed to show anybody the plates either.

>> Say that again.

>> Funny question. Is he allowed to?

>> That's a great question because Martin Harris said not even Joseph Smith saw the plates because it says in DNC 17 they're all going to see them in the same in the same way. Well, Harris is kind of admitting if I didn't see physical plates and we're all supposed to see them in the same way, then that would mean Joseph Smith never saw the plates that they were always covered up. Um, I I have a hard time with that because like I say, I I think he made the plates.

>> Where was Hyrum?

>> Where was Hyrum

>> doing all this?

>> Um, I'm sure he was around. I don't know exactly. I don't know about that.

>> Yes.

>> Do we have any records indicating whether the Whitmer family and some of these other people had background in the occult the same way Joseph Smith did? You know, because that may have predisposed them to have these supernatural experiences.

>> I I don't know anything worded quite like that, but we do know that folk magic was very popular at that time and in that area of the country. We know the Smith family was very much involved in folk magic. Um, there's been whole books written on this subject. Uh, it it could be assumed that because of the way these families thought that that could have opened themselves up to this kind of stuff. Uh, again, an individual is going to have to make that decision for themselves. I'm just trying to stick with what was actually

>> It was very common. Lots of people were claiming visions of this or that, right?

>> Yeah. Oh, yeah. Joseph Smith's father was known to have several visions. Joseph Smith's mother in her biog biography of Joseph Smith talks about this. She mentions several times how Joseph Smith Senior was having visions. So this was not uncommon. It was not uncommon.

>> Who supposedly the house saw Jesus Christ as a deer?

>> That was Martin Harris.

>> Yeah, he Yeah, that's one account. It's kind of a Some will say that's kind of a questionable account, but yes, that Martin Harris saw Jesus as a deer. And was he having a He was having a conversation with the deer, wasn't he? I think

>> Walking and talking.

>> Walking and talking. Yes.

>> Yes.

>> Go in the back row. I

>> I'm just wondering what happened to these three special witnesses.

>> Um, well, they're excommunicated from the church. They they all claim that they never lost their testimony in the Book of Mormon itself. Okay. They still believed it. There's one questionable thing about Oliver Cowdery as reported by Brigham Young that that maybe he denied it, but as far as we know, uh, they were excommunicated. U Martin Harris ends up being excommunicated, but he comes back to Utah um and ends up dying in Clarkston. And uh David Whitmer, I'm trying. David Whitmer, he's buried in is he buried in Richmond, Missouri? I'm not quite sure.

>> Didn't one join the string right there?

>> Yes. Yes.

>> Yeah. A whole issue over polygamy I think was a problem there. Uh, so yeah.

>> Whitmer said Joseph was a prophet, right?

>> Yeah. David Whitmer looked at Joseph Smith as a fallen prophet in his book and addressed all believers in Christ.

>> We have the first edition right up there.

>> There it is. First edition.

>> First edition. And it's a very interesting book to read. We actually sell copies of that.

>> Anyone else? Yes.

>> Um, since nobody could read the plates,

>> right?

>> I see no connection between them and the what Joseph Smith wrote down.

>> Is there any connection there? Because we have no clue that they was together. When you say together, you mean the

>> Yeah, that that's actually what was written on these plates.

>> Yeah. We we have no way of knowing that because the the plates were taken back by the angel and so we don't have any actual plates that we can examine.

>> Yeah. The translation even as he's translating the book though, he's not even the Book of Mormon plates were not even before him.

>> Yeah.

>> Well, they they if they were before him at all, they were covered up. In fact, the display that we have back there is very similar to the display that they have in Harmony, Pennsylvania when we were visiting the home there. Um, it it they had a hat and they had what looked like could be plates just like ours, although we'll admit ours is a block of wood and covered with a pillowcase. They didn't have a stone in the hat though. However, we do and ours doesn't work by the way. Eric's tried it. Nothing happens, you know. So, but but they had that same kind of of display there. There was a picture in 2017. We have a copy of the Ensign magazine where it shows Oliver Cowdery sitting across a table from Joseph Smith and he has one hand on a hat and another on what looks like covered up plates. So, he's not even looking at the plates. Now, we had an explanation because I I brought that up to the tour guide when I was with Eric is why would Joseph Smith be be put in such a dangerous situation of these men trying to attack him to steal the plates if he never really needed to look at them? And the gentleman who was from San Diego, which is where I'm from, uh, he said, "Well, we had a historian come through here and he started to tell us this story about how they he was told that the plates needed to be near the the seer stone in order for the seer stone to work,

