The Testimony of the Eight Witnesses

[Froggie]

This is a remarkably flexible explanation.

It must be so convenient of you to dismiss anything/anyone that may disagree with your world view, Daniel. A reasonable human being, IMO, would not so easily trash the words of this woman. I know lots of divorced people, and I know even more women. And women do not treat issues of abuse lightly, nor are they prone to making up complete falsehood stories about abuse. I find it repugnant that you would imply such a thing.

This is a remarkably flexible explanation.

Which, incidentally, would make me a darned good apologist, it would seem.

Frog

[Froggie]

My point would be that there is no plausible explanation of how the supposed scam worked nor of what it was designed to accomplish, and that there is no substantial evidence of such a scam, nor even of a motivation for such a scam, while there is considerable evidence for the good character and reputation of the Witnesses.

I am still waiting for the punch line. Is it ....

....ergo it must all be true? JS was a true prophet visited visited by Angels, God, Jesus, Adam, John the Babptist.

Come on Dan, CI, don't hold back. Finish your point. Don't leave me hanging.

Personally, I prefer to be a bit more pragmatic. I don't think we know enough about what happened in the woods to speculate how Martin Harris was duped. Thanks in part to Martin Harris' gullible belief that he was not allowed to say what really happened.

Btw, if Harris' own wife (smart, smart, smart) thought he was being duped, is it really all that implausible for others to have such a belief? After all this is a man, who believed that he would be struck dead if he looked at plates without God's consent.

But, I will speculate that the motivation was money. I think the trio belived that if they convince the public that the plates were real scriptures, holding a copyright would be lucrative.

Harris' own wife would agree with you about the motivation being money.

So she does, and it reflects rather poorly upon you to be repeating such gossip.

Having read it, I am inclined to feel even sorrier for poor Martin; but I fail to see that there is any evidence to support your alleged profit motive.

Regards,

Pahoran

Gossip? Prove it isn't factual. go ahead and try.

[why me]

It is almost impossible to refute people who died with their testimony intact. And it is here that we have the problem.

The critics this time needed to acknowledge defeat three threads back and move on. But it was very hard for them to do that. As time goes on, the argument becomes more superficial.

It is unfortunate that Don has left the forum but this is what happens when one argues about whether milk is white. The witnesses saw what they saw and testified to it. One can go and try to repute their testimony but the facts here are rather conclusive on them believing what they saw.

It matters very little about who they were or what they may have become. A human being is just that: a human being. To expect perfection of character or constant exact wording from their mouths is farfetched. Who is perfect?

What these witnesses testified to is strong and very validating of the Book of Mormon. It is a thorn in the side of any critic. And a nightmare for the anti.

I think that the critics lost this 'battle'. It is just a matter of accepting a 'minor' defeat.

[Dunamis]

Froggie, do you have anything to add to this board? If you do, speak now.

[Daniel Peterson]

Martin doesn't seem to have been the sharpest knife in the drawer.

I think Martin Harris gets a bum rap. Happily, some folks I know are launching a significant research project on him. I think it's overdue.

This is a remarkably flexible explanation.

It must be so convenient of you to dismiss anything/anyone that may disagree with your world view, Daniel. A reasonable human being, IMO, would not so easily trash the words of this woman.

A reasonable person would recognize, Froggie, that I haven't trashed them. Nor have I simply automatically dismissed them. But I do have significant questions about them. Is Lucy Harris supposed to be beyond any question? Why would that be? What did she do to earn it? Is it because she claims to have been beaten? Or, even, because she is a woman? There are many old accounts of this period in which Lucy Harris figures, and she often comes across as a less than fully attractive and not entirely reliable personality. Should those accounts be suppressed? One fairly recent and fairly sympathetic article that I read a few years ago suggested that she became deeply suspicious of those around her because of her profound deafness -- a reaction well documented in others and, so, not altogether implausible.

It doesn't strike me as fair or reasonable to treat people as beyond examination simply because they claim to be victims. They may well be victims, of course. But false charges of rape, incest, and abuse do occur. These things happen. Quite frequently. And it is wildly unjust to send someone to prison, for example, merely on the say-so of a self-described victim, without critical evaluation of the allegations. But if that's true, it's probably also not entirely just to condemn Martin Harris as a greedy wife-beater merely on the say-so of his rather bitter ex-wife. The charge has to be evaluated against the background of everything we can learn about her and everything we can learn about him.

