Last updated on: September 19, 2020 at 6:39 pm By Dan Peterson
The experience of the Eight Witnesses as recently re-created for the documentary portion of the Interpreter Foundation’s forthcoming “Witnesses” film project, in a still photograph by James Jordan. I frankly confess that I was disappointed, at first, by the very mundane appearance of this scene. But then I realized that my reaction was irrational. That the experience of the Eight Witnesses with the plates of the Book of Mormon was mundane, prosaic, matter of fact, is precisely the POINT of their experience and what gives their account is remarkable evidentiary power.
One of the questions that must inescapably be answered with regard to the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon involves their character, their personalities, their sanity — which inevitably comes down, at this distance in time, to the question of their public reputations. Now, of course, their public reputations suffered considerably from their association with Joseph Smith and the Restoration. So indicators of what people thought about them prior to their involvement with Joseph and the recovery of the Book of Mormon are of particular interest. Were they considered odd, eccentric, crazy? Did their neighbors regard them as dishonest or unstable? Were they marginal persons, on the fringes of acceptable society or even altogether beyond its bounds?
The late, great Richard Lloyd Anderson gathered a surprising amount of useful material on precisely such matters. Here are a couple of small, brief items from Professor Anderson’s research that are highlighted in Ronald E. Romig, Eighth Witness: The Biography of John Whitmer (Independence, MO: John Whitmer Books, 2014). They are both about members of the Whitmer family. Christian Whitmer was one of the Eight Witnesses to the Book of Mormon. David Whitmer was one of the Three Witnesses:
As a young man, Christian, being recognized as a natural leader, was commissioned as an officer in the 102nd New York Militia in 1825, and served as Fayette Township constable in 1828-29 when he would have been thirty or thirty-one. (14)
Like Christian, David also served in the military, becoming a sergeant in 1826 in Fayette’s newly organized militia, the “Seneca Grenadiers.” (15)
And here, while I have Ron Romig’s book open, is a little sketch of the Whitmers at the period most relevant to the translation of the Book of Mormon:
In the spring of 1829, at the time of Joseph and Oliver’s arrival, the Whitmer family formed a close grouping. In the home were parents Peter Sr. and his wife, Mary; their eighteen-year-old unmarried hired girl, Sarah Conrad; and four of the Whitmer children; twenty-six-year-old John; twenty-four-year-old David; nineteen-year-old Peter Jr.; and fourteen-year-old Elizabeth. Jacob and Elizabeth were living just a few steps away in the old Whitmer cabin. Christian and Anne may have been living with Frederick and Anna Schott one farm to the north. Hiram [Page] and Catharine, also, probably lived in the immediate neighborhood. (16-17)
David Whitmer would be one of the Three Witnesses.
John Whitmer, Peter Whitmer Jr., Jacob Whitmer, Christian Whitmer, and Hiram Page would see the plates in the experience of the Eight Witnesses.
Elizabeth Whitmer would eventually marry Oliver Cowdery, one of the Three Witnesses.
And Mary Whitmer, wife of Peter Whitmer Sr. and mother to David, John, Peter Jr., Jacob, Christian, and Elizabeth would be one of what I call the “informal” or “unofficial” witnesses, and perhaps the earliest of all the witnesses to the golden plates as such.
Last updated on: April 26, 2020 at 12:44 am By Dan Peterson
In the Interpreter Foundation’s forthcoming theatrical film, “Witnesses,” an elderly David Whitmer recounts some of his story to a skeptical visiting reporter. (Still photograph by James Jordan from last fall’s film set)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was probably organized in the home of Peter Whitmer Sr., where much of the translation of the Book of Mormon also took place. David Whitmer, a son of Peter Sr., was one of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon. (For a very recent blog entry on David, see “David Whitmer and the Great Richmond Tornado of 1878.”) Four other sons — Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer Jr., and John Whitmer — were among the Eight Witnesses to the Book of Mormon. And Mary Musselman Whitmer, Peter Sr.’s wife, was what I have called a twelfth witness to the book. Their daughter Elizabeth Ann Whitmer eventually married Oliver Cowdery, another of the Three Witnesses. Another daughter, Catherine Whitmer, had already married Hiram Page, who would himself become one of the Eight Witnesses.
Plainly, the Whitmers were a vitally important family in the early history of the Restoration.
A scene in modern Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (Wikimedia Commons public domain photograph)
So, over the next while, I’ll occasionally share some notes regarding them that I draw from Ronald E. Romig, Eighth Witness: The Biography of John Whitmer (Independence, MO: John Whitmer Books, 2014).
The Whitmers were of German or at least German-speaking extraction. They may have originated in Switzerland as Mennonite religious exiles, and it’s possible that members of the family still spoke with a German accent at the time of the Restoration. (1-3)
Peter Whitmer [eventually Peter Sr.] was born in 1773, in Donegal Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. In 1797, at the age of twenty-four, he married nineteen-year-old Mary Musselman. She had been born in Strasburg, also in Lancaster County, in 1778. (4-7)
Lengeschder Kaundi, as Lancaster County is still known in Pennsylvania German, is a popular tourist destination today. It is “Amish Country.” The Amish and the Mennonites are closely-related groups with their roots in the Swiss Anabaptist tradition. – dcp]
David Engle Whitmer, Peter Sr.’s uncle, was a Mennonite minister in Spring Garden Township, York County, Pennsylvania, during this period and the evidence suggests that both the Whitmers and the Musselmans came from “Pennsylvania Dutch” heritage. (7-8) [Dutch, of course, in this context, actually means Deutsch or, dialectically, Deitsch, which is to say German. – dcp] As Ron Romig says,
The “Wittmer” surname is common among those of German ancestry throughout Pennsylvania, and the Susquehanna River Valley in the Harrisburg region is still predominantly Mennonite, making a strong circumstantial case that Peter Sr. and Mary were cultural Mennonites, as well as their parents. . . . They were influenced by Mennonite cultural values, probably including a high commitment to religious values and an aversion to the use of force in conflict resolution. (8-9)
Last updated on: March 24, 2018 at 12:01 pm By Dan Peterson
The other witness, Mary Whitmer (Image by Brooke Malia Mann Weber, and used with her permission)
David Whitmer was the last surviving witness to the Book of Mormon, living until 1888. His last five decades were spent outside of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and isolated from fellow believers, but he never denied — in fact, he often reaffirmed — his testimony of the book.
