CES Letter Answers

Appearance

Credibility Concerns ​

The claim:

The Witnesses section of the CES Letter opens by dismissing the witnesses' relevance, then spends twenty pages arguing that they cannot be trusted. The opening (p. 85):

"At the end of the day? It all doesn't matter. The Book of Mormon Witnesses and their testimonies of the gold plates are irrelevant... It doesn't matter because of this one simple fact: JOSEPH DID NOT USE THE GOLD PLATES FOR TRANSLATING THE BOOK OF MORMON."[1]

The opening dismissal is contradicted by the section's own length. Twenty pages of credibility attack establish that the witnesses do matter — enough that the case against them has to be made carefully. The numbered "Problems" at the end (pp. 101-105) gather the argument. The most cited:

"All of the Book of Mormon witnesses, except Martin Harris, were related by blood or marriage either to the Smiths or Whitmers... Mark Twain made light of this obvious problem: '...I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified.'"[2]

"Within eight years, all of the Three Witnesses were excommunicated from the Church. This is what Joseph Smith said about them in 1838: 'Such characters as... John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris, are too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them.'"[3]

The Martin Harris portrait (pp. 89-91) drives most of the character-attack volume:

"Martin Harris was anything but a skeptical witness. He was known by many of his peers as an unstable, gullible, and superstitious man... Before Harris became a Mormon, he had already changed his religion at least five times."[4]

The Stephen Burnett 1838 letter is the marquee contemporaneous citation (pp. 93-94):

"...when I came to hear Martin Harris state in public that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver nor David & also that the eight witnesses never saw them & hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason..."[5]

Stripped of rhetoric, the argument has a specific structure: the witnesses had folk-magic backgrounds; they were related; they were financially invested; they were excommunicated; therefore their testimony to the gold plates is unreliable. Each premise is largely true. The inference to unreliability is what does not survive engagement with the actual evidence — the physical-handling testimony of the Eight, the post-departure reaffirmations of the Three across fifty years, the corrective half of the Burnett letter the CES Letter omits, and the documentary work of Anderson 1981, Harper 2010 / 2015 / 2023, Jensen 2005, Black/Porter 2018, Morris 2019, and Rappleye/Smoot 2024.

Worth Acknowledging

The folk-magic backgrounds are real. The family relationships are exactly what the CES Letter says they are. The Three Witnesses were all excommunicated. Martin Harris did associate with multiple religious movements including a brief Strangite mission. Stephen Burnett's 1838 letter is a genuine contemporaneous insider source. None of these facts is contested by faithful scholarship. The disagreement is whether the cumulative pattern entails fabrication — or whether the documentary record, fully presented, points the other way.

The Strang and Shaker comparisons and the deeper "spiritual eyes only" theological framework have their own articles — see James Strang Comparison and Second Sight. This article focuses on character: money-digging, magical worldview, family relationships, post-1838 dissent, and the marquee Burnett-letter citation.

What the CES Letter gets right ​

A faithful response that pretends none of the CES Letter's conceded facts have purchase will lose the reader. The credibility argument earns its space by being partly true:

  • Folk-magic worldviews. Folk magic, divining rods, seer stones, and treasure hunting were genuine practices in early-nineteenth-century rural America, and the Smith family, the Whitmer family, and Oliver Cowdery participated in that worldview to varying documented degrees. Joseph was tried in 1826 in South Bainbridge on a "disorderly person" complaint. Cowdery's "rod of nature" / "gift of Aaron" appears in the Book of Commandments and Doctrine and Covenants.[6]
  • The Three Witnesses were not strangers to Joseph. Cowdery lived in the Whitmer home during the June 1829 event and married Elizabeth Ann Whitmer in December 1832. David Whitmer was a Whitmer family member. Martin Harris was Joseph's longtime financial backer.
  • The Eight are largely Whitmers and Smiths. Four Whitmers, one Whitmer in-law (Hiram Page), three Smiths (Joseph Sr., Hyrum, Samuel) — all eight from two interrelated families.
  • All Three Witnesses left the Church within eight years of publication. Harris in December 1837; Cowdery on April 12, 1838; Whitmer on April 13, 1838.[7] Joseph Smith called them "too mean to mention" in March 1839 from Liberty Jail. Sidney Rigdon called Cowdery and Whitmer "a gang of counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and blacklegs in the deepest dye" in February 1841.[8]
  • Harris associated with multiple religious movements. Brief Parrish-Boynton affiliation in 1837-38; England trip with James Strang's movement in October 1846; association with William Smith, McLellin, Gladden Bishop; investigation of Shakerism. Returned to the LDS Church in 1870 and was rebaptized.[9]
  • Burnett's 1838 letter is real and contemporaneous. Burnett wrote to Lyman E. Johnson on April 15, 1838. The letter is preserved in Joseph Smith Letterbook 2 and published in the Joseph Smith Papers. Burnett was a Mormon at the time, although disaffected and announcing his own departure on the same page where the Harris quotation appears.[10]
  • Joseph and Sidney's harsh language is real. "Too mean to mention" is Joseph's. "Counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and blacklegs" is Sidney's.
  • Some "spiritual" framing exists in Whitmer's late-life accounts. His 1887 letter to Anthony Metcalf — "Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view" — is genuine.[11]

These concessions are the documentary floor. The disagreement is whether they deliver the conclusion the CES Letter draws.

Non-recantation across fifty years ​

1883 engraving depicting the Three Witnesses — Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris — by Edward L. Hart, published as the frontispiece of The Contributor.
Figure 1. The Three Witnesses — Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris — as depicted in Edward L. Hart's 1883 engraving for the frontispiece of The Contributor, the LDS periodical that interviewed David Whitmer personally in this same era. The image is a stylized devotional composition rather than a sitting from life; no group photograph of the three was ever taken. It is included here as the only widely circulated period group depiction. Via Wikimedia Commons.

This is the structural argument the rest of the article hangs from, and it requires precise definition. The claim is bounded:

  • What the article claims: Across fifty years, eleven witnesses, multiple adversarial interrogations, and personal estrangement from Joseph Smith, no witness ever formally retracted the 1830 testimony.
  • What the article does not claim: That every witness was continuously, actively affirming throughout every interval. There were periods of silence, periods of bitter institutional dissent, late-life statements that complicate the formal 1830 language for some witnesses, and Whitmer's eventual founding of a separate movement.

The bar is non-retraction, not continuous active affirmation. That bar matters because fabricators recant when the partnership dissolves — that is the cheap, predictable way out. People who saw something real do not, even when it costs them. The witnesses were asked over and over, by hostile and friendly interlocutors, for fifty years. The 1830 testimony was never withdrawn.

Steven C. Harper, surveying the corpus, concluded that "the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence" supports the witnesses' published testimonies.[12] David Whitmer himself, as the last surviving Three Witness, declared in 1887:

"I also testify to the world, that neither Oliver Cowdery or Martin Harris ever at any time denied their testimony. They both died reaffirming the truth of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon."[13]

John Whitmer, who never returned to the LDS Church after his 1838 excommunication, wrote in 1876 — forty years after his departure: "I have never heard that any one of the three or eight witnesses ever denied the testimony that they have borne."[14] Hiram Page, excommunicated in 1838, wrote to William E. McLellin in May 1847 explicitly rejecting any suggestion that memory had failed him: it would be unjust, Page wrote, "to say that I could know a thing to be true in 1830, and know the same thing to be false in 1847."[15]

Key Point

The bar is non-retraction. Across fifty years, eleven witnesses, hostile interrogations, mob violence, and excommunications, the published 1830 testimony was never formally withdrawn by any of the eleven. Many witnesses also produced affirmative restatements; the cumulative record is what no naturalistic theory accommodates. This is bounded — not "continuously active affirmation" — and that bounded claim is what the documentary record supports.

Cowdery's post-departure arc ​

Oliver Cowdery's career between his April 1838 excommunication and his March 1850 deathbed is the cleanest test case in the corpus. Cowdery spent most of those twelve years practicing law in Ohio and Wisconsin. A lawyer's professional reputation depends on credibility. If Cowdery had wanted to deny the Book of Mormon, this was the period to do it. He never did. The reaffirmations span the period:

  • 1846 letter to Phineas Young (private, pre-return).[16]
  • October 1848 Kanesville reaffirmation, recorded by Reuben Miller. Cowdery returned to the Church and publicly testified at conference: "I wrote with my own pen the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet... I beheld with my eyes, and handled with my hands, the gold plates from which it was translated."[17]
  • 1849 letter to Samuel W. Richards.[18]
  • March 3, 1850 deathbed in David Whitmer's home in Richmond, Missouri. Whitmer's later report: "Oliver never wavered in his testimony, and when he was on his death bed, I was there, with many of his friends, until he passed away. He bore the same testimony on his dying bed that he had always borne through life."[19]

For more on Cowdery's continuing affirmations and the post-excommunication arc, see Backdating & Retrofitting.

Daguerreotype portrait of Oliver Cowdery, c. 1848, the only known photographic likeness, identified with ~95% certainty by recent scholarly analysis.
Figure 2. Oliver Cowdery, c. 1848 daguerreotype by J. P. Ball (Tiffin, Ohio) — the only known photographic likeness, identified with ~95% certainty by recent BYU Studies analysis. Cowdery's twelve years between his April 1838 excommunication and his March 1850 deathbed in Whitmer's home were spent practicing law: a profession in which falsifying a testimony to the Book of Mormon would have destroyed his standing. He never recanted. Via Wikimedia Commons / Library of Congress.