The most salient fact here is that Lucy Harris's opinion that her ex-husband got involved with the Book of Mormon in hopes of making money is only her opinion, and that it doesn't seem very congruent with what we know about his actual biography. He didn't make money. He lost money. He continued to affirm his belief in the Book of Mormon long after he had lost virtually everything he owned, and, indeed, until the day he died. He affirmed it long after there was any chance that he would ever receive a nickel from its sales. Thus, greed doesn't seem to account for his behavior. Nor is Lucy Harris's particular form of the Book-of-Mormon-as-money-making-scheme very helpful to Jaybear's, since, while she sees her ex-husband as the greedy one, Jaybear wants to believe that Martin Harris was a na

[why me]

My point would be that there is no plausible explanation of how the supposed scam worked nor of what it was designed to accomplish, and that there is no substantial evidence of such a scam, nor even of a motivation for such a scam, while there is considerable evidence for the good character and reputation of the Witnesses.

I am still waiting for the punch line. Is it ....

....ergo it must all be true? JS was a true prophet visited visited by Angels, God, Jesus, Adam, John the Babptist.

Come on Dan, CI, don't hold back. Finish your point. Don't leave me hanging.

Personally, I prefer to be a bit more pragmatic. I don't think we know enough about what happened in the woods to speculate how Martin Harris was duped. Thanks in part to Martin Harris' gullible belief that he was not allowed to say what really happened.

Btw, if Harris' own wife (smart, smart, smart) thought he was being duped, is it really all that implausible for others to have such a belief? After all this is a man, who believed that he would be struck dead if he looked at plates without God's consent.

But, I will speculate that the motivation was money. I think the trio belived that if they convince the public that the plates were real scriptures, holding a copyright would be lucrative.

Harris' own wife would agree with you about the motivation being money.

Palmyra, Nov. 29, 1833

[why me]

Martin doesn't seem to have been the sharpest knife in the drawer.

I think Martin Harris gets a bum rap. Happily, some folks I know are launching a significant research project on him. I think it's overdue.

This is a remarkably flexible explanation.

It must be so convenient of you to dismiss anything/anyone that may disagree with your world view, Daniel. A reasonable human being, IMO, would not so easily trash the words of this woman.

A reasonable person would recognize, Froggie, that I haven't trashed them. Nor have I simply automatically dismissed them. But I do have significant questions about them. Is Lucy Harris supposed to be beyond any question? Why would that be? What did she do to earn it? Is it because she claims to have been beaten? Or, even, because she is a woman? There are many old accounts of this period in which Lucy Harris figures, and she often comes across as a less than fully attractive and not entirely reliable personality. Should those accounts be suppressed? One fairly recent and fairly sympathetic article that I read a few years ago suggested that she became deeply suspicious of those around her because of her profound deafness -- a reaction well documented in others and, so, not altogether implausible.

It doesn't strike me as fair or reasonable to treat people as beyond examination simply because they claim to be victims. They may well be victims, of course. But false charges of rape, incest, and abuse do occur. These things happen. Quite frequently. And it is wildly unjust to send someone to prison, for example, merely on the say-so of a self-described victim, without critical evaluation of the allegations. But if that's true, it's probably also not entirely just to condemn Martin Harris as a greedy wife-beater merely on the say-so of his rather bitter ex-wife. The charge has to be evaluated against the background of everything we can learn about her and everything we can learn about him.

The most salient fact here is that Lucy Harris's opinion that her ex-husband got involved with the Book of Mormon in hopes of making money is only her opinion, and that it doesn't seem very congruent with what we know about his actual biography. He didn't make money. He lost money. He continued to affirm his belief in the Book of Mormon long after he had lost virtually everything he owned, and, indeed, until the day he died. He affirmed it long after there was any chance that he would ever receive a nickel from its sales. Thus, greed doesn't seem to account for his behavior. Nor is Lucy Harris's particular form of the Book-of-Mormon-as-money-making-scheme very helpful to Jaybear's, since, while she sees her ex-husband as the greedy one, Jaybear wants to believe that Martin Harris was a na

[Bob Crockett]

The testimony of the witnesses would stand up in court!