Here are two adjacent and related passages from his account, as reproduced in Hyrum L. Andrus and Helen Mae Andrus, Personal Glimpses of the Prophet Joseph Smith (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2009):
When I was returning to Fayette [New York, from Harmony, Pennsylvania], with Joseph and Oliver, all of us riding in the wagon, Oliver and I on an old-fashioned, wooden, spring seat and Joseph behind us,; while traveling along in a clear open place, a very pleasant, nice-looking old man suddenly appeared by the side of our wagon and saluted us with, “Good mornnig, it is very warm,” at the same time wiping his face or forehead with his hand.
We returned the salutation, and, by a sign from Joseph, I invited him to ride if he was going our way.
But he said very pleasantly, “No, I am going to Cumorah.” This name was something new to me, I did not know what Cumorah meant. We all gazed at him and at each other, and as I looked around inquiringly of Joseph, the old man instantly disappeared, so that I did not see him again.
I noticed his appearance. He was, I should think, about 5 feet 8 or 9 inches tall and heavy set. His face was as large, he was dressed in a suit of brown woolen cloth; his hair and beard were white. I also remember that he had on his back a sort of knapsack with something in it shaped like a book. It was the messenger who had the plates, who took them from Joseph just prior to our starting from Harmony. (42-43)
Some time after this, my mother was going to milk the cows, when she was met out near the yard by the same old man (judging by her description of him) who said to her: “You have been very faithful and diligent in your labors, but you are tired because of the increase in your toil; it is proper therefore that you should receive a witness, that your faith may be strengthened.”
Thereupon he showed her the plates.
My father and mother had a large family of their own; the addition to it, therefore, of Joseph, his wife Emma, and Oliver very greatly increased the toil and anxiety of my mother. And although she had never complained, she had sometimes felt that her labor was too much, or at least she was perhaps beginning to feel so. This circumstance, however, completely removed all such feelings and nerved her up for her increased responsibilities. (43)
“Joseph Smith Receives the Gold Plates” (Kenneth Riley, LDS Media Library)
I want to share some passages that I marked a while back from Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith’s Gold Plates: A Cultural History (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023).
The account of the golden plates as we know it is documented very early:
The first known mention of the gold plates in writing occurred in the fall of 1828 in letters to Asael Smith, Joseph Smith Jr.’ s grandfather. Joseph Smith Sr. had not seen his father for twelve years.
Their letters are lost, but a reply from Joseph Sr.’ s brother Jesse dated June 17, 1829, refers to letters from Joseph Smith Sr. and two sons Hyrum and Joseph Jr. Jesse quotes Joseph Jr. as saying that “the Angel of the Lord has revealed to him the hidden treasures of wisdom & knowledge, even divine revelation, which has lain in the bowels of the earth for thousands of years.” Jesse also refers to spectacles and hieroglyphics as if one of the letters had talked about translation. The family apparently was told the whole story. (40)
Some critics of the Restoration have sought to make much of the fact that Emma Smith, Joseph’s wife, didn’t go west with the body of the Saints. But
Emma viewed herself as one who had never left the faith. “I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the Church to have been established by divine direction.” She knew she had “been called apostate; but I have never apostatized, nor forsaken the faith I at first accepted.” She felt she had good reasons for her belief. In the interview, she showed the rationalist bent of her mind. She said nothing about her love for her husband or her trust in his character. Hers was not a sentimental or spiritual faith. It was based on her observation of Joseph translating. Nothing she knew about him qualified him to dictate the book. “It is marvelous to me,” she said, “as much so as to any one else.” (50)
This point seems to me of particular importance:
The immediate family was more concerned about where to conceal the plates than to establish the plates’ reality. . . . The family seemed not to have been troubled by the question of the plates’ existence. (51)
In the next passage that I’ll cite, Joseph Smith’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, recalls the day of the showing of the plates to the Eight Witnesses:
“Soon after they came, all of the male part of the company, together with my husband, Samuel [Smith], and Hyrum [Smith], retired to a place where the family were in the habit of offering up their secret devotions to God. They went to this place because it had been revealed to Joseph that the plates would be carried thither by one of the ancient Nephites.” (55)
That experience of the Eight Witnesses is, obviously, a very significant one:
When John Whitmer was later asked if he saw the plates “covered with a cloth,” he answered no. Joseph “handed them uncovered into our hands, and we turned the leaves sufficient to satisfy us.”