Whitmer's reaffirmation chain ​

David Whitmer's post-1838 life is, in some ways, the most evidentially clean of the three principal witnesses. He never returned to the LDS Church. He had no remaining institutional incentive. He lived in Richmond, Missouri as a respected businessman, repeatedly interviewed by journalists, lawyers, and historians for fifty years.

  • 1861 graveside affirmation at Cowdery's grave, told to David H. Cannon at Cowdery's gravesite.[20]
  • 1877 Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith interview, published in Millennial Star December 1878: Whitmer described seeing the plates "just as plain as I see this bed."[21]
  • 1881 Proclamation in the Richmond Conservator, March 24, 1881, in direct response to John Murphy's 1880 misrepresentation: "I, in a conversation with him last summer, denied my testimony as one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon. To the end, therefore, that he may understand me now... I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof."[22]
  • 1884 confrontation with hallucination claims: "I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes and I heard with these ears!"[23]
  • 1885 James H. Moyle interview. Moyle, a young Mormon lawyer trained to interrogate witnesses, recorded that Whitmer's answer "was unequivocal... that he saw the plates and heard the angel with unmistakable clearness."[24] Moyle's own line — that the experience was "more spiritual than I anticipated" — is what the CES Letter cites; Moyle's diary records simultaneously that Whitmer's testimony itself was unambiguous.
  • 1885 Nathan Tanner Jr. statement: Whitmer "saw the plates and with his natural eyes" but had to be "prepared for it" — overshadowed by "a halo of brightness indescribable."[25]
  • 1887 Address to All Believers in Christ. This is the document the CES Letter cites as evidence of Whitmer's apostasy. The Address is a roughly 75-page criticism of the Utah Church's later doctrinal developments. It is also, on the same pages, an unequivocal reaffirmation of the Book of Mormon: "I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof."[13:1]
  • 1887 letter to Anthony Metcalf (April 2, 1887).[11:1]
  • January 22, 1888 deathbed, three days before his death. Whitmer called his family and his attending physician (Dr. George W. Buchanan) to his bedside and stated: "I want to say to you all that the Bible and the record of the Nephites (Book of Mormon), are true, so you can say that you have heard me bear my testimony on my death bed."[26]

On Whitmer's 1838 voice claim — that God commanded him to "separate yourself from among the Latter Day Saints" — the CES Letter argues a reductio (reducing a position to absurdity): if Whitmer is reliable about voice-experiences, his 1838 voice should be credible too; if he is unreliable about the 1838 voice, his 1829 testimony is unstable. The argument is logically thin. A witness can be reliable on direct sensory experience and mistaken on later interpretive judgment without one disqualifying the other; biblical writers routinely held some true beliefs and some false ones without their core testimony being thereby invalidated. The CES Letter's structure requires perfect epistemic uniformity; the actual record requires only that Whitmer never withdrew the 1830 testimony. He never did. For deeper engagement with Whitmer's testimony evolution, see Late Appearance.

Photograph of David Whitmer in his later years, taken prior to his death in January 1888.
Figure 3. David Whitmer in his later years, photographed prior to his January 1888 death — the elder statesman whose deathbed reaffirmation closed a fifty-year chain. After his 1838 excommunication Whitmer never returned to the LDS Church; he lived as a respected businessman in Richmond, Missouri, repeatedly interviewed by journalists and historians, and never withdrew the 1830 testimony. Via Wikimedia Commons.

Harris's final act ​

Martin Harris's final years are catastrophic for the CES Letter's portrait of him. After thirty-three years of estrangement and three decades of religious experimentation, Harris returned to Utah in 1870 at age 87. Edward Stevenson of Ogden was instrumental; Brigham Young paid for transportation. Harris was rebaptized and spent his remaining five years systematically reaffirming his testimony.[27]

The chain of post-departure Harris reaffirmations:

  • 1844 Parrish-Boynton group affirmation. When confronted by Kirtland dissenters who denied the Book of Mormon, Harris "bore testimony of its truth and said all would be damned if they rejected it."[28]
  • 1846 Strangite mission to England. Treated separately below.
  • 1855 Thomas Colburn account: Harris on Shakerism — "he tried the Shakers, but that would not do."[29]
  • 1859 Joel Tiffany interview: "by the power of God I have seen [the plates]."[30]
  • 1870 Salt Lake Tabernacle testimony: "the angel did show to me the plates containing the Book of Mormon."[31]
  • 1875 deathbed, July 10, 1875, Smithfield, Utah. Multi-sourced (Godfrey, Pilkington, Homer, Harris's son). Pilkington 1934 affidavit: "Just as sure as you see the Sun shining, just as sure am I that I stood in the presence of an Angel of God."[32] Godfrey: "Had I been willing to have perjured myself and sworn falsely to the testimony I now bear, I could have been a rich man, but I could not have testified other than I have done."[33]

Harris's earlier financial conduct corroborates his sincerity. He mortgaged 151 acres of his ~240-acre farm to E. B. Grandin to finance the $3,000 printing of the Book of Mormon.[34] He tested Joseph Smith's translation by substituting a fake stone for the seer stone (Joseph detected the switch).[35] He carried characters from the plates to Charles Anthon at Columbia for independent verification.[36] These look less like gullibility than due diligence followed by committed conviction.

Photograph of Martin Harris at age 87, taken c. 1870 in Utah upon his return to the LDS Church, attributed to Charles W. Carter.
Figure 4. Martin Harris at age 87, photographed c. 1870 upon his return to Utah and rebaptism — the canonical period likeness, attributed to Charles W. Carter. The image survives only at low resolution (197×300), but it is the photograph taken at the very event that opens this section: Harris's final-act return, after thirty-three years of estrangement and religious experimentation, to systematically reaffirm his testimony of the plates until his July 1875 deathbed. Via Wikimedia Commons.

Comparison table: post-1838 reaffirmation timeline ​

The CES Letter's argument requires the reader to focus on the moment of departure and skip the forty years that follow.

YearWitnessEvent
1837HarrisExcommunicated, Kirtland
1838Cowdery, Whitmer, J. Whitmer, PageExcommunicated / cut off, Far West / Kirtland
1838Hyrum SmithSally Parker letter — "two hands and two eyes"
1839Hyrum SmithLiberty Jail — "I felt a determination to die, rather than deny"
1844HarrisParrish-Boynton affirmation
1844Hyrum SmithMartyrdom at Carthage
1846CowderyLetter to Phineas Young
1846HarrisStrangite England mission — Birmingham/Manchester/Liverpool BoM affirmations
1847Hiram PageLetter to McLellin — "could not say... what was once true could not be made false"
1848CowderyKanesville reaffirmation; rebaptism (Reuben Miller record)
1849CowderyLetter to Samuel W. Richards
1850CowderyDeathbed in Whitmer's home — "It was no dream... it was real"
1855HarrisColburn account on Shakers
1856Jacob WhitmerDeathbed reaffirmation per son's 1888 statement
1859HarrisTiffany interview
1861WhitmerCowdery's graveside, with David H. Cannon
1870HarrisSalt Lake Tabernacle testimony, rebaptism
1875HarrisSmithfield, UT deathbed (multi-source)
1876John Whitmer"I have never heard that any one of the three or eight witnesses ever denied"
1878John WhitmerPoulson interview — physical dimensions, "as material as anything can be"
1881WhitmerProclamation, Richmond Conservator — direct response to Murphy 1880
1884Whitmer"I saw with these eyes and I heard with these ears!"
1885WhitmerMoyle interview — "saw the plates and heard the angel with unmistakable clearness"
1887WhitmerAddress to All Believers in Christ — affirms Book of Mormon while criticizing Utah Church
1887WhitmerLetter to Anthony Metcalf
1888WhitmerDeathbed, Richmond — "the Bible and the record of the Nephites are true"

Twenty-six discrete reaffirmation events, drawn from primary sources, across fifty post-1838 years. The CES Letter's "they all left the Church" framing requires the reader to look at the first row and skip the rest of the table.

The Stephen Burnett 1838 letter — Rappleye and Smoot 2024 ​

The Burnett letter is the CES Letter's strongest contemporaneous citation. The argument runs: even if every other "spiritual eye" citation (Tucker 1867, Gilbert 1892, Clark 1842) is dismissed for being late, hostile, or thirdhand, Burnett survives because it is contemporary, insider, and direct.

