Appearance
Credibility Concerns
The claim:
The CES Letter argues that the Book of Mormon witnesses were unreliable because they were related to Joseph Smith, financially invested in the Book of Mormon, involved in treasure digging and folk magic, and that some left the Church. Martin Harris is called gullible and superstitious. The witness testimony is dismissed as formulaic and possibly dictated.[1]
Strip away the rhetoric and the CES Letter is making a simple argument: these men can't be trusted. They were biased, credulous, and eventually disloyal.
But what did these "untrustworthy" men actually do when they left?
They left the Church. They never left their testimony.
This is the fact the CES Letter needs you to skip past quickly.
Of the eleven Book of Mormon witnesses, at least six became estranged from the Church during their lifetimes. Three of the most prominent — Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer — were excommunicated or formally cut off. They had personal grievances against Joseph Smith. They had social incentives to recant. Some faced ridicule for decades.
Not one of them ever denied what they saw.
| Witness | Left the Church? | Recanted testimony? | Later statement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oliver Cowdery | Excommunicated 1838 | No | Reaffirmed on deathbed, 1850[2] |
| Martin Harris | Estranged ~1837 | No | Bore testimony with dying breath, 1875[3] |
| David Whitmer | Excommunicated 1838 | No | Deathbed testimony before family and physician, 1888[4] |
| Hiram Page | Left Church | No | "I cannot...claim [it] was true in 1830, and...false in 1847"[5] |
| John Whitmer | Excommunicated 1838 | No | "I have never heard that any one of the three, or eight witnesses ever denied the testimony"[6] |
| Jacob Whitmer | Distanced from Church | No | Confirmed testimony on his deathbed[7] |
Think about what this means. If you fabricated a story with someone and then had a bitter falling-out, the easiest weapon you could deploy is the truth. "I lied. He made it up. It was all fake." That's the one card that would destroy Joseph Smith's credibility permanently.
None of them played it. Not once. Not even when it would have benefited them personally to do so.
The one hostile account — and what it actually says
The CES Letter leans heavily on a letter from Stephen Burnett (April 15, 1838) claiming Harris said in a public meeting that he "never saw the plates with his natural eyes" and that the testimony of the eight was "picked out of" them. This account, written by someone hostile to Harris during a period of intense Church conflict, contradicts every other documented Harris statement — before, during, and after 1838. Harris himself, at the very same meeting, reportedly "arose & said he was sorry for any man who rejected the Book of Mormon for he knew it was true."[8]
A single hostile secondhand account from 1838 doesn't outweigh 100+ firsthand affirmations spanning 46 years. If it did, we'd have to throw out most of ancient history.
Bottom line: Witnesses who leave a movement and maintain their testimony under social pressure are more credible, not less. The CES Letter presents their departure as evidence of unreliability. The historical record shows the opposite.
The family connections argument
The claim: Most of the witnesses were related to Joseph Smith or to each other, creating an obvious bias.[1:1]
The CES Letter lists the family connections: Whitmer brothers, Smith family members, Hiram Page married to a Whitmer. The implication is collusion.
What this actually proves
The witnesses were drawn from a small circle. That's what happens in rural 1829 New York. Joseph Smith didn't have a Rolodex of strangers to call.
But the family-connection argument cuts both ways. Family members are the hardest people to deceive over a lifetime. Your brother knows when you're lying. Your father-in-law knows your character. If the plates were a prop, someone in that tight circle would have eventually said so — especially after excommunication, lawsuits, and decades of estrangement.
John Whitmer, excommunicated in 1838, wrote in 1876: "I have never heard that any one of the three, or eight witnesses ever denied the testimony that they have borne to the Book."[6:1]
He'd been out of the Church for nearly forty years at that point. If anyone in the family had cracked, he would have known.