Of course, reverting to the origins of this thread, such a statement is meaningless.

It would never be in court.

Courtroom evidence is no basis upon which to base religious truth.

"Standing up" means what: Admissible? Dispositive?

The interesting thing about the witnesses' statement is that so many of them left the Church but retained their testimony in this narrow area. There is hardly any stronger testimony than that -- courtroom or otherwise.

[Guest Five to one]

I think Martin Harris gets a bum rap. Happily, some folks I know are launching a significant research project on him. I think it's overdue.

My statement was a little flippant. Sorry. Everything I have read from Martin's hand shows a successful farmer who was more than a bit superstitious and trusting.

[Confidential Informant]

And women do not treat issues of abuse lightly

This is, of course, overgeneralized bullpucky. In fact, I know dozens upon dozens of women who have treated it lightly, even when it was obvious that they shouldn't have.

nor are they prone to making up complete falsehood stories about abuse.

More horse hockey. Shall I count for you the number of cases that come through my office where the woman has merely invented stories of abuse in order to "get back" at her hated husband or in order get custody of the children. . pejured protection orders, .etc. In fact, fake abuse stores are quite common.

I find it repugnant that you would imply such a thing.

Save it for Gloria Steinam or Naomi Wolf. I work with this stuff first hand and you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. What IS repugnant is that the problem is sufficiently large that it casts a pall over the testimony of women who really have been abused making it more difficult for them to seek and receive real justice.

C.I.

P.S. Just so we don't have an estrogen wig out, I'm not saying it is "common" I'm saying it happens often enough to be a real problem.

ci

[Confidential Informant]

My statement was a little flippant. Sorry. Everything I have read from Martin's hand shows a successful farmer who was more than a bit superstitious and trusting.

But the historical record doesn't bear this out (at least the "trusting" part) because on at least two occassions Martin tested Joseph. The first, of course, is the Charles Anthon incident. Take what you will from it, Martin's purpose in going was to acertain for himself the truth of what he was hearing/seeing. This is one of the reasons I don't think Anthon's later recollections of these events is entirely truthful. If he'd actually told Martin what he claims to have told him, it's hard to believe that Martin would have continued. Then again, if Martin was simply in it for the money, why bother going to Anthon at all?

Second, was the incident w/ the seer stone during translation where Martin substituted a similar stone for Joseph's to test if Joseph could really translate. Joseph could not and when he asked Martin why he'd done this Martin essentially said "as a test". Now, I'm debating whether Joseph could actually translate and I suppose it is totally possible that Joseph simply recognized that this stone wasn't his and immediately recognized what Martin was up to. Either way, it appears clear to me that Martin was neither as gullible nor trusting as some would have us believe.

C.I.

[why me]

My statement was a little flippant. Sorry. Everything I have read from Martin's hand shows a successful farmer who was more than a bit superstitious and trusting.

But the historical record doesn't bear this out (at least the "trusting" part) because on at least two occassions Martin tested Joseph. The first, of course, is the Charles Anthon incident. Take what you will from it, Martin's purpose in going was to acertain for himself the truth of what he was hearing/seeing. This is one of the reasons I don't think Anthon's later recollections of these events is entirely truthful. If he'd actually told Martin what he claims to have told him, it's hard to believe that Martin would have continued. Then again, if Martin was simply in it for the money, why bother going to Anthon at all?

Second, was the incident w/ the seer stone during translation where Martin substituted a similar stone for Joseph's to test if Joseph could really translate. Joseph could not and when he asked Martin why he'd done this Martin essentially said "as a test". Now, I'm debating whether Joseph could actually translate and I suppose it is totally possible that Joseph simply recognized that this stone wasn't his and immediately recognized what Martin was up to. Either way, it appears clear to me that Martin was neither as gullible nor trusting as some would have us believe.

C.I.

This is a wonderful take on it all and one that I never considered. I think that you are on to something here. Martin was a successful farmer and not one to put his stake on a false claim. He did test joseph and joseph 'passed' with flying colors.

This shows Martin to be a human being and I cannot fault him for that. But it also certainly shows that the BofM story is so simple and straightforward as some would have us believe: that Joseph wrote the book.