That was the kind of testimony rationalists could understand. It assimilated the plates into the ordinary world of material objects. No guardian spirits, no angels, no magical rituals. If accurate, the testimony of the eight witnesses satisfied the requirements of the rational enlightenment for sensory evidence. The problem was that too much rested on the testimonies. Belief in what they said implied acceptance of too many fabulous items: an angel appearing in Manchester, a simple young man conversing with the heavens, another Bible from ancient America. The problem was posed by Cornelius Blatchly, a onetime Quaker who wrote Martin Harris in 1829 only a few months after the witnesses said they saw the plates. Blatchly wanted to know more about this “wonderful record” but only if it could be “substantiated by indisputable evidences and witnesses.” In November 1829, Oliver Cowdery wrote back on Martin’s behalf. Knowing his account was fabulous, he insisted the witnesses could not have been mistaken in what they saw. “It was a clear, open beautiful day, far from any inhabitants, in a remote field, at the time we saw the record.” It was “brought and laid before us, by an angel, arrayed in glorious light.” Blatchly thanked Cowdery for his account but concluded that “so important a matter as a new bible” required “the most incontrovertible facts, circumstances and proofs.” Oliver’s account, in Blatchly’s judgment, failed to meet that high standard. (56)
And here is one of the accounts that I myself have found most interesting:
John’s mother, Mary Whitmer, another plain-spoken witness, said she saw the plates when she went to do the milking. In 1878, years after the event, her son said that his mother had grown weary with the work of housing and feeding the translating contingent. In June 1829, Joseph, Oliver, and Emma squeezed into an already crowded household. Emma must have been pressed into service, but the two men were of no help. They spent their days in an upstairs room recording the translation. Mary Whitmer had reason to complain of the added burden. Mary’s son David told Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith in 1878 that as his mother was going to milk the cows, an old man carrying a pack met her in the yard. He recognized that “you are tried because of the increase of your toil,” and so “it is proper therefore that you should receive a witness that your faith may be strengthened.” Then he took the plates out of the knapsack and showed them to her. Whitmer said that seeing the plates “nerved her up for her increased responsibilities.” One of Mary’s grandsons, John C. Whitmer, added that “this strange person turned the leaves of the book of plates over, leaf after leaf, and also showed her the engravings upon them.” Then he vanished with the plates.
Mary Whitmer did not record the experience herself, but she told the story to her grandchildren “on several occasions.” Her account was of a piece with other stories the Whitmers told. David Whitmer linked his mother’s angel to the “very pleasant, nice-looking old man” he had seen on the road while bringing Joseph and Oliver to Fayette. His nephew John also described the visitor as “a stranger carrying something on his back that looked like a knapsack” and “spoke to her in a kind, friendly tone.” (57)
Phebe and Sidney Rigdon, as depicted by Whitney Palmer and Joseph Carlson in the current Interpreter Foundation film “Six Days in August”
If I’m not mistaken, at least some of the movie theaters in my area offer discount ticket prices on Tuesdays. If that’s true, today — Tuesday — would be a remarkably good day to go see Six Days in August, or to go to see it a second time, or to watch it a third time, or to treat your children to it (you can buy tickets for them, or for friends or cousins, at a distance), or to take others to see it. But, of course, absolutely any day is a good day for Six Days in August.
I’ve heard from two or three people now who tell me that they’ve gone to see the film a second time, and that they’ve liked it even better on a repeat viewing. I find that interesting because, curiously, that’s been my experience, as well. I saw the whole thing several times while it was still going through post-production and while adjustments were still being made. And I’ve seen the final version, with score, three times now. I’ve liked it better with each viewing. That surprises me just a bit, but I’m grateful for it.
Incidentally, I mentioned here last week that four past or present General Authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had attended the premiere of Six Days in August on Wednesday, 9 October: President Dallin H. Oaks of the Church’s First Presidency, Elder Gary E. Stevenson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Elder Kevin W. Pearson of the Seventy (who also serves as the president of the Church’s Utah Area), and Elder Robert C. Gay, an emeritus member of the Presidency of the Seventy. I was surprised to learn, just the other day, that a fifth General Authority was there, as well: Elder S. Mark Palmer, a current member of the presidency of the Seventy, attended with his daughter Whitney, who played Phebe Rigdon in the film. I didn’t see him there — the auditorium was full pretty much to capacity, with something between 500 or 550 in attendance, such that we had to turn down several requests for additional tickets — and I hadn’t made the connection between Whitney Palmer and Elder Palmer (who, by the way, is a native of the blessed land of New Zealand).
The Hale Centre Theatre, in Sandy, Utah, is (as I’ve often said before) a local, state, and regional treasure. (Photo from the Hale Centre Theatre website)
My wife and I went out to dinner with a group of friends last night, and then on to a performance of The Magician’s Elephant at the Hale Centre Theatre in Sandy. It’s curious play, a musical. I enjoyed it, although I can imagine that some didn’t. I really like getting together with neighbors and former neighbors in this fashion. It’s good to catch up over dinner, and the plays are always icing on the cake.
The reconstructed Peter Whitmer, Sr., cabin in Fayette, New York. (LDS Media Library)
Recent comments here and elsewhere about the testimonies recorded from the witnesses of the Book of Mormon have sought to discredit them as mere “ghost stories” about “magically” appearing and disappearing golden plates. Such tales, I think we’re supposed to conclude, are more suited to the campfire than to a courtroom or to serious historical analysis. They’re merely “miracle stories,” of an ordinary kind that is common to religious (or superstitious) people.
But this is to grievously misrepresent the witness testimonies, and to reduce them to an agenda-driven caricature.
Consider, for example, the accounts given by the Eight Witnesses. There is nothing in them about an angel or about anything supernatural, much less about a “ghost.” There is nothing supernatural about the plates, which figure in the various accounts given by the Eight as a simple and quite mundane material object, noticeably heavy, that they “hefted” and “handled” and closely examined, and of which they “turned” the “leaves.” This isn’t a fairy tale or a mere “miracle story.” And we aren’t told how the plates arrived nor how they exited. Nothing is said on that topic. Simply that the plates were there, that they were literally visible, that they were substantial, and that they were tangible.
The same can be said about the related, unofficial, but well documented experiences of Lucy Mack Smith and Mary Musselman Whitmer and William Smith and Katherine Smith Salisbury and Josiah Stowell and Emma Smith and one other that I’m not yet at liberty to share. No ghosts. No angels. Nothing mystical or supernatural. Quite matter of fact. It’s true that Mary Whitmer’s remarkable account involves an elderly-seeming man showing her the plates and allowing her to handle them, but there is nothing overtly angelic or ghostly or supernatural about him. (See Royal Skousen, “Another Account of Mary Whitmer’s Viewing of the Golden Plates.” And see the depiction of Mary Whitmer’s encounter with the Book of Mormon plates in Undaunted: Witnesses of the Book of Mormon.)
