The testimonies of the 3 witnesses: The testimony of the 3 witnesses have been a huge thorn inside the side of critics for nearly half a century and it still is. I am sure you are familiar with the testimony of the 3 witnesses inside the front cover of just about every Book of Mormon you'll find. It’s true that at some point all 3 of these witnesses broke with the church. Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris eventually returned though. But David Whitmer never did. All 3 men however, maintained stellar reputations among their non-Mormon peers during their absence of Mormonism. While their peers did not agree with their views on the Book of Mormon, they nevertheless acknowledged that these three men were honest men who actually believed that to which they testified. Pomeroy Tucker, for instance, who knew Harris but did not believe in the Book of Mormon, once said there was no easy explanation as how to reconcile Harris' witness to the Book of Mormon and the evident fact that Harris was an honest man. While Harris was separated from the church he looked for comfort in other Christian faiths. His journey for the Gospel joy led him among several paths- all affiliated with some Mormon splinter group (save a brief encounter with Shakerism) until at last he returned to Mormonism. Despite the claim that his spiritual wandering showed signs of religious instability, it showed instead that once he left Mormonism he was unable to find the Gospel joy he once felt but earnestly sought it until he returned to where he had started. Some critics would charge that Harris' testimony is suspect because during his encounter with Shakerism because he reportedly said that his belief in Shakerism was greater than it was for the Book of Mormon. His testimony of Shakerism is second-hand, at best, and may not be accurate. I do not know if those who reported Harris' comments heard them directly from Martin, or if they were repeating rumors. At about the same time that Harris made his comments regarding Shakerism, he bore his testimony (Primary source I might add) to two different individuals who recorded the conversations. There are numerous records of people who had conversations with Harris and remember his testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.
All 3 witnesses reaffirmed their testimonies on their deathbeds. When Martin Harris was near death, his highly practical neighbor, George Godfrey, was present and deliberately waited for a semiconscious moment to suggest that Martins testimony was possibly based on deception. Godfrey approached Martin just a few hours before the witness died. At this stage Martin was weak and feeble and unable to recognize to whom he was speaking. Godfrey asked Martin if, perhaps, there was really some element of fraud or deception in what he had claimed to witness. Martin, however, replied as he always did. He knew that the Book of Mormon was not fake. He heard a voice, and had seen the Golden plates. He said that he could have been a rich man if he were willing to lie and recant his testimony, but he could not perjure himself- he could not deny his testimony. He could not deny what he saw. Although David Witmer never returned to the Church he, like the other two witnesses, never denied his testimony. In an effort to impugn the veracity of Witmer's testimony, critics point to a statement David wrote after he left the church. It read as follows "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon, if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice," wrote Whitmer, "then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should be done unto them". Shortly after David and other notable Mormons had been excommunicated outspoken LDS leader Sidney Rigdon preached his "salt sermon" warning dissenters to leave town. Other radical Mormons, such as Sampson Avard, enforced expulsion of those who did not leave on their own. Joseph Smith and the Twelve criticized Rigdon's aggressive speeches as well as the secret and unsanctioned actions of Avard. Whitmer claimed that the Holy Ghost told him to separate himself from the saints. Whitmer had already been excommunicated months earlier; He had already left the church. In context, he must have understood the inspiration as direction to separate himself from the saints. This could easily have been inspired direction. Confrontation with some of the more radical characters of the church (such as Sampson Arvard) might have caused Whitmer serious harm-physical, emotional, or spiritual. However Whitmer understood his direction given to him by God. It did not conflict with his testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. In the 50 years that Whitmer lived outside the church he insisted that he knew the Book of Mormon was divinely revealed. Dozens of interviews with Whitmer-which took place out of the church- all tell the same story; David affirmed the veracity of his testimony in Richmond, Missouri, where David lived, the non-Mormons him as