Talk:Book of Mormon witnesses

Merge proposal

I propose we merge Mary Whitmer into this article - it is very small, unlikely to get much more information in it, and her notability only exists because of her witness to the gold plates.

• Merge--Descartes1979 (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Merge--John Foxe (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Dont Merge--Friendly Person (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Mary Whitmer was a person, with a supporting role of fair importance in history, should have her own article. Use links to place her info on the witness page
• Merge--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 23:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Merge--Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions

It's illegitimate for an editor to delete cited material just because he disagrees with it.--John Foxe (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Continuous revelation?

I don't see how the following illustrates continuous revelation:

The call of the Eight probably also illustrates the significant Mormon doctrine of continuous revelation[4] because in Doctrine and Covenants 5: 11-14 (revealed to Joseph Smith in March 1829) the Three Witnesses are told that they will be given power to see the golden plates, "and to none else will I grant this power, to receive this same testimony among this generation." Nevertheless, in 2 Nephi 27:13, the Three are told that "none other...shall view it, save it be a few according to the will of God."

In Nephi, it says that "none other... shall view it, save it be a few..." Later, the statement was made "none else will... receive this same testimony among this generation." I don't see a contradiction. Nobody else will view it, except for a few people. Nobody else will receive the same testimony during that generation. Seeing something isn't the same as receiving a particular testimony of that thing, it's clearly two different verbs and neither statement contradicts or extends the other statement. In light of that and since the referencing hyperlink points to a section of the site that no longer exists, I'm going to just cross most of that off. Banaticus (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

To continue, since your response lies solely in the edit summary of your revert, I find the above statement to be illogical and rather off the subject of Book of Mormon witnesses, let alone the Eight Witnesses section, you know? ;) It should thus be excised, rather than sit around on the article's page. If you'd like to tweak this malformed unreferenced tangent that (if it stays around at all should likely be moved to some other section), the full section will remain in the article's history and you may do so at your leisure, either in the Sandbox or your userspace or here in the article's talk section. Banaticus (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It's clear, at least to me, that in context the "power to receive this testimony" means "to behold and view these things." I've tried to tweak the quotation a bit to point this wording up, and I've also added what I think is a better link. I don't understand what's illogical.--John Foxe (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't "tweak a quotation" in order to support your point of view, that's just wrong. http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/History_of_the_Church/Vol_1 matches what I have in the physical book and says that the original wording was correct. I read the new reference you supplied and it's only connection with the article are the words "continuing revelation" -- as a whole, the reference has no bearing on the article, let alone the section. It may have bearing in the Continuous revelation article, but without misrepresenting any more quotes, the whole set up still wouldn't, in my opinion, make any sense. Banaticus (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

How about including the statement in the "criticism" section? There it can just be an inconsistency instead of an illustration of continuous revelation.--John Foxe (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Just give the whole quote in context, instead of outright rewriting the quote to fit your interpretation or cherry picking whatever words best fit your interpretation. Additionally, we don't ask open ended questions in the body of a Wikipedia article. These are encyclopedic articles, not bodies for debate and rhetorical questions don't really have a place. :) The statement, "Why does it say 'thus and such' if 'yadda'!" (apart from being needless hyperbole), isn't really in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia -- although skepticism and scholarly analysis are to be encouraged, this isn't the place for attacks. These speculations, deliberate misquotations and exaggeration for the effect of it shouldn't really be present in a scholarly article. Banaticus (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're satisfied with that solution, then it's fine by me. I always enjoy resolving situations that appear contentious on the surface but turn out to be largely matters of form.--John Foxe (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Skeptical criticism of the testimonies

In this section is a link that says "Main article: Criticism of Mormonism#Credibility of witnesses". However, the criticism of Mormonism page has no such section. Has it been moved to another article or does it no longer exist? --Kazim27 (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wherever it went, there shouldn't be a link to a nonexistent section. I've deleted it.--John Foxe (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Skeptical criticism of the Testimonies, round 2

I have added the {{Synthesis}} tag to this section of the article, why? Because after revising policy, it appears that the statements of "criticism" in this article, as cited as they are, seem only to be a means of unpublished interpretation from neutral sources that states broadline facts, which are a) not of a critical intent and b) does not explain to why these facts are criticism. Thus this section of the article seems to have been written by someone who has indeed went and interpreted the information stated from the sources as criticism for their own means, violating policy in the process. Another example of the cunning and tedious manipulation of wikipedia by editors wanting to slate the image of the church.