The Oliver Cowdery "cousin" claim
The CES Letter emphasizes that Oliver Cowdery was Joseph Smith's cousin, implying a conflict of interest. The relationship was actually that of third 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 or awareness of kinship.[9]
Bottom line: Family connections didn't prevent the witnesses from leaving the Church, publicly criticizing Joseph Smith, or enduring decades of separation. What they never did was deny the testimony. If family loyalty was the binding force, it failed in every respect except the one that matters most.
The "magical worldview" attack
The claim: The witnesses believed in folk magic, treasure digging, divining rods, and second sight — making them unreliable observers.[1:2]
The CES Letter devotes considerable space to establishing that early nineteenth-century Americans believed in supernatural phenomena. Treasure digging. Seer stones. Divining rods. The argument: people with these beliefs would believe anything.
The double standard
If belief in the supernatural disqualifies a witness, then every religious testimony in history is inadmissible. The apostle Paul saw a vision on the road to Damascus. The disciples claimed to see the resurrected Christ. Were they disqualified by their belief in miracles?
The CES Letter wants to apply a standard selectively: these believers in the supernatural can't be trusted — but the Letter never applies the same standard to witnesses it favors. This is the logical fallacy of poisoning the well — discredit the person so you don't have to address what they actually reported.
What the witnesses actually reported
The Three Witnesses described an angelic visitation in broad daylight. Oliver Cowdery wrote it was "a clear, open beautiful day, far from any inhabitants, in a remote field."[10]
The Eight Witnesses described something different entirely — no angel, no vision, no supernatural event. They said they handled physical plates, turned the leaves, and examined the engravings. John Whitmer: "I now say, I handled those plates; there were fine engravings on both sides."[11] Hyrum Smith: he "had seen the plates with his eyes and handled them with his hands."[12]
Two different groups. Two different types of experience. One visionary, one physical. The CES Letter's "magical worldview" argument might (generously) address the Three Witnesses' experience. It cannot explain eight men independently describing the weight, texture, and engravings of a physical object.
Bottom line: Labeling someone "superstitious" doesn't make their eyewitness testimony disappear. The Eight Witnesses described a physical encounter with no supernatural elements. Dismiss their worldview all you like — you still need to explain what they handled.
Martin Harris: gullible or skeptical?
The claim: Martin Harris was "anything but a skeptical witness," known as "an unstable, gullible, and superstitious man." Brigham Young said he had "a wild, speculative brain." He changed religions multiple times and testified for other prophets.[13]
The CES Letter's portrait of Martin Harris is built almost entirely from hostile sources — third-hand anecdotes, anti-Mormon newspaper accounts, and selectively quoted passages. It presents every unflattering story as established fact while omitting the documented record of his character.
The Brigham Young quote — in context
The CES Letter quotes Brigham Young: "he possessed a wild, speculative brain." True. Brigham said that. He also said Harris "had not much to apostatize from" — meaning Harris had drifted from key doctrines even before his estrangement.[14] What this shows is that Harris thought for himself, sometimes erratically. What it does not show is that he fabricated a testimony about seeing an angel and gold plates — a testimony he repeated consistently for 46 years regardless of his theological wanderings.
The sensational stories
The CES Letter lists colorful anecdotes: Harris saw Jesus in the shape of a deer, saw the devil with four feet and a donkey head, thought a sputtering candle was the devil. These stories trace to hostile, often third-hand sources — John A. Clark (who never met Joseph Smith), Ohio newspapers notorious for fabrication, and accounts written decades after the events.[15] The Geauga Gazette, which published some of these claims, had six weeks earlier printed that Book of Mormon translation involved people jumping for invisible white stones and a man flying 25 feet.
Even granting every colorful story as true, the conclusion doesn't follow. A person who reports unusual experiences is not automatically incapable of distinguishing between a claimed vision and a physical encounter with plates, an angel, and a divine voice. The question isn't whether Martin Harris was eccentric. It's whether he consistently reported a specific experience for 46 years. He did.