The 2024 Rappleye/Smoot scholarly engagement — Neal Rappleye and Stephen O. Smoot, "Stephen Burnett versus the Eight Witnesses: An Exercise in Mature Historical Thinking," Religious Educator 25/2 (2024) — is the marquee scholarly response. Rappleye and Smoot apply Sweat and Alford's five-factor source-evaluation framework to Burnett's letter and rate it 3 out of 10 — "not a reliable source." Their conclusion is measured: Burnett is not reliable as a standalone source on the Eight, and his framing for Harris's words is best read against Harris's other lifetime statements. That is not "the Burnett letter has been debunked." It is a more bounded claim — strong enough to dislodge Burnett from its load-bearing role, not a knockout. Rappleye/Smoot's argument runs along five lines.[37]

Line 1: Burnett is third-hand on the Eight-Witnesses claim ​

The chain runs: Burnett → reporting what he heard Harris say → about what the Eight Witnesses said. Burnett is not a witness to the Eight Witnesses' experience. He is reporting what he heard Harris (who was not one of the Eight) report about the Eight. That is a thirdhand chain on the Eight-Witnesses claim. Two of the Eight (Christian and Peter Whitmer Jr.) were already deceased when Burnett wrote — direct refutation by them was impossible. The other six were alive. Burnett does not name a single one of them. Rappleye and Smoot summarize: to give "singular emphasis or preference to Burnett's thirdhand hearsay testimony over the direct, unambiguous testimonies of the Eight Witnesses themselves or those close to them (including immediate family) is nothing short of historiographical malpractice."[37:1]

Line 2: Burnett is openly polemical and announcing his own departure ​

The same letter calls Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon "notorious liars." The same letter announces Burnett's own departure on the same page where the Harris quotation appears. The letter is "infused with highly emotional, polemical language." Polemical context does not invalidate testimony, but it requires careful reading. Burnett wrote three weeks after publicly renouncing the Book of Mormon at the Stone Chapel in Kirtland; the letter is announcing that renunciation to a fellow disaffected Mormon, not reporting neutrally.[38]

Line 3: Burnett's specifics are contradicted by the Eight Witnesses' own statements ​

If Burnett's report were accurate, the Eight Witnesses would have said publicly that they "hesitated to sign" and "never saw" the plates. They said the opposite, in their own words, in writing, often within months of Burnett's letter:

  • John Whitmer, 1836 (two years before Burnett's letter): "I have most assuredly seen the plates from whence the book of Mormon is translated, and that I have handled these plates."[39]
  • John Whitmer, 1839 (one year after), to Theodore Turley: "I have no hesitancy; but with all confidence have signed my name."[40]
  • Hyrum Smith, 1838 (the same year), to Sally Parker: "He said he had but two hands and two eyes. He said he had seen the plates with his eyes and handled them with his hands."[41] Hyrum's specific phrasing — "two hands and two eyes," not spiritual hands and spiritual eyes — appears designed to counter exactly the misreading Burnett is propagating. Hyrum is alive in 1838, hears the rumors, and answers them in plain language.
  • Hyrum Smith, 1839, Times and Seasons: "I felt a determination to die, rather than deny the things which my eyes had seen, which my hands had handled."[42]

Samuel H. Smith, the Eight Witness who served as the Church's first missionary, owned a personal copy of the 1830 Book of Mormon in which his name in the Eight Witnesses statement is "starred and underlined" — Samuel was actively pointing out his own witness statement as he traveled missioning. Not the conduct of a man who "hesitated to sign."[43]

Line 4: Burnett's letter contains its own internal correction ​

This is the line that does the most work. In the same paragraph where Burnett reports the alleged "spiritual eye" framing, he records:

"M Harris arose & said he was sorry for any man who rejected the Book of Mormon for he knew it was true. He said he had hefted the plates repeatedly in a box with only a tablecloth or a handkerchief over them, but he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain."[44]

Two readings sit on the literal grammar. The skeptic reading: Harris's "city through a mountain" describes his entire manner of seeing, and "knew it was true" is testimony framing without literal sensory perception of uncovered plates. The faithful reading: Harris is distinguishing two phases of his involvement — testifying that the Book of Mormon is true (the "knew it was true" half) while explaining that during the translation period (the "city through a mountain" half) he handled covered plates without seeing them directly. The faithful reading is preferred because Harris's other lifetime statements about the Three-Witnesses event use unambiguous angel/voice/uncovered-plates language (Tiffany 1859, 1870 Tabernacle, 1875 Smithfield deathbed); none uses "covered with a cloth" or "city through a mountain" language. The "city through a mountain" metaphor only makes contextual sense for the covered-plates translation period — when Harris was Joseph's financial backer, helped move and carry the plates while they remained covered, and explicitly could not look at them directly.[45]

So: Harris stood up in the same meeting Burnett describes and pushed back. The CES Letter quotes the negative half of Burnett's letter and omits the corrective half. Burnett's own letter is read most coherently as recording two phases — translation-period covered plates and the formal Three-Witnesses event — collapsed by Burnett (or his polemical framing) into a single "spiritual eye" headline. That is the substance of Rappleye and Smoot's argument: Burnett is not reliable as a standalone source on the Eight, and his framing for Harris's words is best read against Harris's other lifetime statements.

Line 5: The "spiritual eye" reference, even taken at face value, refers to the pre-witness translation period ​

The full Harris quote — "he had hefted the plates repeatedly in a box with only a tablecloth or a handkerchief over them, but he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain" — describes covered plates. What Harris is describing in the alleged "spiritual eye" remark is the months he spent helping during translation (when the plates remained covered), not the Three-Witnesses event of June 1829 (angel, voice, visible plates). Conflating the pre-witness translation period with the Three-Witnesses event is the dominant analytical error in the credibility-concerns argument; it is repeated in the CES Letter's other "spiritual eye" citations (Tucker, Gilbert, Clark) and engaged in detail in the Second Sight sister article.

Key Point

Burnett's 1838 letter is third-hand hearsay from a hostile dissenter who was announcing his own departure on the same page. The letter is contradicted by the Eight Witnesses' own published statements (John Whitmer 1836, Hyrum Smith 1838, Lucy Mack Smith). Burnett's own letter contains Harris standing up in the same meeting to push back on the framing. Rappleye and Smoot 2024 rate Burnett 3/10 — not reliable as a standalone source. The conclusion is bounded: Burnett does not carry the load the CES Letter places on it. Quoting Burnett uncritically is, in Rappleye and Smoot's phrase, "historiographical malpractice."[37:2]

Further Reading

For the most thorough scholarly engagement with the Burnett letter, see Neal Rappleye and Stephen O. Smoot, "Stephen Burnett versus the Eight Witnesses: An Exercise in Mature Historical Thinking," Religious Educator 25/2 (2024). For broader engagement with the witnesses under historical-criticism criteria, see Steven C. Harper, "Evaluating the Book of Mormon Witnesses," Religious Educator 11/2 (2010).

Martin Harris's "five religions" ​

The CES Letter's portrait of Martin Harris is built almost entirely from hostile sources. The "five religions" frame depends on a single early hostile source that Anderson identifies as a hostile reductive label rather than five formal church memberships.[46] The post-Joseph affiliations are real — Strang, Bishop, Shakerism, William Smith, McLellin — but the actual record of what Harris said within each runs against the CES Letter's framing.

The "religious seeker" framing cuts both ways. It is consistent with sincerity (Harris testing every group's claim against the Book of Mormon as anchor) and with credulity (Harris disposed to find spiritual significance in religious gatherings, with a low threshold for accepting religious claims). Both fit some of the data. The sincerity reading is preferred for three specific reasons:

  1. Specificity. Harris's affirmation across affiliations was always of the Book of Mormon specifically, not generic religious experience. He did not extend to Strang's plates, Bishop's plates, or Shaker testimony.
  2. Refusal to extend. The Strangite mission ended within two months precisely because Harris refused to preach Strangism while continuing to preach the Book of Mormon. A genuinely promiscuous religious seeker would not have provoked his sponsoring movement to send him home.
  3. Fifty-year consistency. Harris's specifically Book-of-Mormon testimony appears across the entire 1837-1875 period in every documented source. Religious seekers with low thresholds typically drift; Harris's anchor never moved.

The contemporaneous record on Harris's specifically Book-of-Mormon affirmation across affiliations is unambiguous:

  • Edward Bunker, 1844, recorded Harris bearing testimony to the Book of Mormon during his period of Shaker sympathy.
  • Jeremiah Cooper, 1844, recorded the same.
  • November 1850 journal entry — five years after the supposed Shaker preference — has Harris saying he "was one of the 3 Witnesses to the Book of Mormon and said he knew it was true, for he saw the plates."[47]
  • Harris himself: "no man ever heard me in any way deny the truth of the Book of Mormon, the administration of the angel that showed me the plates."[47:1]

Anderson's framing summarizes the pattern: "every affiliation of Martin Harris was with some Mormon group" except Shakerism. The Strangite movement, Gladden Bishop's group, William Smith's group, McLellin's group — all were Restoration splinter groups whose theological claim was to be the true continuation of Joseph Smith's Restoration. Harris was investigating which post-1844 group preserved the Mormon Restoration most faithfully, not abandoning Mormonism for unrelated traditions.

The Strangite mission to England ​

Robin Scott Jensen's 2005 BYU Studies article — "A Witness in England: Martin Harris and the Strangite Mission" — is the definitive engagement with the Strang affiliation. The piece documents that Harris's England trip with Strang lasted less than two months (October-December 1846), ended because Harris refused to preach Strangism, and during the entire period Harris was bearing witness specifically of the Book of Mormon to Strangite audiences.[48]

The Birmingham testimony, recorded by Strangite mission observers: "It is... the Book of God. I know more about that book than any man living." A separate Strangite-audience event: "Do you know that is the sun shining on us? Because as sure as you know that, I know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, and that he translated that book by the power of God." Harris's missionary partner Lester Brooks decided to send Harris home because Harris was "failing to testify of Strangism" and was useless for the mission's purposes. The Strangites complained that Harris was "ashamed of his profession as a Strangite."[48:1]

The CES Letter's "Harris went on a mission to England for Strang" is technically true and substantively misleading. Jensen's title — "A Witness in England" — captures what Harris actually did during the trip.