This isn’t really very much like discerning the face of the Virgin Mary on a flour tortilla or seeing Jesus in a bowl of porridge. (For the record, I do take Catholic accounts such as those of the visions of Lourdes and of Guadalupe seriously, and I’m still trying to form my final thoughts on them. I don’t rule them out in advance, on the basis of ideology or presuppositions; I think that it would be intellectually dishonest to do so, and I’m quite willing to entertain the thought that the Lord is working in many ways, even beyond his authorized, restored Church. But my confidence in the accounts of the Book of Mormon witnesses doesn’t depend upon what I may decide about, say, Marian apparitions.)
Lincoln Hoppe as Martin Harris, in the 2021 Interpreter Foundation theatrical film, “Witnesses” (Still photograph by James Jordan)
Here are some notes about certain of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon — both official and unofficial — that I’ve drawn from the fourth chapter of Richard Lyman Bushman’s book Joseph Smith’s Gold Plates: A Cultural History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2023):
Emma viewed herself as one who had never left the faith. “I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the Church to have been established by divine direction.” She knew she had “been called apostate; but I have never apostatized, nor forsaken the faith I at first accepted.” She felt she had good reasons for her belief. In the interview, she showed the rationalist bent of her mind. She said nothing about her love for her husband or her trust in his character. Hers was not a sentimental or spiritual faith. It was based on her observation of Joseph translating. Nothing she knew about him qualified him to dictate the book. “It is marvelous to me,” she said, “as much so as to any one else.” (50)
The immediate family was more concerned about where to conceal the plates than to establish the plates’ reality. . . . The family seemed not to have been troubled by the question of the plates’ existence. (51)
Martin Harris is commonly portrayed by critics of the Book of Mormon and of the Restoration as a credulous and unstable loon. I’ve argued that this caricature goes starkly against solid historical data and rests on unsubstantiated yarns and rumors — see my Meridian Magazine column “Martin Harris: Skeptic or Gullible Dupe?” — and I’m pleased to see that Richard Bushman concurs with my verdict:
Martin was the most skeptical of all the early believers. (51)
The historical accounts are simply irreconcilable (unless they are flatly ignored) with the claim the no plates existed:
William Smith “thum[ b] ed them through the cloth and ascertained that they were thin sheets of some kind of metal.” Martin Harris said he “hefted the plates many times” and once held them on his knee for an hour and a half. William Smith lifted them in a pillowcase. People heard the leaves “rustle” when thumbed and a “jink” when they were put in a box. Emma said the individual plates were “pliable like thick paper.” The accounts left little room to doubt that something heavy and plate-like existed in the boxes, the cloths, and the knapsacks they saw and felt. (53)
Here’s a passage from the reminiscences of Lucy Mack Smith, the mother of the Prophet Joseph:
“Soon after they came, all of the male part of the company, together with my husband, Samuel [Smith], and Hyrum [Smith], retired to a place where the family were in the habit of offering up their secret devotions to God. They went to this place because it had been revealed to Joseph that the plates would be carried thither by one of the ancient Nephites.” (55)
It’s sometimes confidently asserted — I saw it again just a couple of days ago — that none of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon saw or touched the plates uncovered. Again, one can only make such an assertion if one dismisses the primary source materials:
When John Whitmer was later asked if he saw the plates “covered with a cloth,” he answered no. Joseph “handed them uncovered into our hands, and we turned the leaves sufficient to satisfy us.” (56)
One is still obviously free, of course, to reject the testimony of the witnesses. But simply ignoring that testimony as if it didn’t exist just won’t do — let alone proceeding to create one’s own evidence-free story as a substitute:
That was the kind of testimony rationalists could understand. It assimilated the plates into the ordinary world of material objects. No guardian spirits, no angels, no magical rituals. If accurate, the testimony of the eight witnesses satisfied the requirements of the rational enlightenment for sensory evidence. The problem was that too much rested on the testimonies. Belief in what they said implied acceptance of too many fabulous items: an angel appearing in Manchester, a simple young man conversing with the heavens, another Bible from ancient America. The problem was posed by Cornelius Blatchly, a onetime Quaker who wrote Martin Harris in 1829 only a few months after the witnesses said they saw the plates. Blatchly wanted to know more about this “wonderful record” but only if it could be “substantiated by indisputable evidences and witnesses.” In November 1829, Oliver Cowdery wrote back on Martin’s behalf. Knowing his account was fabulous, he insisted the witnesses could not have been mistaken in what they saw. “It was a clear, open beautiful day, far from any inhabitants, in a remote field, at the time we saw the record.” It was “brought and laid before us, by an angel, arrayed in glorious light.” Blatchly thanked Cowdery for his account but concluded that “so important a matter as a new bible” required “the most incontrovertible facts, circumstances and proofs.” Oliver’s account, in Blatchly’s judgment, failed to meet that high standard. (56)
And, finally, just a reminder of one of the most unexpected testimonies of the Book of Mormon, from one of what I call the unofficial or informal witnesses:
John’s mother, Mary Whitmer, another plain-spoken witness, said she saw the plates when she went to do the milking. In 1878, years after the event, her son said that his mother had grown weary with the work of housing and feeding the translating contingent. In June 1829, Joseph, Oliver, and Emma squeezed into an already crowded household. Emma must have been pressed into service, but the two men were of no help. They spent their days in an upstairs room recording the translation. Mary Whitmer had reason to complain of the added burden. Mary’s son David told Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith in 1878 that as his mother was going to milk the cows, an old man carrying a pack met her in the yard. He recognized that “you are tried because of the increase of your toil,” and so “it is proper therefore that you should receive a witness that your faith may be strengthened.” Then he took the plates out of the knapsack and showed them to her. Whitmer said that seeing the plates “nerved her up for her increased responsibilities.” One of Mary’s grandsons, John C. Whitmer, added that “this strange person turned the leaves of the book of plates over, leaf after leaf, and also showed her the engravings upon them.” Then he vanished with the plates.
