Talk:Three Witnesses

message: I'd like to see the summary final testimony analysis User:John Hamer put in comments in Golden Plates moved to the end of this article as a nice bookend for the article.  Its absence leaves a hole. Tom H. 15:57, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
Tom --- actually I didn't write this part:  Oliver is the only one I (User:John Hamer) can find a scant bit of evidence that he recanted his testimony - this happened during the Kirtland Safety society scandal — but the only available evidence is his asking Smith and the Church for forgiveness for his statement and said that he hoped he had not comitted an unpardonable sin (paraphrasing of course) by leading people to believe that he did not see the plates. i've found no other credible sources of this aside from early and easily discredited (such as ezra booth) early (pre-1860) anti-mormon materials. Even Whitmer said under oath in a courtroom that he had indeed seen the plates and had never denied it - and any rumors to the effect were untrue. This while he was estranged from the Church 
I actually have a book on Oliver Cowdery, but I can't figure out where I put it.  I'm planning on using it to beef up his post-excommunication period article.  I completely agree with you about expanding this portion of the 3 Witnesses article and I plan to do that soon.  --John Hamer 14:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Final testimony

message: This article has seriously drifted from NPOV. It now appears to be all about the "magical three witnesses." Some balance would be nice without an overdose of the "Magical World View." Bochica 01:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am adding NPOV tag per Wikipedia NPOV policy: "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper. But even on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth." Bochica 13:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an example of what I am talking about, refer to the section on Martin Harris. These are the words and ideas associated with this man in the very first paragraph, in the order in which they appear: respected farmer...magical world view...excitable and fecund...work of the devil...met Jesus in the shape of a deer...visionary fanatic...an honest man...overbalanced by 'marvellousness'...reputation of being crazy...seeing spooks. I am fully aware that this material was drawn from what appear to be primary sources, but the bias of the paragraph is obvious. When I read the Wikipedia page on Harris, I'm reading about a different person. Bochica 14:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The Harris biography needs to be changed as well.--John Foxe 15:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding evidence concerning the POV charge, an example is already stated above. Bochica 16:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Just prove Palmer incorrect and I'll concede the field. Whether Palmer impresses you or not is of little consequence.--John Foxe 14:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can quote books out the ear that say that Joseph Smith saw an angel of God, that he saw God the Father and the Holy Ghost, that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, etc, but if I added these statements to the article of course they would be completely out of place and inappropriate.  I can say that "Joseph Smith said..." because he did, we can also state whatever Palmer speculated as to Joseph Smith's or anyone else's "mindset," but to state their speculation (which he really isn't qualified to make) as fact is completely and totally inappropriate.  Unfortunately it's your duty to cite the material you add (appropriately cite, not state one's unqualified and unsupported opinions as fact.), not for me to prove that there "aren't purple dinosaurs under the surface of the moon."  You may want to review Wikipedia:Verifiability and wp:NPOV. gdavies 00:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Magical Three Witnesses"

message: Does the original signed manuscript of the Testimony survive? -- 212.63.43.180 16:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.--John Foxe 18:14, 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) 19:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manuscript of Testimony? 

message: Re: The authenticity of the experiences of the Three Witnesses is challenged by well known Mormon critics such as Jerald and Sandra Tanner, and the Institute for Religious Research.
It makes no difference whether well-known Mormon critics challenge the testimony of the Witnesses.  Some Mormon could easily list a host of Mormon apologists who argue otherwise: "The testimony of the Three Witnesses has been supported by Mormon apologists B. H. Roberts, Hugh Nibley, and John W. Welch."  Yawn.  Now, if the latter did not support the testimony of the Three Witnesses, that would be worth mentioning.--John Foxe (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testimony of the Tanners 

message: I see no reason to outright delete the material on the Three Witnesses choosing the original members of the Quorum of the Twelve. This information is readily available from any number of sources; if an editor is unhappy with the History of the Church citation, the answer is to request other citations, not simply delete it on the grounds that s/he can't find it mentioned in one particular work. I will be working on getting other citations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my mistake.  I looked at Bushman but obviously not hard enough.--John Foxe (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, just curious if you knew something I wasn't seeing. Thx. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Quorum of the Twelve