[why me]

The testimony of the witnesses would stand up in court!

Of course, reverting to the origins of this thread, such a statement is meaningless.

It would never be in court.

Courtroom evidence is no basis upon which to base religious truth.

"Standing up" means what: Admissible? Dispositive?

The interesting thing about the witnesses' statement is that so many of them left the Church but retained their testimony in this narrow area. There is hardly any stronger testimony than that -- courtroom or otherwise.

Well...the testimony would stand up in my court (whatever I would mean by that). I think that this thread has shown that the witnesses although not perfect specimens of human beings, still pass mustard on the book of mormon.

Hence, the evidence of dupilicity is defeated and the book of mormon 'sits' tall in the plantiffs chair.

[Hyrum Page]

Either way, it appears clear to me that Martin was neither as gullible nor trusting as some would have us believe.

Thanks for reminding me of these episodes. I still don't care for Martin, but maybe I have been a little hard on him.

[why me]

Either way, it appears clear to me that Martin was neither as gullible nor trusting as some would have us believe.

Thanks for reminding me of these episodes. I still don't care for Martin, but maybe I have been a little hard on him.

And we all have been rather hard on eachother. Such is life...it doesn't change...but we do learn...hopefully.

Take care hyrum!

[charity]

If I am on the jury, I would accept their testimony. I'll bet all the nons or exes, or never will be's are really surprised!

[Calm]

In fact, fake abuse stores are quite common.....

P.S. Just so we don't have an estrogen wig out, I'm not saying it is "common" I'm saying it happens often enough to be a real problem.

Perhaps you should clarify a bit more about your usage of "common"?

[Guest Five to one]

Perhaps you should clarify a bit more about your usage of "common"?

I think it means "rare" when the word might be taken as offensive, and "common" when it's not.

[Confidential Informant]

In fact, fake abuse stores are quite common..... 

P.S. Just so we don't have an estrogen wig out, I'm not saying it is "common" I'm saying it happens often enough to be a real problem.

Perhaps you should clarify a bit more about your usage of "common"?

I'd estimate that 10%-20% of the complaints and reports that we get are either highly exaggerated or flat out fabricated.

I don't think that qualifies as "common" but it's certainly not "rare" and it definitely belies Froggies contention that all women care deeply about it. Some women are, quite frankly, more than cynical enough to manipulate the system by cring "abuse" when it suits their needs.

C.I.

[USU78]

In fact, fake abuse stores are quite common..... 

P.S. Just so we don't have an estrogen wig out, I'm not saying it is "common" I'm saying it happens often enough to be a real problem.

Perhaps you should clarify a bit more about your usage of "common"?

May I?

Thanks. In Utah (I cannot speak for other jurisdictions, but suspect the procedure is similar) women who want their husbands out of the house for whatever reason have two options: (1) pay their own attorneys a not inconsiderable sum to get a restraining order as part of a divorce proceeding; or (2) go in and make vague accusations of fear of abuse/actual abuse and get a free restraining order no questions asked. In the latter case, there are free lawyers/paralegals at the courthouse who will assist in filling out the paperwork who know just how to frame the affidavits so that the desired result. Such lawyers/paralegals are free to the consumer.

If the state requires that someone fib in order to save money and still get what they'd get otherwise, the reasoning is, what's the harm in saving money? It is corrupt as hell, but is useful as can be for fictions like this to be perpetrated.

And absolutely stupid that anyone would take such nonsense affidavits seriously.

Now, is anyone convinced that similar scams have not been in place in the Common Law countries for at least 200 years? But of course they have, and any lawyer doing domestic law, whenever and wherever she practiced, would prepare paperwork consistent with the requirements of the system.

And truth has never much entered into such things.

They call it "Liars' Court" for a very good reason.

[Pahoran]

Froggie,

you wrote:

Well, poor Mrs. Harris, duped and beat by her husband, and dared to have an opinion as to what motivated him. I'm sure you all know better than she what was going on in his life.

Let's see.

"Poor Mrs. Harris" lies to her husband and schemes with others to steal the 116 pages from him, and hopefully in the process torpedo the most important work of his life--but he duped her?