Gladden Bishop and Shakerism ​

Bishop claimed plates and a Urim and Thummim. Harris signed a statement affirming Bishop's revelations — Anderson notes carefully that the statement does not affirm Bishop's plates as Book-of-Mormon-equivalents. Harris never claimed to have seen Bishop's plates as he had seen the Book of Mormon plates.[46:1] On Shakerism: Harris investigated and decided against. Thomas Colburn's 1855 account: "he tried the Shakers, but that would not do." He never joined a Shaker community, never adopted celibacy, never signed Shaker testimony.[29:1]

The Braden-Kelly Debate (1884) quotation — "as much evidence for a Shaker book he had as for the Book of Mormon" — is the closer the CES Letter uses on the Shaker question. Clark Braden was a Disciples of Christ minister; Edmund L. Kelley was an RLDS apostle. The 1884 debate occurred nine years after Harris's death. Braden's claim is hostile-source thirdhand hearsay reported decades after Harris's death. The original report (Phineas Young et al., 1844) is itself unclear about whether the Kirtland Mormons heard Harris say it directly or heard it secondhand.[47:2]

Worth Acknowledging

Harris did associate with multiple religious movements after 1837. He did go to England with Strang in 1846. The "religious seeker" framing is accurate. What it does not establish is that his testimony was psychologically promiscuous. The contemporaneous record across every affiliation shows him affirming the Book of Mormon specifically and refusing to extend that affirmation to other groups' founding texts. Both the sincerity and the credulity readings of his seeking are textually possible; the sincerity reading is preferred for specificity, refusal-to-extend, and fifty-year consistency.

The Eight Witnesses' "we did handle with our hands" ​

The Eight Witnesses are the argument the CES Letter does not want to have. Their testimony is structurally different from the Three Witnesses', and the "magical worldview" / "spiritual eye" framing does not reach it.

The 1830 Eight-Witnesses statement, printed in every copy of every Book of Mormon since, establishes a structurally different claim:

"Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come, that Joseph Smith, Jun., the Author and Proprietor of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken."[49]

No angel. No heavenly voice. No vision. The language is the language of physical examination: handle, saw, hefted, appearance, engravings. Steven C. Harper emphasizes that "Joseph Smith showed the plates to his father, to his brothers Hyrum and Samuel, and to several of David's brothers... each man handling the plates himself, each man later testifying that they saw the plates Joseph had, hefted them, and examined the engravings on them."[12:1] Daniel Peterson observes the Eight Witnesses' testimony is "stubbornly matter-of-fact" and "almost distinctly nonreligious in tone."[50]

The CES Letter's response to the magical-worldview question is also more nuanced than the genetic-fallacy framing alone resolves. A serious skeptic following Quinn argues that 1820s rural treasure-seekers will interpret a metallic object after a religious framing-ritual through that ritual, generating visionary descriptions rather than forensic ones. The argument has real force against the Three Witnesses' language. It has much less force against the Eight Witnesses' language, which is precisely the kind of content folk-magic interpretation does not generate. Folk-magic frameworks predict visionary descriptions; the Eight describe specific dimensions, weight, ring configurations, and "as material as anything can be." The Eight's testimony is not the kind a folk-magic frame predicts.

The Anderson 2005 ten-statement catalog ​

Richard Lloyd Anderson's 2005 Journal of Book of Mormon Studies article — "Attempts to Redefine the Experience of the Eight Witnesses" — documents ten separate statements from the Eight Witnesses describing physical handling. None uses "spiritual eye" or "in vision" language. All ten describe physical examination.[51]

Selected accounts:

  • John Whitmer, 1836: "I have most assuredly seen the plates from whence the book of Mormon is translated, and that I have handled these plates."[39:1]
  • John Whitmer, 1878 (Poulson interview): The plates were "8 by 6 or 7 inches," "very heavy" (consistent with gold density), with "three rings, each one in the shape of a D," shown "uncovered into our hands." Asked directly, "Then they were a material substance?" Whitmer answered: "Yes, as material as anything can be."[52]
  • Hyrum Smith, 1839 (Liberty Jail): "I felt a determination to die, rather than deny the things which my eyes had seen, which my hands had handled."[42:1]
  • Hiram Page, 1847: rejected the suggestion of recantation by rhetorical question — could a man "know a thing to be true in 1830, and know the same thing to be false in 1847"?[15:1]
  • Jacob Whitmer, deathbed (per son's 1888 statement): "always faithful and true to his testimony to the Book of Mormon, and confirmed it on his death bed."[53]
  • Samuel Smith (Daniel Tyler reminiscence): Samuel "knew his brother Joseph had the plates, for the prophet had shown them to him, and he had handled them."[54]

The CES Letter does not engage Anderson 2005, does not engage any of the ten statements, and treats the Eight as either invisible or merely echoes of the Three. The asymmetry is the strongest empirical case for the witnesses, and the CES Letter does not engage it.

Household witnesses corroborate the artifact ​

Beyond the eleven formal witnesses, multiple Smith and Whitmer household members interacted with a heavy, plate-shaped object over months. Emma Smith's 1879 interview: "The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates, as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book."[55] William Smith hefted the plates while they were wrapped in a tow frock and estimated their weight at about sixty pounds. Lucy Mack Smith handled the plates through cloth and described their dimensions as "about eight inches long, and six wide." Mary Whitmer encountered a stranger who showed her the uncovered plates outside the Whitmer home. The household corroboration is non-formal but converges on the same physical artifact.[56]

Key Point

The Eight Witnesses' 1830 testimony — "we did handle with our hands... and we also saw the engravings thereon" — uses physical-examination language. The Anderson 2005 catalog of ten Eight-Witness statements documents physical handling uniformly. John Whitmer's 1878 Poulson interview specifies dimensions, three D-shaped rings, and "as material as anything can be." Hyrum Smith's 1838 "two hands and two eyes" was designed to counter the spiritual-eye misreading then in circulation. Folk-magic worldviews predict visionary descriptions; the Eight describe forensic ones. This is the asymmetry the CES Letter does not engage.

For the broader engagement with the "spiritual eyes" question and the scriptural framework, see Second Sight.

Family relationships — Mark Twain and the access argument ​

The CES Letter quotes Mark Twain's Roughing It (1872): "I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified."[57] The line is rhetorically effective, capturing the surface plausibility of the family-relationship objection.

The faithful response starts by conceding what is conceded. The Three Witnesses were not strangers to Joseph. The Eight Witnesses are 4 Whitmers + 1 Whitmer in-law (Hiram Page) + 3 Smiths. Faithful scholars (Anderson, Harper, Black, Morris) all concede the family relationships explicitly.

The standard critique of family witnesses is real: family members share emotional investment in the outcome, face social and financial costs for dissent that non-family witnesses do not face, and (the strongest version) may have a coordinating interest in confirming a shared family narrative. The honest framing has to accept this asymmetry: family relationships reduce independence in some respects but increase access in others.

For the Eight Witnesses' physical-handling testimony, the access dimension dominates. A Whitmer brother is the right witness for what happened in the Whitmer home — he has the access to test the claim, day after day, over months. If the plates were a prop, someone in that tight circle would have eventually said so, especially after excommunication, mob violence, lawsuits, and decades of estrangement. Family members are the hardest people to deceive over a lifetime. A brother knows when you are lying. A father-in-law knows your character.

For the Three Witnesses' visionary experience, the family dimension is more contested. A skeptic will weight family loyalty more heavily here, and that weighting is not unreasonable. But two patterns push back on the family-loyalty hypothesis: the Whitmer family's incentive structure post-1838 ran the other way (estranged from Joseph, lost institutional and financial standing, every reason to publicly recant if pressured into a false statement — and none did); and the multi-generational chain extends well beyond the eleven (Hyrum and Samuel died early, never witnessing the bitter family disputes, and their testimony stood through every crisis they did witness; Lucy Mack Smith's account, Joseph Sr.'s deathbed, Hiram Page's son's record, Jacob Whitmer's son's record).[58] [53:1]

On the Oliver Cowdery "cousin" objection: the relationship was that of third or fourth cousins, distant enough that there is no evidence either man knew of the connection when they met. Lucy Mack Smith's account of Oliver's arrival in 1829 gives no indication of prior acquaintance.[59]

Worth Acknowledging

The family ties are exactly what the CES Letter says they are. Family witnesses share emotional investment and face costs for dissent — a real reliability concern that does not disappear under cross-examination. Family witnesses also have more access to test the claims, especially for the Eight Witnesses' observational testimony. Both dimensions are real. The post-departure reaffirmation pattern (where family loyalty cannot explain the Whitmers' four-decade estrangement from Joseph while never producing a denial) recovers some of what family ties cost — though it does not eliminate the concern entirely.

Money-digging and the magical worldview ​

The Smith family's documented treasure-seeking activity in 1820-1827 is real. The 1826 Bainbridge proceeding is documented. Cowdery's "rod of nature" / "gift of Aaron" appears in the Book of Commandments and Doctrine and Covenants. The folk-magic backgrounds are openly catalogued in the Joseph Smith Papers. The continuity between Joseph's pre-1827 seer-stone use and the Book of Mormon translation method is its own topic — see Seer Stones.

The CES Letter's argument runs: magical worldview → unreliable witness testimony. The argument requires that magical-worldview holders confabulate physical objects — but the CES Letter does not establish that prediction. Quinn's actual argument (more sophisticated than the CES Letter's) is that folk-magic worldviews shape interpretation of perceptual events, not that they manufacture perceptions of objects that aren't there. Even on Quinn's terms, the Eight Witnesses' specific empirical content — dimensions, weight, ring configurations, engravings — is the kind of content folk-magic interpretation does not generate.

Steven C. Harper's 2023 engagement ​

Steven C. Harper's 2023 BYU Studies Quarterly article, "Was Joseph Smith a Money Digger?", concedes Joseph engaged in treasure-seeking and was tried in 1826 in South Bainbridge. He argues the "money digger" label retrojects modern stigma onto practices that 1820s rural Americans did not separate sharply from religion. Treasure-seeking and prophetic vocation co-existed in the same families and communities.[60] Mark Ashurst-McGee's master's thesis ("A Pathway to Prophethood") demonstrates how the Smith family's worldview was indistinguishable in form from their neighbors'.[61]

What the magical-worldview argument has to answer ​

First, money-digging was widespread in early-nineteenth-century rural America — not deviant or fringe.[60:1] The witnesses' folk-magic vocabulary is the vocabulary of their place and time.