To back this up I have provided examples

1. Fact stated in the article: "The majority (if not all) the witnesses were believers in folk magic. A number possessed seer stones; Oliver Cowdery was a rodsman"- Citation provided for it: "^ D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1998), rev. ed., 239-40.". This does not deter to criticism in general, now nobody is arguing the fact of what the article is stating, but rather the argument is to why the statement is being used for criticism via a broadline interpretation of a seemingly neutral source to make it look critical. This is an example of synthesis, a fact with an intended spin on it to draw a conclusion. Hence this piece of "criticism" has no verificial value and is relying purely on the means of "folk magic" in attempt to make the witnesses look bad on the view that folk magic in general may be frowned upon in some. However on a neutral sense, there is no suggestion to why this is criticism in general and the source given does not provide a foundation for such.
2. Fact stated in the article: "The Three Witnesses all left the church during Joseph Smith's lifetime." - citation given - "Although all three of them later rejoined Latter Day Saint denominations—and all reiterated their testimonies, on their respective deathbeds—some scholars dispute the sincerity of their conversion". Yes they did leave the church and nobody is disputing this, however again the means that it is criticism in general does not originate from the source and appears to a personal POV analysis by whoever placed it in there. It is again, useless to the article. Another basic fact somehow being used as a weapon against the witnesses, when the intent of the citation does no such thing.
3. Fact stated in the article: "All of the witnesses were family, close friends, or financial backers of Joseph Smith, Jr." - citation given - "Martin Harris bankrolled the publication of the Book of Mormon (See Martin Harris), and Oliver Cowdery was at one point considered the "Second Elder in the Church" behind Joseph Smith (See Oliver Cowdery). Of the Eight Witnesses, IRR notes, "All eight had close personal ties to Joseph Smith's family—four were David Whitmer's brothers, a fifth was married to a Whitmer sister, and Joseph's father and two brothers made up the remaining three." Quoted in "Facts On The Book Of Mormon Witnesses". Again no dispute to the fact in general, but again the source is neutral and simply providing information and the critical view is again an unpublished synthesis by the editor.
4. Fact stated in the article: "Although Harris continued to testify to the truth of the Book of Mormon even when he was estranged from the church, at least during the early years of the movement, he "seems to have repeatedly admitted the internal, subjective nature of his visionary experience."- Citation given - "The foreman in the Palmyra printing office that produced the first Book of Mormon said that Harris "used to practice a good deal of his characteristic jargon and 'seeing with the spiritual eye.". Again the source is stating a fact, not a criticism. It's worth noting that whether he allegedly saw them for real or saw them by vision he still claimed to have saw them. So really, without arguing what happened, the source's means is being misused as a point of unpublished criticism by direct analysis as it provides no critical intent or opinion, simply just stating fact.

The rest of the "criticisms" in the article appear to be cited from sources which information I don't have access to (yet), and two are from actual critical sources. However, the ones stated above have no standing at all in the article. Routerone (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no synthesis here. The "critics" referred to in the opening sentence are obviously the sources provided.

If you like, you can ask for a Third Opinion, or I'll do it, whichever is your pleasure. Just let me know. Thanks.--John Foxe (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason you provided did not provide a reasonable means to what you are "supporting" Mr. Foxe. As I have demonstrated the sources are not a means to criticism within themselves, but are somehow being interpreted as such by you. They are stating basic information and you are drawing tedious conclusions from it which you call "criticism". However, I can see that it is quite clearly a self analysis, anyone can say that a fact has a particular meaning can't they? But as WP:SYNTHESIS states, you can't do that here on wikipedia: the rule states quite clearly:

Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research- I have reason to believe this is just that mr "Foxe". You are reading the source, seeing the "fact", not disputing it then combining it with your own opinion to create a theory which the source in itself does not support. You have no standing with this. Routerone (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you want me to ask for the Third Opinion or do you want to do it?--John Foxe (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Making such a move would be an intentional attempt to shoot yourself in the thought with this debate. On the means of rationality I would see such a move as a waste of time on the basis that my points above are firm and virtually undisputable, but if you give me the time, I shall do it. Routerone (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, we'll say if you haven't done it in 24 hours, I'll apply myself. Sometimes it takes the folks who volunteer to do the Third Opinions a couple days to get to it.--John Foxe (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother, the request has been filed. Routerone (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--John Foxe (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I accepted the 30. I'll first take Routerone's objections one by one:

1) The "folk magic" allusion seems unnecessary, yet I gather that the use of the stone is connected with the matter of "real" v spiritual vision; it is cited in this connection in the "Utah Ministry" web account. The matter of the stone only should stand, but be explained and integrated to point 4, not connected vaguely with "magic" which may be seen as pejorative.

2) The matter of witnesses leaving must be linked by a citation to a "skeptical" source that draws clear conclusions from this.

3) "All the witnesses are family" - this is shown to have formed part of a skeptical critique by the Twain quote and is not undue synthesis, though I dare say presentation would be improved by deriving the whole point from Twain himself if possible.

4) "seems to have repeatedly admitted the internal, subjective nature of his visionary experience" - again, the Utah page and other references make it clear that the fact that the "witnesses" did not see actual, real plates is a very significant criticism of the version of things as given out. The alteration of the number of witnesses is also significant. There is no undue synthesis in my opinion.

The section should not be presented as though these points form a unified, authoritative body of criticism if such cannot be shown to be the case. Please otherwise consider altering the heading and pre-amble to show that the criticisms are separate matters from separate sources. With these riders I believe the material forms valid comment upon the matter and ought to be included in wikipedia's account of the Mormon revelation.

Note that I do not offer comment on source reliability - was not requested. I'll watch the page and hear comments. (Point of order - two sections with same title on this page - not clever!) Redheylin (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I was not commenting upon the sources in general, but actually commenting on a vague interpretation of fact to criticism, which seems to be done only be a personal analysis. Plus in relation to point number 4, there are strong contradicting sources in relation to whether they saw real plates or spiritual ones.[1]. Meaning this "visionary" fact is not a confirmed statement, and should not be treated as such. Routerone (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Routerone, except for the points above, I can see no sign of invalid personal research, interpretation or synthesis. If reliable sources are found (pt 4) to present a view, that view can be included. If other such sources are found to present an opposite view, they can also be included. Further, if sources are found to deal effectively with contrary arguments, these can be included as well. In order to do this effectively it may be best to integrate such criticisms into a topic-based presentation rather than attempting to separate "skeptics" from ""believers". To try to present any notable view in such a way as to undermine it editorially will be NNPOV. Redheylin (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Redheylin. Take a look at my changes and let me know if there's anything else that you think needs to be tweaked.--John Foxe (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Its worth noting that the article likely looks even worse than it does previously before John Foxe started editing it. He has seemingly replaced synthesis with bias and negatively toned astute language, as if he is intentionally attempting to destroy the credibility of the witnesses with his "research". Routerone (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a survey of skeptical criticism could be presented without it sounding, ah, skeptical.--John Foxe (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Then if the work you are citing is as "skeptical" and as "critical" as you have even admitted to be, then are you sure wikipedia is the place for this kind of material? I would say some of the books you are working with on this article are indeed highly critical to the point that they are intentionally bias to promote a particular viewpoint. However, you know this fine well and I suspect you are deliberately (again) up to no good with this, as evidenced by you deliberately trying to get rid of an apologetic fact in the article earlier with no stated reason on [2]. You are all for doing that Mr. Foxe, yet I would like to see your motive if somebody tried to remove some of your work without giving a reason (and I KNOW you object to that!). So let's not sway to double standards here... Routerone (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I realize that you're a new editor with little experience in the way things work at Wikipedia. Nevertheless, you cannot repeatedly revert cited edits for no reason except that they don't please you. Unless you revert your own last two edits, I will report you for WP:edit warring.--John Foxe (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

