what makes it special...thereby rendering the "witness" aspect of it pointless?
Do the leaders still do that thing where they vaguely talk about some special experience that they had in the temple, leading the members to think that they must have seen Jesus or angels (because what else would be extra special in the temple)? But when anyone asks them to say more they just say something like "it was so sacred and personal to me that it would not be my place to discuss it publicly."
Whenever they did that, especially in the context of claiming to be a "special witness," I just found it frustrating. Like, don't they know what the function of a "witness" is?
"Your honor, the defense would now like to call a special witness to the stand."
"So, special witness, you say that you witnessed something that proves that the defendant could not possibly have committed the crime. Tell us what you witnessed"
"Well, it was special and personal to me. It gave me a burning conviction that the defendant is innocent."
"Okay, can you elaborate on what it was specifically?"
"No. It was too special. I cannot defile that special experience by casually speaking of it. That would be like casting pearls before swine."
"Great! Well, ladies and gentleman of the jury. The special witness has confirmed that he thinks you are all swine."