Second, the witnesses' specific claims sit on a different epistemic level than their general worldview. Believing one's neighbor can find a buried object with a divining rod is a culturally inherited folk practice. Claiming to have personally hefted a heavy metal book in your own hands in your kitchen, in daylight, is a specific empirical claim about a specific physical object. Sharing the worldview did not blind the witnesses to ordinary reality.

Third, the CES Letter applies a selectively applied standard. If "this person believed in the supernatural" disqualifies their eyewitness testimony, then Paul on the road to Damascus is disqualified, the disciples seeing the resurrected Christ are disqualified, and most ancient religious history is inadmissible. The CES Letter does not propose that. It applies the standard only to witnesses it wants to dismiss. That is the fallacy of poisoning the well.

The 1826 Bainbridge proceeding in context ​

Faithful scholarship documents that:

  • The proceeding was a preliminary examination, not a trial.
  • Joseph was discharged.
  • The complainant was Peter Bridgman, an anti-Mormon Methodist nephew of Stowell.
  • Stowell himself (the alleged victim) testified favorably and joined the Church.
  • Stowell remained faithful until 1844.[62]

This complicates the "convicted as a disorderly person and imposter" framing the CES Letter implies. Joseph was not convicted, the complainant was a hostile relative of the man Joseph had been working for, and that man — the alleged victim — joined the Church.

D. Michael Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (Signature Books, 1998) is the major critical scholarly work on this question. Quinn's documentary case is largely accepted by faithful scholars. What Quinn does not argue, and what faithful scholars (Bushman, Ashurst-McGee, Harper) dispute, is that the worldview makes the witness testimony unreliable. Bushman argues the magic worldview was "peripheral, not central" to Joseph's life and that the Smith family was primarily Biblical Christian.[63] [64]

Worth Acknowledging

The folk-magic backgrounds are documented and not contested. Faithful scholars accept Quinn's documentary case. What faithful scholars dispute is the inference from worldview to unreliability. The strongest version of the critique — that worldview shapes interpretation — does not reach the Eight Witnesses' specific empirical content. The same standard applied to biblical witnesses would discard most of religious history.

Departure from the Church does not entail denial ​

The CES Letter's "they all left" framing requires conflating institutional rupture with testimonial rupture. The witnesses themselves rejected that conflation, and the post-departure record contradicts the prediction the conflation requires.

A skeptic will press the structural fact: 3/3 of the Three Witnesses were excommunicated. The pattern is total, and the framework must accommodate it. It does, but through a specific structure: each rupture had documented institutional causes (Cowdery's land disputes, Whitmer's Missouri administration disputes, Harris's Kirtland Safety Society loss), and each witness explicitly distinguished his institutional disagreement from his testimony content.[65] None left because they no longer believed the Book of Mormon was what they had testified it was. Whitmer's Address (1887) is the clearest example: roughly 75 pages of complaint against the Church, while simultaneously affirming "I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof."[13:2]

The post-departure record contradicts the "departure = denial" prediction:

  • Cowdery returned in 1848 (Kanesville reaffirmation via Reuben Miller) and died affirming the testimony in 1850.
  • Harris returned in 1870 and died affirming in 1875.
  • Whitmer never returned but published the 1881 Proclamation (response to Murphy 1880), the 1887 Address (which contains affirmation), and died affirming in January 1888.

All three Three Witnesses ended their lives affirming. Two returned to the Church.

On Joseph and Sidney's harsh language: their authority is being asked to do different work in different places. Calling someone "mean" or "a counterfeiter" is a character claim that does not require the speaker to be a prophet to be made. Calling the Book of Mormon true is a testimony claim with different epistemic standards. Sidney Rigdon's 1841 letter was specifically responding to the 1838 Far West dissenter actions, which involved real legal and economic conflict; the "counterfeiters" charge was inflammatory rhetoric, not literal accusation.[8:1] Neither Joseph nor Sidney ever recanted his witness to the Book of Mormon.

James H. Moyle, a young Mormon lawyer trained to interrogate witnesses, made the observation: "If there had been fraud in this matter Joseph Smith would have cultivated those men and kept them with him at any cost." He did not. They left. They still affirmed.[66]

The cumulative case ​

The strongest critical version of the witnesses argument is not any single point but the cumulative pattern. The academic version (Vogel, Quinn, Palmer, Marquardt) runs the eleven witnesses through five filters: family relations, magical worldview, post-1838 dissent, visionary framing, and (for Harris) religious-seeking pattern. The cumulative case is more sophisticated than "they were duped." It requires the framework to accept the cumulative framing rather than asking readers to evaluate each witness in isolation.

The faithful response: the cumulative case has real purchase, but it does not reach the empirical core of the testimony.

It reaches the Three Witnesses' visionary framing more than the Eight Witnesses' physical handling. It reaches Harris's religious-seeking psychology more than his specific Book-of-Mormon affirmation. It reaches family ties more than post-departure reaffirmation. It reaches the magical worldview more than the testimonial content of physical examination.

It does not reach the Eight Witnesses' empirical testimony — physical handling, weight, dimensions, engravings — which is observational and does not depend on magical thinking, family loyalty, or visionary state. It does not reach the post-1838 reaffirmation pattern, where the witnesses were outside Joseph's institutional reach. It does not reach the household-witness corroboration. It does not reach the absence of a single recantation across eleven witnesses over half a century.

The naturalistic theories ​

Hallucination cannot explain it. "Hallucinations are private events observed by one person alone. Two people cannot see the same hallucination, let alone eleven."[50:1] The Three Witnesses experienced their event in two separate locations. The Eight Witnesses' experience occurred in broad daylight with technical detail (weight, dimensions, ring configurations). Hallucination cannot produce that level of cross-witness consistency about a physical artifact.

Conspiracy cannot explain it. A coordinated fraud involving eleven official witnesses plus household witnesses would have been "inconceivably difficult to keep secret," especially when the conspirators included people who later became hostile to Joseph and would have benefited from breaking the conspiracy.[50:2] Cowdery damaged his legal reputation. Harris lost his farm. Whitmer endured fifty years of journalists asking if he had been fooled. Hyrum and Samuel died early in the persecutions. People do not maintain fabricated stories when those stories cost them and pay them nothing.

Forged plates cannot explain it. Producing actual metal plates of the described weight (40-60 lbs by Eight-Witness estimates) and dimensions would have required expert metalwork; no metalworker has ever been identified, no raw materials traced, no tools discovered.[50:3]

Even Dan Vogel concedes the witnesses were sincere. Vogel's Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet (Signature Books, 2004) argues a "pious fraud" thesis in which Joseph believed himself called to bring forth a sacred record by whatever means and the witnesses experienced something genuine within a visionary framework Joseph cultivated.[67] This is the strongest naturalistic version: more sophisticated than "they were duped," and itself a meaningful concession that the "they were lying" hypothesis has been largely abandoned by serious critics. Vogel's thesis has real intellectual content. Where it strains: it does not by itself account for the Eight's specific empirical content (dimensions, weight, ring configurations, "as material as anything can be") produced in 1830 — before the Three's visionary framing was widely circulating in dissenter polemics — or for Whitmer's fifty-year non-Mormon Richmond record.[68]

H. Michael Marquardt has documented factual errors in the 1887 Address — Book of Commandments printing status, number of elders before April 1830, conference attendance numbers — and concludes the Address should not be uncritically taken as definitive Whitmer testimony.[69] Marquardt's critique lands on the institutional-history portions of the Address. It does not land on the Book-of-Mormon-affirmation portions: those affirmations are corroborated by Whitmer's 1881 Proclamation, his 1885 Moyle interview, and his 1888 deathbed — multiple independent sources outside the Address itself.

The cumulative critical case has to explain: the Three Witnesses' visionary experience, the Eight Witnesses' physical handling, the household witnesses, the post-1838 reaffirmations, the Cowdery and Harris returns, the absence of recantation across eleven witnesses over half a century, and Whitmer's fifty-year Richmond record. No single naturalistic theory does this work cleanly.

The witnesses' character is also one piece of a larger picture, not a standalone proof. The witnesses are weight-bearing for the Book of Mormon's historicity within a larger case where multiple Restoration claims are independently contested. The article's claim is bounded — that the witnesses' character objection, fairly examined, does not deliver the conclusion the CES Letter draws — not that the witnesses' credibility settles every Restoration question.

The Richmond non-Mormon community testimony ​

The reaffirmation chain above documents what Whitmer himself said across fifty years. There is one further data point the cumulative critical case has the hardest time explaining: what Whitmer's non-Mormon neighbors said about him.

Whitmer lived in Richmond, Missouri, as a non-Mormon businessman from 1838 to his death in 1888 — fifty years outside the LDS Church. In 1881, in response to John Murphy's published claim that Whitmer had backed away from his testimony, prominent non-Mormon residents of Richmond signed a public statement attesting to his "undoubted truth and veracity."[70] These were not co-religionists. They were ordinary neighbors — bankers, judges, merchants — with no theological stake in the Book of Mormon. They simply knew the man, and after watching him live among them for forty-three years they put their names to a statement that he was honest and that he had never wavered from his testimony.