What his neighbors actually said
Ronald W. Walker's research found "more than a dozen of Harris's Palmyra contemporaries left descriptions of the man that describe his honor, honesty, industry, peacefulness, and respectability, his hard-headed, Yankee shrewdness and his growing wealth."[16] The CES Letter quotes Walker's book selectively, omitting these characterizations.
One neighbor who believed Harris was deceived nonetheless conceded: "How to reconcile the act of Harris in signing his name to such a statement...in view of the character of honesty which had always been conceded to him, could never easily be explained."[17]
Even critics acknowledged his honesty. They thought he was wrong — but not dishonest.
Harris tested Joseph Smith
Martin Harris was not a passive believer. He actively tested the translation:
- He substituted a fake stone for the seer stone without Joseph's knowledge, to see if Joseph would notice. Joseph detected the switch.[18]
- He took characters from the plates to Professor Charles Anthon at Columbia for independent verification — a skeptical act, not a credulous one.[19]
- He mortgaged his farm to finance the Book of Mormon's publication — a 240-acre farm worth a significant fortune. A gullible man follows. A convinced man invests.[20]
The "changed religions" claim
The CES Letter notes Harris "changed his religion" multiple times and quotes a claim that he said "he had as much evidence for a Shaker book he had as for the Book of Mormon."[21]
Harris did explore other religious movements after his estrangement from the Church. But through every religious transition, he never stopped testifying of the Book of Mormon. He told Strangite missionaries. He told Shaker communities. He told anyone who would listen.
The Shaker claim comes from a single hostile account (the Braden-Kelly Debate, 1884) and is contradicted by every other documented statement Harris made about the Book of Mormon — including statements made during the same period. When weighed against over 100 documented affirmations, one hearsay line in a debate transcript doesn't hold up.[22]
Harris didn't abandon his witness when he left the Church. He carried it everywhere.
His final testimony
Martin Harris returned to Utah in 1870 at age 87. He was rebaptized and spent his remaining years reaffirming his witness. Over 100 documented sources record his consistent testimony.[22:1]
On his deathbed in July 1875, surrounded by family, he declared: "I never did deny it. 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."[3:1]
He pointed to his eyes, his ears, and his hands — insisting he had literally seen, heard, and touched.[23]
Bottom line: Martin Harris mortgaged his farm, tested the translation process, consulted independent experts, and maintained his testimony for 46 years after the event — including decades outside the Church. The CES Letter calls this "gullible." It looks more like conviction.
David Whitmer: fifty years of testimony outside the Church
David Whitmer was excommunicated in 1838. He never returned. He lived the remaining fifty years of his life in Richmond, Missouri, as a respected businessman and community leader.
He was also the most interviewed of the three witnesses — journalists, historians, lawyers, and Church leaders sought him out for decades. The record is extensive.
What Whitmer said, over and over
1881: "I have never at any time, denied that testimony or any part thereof...I do now again affirm the truth of all my statement[s], as then made and published. It was no Delusion."[24]
1884: Challenged about hallucination, Whitmer stood to his full height: "I saw with these eyes and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!"[25]
1887: In a letter to Anthony Metcalf, Whitmer clarified the nature of his experience: "We were in the spirit when we had the view...but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time."[26]
His deathbed testimony
On January 22, 1888, three days before his death, Whitmer called his family and friends to his bedside. He first addressed his physician: "Dr. Buchanan, I want you to say whether or not I am in my right mind before I give my last testimony."
The doctor confirmed he was lucid.
Whitmer then stated: "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."[4:1]
The community vouched for him
The citizens of Richmond — non-members who had lived alongside Whitmer for decades — signed a public statement attesting to his "undoubted truth and veracity."[27] These were people with no stake in the Book of Mormon. They simply knew the man and his character.
Bottom line: David Whitmer spent fifty years outside the Church, had every reason to recant, and instead gave dozens of interviews reaffirming exactly what he saw. His non-Mormon neighbors testified to his honesty. The CES Letter doesn't mention any of this.