message: The reason that material is being moved from the CoM article to the main related articles is because the CoM article is so bloated and plagued with POV issues. By moving much of the critical material to the main related articles, it's given a chance for more context and, perhaps, thorough vetting. The CoM as it stands is, in a lot of ways, just a POV fork. I hope that makes sense. And I agree with your edit at the Eight Witnesses article. --TrustTruth (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I dislike the notion that because one article is a POV fork, the situation can be improved by exporting the POV to other articles, such as Three Witnesses, that are relatively neutral and stable.  In any case, most of the material that you've added is already here without the POV. But I'll stand down a bit on this one and let other members of the community have their say.--John Foxe (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with TrustTruth - In a perfect world, the Wikipedia would not have any POV fork articles, and all relevant content should be in the articles themselves.  The content that was moved should be covered in this article for it to be balanced.  If you think that it is too POV, then try rewording it (without changing the cited quotes of course).  --Descartes1979 (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think the section unnecessary, but if it has to be here, at least let's make it as concise as possible.--John Foxe (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be absorbed into the article, ideally. --TrustTruth (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've now incorporated that new material into the article.  Once I eliminated the irrelevant comment about the family ties of the Eight Witnesses, I came up with one new sentence for the text and a couple in a footnote.  Be happy to have your comments.--John Foxe (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move of material from [[Criticism of Mormonism]] article 

message: BOMC has recently made a number of edits without citing WP:RS to back the changes.  He has also refused to discuss the edits on this talk page.--John Foxe (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to take a look at WP:RS.  Odd as it seems to newcomers, Wikipedia privileges secondary, rather than primary, sources. Come back with the proper sort of secondary sources, preferably one at a time, and we'll talk them over.--John Foxe (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A reading of WP:OWN and WP:Please do not bite the newcomers would probably be in order as well :-) ~Adjwilley (talk)   20:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not the owner, just the "genius tutelary." :)--John Foxe (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the second time you, John Foxe, have made unsubstantiated accusations. Give examples.BOMC (talk) 06:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss major changes here first. (The burden of proof's on the editor who wishes to make the change.)  I'll be glad to talk the edits through with you, but they need to be discussed here first.  Most of your sources are not WP:RS.--John Foxe (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  BOMC edits 

message: I wish to discuss why user John Foxe who portends to own this page has failed to structure the Note and Reference sections like all well cited articles have? Or why Nyttend did not offer the suggestion since they argue quality of sources. The credibility of the Wikipedia on this topic and related topics is highly flawed and anyone familiar with the topic knows it is slanted beyond neutrality and a turn off. Can user Foxe show any contributions that have bettered the article or has he only been defending a position and spinning webs? It is deplorable that the wiki has tolerated his nonsense.BOMC (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia privileges secondary, peer-reviewed sources over primary material. To quote from WP:RS: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper....Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars."--John Foxe (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What have you contributed to the article? Why did you not set up the structure? Answer the questions.BOMC (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't understand your questions.--John Foxe (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think BOMC is asking why the article doesn't have separate sections for Notes and References like other articles do. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, if all BOMC wants to do is add a reference section, I have no objection.--John Foxe (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Unless you John Foxe can show a contribution, i.e. added something, it is apparent there is a COI going on. Please state what your interest is.BOMC (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You can check my contributions to this article on Dashboard.--John Foxe (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing substantial; but based on your sources, that makes sense. Are you going to correctly structure the page as explained by Adjwilley? If you fail to do so I will use your reluctance as evidence of a conflict of interest. Thanks.BOMC (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 42% of all the edits to the article is "nothing substantial"?--John Foxe (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  LACK OF STRUCTURE 

message: It appears user John Foxe has violated the WP:COI policy and I am asking for comments. Please review the guidelines and share your comments. I  have several, but then I'm new here. If there is a concensus, he should be reported at once on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard to prevent further "disruption" to the objectives of the wiki.BOMC (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if there is conflict of interest.  I believe there is just a very strong POV as shown by edits like this by him. 72Dino (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!BOMC (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of Interest Inquiry - John Foxe 

message: The section on "Importance" is very oddly written. It reads:
:::The example of the Three Witnesses has encouraged the practice within Latter Day Saint churches of having members regularly bear :::their testimony to the truth of the Mormon gospel based on personal spiritual experiences and impressions.
This seems to be POV or speculative. It seems to suggest that it is because of this history that Mormons "bear testimony." There is nothing in the research I've seen or the reference in the article that makes that direct connection. It is like saying that the sun "encourages" my alarm clock to ring. The only doctrinal connection is that they are similar actions, but not causally connected. Even if they had not received or recorded their witness it is not unlikely Church members would still testify of their beliefs. Does anyone have any research to back this statement up before we remove it?
The only way I can see it being worded is:
:::The testimony of the Three Witnesses is reflected in a practice within the Church where members dedicate a portion of one Sacrament meeting each month to bearing testimonies to the truth of the Mormon gospel based on personal spiritual experiences and impressions.
I believe this in no way contradicts the reference already in place.--Canadiandy talk 04:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a little stylistic awkwardness in the change, but substantively it seems fine.--John Foxe (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Canadiandy, unless a direct connection can be documented, this section needs to be removed or replaced with content that is documented and "Important."BOMC (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been done.  I tweaked the revision that Canadiandy suggested.--John Foxe (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, all. I still don`t like `Latter-day Saint Church`, but it`s a hundred times better.--Canadiandy talk 08:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance Section needs to be removed/fixed/rewritten. 