This is the kind of evidence the "magical thinking, superstitious, inconsistent" framing does not survive. A man whose testimony was the product of folk-magic credulity or psychological instability does not earn that kind of public vouching from a non-Mormon community over a four-decade residence. Whitmer's Richmond record is consistent with the Proclamation, the Moyle interview, the Metcalf letter, the Address, and the deathbed — and the people best positioned to detect inconsistency, his neighbors, did not.

The Witnesses Initiative and the broader corpus ​

The Witnesses Initiative project (witnessesofthebookofmormon.org), produced by the Interpreter Foundation as a companion to the Witnesses (2021) film and Undaunted (2022) docudrama, is the most comprehensive online primary-source compilation. Anderson's foundational 1981 Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses documented over 200 accounts. Larry E. Morris's 2019 Oxford UP A Documentary History of the Book of Mormon compiles primary documents from 1823-1830, and his 2019 Dialogue article catalogs the household-witness corroboration. The CES Letter's witnesses section cites approximately 9-12 sources for its credibility argument; the faithful scholarly corpus is roughly two orders of magnitude larger.[56:1] [71]

Further Reading

For comprehensive primary-source compilation, see the Witnesses of the Book of Mormon Initiative. For Steven C. Harper's overview, "The Eleven Witnesses" (RSC 2015) and "Evaluating the Book of Mormon Witnesses" (Religious Educator, 2010). For Larry E. Morris's catalog of physical-handling testimony, "Empirical Witnesses of the Gold Plates," Dialogue 52/2 (2019). For the Burnett-letter rebuttal, Neal Rappleye and Stephen O. Smoot, "Stephen Burnett versus the Eight Witnesses," Religious Educator 25/2 (2024).

Comparison: CES Letter framing vs. documentary record ​

CES Letter framingWhat the documentary record adds
"All three Three Witnesses excommunicated" (true)All three returned to or affirmed the Book of Mormon. Two returned to the Church. The third reaffirmed in print and on his deathbed.
"Joseph called them too mean to mention" (true, 1839)Joseph never recanted his witness to the divine choosing of the Three. Cowdery and Whitmer reaffirmed across 1846, 1848, 1850, 1861, 1881, 1885, 1887, 1888.
"Burnett 1838 letter — 'spiritual eye'" (real)Third-hand on the Eight; same letter contains Harris's correction; specifics contradicted by the Eight's own published statements; rated 3/10 by Rappleye/Smoot.
"Harris had five religions" (loose)Anderson: every Harris affiliation was with some Mormon group except Shakerism. Across every affiliation he affirmed the Book of Mormon. Strangite mission ended in <2 months because he refused to preach Strangism.
"Murphy 1880 — angel had no shape" (real)Whitmer's 1881 Proclamation directly responds to Murphy: "I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof."
"Whitmer's 1887 Address — 1838 voice claim" (real)Same Address affirms the Book of Mormon; Whitmer's reductio collapse requires perfect epistemic uniformity that no biblical witness would survive.
"Eleven 19th century treasure diggers" (caricature)Several witnesses (Hiram Page, John Whitmer, Hyrum Smith) have minimal documented folk-magic involvement. Eight-Witnesses testimony is observational physical examination, not visionary.
"Joseph influenced 31 polygamy affidavits, why not 11 witnesses?" (analogy)Departures themselves disprove the "Joseph influenced them" theory — once outside Joseph's reach, they continued to affirm.
"Mark Twain — entire Whitmer family" (real)Family witnesses lose independence but gain access. Family loyalty did not prevent the Whitmers' four-decade estrangement; what it never produced was a denial.

The Book of Mormon as anchor ​

The witnesses' testimony does not stand alone. It is testimony about the Book of Mormon, and that book is itself the most testable artifact the Restoration produced. The Book of Mormon was dictated in roughly 60-65 working days, ~270,000 words, with no substantive revision and no whistleblower; the textual evidence for its complex internal structure has only grown stronger since the witnesses' deaths.[72]

The connection to the witnesses argument is specific. The witnesses are testifying about an artifact whose own properties give the testimony a target the witnesses' character does not have to carry alone. If the Book of Mormon had no internal complexity, no scholarly engagement, and no testable properties, the witnesses' character would be the only support — and the cumulative critical case would have more purchase. The Book of Mormon does have those properties. Its existence and structure are independent evidence the cumulative critical case must accommodate; the witnesses' testimony anchors that textual evidence in a specific historical event involving a specific physical artifact. The two reinforce each other in a way the CES Letter's separation does not capture. When the credibility argument gets hard, this is the bedrock data point no naturalistic theory has explained.

Assessment ​

The credibility argument the CES Letter makes is rhetorically effective and partly true. The witnesses had folk-magic backgrounds. The Three Witnesses were not strangers to Joseph. The Eight are largely Whitmers and Smiths. All three of the Three left the Church. Stephen Burnett wrote a real contemporaneous letter. Martin Harris associated with multiple religious movements. The "five religions" pattern, the family-relationship pattern, and the post-1838 dissent pattern are documented.

What the CES Letter does not engage is what fifty years of post-departure non-retraction, eleven witnesses, and the structural difference between the Three and the Eight do to its argument. The cumulative critical case has real purchase against the Three Witnesses' visionary framing; it does not reach the Eight Witnesses' empirical testimony. The "departure equals denial" framing is a category error the witnesses themselves explicitly rejected. The Burnett 1838 letter — the marquee citation — is contradicted by Harris in the same paragraph and rated 3/10 by the most thorough scholarly engagement (Rappleye/Smoot 2024). Harris's "five religions" is consistent with religious-seeking that anchored to the Book of Mormon — including during the Strangite mission, where his refusal to preach Strangism ended the mission. Whitmer's fifty-year non-Mormon Richmond life produced a community testimony to his honesty that does not survive the "magical thinking, superstitious, inconsistent" framing.

The witnesses' character objection, fairly examined, is real but bounded. The faithful position is not that the CES Letter's facts are wrong; it is that the inference the CES Letter draws does not survive contact with the broader documentary record. Anderson 1981 documented over 200 accounts; the CES Letter cites approximately a dozen. Harper 2010 / 2015 / 2023 develops the methodological framework. Jensen 2005 documents the Strangite mission as a Book-of-Mormon-affirmation event; Black/Porter 2018 develops the comprehensive Harris biography; Morris 2019 catalogs household-witness corroboration; Rappleye/Smoot 2024 reassesses the Burnett letter as evidentiary foundation. None of this scholarship is engaged by the CES Letter.

When the broader corpus is laid out — the post-1838 reaffirmation chain, the Eight Witnesses' physical handling, the Burnett internal correction, Harris's specifically Book-of-Mormon affirmation across every affiliation, Whitmer's fifty-year Richmond record, the household witnesses, the multi-generational family chain — the witnesses' credibility holds despite the genuine difficulties. Eleven men, across hostile and friendly conditions, across mob violence and personal cost, across departures and returns and fifty years, never withdrew the 1830 statement. They were testifying about an artifact whose own textual properties have themselves resisted naturalistic explanation. That is the structural fact the cumulative critical case has to absorb — and that the Book of Mormon's existence makes load-bearing in a way no naturalistic theory of the witnesses, taken alone, can dislodge.

Further Reading

  1. Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "Witnesses," p. 85. ↩︎

  2. Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "Witnesses," "Problems" 2, pp. 101-102. ↩︎

  3. Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "Witnesses," "Problems" 3, p. 102. ↩︎

  4. Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "Witnesses," pp. 89-90. ↩︎

  5. Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "Witnesses," pp. 93-94, citing Letter from Stephen Burnett to "Br. Johnson," April 15, 1838, in Joseph Smith Letterbook 2, pp. 64-66. ↩︎

  6. "Revelation, April 1829-B [D&C 8]," Joseph Smith Papers. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-april-1829-b-dc-8/1. The Joseph Smith Papers project openly catalogs the textual change between Book of Commandments 7:3 ("rod of nature") and Doctrine and Covenants 8 ("gift of Aaron"). For analysis, see Mark Ashurst-McGee, "A Pathway to Prophethood: Joseph Smith Junior as Rodsman, Village Seer, and Judeo-Christian Prophet" (master's thesis, Utah State University, 2000). https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/6873/. ↩︎

  7. Cowdery: Far West, MO, April 12, 1838. Whitmer: Far West, April 13, 1838. Harris: Kirtland, December 1837. See Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (1981), and Steven C. Harper, "The Eleven Witnesses," in The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, 2015). https://rsc.byu.edu/coming-forth-book-mormon/eleven-witnesses. ↩︎

  8. Sidney Rigdon, Letter and Testimony, February 15, 1841, pp. 6-9: "Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer... united with a gang of counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and blacklegs in the deepest dye, to deceive, cheat, and defraud the saints out of their property, by every art and stratagem which wickedness could invent." ↩︎ ↩︎

  9. Susan Easton Black and Larry C. Porter, Martin Harris: Uncompromising Witness of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center / BYU, 2018) — definitive 500-page biography. Documents each post-1837 affiliation in detail. ↩︎

  10. "Letter from Stephen Burnett, 15 April 1838," Joseph Smith Papers, in Joseph Smith Letterbook 2, pp. 64-66. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-from-stephen-burnett-15-april-1838/1. ↩︎

  11. David Whitmer, letter to Anthony Metcalf, April 2, 1887. Reprinted in Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years Before the Mast (Malad, ID: 1888), 73-74; reproduced in Lyndon W. Cook, ed., David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness (Orem, UT: Grandin Book, 1991), 245. ↩︎ ↩︎