John Foxe, I have to say that I found that statement highly amusing indeed, do not attempt to shrug me off with patronisation and petty threats. You accuse me of edit warring yet out of the both us, you are the editor who's more prone to repeatedly revert people's edits on the basis that you don't agree with them. At the same time you slam me for "reverting cited edits without reason", yet you just done [this little over an hour ago, removing a cited statement to an apologetic argument without reason, which to be fair is hypocritical. I stated my reasons for reverting your edits in the summary, and as you believe you can just revert people's edits with a "summary statement" then shouldn't I have the morale justification to do the same thing? Its also quite tedious that you should accuse me of "edit warring", as like I previously mentioned you have been reverting just like me with perhaps less of an initiative standard. Yet because I am unwilling to back down in my argument (just like you), when having valid points, you nonetheless threaten to "report me" which comes across as being quite childish, "Mr. Foxe". At the end of the day I have more than enough evidence to say that you are manipulating this article, and any attempt to "work" with you is simply resulting in blatant objection, meaning I have to resort to "reverts" as such, and yet at the same time you have the cheek to accuse me of the same wrongdoing. I will make it clear that I refuse to revert those edits, but please be warned that if you do report me for "edit warring" you risk yourself being also pulled as part of the problem. Routerone (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your candid answer, which simplifies things. I'll report your edit warring as soon as I am able to figure out the mechanics.--John Foxe (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I would avoid being so intellectually arrogant in supporting your argument Foxe, as I have demonstrated your edits in relation to this are no better than mine in terms of their "righteousness". For as I demonstrated I have already got an example of you attempting to get rid of an apologetic cited statement without even stating you were doing so, whilst attempting to mask it whilst reforming the section headings. You face just as much scrutiny as me if you choose to do this. Routerone (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I've got your edit warring reported more-or-less properly here. I confess to being a troglodyte when it comes to learning how to do new stuff on line.--John Foxe (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It was hardly "edit warring", you were reverting legitimate edits simply because you didn't agree (as always) and you were threatening me in the process, not the way to go about things is it? This will make you look the tyrant in this, not me. Routerone (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

Rather than engage in another edit war, I would like to dicuss the neutrality of this article:

The "Skeptical criticism of the witnesses" still concerns me, despite an attempted reform by John Foxe the sources of information that he is drawing into it are that which have a significant degree of bias against the church and are set out to make a point against it in a critical manner, disregarding apologetical arguments and being mostly, poor arguments in general, most of them being easily overthrown by apologetics. Yet the editor John Foxe, seems to defend this "criticism" with his life, whilst focusing little on the positive points that actually support the witnesses.

To add to this, I think it is also unfair that the "criticism" section is now the largest part of the article. It is a blatant attempt by Foxe to destroy the credibility of the witnesses by: a) using biast sources b) using synthesis and turning certain evaluated points into negatively spinned statements c) attempting to stop any changes to the article he disagrees with, reverting who does so and then when they retaliate, he accuses them of edit warring. Hence because of Foxe again using wikipedia as a game to destroy the church, the article indeed does have serious neutrality problems. This is an article not designed to explain what the witnesses were and their role in church history, but clearly just an attempt to isolate them from the means of credibility and create a certain negative impression of them. In general, the "criticism" section has been took too far, and considering the amount of apologetic evidence that exists, its an unfair match and needs sorting immediately.

Unless he changes his ways, I seriously recommend that John Foxe is banned from the LDS topic field here on wikipedia. As I have no doubt whatsoever that he clearly has a problem with the organisation in general and is using wikipedia to express that and manipulate to his means from what may be considered a "legitimate" manner at first, but with closer inspection it clearly isnt appropriate at all. Routerone (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I will neither confirm nor deny the alleged information you have posted about my identity, but you need to know that you have committed a serious breach of Wikipedia policy, one that could result in your being blocked.--John Foxe (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

With dignity I removed the sensitive info, I apologize. Routerone (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ready for another Third Opinion?--John Foxe (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Routerone, can I explain a couple of things? "Outing" editors and making comments on their personalities and motives is not productive and can get you blocked. It's much better to focus on the detail of the article in the light of policy.