Oliver Cowdery: the one who came back
Oliver Cowdery — co-founder of the Church, primary scribe of the Book of Mormon, one of the Three Witnesses — was excommunicated in 1838. He spent the next ten years as a lawyer in Ohio and Wisconsin, establishing himself in a profession built on credibility.
He never denied his testimony during those years. When asked about it, he affirmed it. John Whitmer noted: "I have never heard him deny the truth of his testimony of the Book of Mormon under any circumstances whatever."[28]
His return
On November 12, 1848, Oliver Cowdery was rebaptized at Council Bluffs, Iowa. He sought readmission — not as a leader demanding position, but as a regular member. He bore testimony of the Book of Mormon at the conference where he was received back.[29]
His deathbed
Oliver died on March 3, 1850, in David Whitmer's home in Richmond, Missouri. David Whitmer later reported: "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."[2:1]
Bottom line: Oliver Cowdery built a legal career on his reputation, then came back to the Church as a regular member, reaffirming the very testimony that had cost him professionally. The CES Letter's narrative of biased insiders doesn't survive contact with the timeline.
The formulaic testimony argument
The claim: The printed witness testimonies use formulaic, possibly dictated language. The witnesses didn't actually sign the statements — Oliver Cowdery wrote the names.[30]
The closest surviving document to an original witness statement is in Oliver Cowdery's handwriting, with the names written (not signed) by Oliver. The CES Letter treats this as evidence the witnesses didn't actually agree to the statements.
What the witnesses said about the statements
The real test isn't who held the pen. It's whether the witnesses stood by the words.
David Whitmer (1879): "As you read my testimony given many years ago, so it stands as my own existence."[31]
Every witness who was asked about the printed statement affirmed it represented their experience. No witness ever claimed the statement misrepresented what happened.
Legal standards aren't the right frame
The CES Letter applies modern legal standards — signatures, notarization, specific dates — to an 1829 rural New York document. In that context, a printed declaration bearing your name, followed by decades of public affirmation, carried weight. The witnesses endorsed these statements every time they were asked, in interviews and public declarations spanning half a century.
The functional test is simple: did they agree with the words? Every piece of evidence says yes.
Bottom line: The printed statement has been affirmed by every witness ever asked about it, across decades of interviews. The CES Letter's objection about penmanship and signatures ignores fifty years of personal reaffirmation.
The positive case: why the witnesses matter
The CES Letter opens its witnesses section with a bold claim: "It all doesn't matter. The Book of Mormon Witnesses and their testimonies of the gold plates are irrelevant."[32]
That framing should raise a question. If the witnesses truly don't matter, why does the CES Letter spend twenty pages trying to discredit them?
The witnesses matter because they provide something rare in religious history: named, public, lifelong testimony from multiple independent observers of a specific physical event.
Three features that resist easy dismissal
1. Multiple attestation across two separate events. The Three Witnesses and Eight Witnesses described different experiences on different occasions. The Three saw an angel and heard a divine voice. The Eight handled physical plates with no supernatural elements. Shared hallucination doesn't explain both — and the physical handling of the Eight Witnesses isn't explained by hallucination at all.[33]
2. Hostile witness testimony. The strongest evidence comes from witnesses who became hostile to Joseph Smith. Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer all had periods of deep personal conflict with Joseph. They had motive, opportunity, and social incentive to recant. They chose to maintain their testimony instead — for decades.
3. The cost they paid. Martin Harris lost his farm. Oliver Cowdery damaged his legal reputation. David Whitmer endured fifty years of journalists asking if he'd been fooled. The witnesses gained nothing material from their testimony and lost measurably. People don't maintain fabricated stories when those stories cost them.[34]
What even critics concede
Richard Lloyd Anderson's research — the most thorough scholarly examination of the witnesses ever conducted — concluded that "statements clearly traced to the witnesses verify the testimonies printed in the Book of Mormon: that they saw the plates, and in the case of the Three Witnesses, that an angel displayed them while the heavenly voice declared that the translation was correct."[34:1]
Even Dan Vogel, a prominent critic of the Book of Mormon, accepts the witnesses as sincere — he argues they were psychologically influenced, not that they fabricated their accounts.[35] The "they were lying" hypothesis has been largely abandoned by serious critics. The debate has shifted to what they experienced, not whether they experienced it.