message: The sentence in question:
An 1830 statement titled "Testimony of Three Witnesses"—one statement signed by three men rather than three separate statements—was published at the end of the first edition of the Book of Mormon: 
Seems redundant. Might I suggest:
The testimony of each witness was combined into a single statement that was then signed by each of the witnesses. This statement is known as "The Testimony of the Three Witnesses" and was included in the first and subsequent editions of the Book of Mormon.  
:As there were no comments and as the proposed edit was reversed, some background on the original version was warranted. The source for the original comes from Palmer and says: 
The official statements published in the Book of Mormon are not dated, nor is a specific location given for where the events occurred. There are not eleven affidavits but rather one statement signed by three men and one signed by eight. p. 195
:The official quote is more coherent. Either we quote Palmer outright, or make it clear that the "no date, no place" statement applies solely to the published statement and not in general.BOMC (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Testimony of the Three Witnesses Needs Rewrite 

message: BOMC has repeatedly attempted to insert the following paragraph in this article:
The Three Witnesses were Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer, whose joint testimony, in conjunction with a separate statement by Eight Witnesses, has been printed with nearly every edition of the Book of Mormon since its first publication in 1830. All three witnesses eventually broke with Smith and two were excommunicated from the church he had founded—Harris and Cowdery.David Whitmer separated from the church but is often described as being "excommunicated." (Latzer, Michael J., "Whitmer, David," American National Biography Online, Oxford University Press, February 2000.) Researcher Ebbie Richardson discovered that Whitmer had resigned from the church but that his membership was never voted upon: "After members of the Council had read the letter from David they no longer thought it necessary to investigate the charges made against him. The feeling created by the letter caused the Councilors to consider him no longer 'a member of the Church of Christ of the Latter-day Saints,' though there is no indication that his membership was ever voted upon." (Richardson, Ebbie L. V., "David Whitmer, A Witness to the Divine Authenticity of The Book of Mormon," Provo: Brigham Young University, Master's Thesis, August 1952, p. 71.) This view was reiterated by Marquardt in 2007, see Marquardt, Michael H., "David Whitmer: His Evolving Beliefs and Recollections," in Scattering of the Saints, Schism within Mormonism, eds. Newell G. Bringhurst and John C. Hamer, Independence, MO: John Whitmer Books, 2007, p. 50. Harris and Cowdery eventually rejoined the church, and all three continued to testify of the divine origin of the Book of Mormon.
All reliable sources say that Whitmer was excommunicated. A sixty-year-old master's thesis is not a WP:RS when its information differs with such sources as the American National Biography and Arrington & Bitton, The Mormon Experience.  Even if Whitmer's "resignation" were to be mentioned in the text, the citation should be to Marquardt, a more recent published source. (I'd advise a quotation from Marquart.)  Why should an obscure author of a 1952 master's thesis be mentioned even in the footnotes?--John Foxe (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: @BOMC and John Foxe: The few sources I've seen on this also say that Whitmer was excommunicated, but I haven't been able to find much on the subject. Perhaps you two could "agree to disagree" on this one and compromise on a neutral wording? "All three witnesses eventually broke with Smith and left the church" might be an option. If an agreement can't be reached in this way, I'd probably side with John Foxe on the excommunicated bit, based on the sources I've seen. I haven't looked closely enough at the other edits to have an opinion on those, but I agree with others who have commented here that the tone and neutrality need work. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the word "excommunicated" from the lead paragraph. (I hope you find that a profitable example of compromise by shortening.)--John Foxe (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  BOMC edits (paragraph 1) 

message: I've reverted this a couple times now, so it's probably time for a talk page discussion. It is synthesis to apply Brigham Young's quote (a primary source by the way) to the 3 Witnesses when it's not even clear that he's talking about them. Using the quote in this context is particularly problematic, since in the very next sentence Young says, "One of the Quorum of the Twelve—a young man full of faith and good works, prayed, and the vision of his mind was opened, and the angel of God came and laid the plates before him, and he saw and handled them, and saw the angel, and conversed with him as he would with one of his friends; but after all this, he was left to doubt, and plunged into apostacy [sic], and has continued to contend against this work. There are hundreds in a similar condition." (Note that none of the Three Witnesses was ever "one of the Quorum of the Twelve" indicating apparently that Young was talking about someone else who had seen a vision of the plates). Either way, please discuss before reverting again. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right.--John Foxe (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Young Synth