The Lost Witnesses of the Restoration: Introduction

Belief in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (COJCOLDS, Mormons) has always been rather legalistic. Members are eager to “prove” the validity of their claims with evidence (“where did the Book of Mormon come from if not from God?”), by demonstration (“the Church is growing so fast!”), by expert testimony (“so-and-so is smart and believes, therefore it must be true.”), and by witnesses.

This last legalism can be traced all the way back to Joseph’s transition from treasure-digging to religious writing with the Book of Mormon. When Joseph’s plan of “exhibiting the plates to the world”¹ fell through, he set to work rounding up his landlord’s family and a few relatives in order to concoct a bold written “witness” that would then be published for ever after at the front of Joseph’s book. The facts that all 3 Witnesses of the plates split dramatically from the Church over doctrine, confessed to not really seeing the plates with their physical eyes, called Joseph a “fallen prophet,” and “repented” of their Mormonism to join other congregations usually doesn’t make it into the correlated narrative. What does make it into the narrative is that all 3 + 8 of the early Witnesses were noble characters with great faith who never definitely, publicly, or unarguably revoked their endorsement.

But placing aside the shifting loyalties of those early 11 Witnesses, there are relevant witnesses of early Mormonism that are powerful, clear, and too often overlooked. The slandering of “apostates” and the dismissal of “hard-hearted” Gentiles in the early Church was so pervasive and effective that even now, scholars and postmormons hesitate to rely on the statements of those who were smeared.

However, these early witnesses of the Restoration are essential testimony in the trial of validity for the Church. They offer first-hand perspectives, ranging from the very beginnings of Joseph’s career to the end. They are often scrupulously researched, modestly phrased, and well-supported with additional affidavits to illustrate the nature of Joseph’s character and the movement he was building. To dismiss out-of-hand anyone who was slandered by Joseph and his fellows is to eliminate a huge and important body of evidence.

One of the favorite pleas of apologists now as to why modern people should be swayed by the printed testimonies at the beginning of the Book of Mormon is that the men were held in good opinion by their neighbors.

“Look!” the apologetic reasoning goes, “other people thought they were generally trustworthy, hardworking, etc therefore the modern person ought to base their life and beliefs on their witness too!”

Besides the fallacy of asking a modern person to base life decisions on vague neighborly goodwill from the 1800s, it is important to note that many of the critics of Joseph were also commended by their neighbors and associates in the same way. William Law was described in 1887 as “truthful, conscientious, intelligent…honest, courage[ous]…benevolent, venerable.” Nathaniel Lewis was a well-respected Methodist minister, clear speaker, and close observer of Joseph’s early moves into religious authority, since he was also Emma’s uncle. Isaac Hale, Emma’s father, was similarly close to witnessing the “translation” of the Plates and was considered a pillar of his community. All of these offered affidavits along with other neighbors, nephews, brothers, and others, substantiating the poor character of Joseph Smith with real examples (not suggestive meditations about the plates in the woods).

Critics who were not personally trusted by their neighbors also have important witnesses to offer. While readers are right to be wary of bias, a grounded view of Joseph and his Restoration will be able to aggregate all testimonies to understand what happened. What’s more: even questionable sources like the fraudster John C. Bennett’s exposé are better-documented and more thorough than any of the 11 original witnesses of the Book of Mormon. To put a finer point on it: Bennett gives a more honest, balanced, and historical representation² of Joseph, Nauvoo, and the Church than all of the 11 witnesses, who allowed their names to be forged to support an exaggerated testimonial they did write.³

The critical testimonies are dismissed automatically by many modern believers, though, because they don’t reinforce belief. But for the remaining honest seekers of truth, who find themselves within the Church, it is important to reclaim these lost witnesses of the Restoration as evidence in the overall “case.” Most modern believers have been subject to years of edited history around the 3 + 8 Witnesses. When concerns about Mezzo-American metallurgy or ancient American chariots pop up, the Witnesses provide a final bulwark of belief. But for those who really do wonder if they ought to be basing their life decisions on the Book of Mormon and the line of Prophets who claim succession to Joseph, they deserve to hear all of the available witnesses.

William Law, the 1887 interview and the Nauvoo Expositor

Isaac, David, and Alva Hale

The Lewis Family

The Harris Family

1. Nathaniel Lewis, Emma’s uncle said that Joseph told Lewis “he (Joseph) was to exhibit the plates to the world, at a certain time, which was then about eighteen months distant…Smith frequently said to me that I should see the plates at the time appointed. After the time stipulated, had passed away, Smith being at my house was asked why he did not fulfil his promise, show the Golden Plates and prove himself an honest man?”
   This testimony aligns with that of Abigail Harris (daughter of Joseph’s first scribe and one of the 3 Witnesses Martin Harris) who recalled that pre-publication, the Smith family spoke openly about exhibiting the Plates for 5-cents per view (adjusted for inflation, this would be the 2025 equivalent of $16.91). They expected it to be “an enormous sum of money.”
   Both affidavits are cited in Mormonism Unvailed.
   ↩︎
2. John C. Bennett wrote his own account of events in Nauvoo in the History of the Saints, provided concrete evidence that he knew what was happening behind the scenes by listing the initials of women Joseph was marrying, and also collected official affidavits from others who offered their own perspectives in their own words. ↩︎
3. Handwriting analysis of the Witness signatures shows them all to have been written by Oliver Cowdery. ↩︎