Mary Whitmer did not record the experience herself, but she told the story to her grandchildren “on several occasions.” Her account was of a piece with other stories the Whitmers told. David Whitmer linked his mother’s angel to the “very pleasant, nice-looking old man” he had seen on the road while bringing Joseph and Oliver to Fayette. His nephew John also described the visitor as “a stranger carrying something on his back that looked like a knapsack” and “spoke to her in a kind, friendly tone.” (57)
Last updated on: June 10, 2021 at 7:01 pm By Dan Peterson
This was sent to me yesterday. I don’t know the source, but it evidently shows some sort of iTunes movie ranking.
***
Although it was never a sure thing, it now seems that Witnesses will be available in all of the theaters this coming weekend where it was available on its opening weekend. In fact, we have added three new theaters to our list (in Moses Lake, Washington; Las Vegas, Nevada; and Tooele, Utah). So, if you checked witnessesfilm.com earlier and didn’t find a showing near you, you might want to try again. Maybe things have improved for you. Keep looking, because there have been and will be changes. And if Witnesses still isn’t appearing near you, please make a request at the appropriate place on witnessesfilm.com. We are also hoping to get the film into theaters in Canada in the not too distant future. (The rules there are somewhat more complex.) [Addendum: Allen Wyatt, Vice President of Operations for the Interpreter Foundation, has written to me: “You should add one more theater to the list: Bridger Valley Theatre, in Lyman, WY. (A metropolitan hotspot if there ever was one.) Starts Friday (June 11) and runs for a week. https://www.bridgervalleytheatre.com/“]
If you haven’t seen the film but would like to see it, please try to do so soon. It’s never guaranteed that a movie, any movie, will survive from one week to another in the highly competitive film industry. There are limited numbers of screens out there, and every distributor is fighting for them. Moreover, as COVID-19 seems at least to be loosening its grip on us after more than a year, some very big Hollywood movies are about to descend on theaters (e.g., In the Heights) and this will make retaining our screens much more difficult, if not impossible — particularly as an “indie” film without the backing of a powerful Hollywood studio behind it. So, if you hesitate, you may well lose your chance to see Witnesses on a big screen. Our movie will eventually find its way onto DVDs and into streaming — I’ve already signed contracts to that effect with Deseret Book and Excel Entertainment — but, as the Salt Lake Tribune’s movie critic has pointed out regarding Witnesses, it offers “drama worth watching on a movie screen.”
And we’re counting on the “word of mouth” of those who have seen the film and liked it to encourage others to see it, as well. We deeply appreciate those who have said kind words about the movie, and those who have invited family, friends, ward members, and others to accompany them to screenings. If we want faithful films to be made and to be shown, we have to support them when they appear.
***
A new 52-minute interview with, well, me has just been posted on the site of the LDS Living “All In” podcast:
A column that I originally published in the 18 October 2012 issue of the Deseret News is appropriate for a time when my focus, at least, is very much on the witnesses to the Book of Mormon:
Leaving a general conference session a couple of weeks ago, I noticed a demonstrator holding a sign announcing that Joseph Smith had “lied.”
Now, I don’t buy this for a second. The evidence for Joseph’s overall sincerity (including his apparent willingness to die for his claims, but also exhibited in his personal papers and letters, which, though never intended for publication, are now being made available to a general audience) is strong and compelling.
But, I found myself wondering, is it really only Joseph who has to have lied if dishonesty, false witness, is supposed to account for Mormonism and the restored church?
Not by a long shot.
Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris and David Whitmer would need to have lied about their encounter with Moroni, the plates, the Urim and Thummim, a number of other exotic objects and the audible voice of God. Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer Jr., John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith Sr., Hyrum Smith and Samuel Harrison Smith must have lied about seeing and “hefting” the plates of the Book of Mormon. Hyrum Smith, in fact, must have maintained that lie through four months of winter misery in Liberty Jail in Missouri and right up through his clearly foreseen martyrdom in Carthage, Ill.
Lucy Mack Smith must have borne false witness in claiming to have held the breastplate that came with the Nephite record. Emma Smith and Katherine Smith Salisbury must have lied in their descriptions of the Book of Mormon plates. William Smith must have lied in estimating the weight of the plates at about 60 pounds. Mary Whitmer must have lied to her son and grandson in claiming to have seen them.
Oliver Cowdery must have lied about the hands of John the Baptist and then of Peter, James and John being laid upon his head to confer priesthood authority. Sidney Rigdon must have borne false witness about the vision of the three degrees of glory that he supposedly shared with Joseph Smith (Doctrine and Covenants 76). Philo Dibble must also have lied in recalling his experience with Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon on that occasion.
More than 120 witnesses must have falsely testified about Brigham Young’s transformation before their eyes upon his succession to the presidency of the church. Brigham Young himself must have lied about receiving the revelation contained in Doctrine and Covenants 136. Joseph F. Smith, too, must have lied when he claimed a vision of the redemption of the dead, now canonized as Doctrine and Covenants 138. Spencer W. Kimball must likewise have been lying, in early June 1978, about receiving the revelation on priesthood now identified with “Official Declaration — 2” in the Doctrine and Covenants. Elders Bruce R. McConkie and David B. Haight, with other members of the Council of the Twelve Apostles, must also have lied when they bore testimony of their experience during that revelation, as did the two apostles who, weeping, told historian Leonard Arrington what had just happened to them in the Salt Lake Temple.
Lorenzo Snow must have lied to his granddaughter about his vision of Christ in the temple at the death of President Wilford Woodruff, and President George Q. Cannon must have been lying when, on at least three occasions that I know of, he testified before spellbound audiences about having spoken with the Savior face to face.