>> which which I have often dubbed, you know, 19th century Bluetooth because uh that might explain why Joseph Smith was not very good at money digging cuz he didn't have the plates to turn this thing on. Okay? Uh, but that's what he was told. Now, at first he said it was the historian that said it. When I asked the name of the historian, he didn't know. And then later he said, you know, it wasn't the historian. It was the assistant that was with the historian. Do you know his name? He didn't know. So, I I don't know who said that. But

>> the plates often outside of the room though, aren't they sometimes at least not even

>> Uh, I don't know if they were outside of the room. William Smith made the made the comment that the the plates were lying nearby covered up. That was one description. Um, so yes.

>> What's the timeline between the witnesses and when they were taken back and what was the reasoning for taking them back?

>> I'm not exactly sure the specific timeline on that, but I think one of the reasons why they were taken back is you don't have any evidence that he's making all this up. You know,

>> you know, it's kind of like you don't destroy evidence to prove yourself innocent. All right. Uh, and though there's really no no nothing to show that Smith destroyed the plates or destroy the evidence, they aren't seen ever again, if they were ever seen at all. So, yes.

>> Did did Joseph Smith bury the plates or did that angel come and take them away or what happened?

>> Well, well, they were buried in a beginning of the story. We know that was Moroni who as a human being buried the plates centuries ago. He was the last to handle the plates according to the Book of Mormon narrative. He even was the last to write on the plates and and then he buries the plates and of course he can't you know, we don't know what happens after that because he's they're buried. Okay. And then how how Moroni dies and all that is is can only be surmised. But then he appears later on to Joseph Smith as an angel, which is a theological problem because humans don't become angels. Angels are created angels. But yet, Joseph Smith claims that this angel comes and tells him basically that um these plates are there. He knows they're there because he's the one that buried them. Now, there is a bit of confusion as to how Smith knew where the plates were buried. Some would say that the angel told him and others would say that Smith knew by some kind of visionary experience that he knew where the plates were buried. Doesn't really matter. The fact is we're assumed to be talking about physical plates and that's what this whole controversy is all about. So that makes sense.

>> Yeah. But when the did the angel come and take the plates then Moroni come and take them and bury them again or did

>> Uh, no, I don't think we know exactly what he did with them other than he took them. Uh, I don't know. Somebody might know that. I'm not aware.

>> Haven't they dug all over?

>> Uh,

>> you It's funny you mention that because I just read this article the other day about a cave and then find out it was a man-made cave. Well, I used to call those tunnels. I don't know it. Uh, but there's no caves in the Hill Cumorah. I know there's stories of Mormon leaders talking about how there's a cave. I think Brigham Young said there were wagon loads of plates and yeah, in this cave, there are no caves in the Cumorah. That hill was made by a glacier, okay, of just gr, you know, the movement of earth just being pushed and you don't have caves in and and geological things like that. Uh, so again, this is just myth that has been perpetrated on the LDS people. Uh, you would think if that were really true and the Mormons really believed it, they've got the money. They could do the digging. It wouldn't cost them but petty cash to pay for that that expedition. But they don't and I think for good reason.

>> But there's no story about what happened to the plates.

>> Yeah. There. Well, there that they were just taken by the angel. That's what we know.

>> I read one place where they suggested it's back in heaven. So you find them here on earth because God has reason as to why though why they would take him back.

>> What's their reason?

>> Uh, I I don't know of a reason they give that. And he didn't get to do the two-thirds of the plates.

>> They're supposed to come back and translate the two-thirds.

>> Well, they don't need to. Christopher Columbus did that.

>> So,

>> you want to believe him?

>> I don't know who Christopher is.

>> Uh, talk to me afterwards. So, yes. Rob.

>> So, I'm looking at the DNC 17 passage. Yeah.

>> It doesn't seem clear that Joseph says that you may not be destroyed.

>> Okay. Hold on a second. Let me go back to that because I cut and pasted it right from it. Where did I get this?

>> It doesn't seem clear that he's saying if I show you the physical plates, then

>> testify,

>> you're going to be destroyed.