honest and trustworthy. When one anti-Mormon lectured in town, calling Whitmer disreputable, the local non-Mormon paper responded with a front page editorial in the local paper. Although the editors were unsympathetic to Mormons, they insisted that after 46 years of residence in Richmond, they knew David's character was without blemish. When another article was published that claimed David denied his testimony, David printed a proclamation testifying to the truth of the Book of Mormon and reiterated the fact that neither he, nor Cowdrey nor Harris had never denied their testimonies. Attached to Whitmers statements was an accompanying statement signed by 22 of Richmonds political, business and professional leaders who had certifies that he had been "long and intimately acquitted" with Whitmer and knew him to "be a man with honest integrity and undoubted truth and veracity" [1]. A few days before he died this article was published in the Chicago Tribune. "David Whitmer, the last one of the three witnesses to the truth of the Book of Mormon, is now in a dying condition at his home in Richmond. Last evening he called his friends and family to the bedside and bore his testimony of the truth of the Book of Mormon and the Bible" [2]. The Richmond Democrat also added this comment "Skeptics may laugh and scoff if they will, but no man can listen to Mr. Whitmer as he talks of his interview with the Angel of the Lord, without being most forcibly conceived that he has heard an honest man tell what he believed to be true." [3]. Because critics like you and like Sean are unable to accept angels and scriptures from Heaven, you and others have decided to generally conclude that the Three Witnesses were duped or deluded, and that they were merely imagining that they saw an angel with plates. As evidence they note an interview in which Harris was supposedly asked if he saw the plates with his "naked eyes" to which he responded, "No, I saw them with a spiritual eye." [4]. In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a "visionary or entranced state" [5]. Does visionary mean imagined? Does belief in that the experience had a visionary and spiritual qualities contradict the claim that the plates were real? Consider this: On separate occasions Harris also claimed that prior to his witnessing the Plates, he held the (covered) plated on his lap and said that they weight approximately 50 pounds. [6]. It seems unlikely-from his physical descriptions as well as his other testimonies and the testimonies of the other two witnesses-that the entire experience was merely in his mind. Spiritual and visionary are not synonymous with merely subjunctive. On another occasion critics like you and Sean charged Harris with delusion-that he merely imagined to have seen an angel and the plates. Martin responded by extending his right hand a saying "Gentlemen, do you see this hand? Are you sure you see it? Are your eyes playing a trick or something? No. Well, as sure as you see my hand so sure did I see the angel and the plates." [7]. David Whitmer helps clear up the spiritual vs. natural viewing of the plates. Responding to the interviewer who questioned Harris, Whitmer replied "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, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at anytime" [8].Like Harris, Whitmer had, at times been charged with being deluded into think he had seen an angel and the plates. One observer remembers when David was likewise accused, and said: "How well and distinctly I remember the manner in which Elder Whitmer arose and drew himself up to his full height- a little over six feet- and said, in solemn and impressive tones 'No sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes, and heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!"' [10]. Paul understood the difficulty of describing spiritual experiences when he wrote "2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) (2 Cor. 12:2-3). You and Sean believe Pauls vision was real, yet he was unsure whether he had the experience in or out of his body. He knew the plates were real. yet he also knew that when the angel showed him the plates he was able to see them by the power of God. I eagerly await you feeble and flawed response assuming that you even read this thing. This concluded the 3 witnesses. I will begin typing the evidences for the testimony of the 8 witnesses. Bibliography 1. Micheal B. Parker "the Book of Mormon and the fullness of the Gospel." 2. Lyndon W. Cook ed. David Witmer interviews. A Restoration Witness. Pg 220. 3. Eldin Ricks, the case of the Book of Mormon witnesses. Pg 16 4. Wilford C Wood, Joseph begins his Work, vol 1, introduction. 5. Dale Morgan, "Dale Morgan on early Mormonism: Correspondence and new history. 6. Dan Vogel, early Mormon Documents. Pg 2:306 7. Richard L Anderson, investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, Pg 116. 8. Ibid. Pg 86 9. Ibid Pg 88 10. Dan Vognel, posted Oct 12, 2007 at http://MormonApologetics.org