I don’t believe it. I don’t believe that Joseph Smith and his associates were liars. I see no direct indication of it. And I don’t believe these other witnesses have been deliberate, conscious deceivers. The evidence for their sincerity is, once again, overwhelming, and persuasive.
But perhaps, a critic might respond, a significant proportion of these people were simply mad. Not likely. Joseph Smith would have to have been unerringly successful in identifying crazy and hallucinatory people, ahead of time, who would corroborate rather than expose his baseless concoctions. And the odds of this being the case are, in my judgment, extraordinarily low — so minuscule, in fact, as to amount to virtual impossibility.
No, what gave rise to the Restoration, and what keeps it going, is the force of experiences and convictions diffused among, and sincerely held by, hundreds of thousands, even millions, of good, earnest people over the better part of two centuries now. Important as he is, and much as we honor him, it doesn’t all rely just upon Joseph Smith.
Last updated on: May 27, 2021 at 4:56 pm By Dan Peterson
This may be the very seer stone used by the Prophet Joseph Smith for the translation of the Book of Mormon. (Courtesy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)
***
I’m amused to report that the first “review” of the Interpreter Foundation’s theatrical film Witnesseshas been posted. (I’m quite sure that other, similarly negative, reviews have already been written — it saves time! — and that their authors are simply waiting for the movie to actually appear.). “Peter Pan,” the principal figure behind the valuable Neville-Neville Land blog — whose identity I do not know, although I wouldn’t be surprised if s/he were someone with whom I’m acquainted — contacted me by email late last night to tell me that Mr. Jonathan Neville has posted an entry about the film on one of his approximately 3,437 blogs. I’ve now had a look at what Mr. Neville has written. Here are some selections:
Such a film could have presented a complete, historically accurate account of the witnesses and what they said, which would be awesome.
I haven’t seen the film yet, but people who have tell me it’s another affirmation of the latest intellectual fads from the M2C and SITH citation cartels, which means important testimony from the Three Witnesses is omitted because it contradicts M2C, while statements about SITH are emphasized.
I’m withholding judgment until I see the film.
For the uninitiated, the phrase M2C citation cartel refers, in Nevillese, to a conspiracy made up of those inclined toward a Mesoamerican geographical model for the Book of Mormon. It includes such people as John Sorenson, Brant Gardner, John Clark, and (although I’ve personally published next to nothing on Book of Mormon geographical issues) me. We are alleged to be misleading Church historians and curriculum writers, as well as the Lord’s chosen prophets and apostles and the Latter-day Saints generally, by suppressing information that would reveal the Truth that is known to Mr. Neville and several of his associates. The formula M2C — not to be confused with Albert Einstein’s more famous E = mc2 — refers to a thesis of ours about the hill known as “Cumorah.” Our suggestion is that the site of the final Jaredite and Nephite battles was located in Mesoamerica, and that it is thus distinct from the hill in which Moroni buried the plates and from which Joseph Smith received them. Thus, there are, in a sense, two Cumorahs. M2C. Get it? According to Nevillism, it is one of the most fundamental principles of orthodox faith in the Restoration that the final Jaredite and Nephite battles occurred in upstate New York, near Palmyra. And the Nevillese acronym SITH refers to the “stone in the hat” — the notion, firmly rooted in multiple primary historical sources from friendly associates of Joseph Smith, accepted by every serious historian who has written on the subject, and publicly shared by President Russell M. Nelson, among others, that at least part of the translation of the Book of Mormon was accomplished by means of a seer stone placed in a hat rather than via the Urim and Thummim. Mr. Neville regards this idea as a terrible and even heretical falsehood. Hence, his adoption of a term from the universe of Star Wars to refer to it: “The Sith, also referred to as the Sith Order, was an ancient religious order of Force-wielders devoted to the dark side of the Force. Driven by their emotions, including hate, anger, and greed, the Sith were deceptive and obsessed with gaining power no matter the cost.” (See https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Sith.)
But back to Mr. Neville:
One of the things to look for is the treatment of the encounter David Whitmer had with the messenger who was taking the abridged plates from Harmony (where he had received them from Joseph) to Cumorah.
Surely the filmmakers will not omit this event, which involved David, Oliver and Joseph.
As a matter of fact, though, we did omit that event. In a film with four protagonists, covering a complex story that extends over a decade, not everything can be included.
Mr. Neville then shifts his criticism to our alleged treatment of the experience with the plates that Mary Whitmer had in her barn. That story is also not depicted in the dramatic film, though it will appear in the accompanying docudrama that we’re finishing up now and that will appear, we anticipate, a few months after the theatrical premiere of Witnesses. He faults our new website, Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, for supposedly privileging David Whitmer’s “direct testimony” account of her experience over the “hearsay” account given by her grandson John C. Whitmer.
This, by the way, is an odd error for Mr. Neville to have made, since he is reputedly a lawyer by training: David Whitmer heard about the experience directly from his mother, true. But John C. Whitmer himself also heard it directly from her. Mr. Neville’s own little article — this very one — cites John C. Whitmer as saying “I have heard my grandmother say on several occasions that she was shown the plates of the Book of Mormon by a holy angel.” If John C. Whitmer’s testimony is “hearsay,” so is David Whitmer’s. If David Whitmer’s testimony isn’t “hearsay,” neither is John’s.
But why, exactly, do we conspirators promote John C. Whitmer’s testimony and try to suppress David’s?
My primary answer would be that we don’t. And that we’re not conspirators. But Mr. Neville has an explanation ready to hand. He feels that it is important to his argument for a single Cumorah, located in New York, that the person who showed the plates to Mary Whitmer was not Moroni but, rather, some other person (probably one of the Three Nephites). And the M2C citation cartel simply cannot permit that:
Why does [sic] the M2C citation cartel members continue to promote the fake Moroni/Mary Whitmer story?
It’s simple.
M2C trumps everything else.
They absolutely cannot allow Church members to learn that . . .
M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory) is a hoax perpetrated by a handful of LDS scholars who stole the idea . . .