  12. Steven C. Harper, "The Eleven Witnesses," in The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon, ed. Dennis L. Largey, Andrew H. Hedges, John Hilton III, and Kerry Hull (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, 2015), 117-132. https://rsc.byu.edu/coming-forth-book-mormon/eleven-witnesses. Harper concludes "the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence" supports the witnesses' published testimonies (p. 128). ↩︎ ↩︎

  13. David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ (Richmond, MO: David Whitmer, 1887), 8. Available in full via Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/addresstoallbeli00whit. The booklet runs approximately 75 printed pages (102-page archival scan includes covers and endpapers). Full sentence: "I also testify to the world, that neither Oliver Cowdery or Martin Harris ever at any time denied their testimony. They both died reaffirming the truth of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon." ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  14. John Whitmer to Mark Forscutt, March 1876, reproduced in Lyndon W. Cook, ed., David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness (Orem, UT: Grandin Book, 1991). Whitmer also wrote in December 1876: "That testimony was, is, and will be true henceforth and forever." ↩︎

  15. Hiram Page, letter to William E. McLellin, May 30, 1847. Cited in Larry E. Morris, A Documentary History of the Book of Mormon (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), 421. Reproduced in Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2003), 5:255. ↩︎ ↩︎

  16. Phineas Young to Brigham Young, December 31, 1844; subsequent Cowdery correspondence with Phineas Young documented in Scott H. Faulring, "The Return of Oliver Cowdery," in Oliver Cowdery: Scribe, Elder, Witness, ed. John W. Welch and Larry E. Morris (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute, 2006), 321-362. ↩︎

  17. Reuben Miller, journal, October 21, 1848. Miller recorded Cowdery's reaffirmation at Kanesville (Council Bluffs), Iowa. Cowdery was rebaptized November 12, 1848. Cited in Faulring, "The Return of Oliver Cowdery." ↩︎

  18. Samuel W. Richards, journal, January 21, 1849, recording his interview with Cowdery. Cited in Faulring, "The Return of Oliver Cowdery." ↩︎

  19. David Whitmer, quoted in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1981), 62. Cowdery died March 3, 1850, in Whitmer's home in Richmond, Missouri. ↩︎

  20. David Whitmer, statement to David H. Cannon at Cowdery's gravesite, 1861. Documented in Kenneth W. Godfrey, "David Whitmer and the Shaping of LDS History," in The Disciple as Witness, ed. Stephen D. Ricks et al. (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000), p. 240. See also Sarah Allen's CES Letter rebuttal Part 43, https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/01/21/43. ↩︎

  21. Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith interview with David Whitmer, September 1877, published in Latter Day Saints Millennial Star 40, no. 49 (December 9, 1878). Whitmer described seeing the plates "just as plain as I see this bed." ↩︎

  22. David Whitmer, "A Proclamation," Richmond Conservator, March 24, 1881. Reprinted in Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, 76, and in B.H. Roberts, A New Witness for God (Salt Lake City: George Q. Cannon & Sons, 1895), 2:265-266. ↩︎

  23. David Whitmer, interview with Joseph Smith III, 1884, in Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, 134. Full statement: "I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!" ↩︎

  24. James H. Moyle, diary entry, June 28, 1885; reproduced in Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2003), 5:141. Moyle, a young Mormon lawyer trained to interrogate witnesses, recorded that Whitmer's answer "was unequivocal... that he saw the plates and heard the angel with unmistakable clearness." ↩︎

  25. Nathan Tanner Jr., statement, May 1886, in Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, 169. Tanner reported Whitmer saying "he saw the plates and with his natural eyes" but had to be "prepared for it" — that he and the other witnesses "were overshadowed by the power of God and a halo of brightness indescribable." ↩︎

  26. "David Whitmer's Last Hours and Testimony," Latter Day Saints Millennial Star 50, no. 9 (Feb. 27, 1888): 139-140; see also B.H. Roberts, A New Witness for God (Salt Lake City: George Q. Cannon & Sons, 1895), 2:296. Whitmer's full statement: "Now, you must all be faithful in Christ. I want to say to you all that the Bible and the record of the Nephites (Book of Mormon), are true, so you can say that you have heard me bear my testimony on my death bed." ↩︎

  27. Susan Easton Black and Larry C. Porter, "Martin Harris Comes to Utah, 1870," BYU Studies Quarterly 57, no. 3 (2018). Documents the 1870 return, the Tabernacle testimony, and the deathbed. Edward Stevenson of Ogden was instrumental in bringing Harris to Utah; Brigham Young paid for the transportation; Harris was rebaptized. ↩︎

  28. The Parrish-Boynton 1844 affirmation is documented in Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (1981). ↩︎

  29. Thomas Colburn account, 1855, recorded in St. Louis Luminary 1 (May 5, 1855): 102. Colburn recorded Harris on Shakerism: "he tried the Shakers, but that would not do." Cited in Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (1981), and Black/Porter, Martin Harris (2018). ↩︎ ↩︎

  30. Joel Tiffany, "Mormonism — No. II," Tiffany's Monthly 5, no. 2 (June 1859): 119-121, 163-170. Reproduced in Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 2:301-321. ↩︎

  31. Martin Harris, testimony given in 1870 after returning to Utah: "the angel did show to me the plates containing the Book of Mormon." Recorded in Black and Porter, "Martin Harris Comes to Utah, 1870," BYU Studies Quarterly 57, no. 3 (2018). ↩︎

  32. William Pilkington Affidavit, April 3, 1934, recounting Harris's deathbed statement: "Just as sure as you see the Sun shining, just as sure am I that I stood in the presence of an Angel of God." Pilkington was a young man who attended Harris in 1875 and recorded the testimony in his 1934 sworn affidavit. ↩︎

  33. George Godfrey, "Testimony of Martin Harris," recounting Harris's deathbed statements, in Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (1981), 110-116. Harris stated: "Had I been willing to have perjured myself and sworn falsely to the testimony I now bear, I could have been a rich man, but I could not have testified other than I have done." ↩︎

  34. Susan Easton Black and Larry C. Porter, "'For the Sum of Three Thousand Dollars,'" Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14, no. 2 (2005): 4-11, 66-67. https://scripturecentral.org/archive/periodicals/journal-article/-sum-three-thousand-dollars. Harris mortgaged 151 acres of his ~240-acre farm to E.B. Grandin to finance the $3,000 printing of the Book of Mormon. ↩︎

  35. Martin Harris's substitution of a fake stone for the seer stone is documented in multiple early accounts. See Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (1981), 98-102. ↩︎

  36. Joseph Smith — History 1:63-65; for scholarly analysis, see Stanley B. Kimball, "The Anthon Transcript: People, Primary Sources, and Problems," BYU Studies 10, no. 3 (1970): 325-352. ↩︎

  37. Neal Rappleye and Stephen O. Smoot, "Stephen Burnett versus the Eight Witnesses: An Exercise in Mature Historical Thinking," Religious Educator 25, no. 2 (2024). https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-25-no-2-2024/stephen-burnett-versus-eight-witnesses. The article applies Sweat and Alford's five-factor source-evaluation framework to Burnett's letter and rates it 3/10 — "not a reliable source." Rappleye and Smoot conclude: to give "singular emphasis or preference to Burnett's thirdhand hearsay testimony over the direct, unambiguous testimonies of the Eight Witnesses themselves or those close to them (including immediate family) is nothing short of historiographical malpractice." ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  38. Stephen Burnett to "Br. Johnson," April 15, 1838, Joseph Smith Letterbook 2, pp. 64-66, Joseph Smith Papers. Burnett characterized Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon as "notorious liars" in the same letter. By April 1838 he had publicly denounced all revelation and announced his own departure from the Church. ↩︎

  39. John Whitmer, "Address to the Patrons of the Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate," Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate 2, no. 5 (March 1836): 286-287. Full quote: "I have most assuredly seen the plates from whence the book of Mormon is translated, and that I have handled these plates, and know of a surety that Joseph Smith, jr. has translated the book of Mormon by the gift and power of God." ↩︎ ↩︎

  40. Theodore Turley memorandum, April 1839; reproduced in History of the Church 3:307-308 and Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 5:241-243. John Whitmer told Turley: "I have no hesitancy; but with all confidence have signed my name." ↩︎

  41. Sally Parker to John Kempton, August 26, 1838. Quoted in Steven C. Harper, "The Eleven Witnesses," The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, 2015). Parker's letter records Hyrum Smith's response to dissenters' "spiritual eyes" claims: "He said he had but two hands and two eyes. He said he had seen the plates with his eyes and handled them with his hands." ↩︎

  42. Hyrum Smith, "Communications," Times and Seasons 1, no. 2 (December 1839): 23. Statement made from Liberty Jail, 1839: "I thank God that I felt a determination to die, rather than deny the things which my eyes had seen, which my hands had handled." ↩︎ ↩︎

  43. Samuel H. Smith's personal copy of the 1830 Book of Mormon, with the Eight-Witnesses statement starred and underlined, is documented in Rappleye and Smoot, "Stephen Burnett versus the Eight Witnesses." Samuel served as the Church's first missionary, carrying his own copy to investigators. ↩︎

  44. Stephen Burnett to "Br. Johnson," April 15, 1838, Joseph Smith Letterbook 2, p. 64. The full Harris correction passage: "M Harris arose & said he was sorry for any man who rejected the Book of Mormon for he knew it was true. He said he had hefted the plates repeatedly in a box with only a tablecloth or a handkerchief over them, but he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain." ↩︎