The real question the CES Letter avoids
The CES Letter spends twenty pages on character attacks, family trees, and folk magic. It catalogs every unflattering story about Martin Harris. It highlights every family connection among the Whitmers. It emphasizes every eccentric belief of the era.
What it never addresses is the central problem: eleven men publicly testified to seeing or handling gold plates. Several of them left the Church in bitterness. All of them maintained their testimony until death. Multiple deathbed statements are documented. Non-Mormon neighbors vouched for their character.
Character attacks don't make that go away. The CES Letter has to explain why men with nothing to gain and much to lose maintained a story for decades — including decades when they were openly hostile to the man they supposedly conspired with.
It doesn't even try.
Bottom line: The CES Letter attacks the witnesses' character because it cannot explain their behavior. Men who fabricate testimony recant when the partnership dissolves. Men who saw something real don't — even when it costs them everything.
Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "Witnesses," pp. 85–88. The CES Letter describes the witnesses as "eleven 19th century treasure diggers with magical worldviews" and questions their credibility based on family connections, folk beliefs, and financial interests. ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
David Whitmer, quoted in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1981), 62. Whitmer reported: "Oliver never wavered in his testimony, and when he was on his death bed...He bore the same testimony on his dying bed that he had always borne through life." See also Andrew Jenson, Latter-day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia (Salt Lake City: Andrew Jenson History Company, 1901), 1:246. ↩︎ ↩︎
George Godfrey, "Testimony of Martin Harris," recounting Harris's deathbed statements, cited in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 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." Over 100 documented sources record his consistent testimony. See also Susan Easton Black, "Martin Harris Comes to Utah, 1870," BYU Studies Quarterly 58, no. 4 (2018). ↩︎ ↩︎
"David Whitmer's Last Hours and Testimony," Latter Day Saints Millennial Star 50 (1888): 412. Whitmer stated to family, friends, and his physician: "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." See also B.H. Roberts, A New Witness for God (Salt Lake City: George Q. Cannon & Sons, 1895), 2:296. ↩︎ ↩︎
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. ↩︎
John Whitmer, letter dated 1876, cited in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 128. ↩︎ ↩︎
"Jacob Whitmer remained faithful and true to his testimony...and confirmed it on his death bed." Theodore Turley memorandum, cited in Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 131. ↩︎
Stephen Burnett, letter to "Br. Johnson," April 15, 1838, in Joseph Smith Letter Book, p. 2. Burnett was estranged from the Church and writing during a period of intense internal conflict. The same letter notes that after Burnett spoke against the Book of Mormon, "M Harris arose & said he was sorry for any man who rejected the Book of Mormon for he knew it was true." See also Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 120–125, for a full analysis of the Burnett account and its contradictions. ↩︎
Richard Lloyd Anderson, "The Conversion of Oliver Cowdery," in Larry C. Porter et al., eds., The Prophet Joseph: Essays on the Life and Mission of Joseph Smith (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. ↩︎
Oliver Cowdery, letter to Cornelius Blatchly, November 9, 1829, in Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1996–2003), 2:456. ↩︎
John Whitmer statement, cited in Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 127. See also Theodore Turley memorandum. ↩︎
Hyrum Smith, statement recorded in multiple sources. See Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 141. ↩︎
Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "Witnesses," pp. 89–91. The CES Letter characterizes Martin Harris as gullible, superstitious, and quotes Brigham Young calling him a man with "a wild, speculative brain." ↩︎
Brigham Young, address, Brigham Young Addresses, Vol. 4, 1860–1864, Elden J. Watson, pp. 196–199. Young's full comment was about Harris's theological instability, not his honesty or the reality of his witness experience. ↩︎