It’s a lot of fun to see the way our famous LDS intellectuals manipulate historical evidence. . . . [T]he M2C citation cartel has not only repudiated the teachings of the prophets but has misled generations of LDS students.
Curiously, though, since I’m one of the wicked leaders of the M2C citation cartel, I feel no urgency whatever over the identity of the person who showed the plates to Mary Whitmer. Indeed, I’ve long been inclined to the view that it wasn’t Moroni. (Sorry to disappoint!)
And Witnesses has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of geographical models for the Book of Mormon.
For some recent entries on the Neville-Neville Land blog, see these links:
And, finally and on a more positive note, here are three new entries on the Book of Mormon Central site that are directly relevant to the Witnesses film, which opens in theaters next week:
Last updated on: February 22, 2021 at 7:20 pm By Dan Peterson
The first page of the Table of Contents in the Midgley Festschrift
Here’s a brief article from Provo’s Daily Herald about the LDS Film Festival, which opens on Wednesday night and continues through Saturday night. It refers, in passing, to the Interpreter Foundation’s theatrical film, Witnesses:
The second page of the Table of Contents in the Midgley Festschrift
With her kind permission, I’m sharing some thoughts here that we received today from Deanna Warden. She is referring to the Interpreter Foundation’s newly-launched website, Witnesses of the Book of Mormon:
Sister Deanna Warden
I have been deeply touched by this website. I am a lay scholar always studying and finding tidbits on my own. I recently found Scripture plus and have been enjoying someone else curating my study experience with interesting and historical details. I usually have to do a google search and then sift through anti junk and others till I can find something worth reading. I use BYU studies, fair mormon and anything else I can find. I love the gospel so when I went to your website I was unprepared for the feelings I had. I felt so excited by the witnesses, especially after seeing the trailer to the film and again realizing that they sacrificed so much. I was also touched by the scholars’ testimonies and read several. Last night I couldn’t sleep and I read several more. I was so on fire about this site that I shared it at our family’s zoom church on Sunday and told everyone that I wanted to shout my witness to the heavens and challenged my husband at least to write and share his as well. Your site has made me want to post my thoughts on my social media and be able to be a public witness as well! For all this I say thank you. Thank you for your efforts and the work of so many to make such a powerful website. . . .
Thank you again for your work and all the efforts and inspiration you have all received for this.
***
And, just in case you missed them:
Here is where you can obtain a copy of the new anthology in honor of Professor Louis C. Midgley:
And here is a link to Martin Tanner’s twenty-minute interview on KSL-Radio with, first, Witnesses director Mark Goodman and, thereafter, actor Lincoln Hoppe (“Martin Harris”):
The third (and final) page of the Table of Contents in the Midgley Festschrift
And finally, as I’ve been doing of late and as I intend to continue doing for a while longer, here are links to articles from a previous issue of Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship:
Abstract: Many people still believe that Jesus Christ was born on 25 December, either in 1 bc or ad 1. The December date is certainly incorrect and the year is unlikely.
Abstract: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’s uncomfortable relationship with its polygamous history is somewhat like an awkward marriage separation. This is, in part, because of the fitful, painful cessation of plural marriage and the ever present reminders of its complicated past. This essay looks at examples of members’ expression of discomfort over a polygamous heritage and concludes with suggestions of possible pathways to a more comfortable reconciliation.
Abstract: This essay addresses the reasons many persons have left The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In particular, there are those who publicly assert the Church is not led by inspired leaders so they can feel at peace about their decision to leave it. One common argument used to justify their estrangement is the “Samuel Principle,” which ostensibly would require God to allow his followers on earth to go astray if they chose any level of unrighteousness. Problems with this interpretation are presented including examples from religious history that show that God’s primary pattern has been to call his errant followers to repentance by raising up righteous leaders to guide them. Also explored are the common historical events that dissenters often allege have caused the Church to apostatize. The notion that the Church and the “Priesthood” could be separate entities is examined as well. The observation that Church leaders continue to receive divine communication in order to fulfill numerous prophecies and that a significant number of completely devout Latter-day Saints have always existed within the Church, obviating the need for any dissenting movement, is discussed. In addition, several common scriptural proof-texts employed by some dissenters and their ultimate condition of apostasy are analyzed.
Review of Wade E. Miller, Science and the Book of Mormon: Cureloms, Cumoms, Horses & More (Laguna Niguel, California: KCT & Associates, 2010). 106 pages + viii, including two appendices and references cited, no index.
Abstract: Anachronisms, or out of place items, have long been a subject of controversy with the Book of Mormon. Several Latter-day Saints over the years have attempted to examine them. Dr. Wade E. Miller, as a paleontologist and geologist, offers a some new insights on this old question, especially regarding animals mentioned in the Book of Mormon, including a report on some preliminary research which might completely change the pre-Columbian picture for horses in America. Overall, this is an indispensable resource on Book of Mormon anachronisms.
Abstract: The 1921 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants included an additional comma, which was inserted after the word “used” in D&C 89:13: “And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.” Later authors have speculated that the addition of the comma was a mistake that fundamentally changed the meaning of the verse. This article examines this “errant comma theory” and demonstrates why this particular interpretation of D&C 89:13 is without merit.
Abstract: In this brief note, I will suggest several instances in which the Book of Mormon prophet Enos utilizes wordplay on his own name, the name of his father “Jacob,” the place name “Peniel,” and Jacob’s new name “Israel” in order to connect his experiences to those of his ancestor Jacob in Genesis 32-33, thus infusing them with greater meaning. Familiarity with Jacob and Esau’s conciliatory “embrace” in Genesis 33 is essential to understanding how Enos views the atonement of Christ and the ultimate realization of its blessings in his life.