Policy is; between us we try to achieve a neutral balance between all notable and reliable commentators' views. Generally speaking an article starts out being written "pro" - I write about Beethoven because I like Beethoven. But sooner or later along comes someone who does not. He looks all over for some notable critic who says that Beethoven is rubbish and he inserts it. Now, it is no good my saying "This is not fair because this guy is against Beethoven - both the editor and his source". That's the idea; a proportionate balance of notable views. Now, if you think that the "anti" is getting out of proportion, your answer is to find a published, non-aligned but sympathetic scholar who rebuts arguments and presents positive views. You write; "poor arguments in general, most of them being easily overthrown", so you now need to get stuck in, find those sources and add those rebuttals. Nobody can complain about it, but if you try to remove legitimate data and attack the editor who added it, somebody CAN complain. Because JF is not adding his own ideas, he is adding the ideas of acceptable commentators, and you need to do the same. That will even out things again. Just as you cannot stop JF from adding skeptical sources, he cannot stop you from adding supportive ones and so restoring balance. This is going on in every religious field in wiki, and by and by it is making the articles more complete, more detailed. That's the way to "sort it immediately" and I'd suggest you get busy and stick your head in a book and refrain from complaints and attacks. I, for one, am glad to see these issues being raised, and I will be glad to see them being answered. It means my knowledge, as a neutral reader, will be that much fuller and more refined. And that's what it's all about. Redheylin (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Redheylin, for taking time to write such a paragraph of good sense.--John Foxe (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, routerone, if John Foxe should be topic-banned or should avoid editing Mormon articles because he has an anti-Mormon bias, that means you should be topic-banned or should avoid editing them because you have a pro-Mormon bias. The knife cuts both ways. tedder (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Skeptical criticism vs. apologetic response

I frequently find sections like these in articles, and I think it's rather unfortunate, since they don't make for a great encyclopedia article. The above conversation is a good example of how sections like this are built. Two editors stack the article with POV material in an attempt to achieve "balance" and we end up with this weird fragmented article sourced to stuff like the Utah Lighthouse Ministry and FAIRwiki. It would be much better, in my opinion, to have a single analysis section sourced to middle-of-the-road scholarly sources instead of this apologetic/polemic garbage. I removed some of it earlier today, but I'd like to continue on the same track and see if I can't merge these two lists of POV bullet points into a single neutral section in paragraph form. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Existence of signatures

I've removed the edit again because, even though the second time it was added it was cited to references, it is still too WP:SYNTH in my opinion. For example, the two cited works only talk about the original (what Skousen calls "O") manuscript and make no mention on the existence, status, or non-existence of the original document signed by the witnesses. So any comments using those sources require a certain amount of extrapolation, too much IMO, to say anything about the subject of this article. The final sentence in the edit "no document containing the witnesses’ original signatures is known to exist" is extremely OR and cannot be verified from the cited sources (in fact I would argue that the Printer's Manuscript, which I believe does still exist, at least partially contradicts the statement since it was Cowdery's handwritten copy of the original manuscript with the witnesses' signatures so it at least has his signature). I also think the position of the edit is problematic - it seems like too much minutia for the lede. As to where it would go, perhaps that depends on the purpose of including such information. --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Book of Mormon 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/20080725072851/http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai109.html to http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai109.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

1839 Cowdery track is a known forgery

This document was 'discovered' by the American Anti-Mormon organization in 1906. Indeed, all the extant copies were printed in 1906, and we don't know why no copies dated to earlier than that exist (since the Anti-Mormon organization that 'unearthed' this document provided no evidence that an original even existed), or why no one heard about it until decades after Cowdery's death. This is just the beginning of the problems:

• The supposed location where it was originally printed has no known press
• It went unmentioned in Oliver Cowdery's lifetime in LDS or anti-LDS publications
• When Oliver returned to the LDS church and was questioned on what he had published on Mormonism while out of the Church, there is no mention of the pamphlet
• It is contradicted by numerous confirmed writings of Cowdery
• Historians, LDS and non-LDS, agree that it is a forgery that likely borrows from various issues of the Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate written by Cowdery, and David Whitmer's 1887 An Address to All Believers in Christ.

Therefore, I will eliminate the reference to this forgery in the section Three Witnesses and urge other editors to do the same if it is added again. --Enriquei2000 (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Sentence is lede re: reliability

The last sentence in the article lede states, "as eyewitness testimony is increasingly known to be unreliable." The phrase appears to me to not be in keeping with MOS:EDITORIAL as it tries "to steer the reader to a particular interpretation or conclusion". I think that phrase can be removed and the rest of the edit remain intact. Bahooka (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)