The Jesus-as-deer story comes from Reverend John A. Clark's letter (August 31, 1840) in Early Mormon Documents 2:271 — a third-hand account from a clergyman who never met Joseph Smith. The devil description comes from Ohio newspapers cited in EMD 2:271, note 32. The candle story is from Thomas Gregg's 1890 anti-Mormon book, citing S.S. Harding's recollection of events ~60 years prior. Harding was a former Utah territorial governor removed for conflicts with the Church over polygamy. ↩︎
Ronald W. Walker, "Martin Harris: Mormonism's Early Convert," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19, no. 4 (Winter 1986): 30–31. Walker documented over a dozen Palmyra contemporaries who described Harris as honest, industrious, and shrewd — characterizations the CES Letter omits. ↩︎
Cited in Walker, "Martin Harris: Mormonism's Early Convert," 34–35. The neighbor acknowledged Harris's known honesty while struggling to explain his testimony. ↩︎
Martin Harris's substitution of a fake stone is documented in multiple early accounts. See Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 98–102. ↩︎
Martin Harris's visit to Charles Anthon is documented in 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. ↩︎
Martin Harris mortgaged his 240-acre farm to finance the $3,000 printing of the Book of Mormon. See "For the Sum of Three Thousand Dollars," BYU Studies Quarterly 57, no. 3 (2018). https://scripturecentral.org/archive/periodicals/journal-article/-sum-three-thousand-dollars ↩︎
Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "Witnesses," p. 90. The Shaker book claim comes from the Braden-Kelly Debate (1884), p. 173 — a single hostile account contradicted by every other documented Harris statement from the same period. ↩︎
Over 100 sources documenting Martin Harris's lifelong testimony are catalogued in "Martin Harris," Evidence Central. https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-martin-harris ↩︎ ↩︎
Multiple witnesses recalled Harris pointing to his eyes, ears, and hands to emphasize the physical nature of his experience. See Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 107–116. ↩︎
David Whitmer, public statement, March 19, 1881. Published in multiple newspapers and reprinted in Lyndon W. Cook, ed., David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness (Orem, UT: Grandin Book, 1991), 76. ↩︎
David Whitmer, interview with Joseph Smith III, 1884, as reported in Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, 134. ↩︎
David Whitmer, letter to Anthony Metcalf, April 2, 1887. Reprinted in Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, 245. ↩︎
"A Statement of Citizens of Richmond, Mo.," published as a broadside and reprinted in multiple sources. Prominent non-Mormon residents attested to Whitmer's "undoubted truth and veracity." See Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, 219. ↩︎
John Whitmer, statement cited in Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 63. ↩︎
Scott H. Faulring, "The Return of Oliver Cowdery," in John W. Welch and Larry E. Morris, eds., Oliver Cowdery: Scribe, Elder, Witness (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute, 2006), 321–362. Cowdery was rebaptized on November 12, 1848, at Council Bluffs, Iowa. ↩︎
Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "Witnesses," pp. 99–100. The CES Letter argues the witness statements lack legal weight due to missing actual signatures and formulaic language. ↩︎
David Whitmer, interview, 1879. Cited in Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, 62. ↩︎
Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "Witnesses," p. 85. The CES Letter opens the witnesses section claiming the testimony "doesn't matter" and is "irrelevant." ↩︎
Daniel C. Peterson, "The Book of Mormon Witnesses and Their Challenge to Secularism," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 26 (2017): 73–96. https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/the-book-of-mormon-witnesses-and-their-challenge-to-secularism ↩︎
Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1981). Anderson's work remains the most thorough scholarly examination of the witnesses, concluding that their statements consistently verify the printed testimonies in the Book of Mormon. ↩︎ ↩︎
Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2004). Vogel argues Joseph Smith was a "pious fraud" but accepts the witnesses as sincere, attributing their experiences to psychological influence rather than deliberate fabrication. ↩︎