Abstract: To many outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and to some of its members), the Church’s teachings and practices appear not only socially and experientially constraining, but intellectually restrictive as well, given its centralized system of doctrinal boundary maintenance and its history of sometimes sanctioning members who publicly dissent from its teachings. Do these practices amount to a constraint of intellectual freedom? This essay argues that they do not, and offers several possible explanations for the commonly-asserted position that they do.
Review of “Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony,” Jeremy Runnells, April 2013, Updated February 23, 2014. 83 pages. http://cesletter.com/Letter-to-a-CES-Director.pdf.
Abstract: In his Letter to a CES Director, Jeremy Runnells explains how a year of obsessive investigation brought about the loss of his testimony. In an LDS FAQ, LDS blogger Jeff Lindsay deals with all of the same questions, and has done so at least twenty years and has not only an intact testimony, but boundless enthusiasm. What makes the difference? In the parable of the Sower, Jesus explained that the same seeds (words) can generate completely different harvests, ranging from nothing to a hundred-fold increase, all depending on the different soil and nurture. This essay looks at how different expectations and inquiries for translation, prophets, key scriptural passages on representative issues can lead to very different outcomes for investigators.
Abstract: The distinctive Mormon conception of God makes possible a logically coherent reconciliation of the facially incompatible laws of justice and mercy. The Book of Mormon prophet Alma clearly explains how these two great laws may be reconciled through the atonement and repentance that the atonement makes possible. Alma artfully illustrates the relationship between justice and mercy in a carefully crafted theological poem.
Abstract: The purpose of this article is to provide several examples of how meaning, understanding, and interpretation of scriptures may be enhanced when scriptures are read in their geographical context. Many scholarly articles seek exclusively to break new ground in meaning and meaning-making, to essentially produce new knowledge. This article hopes to break new ground both in terms of new knowledge (insights) as well as in the pragmatics of giving readers additional tools and opportunities for exploring the scriptures in fresh ways. In particular, this article will also highlight several free geographical tools that can improve one’s learning with the scriptures, with particular focus on Google Earth and the BYU scriptures.byu.edu/mapscrip tool (hereafter referred to as Google Earth Bible or GEB). The hope is that this article will, through the tools discussed, create opportunities for others to create new knowledge for themselves through scripture study.
***
P.S. My wife and I received our first dose of the Pfizer anti-COVID vaccine today. Thus far, apart from the occasional feeling of being possessed by the spirits of Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci and a recurring urge to surrender all of our basic constitutional rights, neither of us has noticed any side effects at all. My left arm isn’t even sore. (Of course, I received my injection in my right arm. But that one isn’t hurting, either.)
Last updated on: August 15, 2020 at 12:49 am By Dan Peterson
The opening image from my 2020 FairMormon presentation
I pre-recorded my remarks to the 2020 FairMormon conference. On Friday afternoon, when my talk went up, I was sitting at home. (We’re trying to be very careful about the COVID-19 virus, not least out of concern for a father-on-law in his 94th year, a 90+-year-old woman that my wife regularly visits, and a good friend who is fighting a serious cancer.). Unless compelled by strong reasons, though, I probably won’t pre-record such a lecture again; I wasn’t entirely satisfied with the result.
At the end, I received several questions from either the small in-person audience or the (we hope) larger virtual audience. Technical difficulties prevented me from answering them on Friday, but I think that I’ll answer them here:
Why did you choose such handsome men to play the roles of prominent Church figures? You’re making those of us not in farmer’s shape look bad to our wives.
Obviously, I was trying to remake them in my own image.
On a more serious note, what do you think of 2 Nephi 27:14 as an implication that anyone, in addition to the 3 & 8 Witnesses, can be a Book of Mormon witness?
I absolutely believe it. There were, in fact, several unofficial or informal witnesses to the Book of Mormon already in the late 1820s (e.g., Lucy Harris, Lucy Mack Smith, Emma Smith, Katharine Smith, William Smith, Josiah Stowell, and Mary Whitmer The Witnesses film project will call attention to them. (My FairMormon presentation also treated them; at some point — I don’t know when — a video of that presentation will be generally available, along with its written text. And a companion presentation, for BYU Education Week, will apparently go up online in October or thereabouts.)
Will the newly premiered trailer, video clip, and key art be available after the conference to share online?
Unfortunately no. Not yet. These were provisional items. Among other things, the sound and the color still need smoothing out. And we may make some other changes. They’ll be available eventually, though.
What was the casting process like? Did you personally participate in selecting the actors?
We used a professional casting agency. And, because we filmed in Massachusetts, Ontario, and western New York, as well as in Utah, a substantial proportion of the actors (e.g., “David Whitmer” [old and young] and Oliver Cowdery) and the extras were not Latter-day Saints. My wife and I, as the film’s executive producers, were involved in the final choices of the actors for the major parts after our core film team had narrowed the field down.
Do you have any plans to do more to amplify the voices of the women witnesses of the Book of Mormon plates?
Yes. This is a high priority for me. (It’s reflected, to some degree, in my 2020 FairMormon remarks and certainly in my FairMormon remarks last year: ““Idle Tales”? The Witness of Women.”
Who you think is the most underrated witness of the gold plates?
I might propose Martin Harris for that honor. He’s often dismissed as something of a credulous fool, but he was, in fact, quite methodically inquisitive. He carefully interviewed the Smith family, for example, before he became involved with the Book of Mormon. And he famously tested Joseph’s ability to translate, at one point, by substituting another rock for the seer stone that Joseph had been using.
I also like John Whitmer’s minimalist testimony, at his worst and most angry time right after his excommunication, when he declined to declare the translation true (as one of the Eight Witnesses, he had seen no angel and heard no divine voice certifying its correctness) but still testified that he had seen, hefted, turned, and examined the plates.
And then there’s Emma Smith’s matter-of-fact statement about feeling the edge of the various plates and the rings that bound them together, and hearing the metallic sound of the top plate scraping against the one below it.
Oh what the heck. I really like all of the witnesses. Each is unique, and each is very persuasive.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In