In whose alternate reality? The one in which the two sexes are known, respectively, as "Malicious Oppressors" and "Women of Vision and Strength?"

And did he beat her? Well, we have only her word for that; is a woman who will lie to her husband going to be above lying about him?

But I will concede that there is an element of plausibility in this part of her story. Certain it is that she nagged him unmercifully. We know that his constant pleadings with Joseph to be allowed to take the manuscript home were in response to her constant needling. This habit of hers probably led to some blazing rows. I believe we have a (highly sanitised) account of one of them in her affidavit, thus:

One day, while at Peter Harris house, I told him he had better leave the company of the Smiths, as their religion was false; to which he replied, if you would let me alone, I could make money by it.

That "if you would let me alone" is rather eloquent. Clearly she'd been grinding away at him for some time on this subject. That she tries to use his outburst (which she provoked) as evidence of his "real" motivation seems rather duplicitous to me.

That aside, it wouldn't surprise me if, under this constant barrage, he occasionally gave her the back of his hand. That she then went parading her bruises around town as trophies is a fair indication of how things really were. This was not a case of "abuse" in the ideologically pure, PC sense of the Oppressor using Violence to Control the Weak; it was a rather a case of marital conflict, mostly at her instigation.

The nasty insinuations about Martin having an affair with Mrs. Haggard, being nothing more than mean-spirited speculation without any factual basis, I will pass over in silence, except to say that it would have been better to have excised them from Lucy's affidavit; not for Martin's benefit, but for hers.

You also wrote:

Gossip? Prove it isn't factual. go ahead and try.

I don't need to. You are the one making these accusations; the burden of proof rests with you. Lucy's affidavit doesn't constitute such proof.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Observer]

the burden of proof rests with you

Perhaps Froggie received proof in the form of spiritual super code transmitted by the power of the Holy Ghost. I personally believe Froggie did. EDIT: I KNOW Froggie received this revealed truth.

Now the burden of proof rests with you, Pahoran. Prove Froggie received no such spiritual evidence.

Isn't this business as usual around here? Got to be going...somewhere, unprovable superstitions desperately require defending, as they have no legs on which to stand. I'll bring along a pair of crutches and a bullhorn.

[Daniel Peterson]

Perhaps Froggie received proof in the form of spiritual super code transmitted by the power of the Holy Ghost. I personally believe Froggie did. EDIT: I KNOW Froggie received this revealed truth.

Now the burden of proof rests with you, Pahoran. Prove Froggie received no such spiritual evidence.

Froggie has every right to be entirely convinced by her hypothetical revelation, but it doesn't enter as evidence into public discussion aimed at convincing others. Such experiences are nontransferable. Nice attempt at changing the subjecting and poisoning the well, though. That's a twofer!

Isn't this business as usual around here?

No. Your attempt at satire is too far over the top to be very engaging.

Got to be going...somewhere, unprovable superstitions desperately require defending, as they have no legs on which to stand. I'll bring along a pair of crutches and a bullhorn.

I'll bet you really love labor-saving devices.

Airy assertions such as yours count for nothing without at least some facts and analysis to back them up. It's ironically appropriate that you were just talking about "unprovable superstitions [that] desperately require defending, as they have no legs on which to stand."

[Hyrum Page]

And did he beat her?  Well, we have only her word for that; is a woman who will lie to her husband going to be above lying about him?

But I will concede that there is an element of plausibility in this part of her story.  Certain it is that she nagged him unmercifully.  We know that his constant pleadings with Joseph to be allowed to take the manuscript home were in response to her constant needling.  This habit of hers probably led to some blazing rows.  I believe we have a (highly sanitised) account of one of them in her affidavit, thus . . .

First, let me say that I fully admit that I have been harsh on Martin Harris. An earlier post on this thread helped me temper my view of him.

Now, when it comes to characterizing Lucy Harris as the shrew who "nagged him unmercifully" and pestered him with "her constant needling," one has gone too far.

Let's get the Lord's perspective on Martin Harris, shall we?

D&C 19

15 Therefore I command you to repent

[Confidential Informant]

Now, maybe I'm just a modern, 21st-century weenie,

Does any other kind currently exist? I'd be more disturbed if you were an antique, 20th century weenie.

C.I.