Talk:Eight Witnesses

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject, an attempt to provide comprehensive and detailed information about the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism on Wikipedia. To participate in the project, edit this article, visit the List of articles about the Latter Day Saint movement, the project page, and/or join the discussion. For writing guidelines about contributing to the project, you may want to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints)
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

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)

Contents

[edit] [ Editorializing ]

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)

[edit] Poulson interview

I removed the Poulson interview both because this is an encyclopedia article and because Vogel clearly states that Poulson is unreliable. Whitmer was dead when this interview was published, and Poulson says that Whitmer saw the plates in Joseph Smith's house and that the eight saw the plates in two groups of four. That's a story told nowhere else.--John Foxe 19:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't matter as it is citable - it is a source, and you can say why it is unreliable in the article, but not including is a mistake in the long-run. You are making a judgement call based on your POV (which is probably right), and the appearance is that of censorship. Although I know you'll disagree, I want to go on record as stating that the removal of such is a mistake. -Visorstuff 22:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I regret having to remove that edit myself—but for a different reason. It was the only cited piece of information in the whole article. (You've been watching this one longer than me, so can I make you feel a little guilty?)
Nevertheless, it had to be removed because it was simply a bald insertion with no attempt at integration into the article, from an unreliable source, about just one of the eight witnesses.
As for the notion that every citation is as good as another: if this were the way we wrote about Mormonism on Wikipedia, you would take up FARMS and I would wield The God Makers, and we wouldn't have an encyclopedia article but a warring blog. While that does unfortunately occur here, it's not the model that men of good will like you and me should want to emulate.--John Foxe 00:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the Poulson interview should be included - I agree with who Visorstuff - if Vogel included it, it should be mentioned - we can add a clause saying that he thought it was unreliable, or something like that, but it is very relevant and should be included. Also, it seems there are a lot more considerations missing from this article - I will do some research.Descartes1979 16:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I said I thought it was relevant, but that it needed to be included as it is citable, and the removal of it smells of censorship. It is obviously not reliable, and may or may not be relevant. Very big difference. -Visorstuff 15:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a big difference between godmakers/farms and a book on the topic where Vogel quotes Paulson, even if he states he's not that reliable. If it was significant on the topic, or completely unreliable, then Vogel wound't have included him, no? Perhaps I'm missing something. But I see the same pattern over and over again, and have no idea where you are coming from.

That said, we do have quotes from the Godmakers in wikipedia. That's fine, it provides a contrarian point of view to balance some articles. I do believe one source (reputable) is as good as another, and Vogel is definitely reputable. Could we say, he considers the interview unreliable? You bet, and it wouldn't take more than ten words to do, and wouldn't hurt the readability of the article, but rather the information contained in it is fascinating to most readers. Why delete content when we don't have space requirements? Rather we should move to another section, another article or a footnote, rather than delete. That is the beauty of Wikipedia. -Visorstuff 20:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

PS dont' feel guilt (you alluded to having some), we just have different styles that need to be worked out. Let's continue this dialogue, until we do. -Visorstuff 20:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Testimony extant?

Does the original signed manuscript still exist? -- 212.63.43.180 17:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No.--John Foxe 18:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Missing Something?

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)

Happy hunting.--John Foxe 19:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] "Critical" section

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)

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)
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)
Your small addition is an improvement.--John Foxe (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)