>> Okay, it seems to be saying,

>> look at three and four. And after that you obtained faith and have seen them with your eyes, you shall testify of them by the power of God. And this you shall do that my servant Joseph Jr. may not be destroyed. See, they're supposed to testify that they saw them with their eyes. Does that make sense?

>> Yeah.

>> That's what they're being told to do so that Joseph won't be destroyed. Does that make sense?

>> That they'd see him with their eyes.

>> Yep. Verse three,

>> and then four is the threat.

>> So if they don't see him with their eyes, then Joseph would be destroyed.

>> Yeah. And they're supposed to testify about this. So, you can see there's an incentive here. If if they love Joseph Smith, if they if they really believe him, there's a motivation there to to see these things.

>> Anyone else?

>> Okay. Yes.

>> the the concept of when the language was written down on the plates that it was coded that it wasn't a common language at the time.

>> Yeah, it was

>> I've never heard that before. So maybe I'm out of the loop. Yeah, it's in the Book of Mormon. It mentions it was a a reformed reformed Egyptian is the way it's described, which the only extent characters that we have uh we have on the back of the wall in the middle there, we have an example of some of these characters that Martin Harris took to Charles Anthon and to have him look at them. And people who look at these characters will tell you they're just gibberish. And they really don't match any language. Of course, a Mormon could say, "Well, see, that proves it's true because it's not supposed to be any language. It's reformed Egyptian, which nobody's ever heard of." So, which I thought was very clever of Joseph Smith to say he could translate a language nobody's ever heard of because obviously there'd be no experts. He should have stuck to that and not ventured into translating the Book of Abraham from a real language because that's where he gets caught. And so

>> Just at the time of the supposed writing though, that that was written not for the people at the time, right? Is that what is that the concept that was being

>> Well, I think we're led to believe that this was a language that that Well, no, let me think about that. And maybe I misheard or reset what you were saying, but

>> you know, that's a good question and I'm blanking on that. Um, because there's all sorts of weird uh language to explain like people not being able to read it and and needing an interpreters. If that was a common language that all these people were familiar with, they wouldn't need anything like that, you would think. So, that's a great question. Have to look into that. Jason,

>> what year did uh Moroni supposedly live?

>> That would be fourth century.

>> Yeah. Yeah.

>> All around if he was the last one to write in it.

>> Well, they're on they're on a completely different hemisphere, too.

>> So, they've got a whole ocean separating them. So, yes.

>> How would anyone know those characters if they hadn't seen the plates?

>> They wouldn't. And the thing is is when Anthon, according to Martin Harris's story, um, Anthon supposedly says he that they do look ancient, but then when he asks him, well, where'd you get this? And he tells him the story about the angel and Joseph Smith, Anthon, according to Harris, you know, rips up whatever affidavit that he had. And so,

>> so maybe he saw him spiritually.

>> Anthon?

>> No, no. What are these guys? I don't know. Oh,

>> just trying to figure out how

>> No, those were supposedly characters, as I understand it, that were written down for Martin Harris to take to Anthon, and he wrote them down from the plates.

>> Joseph Smith did.

>> Joseph Smith did. Yeah.

>> Anthon wouldn't have had any basis upon which to

>> he wouldn't.

>> So, there's no reason to brag about validating them,

>> right?

>> Right. It doesn't make sense. You're right. All right. Let me pray and we'll dismiss. And uh if you have any questions, I I'm I'm going to be here all day. I sound like a comedian, you know. So anyway, not funny. All right. Father, we thank you for what we've learned here today. And and certainly, while there's a lot of things that we find to be very puzzling, it it really concerns us that we have so many people that have bought into this story. And our heart goes out to those many Latter-day Saints that have been led to believe this story that doesn't seem to be based in fact. We pray that their eyes be open. We pray that should it be your will and you use us to share this information with our LDS acquaintances that you may do so. And Lord, we just do pray uh for a spiritual revival among the Latter-day Saint people that they will set aside the myth that Joseph Smith has brought forth. But in the same time, Lord, as we've seen so many times, many times when they realize that Joseph Smith has betrayed them, they assume that somehow that the son of God has betrayed them. And we pray that they not make that kind of a connection. We admit that Joseph Smith certainly lied to them. Jesus never did. And so, Father, we ask that we might be used as instruments for your glory to share the truth with the LDS people of whom we care so much for. Uh, we pray that their eyes be open. We ask all this in Jesus' name.