Benjamin Seeker

According to Smac’s argument, because queer identity didn’t become a thing until 150 years ago, the church is on good footing in its policies and doctrines in regards to queer relationships. Something similar could be said about the LDS church. It has only existed for less than 200 years, so historically it’s only 5 minutes old. Perhaps all of those people that identify as members of the church are mistaken and that’s not a valid religious identity. Smac, I realize you’re basing your argument on what you consider eternal truth, but you are arguing against the lived experience of other people. Just like they can’t take away your belief and conviction and you would not accept rhetoric that did, your position against queer identity is similarly reality-shattering to the queer individuals that hear/read it.

I don’t think we have any reason to doubt Burnett’s report of what Martin Harris said. The letter doesn’t appear to be written to make accusations or with some pernicious agenda. Rather the letter sounds like a sincere account of troubled times. Notice that Burnett is still open to input, specifically asking Lyman for input on the BoM, the inclusion of Martin Harris’ continued testimony and reticence to divilulge his criticism, and the letter closing that welcomes others to disagree with Burnett’a conclusions without losing face. All of that points to a fair minded individual accurately reporting his experience. Now, I agree that Martin Harris’ comments carry much less weight as soon as we are talking about anyone beside himself. That being said, the comments do offer us some insight that many before me I’m sure have pointed out. First, the 8 witness’ experience was somehow spiritual. That doesn’t necessitate they didn’t hold or see a physical object, but it does mean that the witness statement doesn’t give us an accurate picture of what went on. The witnesses themselves tell us as much (Isn’t it John Whitmer who talks about seeing the plates spiritually?). Then there is also Lucy’s history who talks about the witnesses gathering and waiting for an ancient nephite (or something along those lines) to deliver the plates for them to inspect and then returning the plates after. Obviously, that sounds a lot more spiritual than if JS had simply pulled the plates out of hiding and passed them around. Second, from Martin Harris’ reported comments, I think we can also take away that not everyone was comfortable signing the witness document, and at least one of them needed some convincing, and as Harris’ comments indicate, it was likely because the witness statement sounded like a more matter-of-fact experience in some way than what they actually experienced. Martin Harris was an insider, and was in a place to know that kind of info. I don’t see why he or Burnett would make that up. One other thought, I don’t think it’s insignificant that Burnett’s letter was kept/recorded. It contains some serious accusations that obviously carried some weight. Edit: I agree that first hand sources are ideal, but when reconstructing history we rarely have all of the first hand sources we need to fully understand a given event. In Mormon history we are lucky to have as many sources as we do, much more than in many other fields.

Pogi, JS started writing this history in 1838. In 1837, Martin Harris had claimed that he nor any of the other BoM witnesses had seen the plates with their natural eyes, just their spiritual eyes. This was part of the critical response to the Kirtland Bank failure that led to many prominent church members leaving the church, including Martin Harris, though he maintained his testimony of the BoM. Anyways, I believe this phrase was a way to separate Harris from the others. In other words, the phrase may have been used to inform the reader that Harris’ claim that he didn’t see the plates with his natural eyes was a result of some lesser experience due to worthiness, less spiritual aptitude, or some other reason.

I’ll get to reading, but do any specific accounts/narratives stand out in your memory? From any of the three witnesses in particular?

I just meant where one symbol can convey lots of meaning. You can see what I mean looking at the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language document. The document gives different levels of meaning, and by the time you get to the last level it’s a lot of text, like a couple of sentences, for a single symbol.

See my last post for a historically-informed guess.

We have at least one possible answer from a letter written by Stephen Burnett in 1838. The letter is the infamous one that summarizes the meeting where Martin Harris admitted that no one saw the plates physically, except under a cloth etc., and that all of the witnesses had visionary experiences of some sort. This was in the wake of Kirtland Safety Society failing and a huge loss of faith in JS across the board, which was the impetus for a more critical approach to JS and others’ claims. In the letter, while Stephen is writing about the plates he says, “if they only saw them spiritually or in vision with their eyes shut…” and then goes on to conclude that they weren’t ever physical. Obviously, Burnett is not Martin Harris, but he is a contemporary, a baptized and believing member since the early 1830s (served missions etc.). He’s not an “insider” by JS’ standards, but he’s got a lot more insight than any of us have. So, what does seeing something with spiritual eyes mean? Possibly, seeing it with your eyes shut! 👀 link to the letter: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letterbook-2/70

After the discussion on the board recently, I was looking into any first or second hand accounts of Oliver, David, or Martin’s experience seeing the plates. I didn’t come up with much at first, so I wanted to ask the board what you all were aware of.

As an academically-bent exmo, I love your hypothesis. Builds off Vogel and Taves and firmly rooted in all the evidence we have. On the plates not offering enough surface area, JS subscribed to the idea, just a few year later, that one symbol could represent a bunch of text. This idea was probably already floating around in his head. The BoM specifically says their writing system prioritizes space. It’s a stretch, but who knows.

This phrase has gotten a lot of mileage in this conversation. There’s some historical context that may help shed some further light on it. I believe it’s likely that JS used this phrase to protect himself against Martin Harris, who was claiming to have never seen the plates with his physical eyes, only his spiritual eyes in 1838. These claims came after Martin split with the church at the end of 1837 over the Kirtland bank fail. I think the phrase in question was penned in 1838 or later. Someone correct me if I’m wrong. Here’s the JSP link: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-a-1-23-december-1805-30-august-1834/31#historical-intro EDIT: It’s worth noting that it was highly likely that JS was aware of Martin’s claims given they’re recorded in a JS letter book. My point with all of this, is that the wording JS used in that account of the witnesses is pretty specific, and I think the historical context tells us why. Here’s the link to the letter book on JSP: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letterbook-2/69