  45. The two further reasons the faithful reading is preferred: (1) Emma Smith's 1879 interview[55:1] corroborates the covered-plates pattern during the translation period — the plates lay on a table in a small linen tablecloth, and Emma "felt of the plates, as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape," but they remained covered. Harris seeing covered plates "as a city through a mountain" makes coherent metaphorical sense for that context — he knew they were there but could not see them directly. For the Three-Witnesses event, where Harris consistently described uncovered plates in daylight with angelic display, the metaphor is incoherent. (2) Hyrum's 1838 "two hands and two eyes" letter to Sally Parker is responding in real time to exactly this misreading. The "two hands and two eyes" phrasing only makes sense if a "spiritual eyes" framing was already circulating in dissenter polemics; Hyrum is correcting it within months of Burnett's letter, in plain language designed to be unmistakable. ↩︎

  46. Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1981), 110-117. Anderson identifies the "five religions" frame as a hostile reductive label rather than five formal church memberships and concludes "every affiliation of Martin Harris was with some Mormon group" except Shakerism. ↩︎ ↩︎

  47. FAIR, "Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Martin Harris had five religions after Mormonism." https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Martin_Harris_had_five_religions_after_Mormonism. Compiles Edward Bunker (1844), Jeremiah Cooper (1844), the November 1850 journal entry, Harris's "no man ever heard me in any way deny" statement. ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  48. Robin Scott Jensen, "A Witness in England: Martin Harris and the Strangite Mission," BYU Studies 44, no. 3 (2005): 79-98. https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/a-witness-in-england-martin-harris-and-the-strangite-mission. Documents Harris's England trip with Strang (October-December 1846), the Birmingham/Manchester/Liverpool Book of Mormon affirmations, Lester Brooks's decision to send Harris home, and the broader pattern of Harris affirming the Book of Mormon while refusing to preach Strangism. ↩︎ ↩︎

  49. "The Testimony of Eight Witnesses," Book of Mormon (Palmyra: E.B. Grandin, 1830), [589]. The original 1830 published statement printed in every edition since. ↩︎

  50. Daniel C. Peterson, "The Book of Mormon Witnesses and Their Challenge to Secularism," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 27 (2017): vii-xxviii. https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/the-book-of-mormon-witnesses-and-their-challenge-to-secularism. Peterson develops the Habermas hallucination argument and engages the conspiracy and forged-plates theories systematically. ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  51. Richard Lloyd Anderson, "Attempts to Redefine the Experience of the Eight Witnesses," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14, no. 1 (2005): 18-31, 125-127. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol14/iss1/4/. Anderson documents ten separate statements from the Eight Witnesses describing physical handling of the plates. ↩︎

  52. P. Wilhelm Poulson, interview with John Whitmer, July 1878, Deseret Evening News, August 6, 1878 (citing Poulson's letter to the editors dated July 31, 1878). Reproduced in Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 5:243-247. Whitmer described the plates as "8 by 6 or 7 inches," "very heavy" (consistent with gold density), with "three rings, each one in the shape of a D"; when asked if the plates were "a material substance," Whitmer answered: "Yes, as material as anything can be." ↩︎

  53. John C. Whitmer, letter to Deseret News, September 1888, recorded in Andrew Jenson's compilation. "My father, Jacob Whitmer, was always faithful and true to his testimony to the Book of Mormon, and confirmed it on his death bed." Quoted in FAIR, "Did Jacob Whitmer, one of the Eight Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, ever deny having seen the plates?" https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Did_Jacob_Whitmer,_one_of_the_Eight_Witnesses_to_the_Book_of_Mormon,_ever_deny_having_seen_the_plates%3F. ↩︎ ↩︎

  54. Daniel Tyler reminiscence of Samuel Smith, in Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses. Tyler recorded that Samuel "knew his brother Joseph had the plates, for the prophet had shown them to him, and he had handled them." ↩︎

  55. Emma Smith, interview by Joseph Smith III, February 1879, published in Saints' Herald 26 (October 1, 1879): 289-290. ↩︎ ↩︎

  56. Larry E. Morris, A Documentary History of the Book of Mormon (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019); Larry E. Morris, "Empirical Witnesses of the Gold Plates," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 52, no. 2 (2019): 59-84. https://scripturecentral.org/archive/periodicals/journal-article/empirical-witnesses-gold-plates. ↩︎ ↩︎

  57. Mark Twain, Roughing It (Hartford: American Publishing Company, 1872), 113. Twain's chapter on Mormonism is satirical; the "entire Whitmer family" line is offered as comedic dismissal. ↩︎

  58. Andrew Jenson, Historical Record 7 (1888): 614, entry on Hiram Page; cited in Debunking-CESLetter, "Eight Witnesses Accounts." https://debunking-cesletter.com/witnesses-1/eight-witnesses-accounts/. Hiram Page's son recorded his father "rejoice[d] exceedingly in having been privileged to see the plates" throughout life. ↩︎

  59. Richard Lloyd Anderson, "The Conversion of Oliver Cowdery," in The Prophet Joseph: Essays on the Life and Mission of Joseph Smith, ed. Larry C. Porter et al. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1988); see also Larry E. Morris, "The Conversion of Oliver Cowdery," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 16, no. 1 (2007): 4-17. ↩︎

  60. Steven C. Harper, "Was Joseph Smith a Money Digger?" BYU Studies Quarterly 62, no. 4 (2023): 37-55. ↩︎ ↩︎

  61. Mark Ashurst-McGee, "A Pathway to Prophethood: Joseph Smith Junior as Rodsman, Village Seer, and Judeo-Christian Prophet" (master's thesis, Utah State University, 2000). https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/6873/. ↩︎

  62. For analysis of the 1826 Bainbridge proceeding, see Wesley P. Walters, "Joseph Smith's Bainbridge, NY, Court Trials," Westminster Theological Journal 36 (Winter 1974): 123-155 (critical); Gordon A. Madsen, "Being Acquitted of a 'Disorderly Person' Charge in 1826," in Sustaining the Law: Joseph Smith's Legal Encounters, ed. Gordon A. Madsen, Jeffrey N. Walker, and John W. Welch (Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 2014), 71-92 (faithful); Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses; Harper, "Was Joseph Smith a Money Digger?" (2023). ↩︎

  63. Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), chapters on Joseph's early life and the magic worldview. ↩︎

  64. D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, rev. ed. (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1998). https://www.signaturebooks.com/books/p/early-mormonism-and-the-magic-world-view. ↩︎

  65. The 3/3 pattern is data the framework must accommodate. It is consistent with three men who experienced the same divine event and then disagreed with the same prophet's institutional decisions in three separate ways, rather than three men whose disagreement extended back through the 1829 testimony itself. Cowdery's, Whitmer's, and Harris's excommunications each have documented institutional histories independent of the 1829 event: Cowdery's land disputes in Far West; Whitmer's Missouri administration disputes; Harris's losses in the Kirtland Safety Society failure. The pattern is real but does not entail the reduction the CES Letter wants. ↩︎

  66. James H. Moyle's observation, recorded in his diary and discussed by Daniel C. Peterson, "The Book of Mormon Witnesses and Their Challenge to Secularism," Interpreter 27 (2017). ↩︎

  67. Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2004). Vogel's "pious fraud" thesis: Joseph Smith believed himself called to bring forth a sacred record by whatever means and the witnesses experienced something genuine within a visionary framework Joseph cultivated. ↩︎

  68. Vogel reads the Eight Witnesses' daylight handling either as a separate heightened-religious-experience event or as memory shaped by the Three Witnesses' framing. The first reading attributes another visionary event to the Eight, who themselves never described one. The second reading requires that the Eight Witnesses' specific empirical content (dimensions, weight, ring configurations, "as material as anything can be") was generated by post-hoc framing rather than direct examination — but the Eight produced their accounts in 1830, before the visionary framing of the Three was widely circulating in dissenter polemics, and individual Eight accounts continued specifying physical detail (Whitmer's 1878 Poulson interview, Hyrum's 1838-39 statements) under conditions where post-hoc framing would not predict such specificity. Vogel's thesis is the strongest skeptical reading; it does not by itself account for the Eight's empirical content or for Whitmer's fifty-year non-Mormon Richmond record. ↩︎

  69. H. Michael Marquardt, "David Whitmer: His Evolving Beliefs and Recollections," in Scattering of the Saints: Schism within Mormonism, ed. Newell G. Bringhurst and John C. Hamer (Independence, MO: John Whitmer Books, 2007), 125-155. Documents factual errors in the 1887 Address (Book of Commandments printing status, number of elders before April 1830, conference attendance numbers) and concludes the Address should not be uncritically taken as definitive Whitmer testimony. ↩︎

  70. "A Statement of Citizens of Richmond, Mo.," 1881 broadside. Reprinted in Cook, David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness, 219. Prominent non-Mormon residents of Richmond, Missouri attested to Whitmer's "undoubted truth and veracity." ↩︎

  71. Witnesses of the Book of Mormon Initiative. https://witnessesofthebookofmormon.org/. Companion to the Witnesses (2021) film and Undaunted (2022) docudrama, produced by the Interpreter Foundation. See also project bibliography: https://witnessesofthebookofmormon.org/general/bibliography/. ↩︎

  72. John W. Welch, "Timing the Translation of the Book of Mormon: 'Days [and Hours] Never to Be Forgotten,'" BYU Studies Quarterly 57, no. 4 (2018): 10-50. https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/timing-the-translation-of-the-book-of-mormon-days-and-hours-never-to-be-forgotten/. The 60-65 working-day timeline is the consensus scholarly figure for the translation period (April-June 1829, with the bulk of the dictation in May-June 1829). ↩︎

A faith-promoting resource for Latter-day Saints.

Copyright 2025-present