Talk:Eight Witnesses

message: I removed the following:
:Although the statement as written seems to imply that the Eight were eye-witnesses, no other statements from the Eight back up that reading of the text.  Rather, it seems that each of the Eight "hefted" the plates while they were encased in a box or were covered by a cloth and only "saw" the plates in a vision in June of 1829 using their "spiritual eyes."
This statement confuses a statement made by Martin Harris about "spiritual eyes." Page, Hyrum and John Witmer (and other witnesses) all gave contemporary accounts about thumbing through each leaf/plate. They also saw the Urim and Thummim. One of the accounts states that it was shown in a wood or near under a tree, and that they saw the seal/binding of the sealed portion. They also discuss the "appearance of gold" of the plates. In fact, William Smith, in one account discussing "hefting" the plates, but not seeing being allowed by Smith or God to see them as his brothers and father had. Only half of them never left the church - Peter who died, and the three Smiths, the rest did. -Visorstuff 22:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed

message: The word "apostacizing" has an unfortunate connotation in its usage here, as apostasy can be taken to mean a denial of what one knows to be true.  A better word is recant.
:Clearer now?--John Foxe 17:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorializing 

message: Does the original signed manuscript still exist? -- 212.63.43.180 17:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.--John Foxe 18:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original manuscript to the Book of Mormon was put in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House and most of it rotted away. Though we have a small part of the original documents, the majority of it is gone.  Just as with all manuscripts, without proper care it is very difficult to maintain/retain originals.  We don't have any original signed testimony of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon.  However, we do have the printer's manuscript where, in Oliver Cowdery's hand, he signed his own testimony in copying the testimony of the three witnesses in the printer's manuscript.  I hope this helps. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no evidence that either the Three or the Eight Witnesses signed the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon before it was placed in the Nauvoo House cornerstone.--John Foxe 19:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is known is that none of the witnesses ever denied the testimony that was published. Not one ever withdrew statements. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are incorrect Storm Rider - I will have some references for you soon, several of the witnesses denied ever seeing the plates later in life - the fact that it was never denied is an oft repeated misstatement in the LDS church to promote faith (at least that has been my experience).  As I said, I will get some references and add some text soon.Descartes1979 04:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy hunting of that. The major allusions to any of them denying that i'm aware of, is actually for The Three Witnesses. For example, there is a newspaper article that alludes to Oliver Cowdery denying it, and he later said that it was a misunderstanding and begged forgiveness (even though he was estranged from Smith) that what he said could be interpreted as a denial. John Whitmer put great effort in keeping his integirty when somone claimed that he denied his words - went so far as to publish multiple statements saying that the man had lied or misquoted him. I'd be very intersted in any primary documents (as opposed to rumors that were later corrected by the eight or the three) that any of them denied their words. The data is just not available as fact, but rather as rumor. If you have an primary source of such, we'd all be interested, as the 11 witnesses went through great lenths to preserve that what they saw was in deed true. Even while estranged or (in some cases) involved in plots to kill smith they stayed true to their words. -Visorstuff 16:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testimony extant? 

message: From what I know about the witnesses, I know there is controversy as to whether they actually saw the plates, with most of them later denying they ever did - why is this not included here?  I will do some research and possibly add some text in the next few days.User:Descartes1979 16:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy hunting.--John Foxe 19:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you do your research, it would be advisable to research the individuals and their lives. Anti-Mormon sites are wholly lacking in a complete picture; go to the source and not an interpretation of a statement by an individual. This should be fun. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well its been a few months, and I got side tracked on other stuff - but finally am coming back to this.  I added a criticism section, and have a few more things to add, but need to get my sources in order.--Descartes1979 (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've eliminated the "Criticism" heading because apologetics were included as well.  I think that these sentences need two additional citations: one documenting the fact that critics actually use the Burnett letter and the other that apologists rely on later statements of the Eight and consider the Burnett letter hearsay.--John Foxe (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the cite showing one critic that use the Burnett letter (IRR) - but I don't have a cite for apologists rebuttal, other than what IRR says themselves in the cited article.  I haven't checked FAIR or FARMS yet though - I will get to that in a bit.  BTW, I am pretty sure that the Tanners have a lengthy article about the Burnett letter, but I don't have that cite either, so I didn't add them.--Descartes1979 (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: OK - finally made it back to wrap up what I started.  Please also see my additions of critical perspectives on Three Witnesses and Book of Mormon witnesses.  --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: In Richard Abane's Becoming Gods, he writes "In an August 11, 1838, letter, apostle Warren Parish recounted that "Martin Harris, one of the subscribing witnesses; has come out at least, and says he never saw the plates, from which the book purports to have been translated, except in vision; and he further says that any man who says he has seen them in any other way is a liar, Joseph not excepted. See http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/OH/evan1832.htm#100138  I'll leave it to someone else to judge whether this has any worth. David@sickmiller.com (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think everyone who looks in on this article knows about Parrish's statement about what Harris said during the banking scandal in 1838.  Even if we give this second-hand evidence the benefit of the doubt (as I would), the problem remains as to what Harris, one of the Three, would know about what the Eight saw.--John Foxe (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Something? 

message: I've cut the recently added section.  It's immaterial whether or not critics of Mormonism are well-known.  The real question is, do their criticisms stand on all fours.  One of the added ones is passable, the second-hand testimony of Burnett.  The Brigham Young quotation is not because The Eight did not testify to having seen an angel.  
It's a bad idea to write a "warring article" with apologetics and criticism in separate sections.  Give us the facts, and let the chips fall where they may. Readers are not ninnies.--John Foxe (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may have misread my section - I was not emphasizing the fact that the critics are well known or not - I was emphasizing the facts and the pieces of evidence that cast doubt upon the authenticity of the testimony. ----Descartes1979 (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with your idea of not having a "warring article", and am cool with how it is set up for now. --Descartes1979 (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your small addition is an improvement.--John Foxe (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Critical" section 

message: I recently became aware that all of the eight have their own articles on Wikipedia. I propose we merge those articles here where their notability does not extend beyond their being one of the eight witnesses. See below for my proposal:
Article              	Notable?      	Merge?
Christian Whitmer    	No            	merge
Jacob Whitmer        	No            	merge
Peter Whitmer, Jr.   	No            	merge
John Whitmer         	Yes           	no merge
Hiram Page           	Borderline yes	no merge
Joseph Smith, Sr.    	Yes           	no merge
Hyrum Smith          	Yes           	no merge
Samuel Harrison Smith	No            	merge
*Merge --Descartes1979 (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: If neutrality is wished for this article the facts that Joseph Smith WAS credited as the author in the first edition should be mentioned and not removed as it is a pure fact and not irrelevant. Andstobax (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And was that done by choice or by requirement of the day? -StormRider 12:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason it should not be included is because it has nothing to do with the subject of the article. It's completely tangential. We're talking about the Eight Witnesses' statement, and then all of the sudden we have this little factoid about Smith being listed as the author in the first edition. Does it mean that Smith fabricated the manuscript? Is it because that's just what the printer did? Does it matter? Does it tell us anything about the Eight Witnesses? No. This is what we call WP:COATRACK: hanging irrelevant but tangentially related information on articles where it doesn't belong. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Where's the proof that the eight witnesses actually signed anything as the article claims? The Joseph Smith papershttp://josephsmithpapers.org/paperDetails/testimony-of-eight-witnesses-late-june-1829?tm=expanded&dm=image-only&zm=zoom-right&p=1&s=&sm=none have Oliver Cowdery's printhouse (P) copy version of the witnesses statements in which all the names are written on his handwriting, but so far I haven't found any source that would actually prove that the eight witnesses signed anything. Thus I propose to change the wording on the article to indicate that the LDS church claims that the eight witnesses signed a testimony to have seen the plates. R. Sitia (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Signed?

message: The eight witnesses all testified to never actually seeing or touching the plates. The "plates" were in a box and covered by a sheet. They claim to have seen the plates with their "spiritual eyes". This article makes brazenly false claims that the witnesses held and saw the plates. They did not.
The witness testimony included in the book of mormon was written by Oliver Cowdery and submitted to a newspaper. The "8 witnesses" never saw or signed the document Oliver submitted, and was the cause of so many of them leaving the church and accusing the leadership of fraud.
There are no actual testimonies, besides the vicarious one included in the book of mormon.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.118.155.191 (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  False claim - the witnesses all testified to NOT actually seeing or touching the plates 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Eight Witnesses. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012073811/http://www.irr.org/mit/bom-wit-pt2.html to http://irr.org/mit/bom-wit-pt2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified