The Testimony of the Eight Witnesses

[Hyrum Page]

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

I don't think so. I have been accused of living in the past, especially when it comes to my musical tastes, which are most 20th-century weeniefied.

I guess I was just trying to avoid the charge of "presentism." I don't see how anyone even in the 19th century could be unphased by the knowledge that his or her spouse was interested in murdering the neighbor to get that person's spouse. But hey, I am a 21st-century weenie as I said.

[Log]

Maybe Martin liked Emma? Man, I never thought of that...

[Confidential Informant]

I have been accused of living in the past, especially when it comes to my musical tastes, which are most 20th-century weeniefied.

Then you've found a soul mate here because I can't listen to anything post 1989 (except some country music which for some reason I really enjoy). The lineup on my Mp3 player is currently populated with songs from AC/DC, Billy Joel, Van Halen, Bon Jovi, John Mellencamp (whom I absolutely detested in the 80's but quite enjoy now) Hall & Oats, and even a little classic "Poison" (who, upon seeing the cover of their first album "Look What the Cat Dragged In" commented that he'd never seen such a pretty girl band).

BTW: If anyone has Mp3 of "Welcome to the Jungle" and "Sweet Child of Mine" could you hook a brother up?

C.I.

[why me]

Or can we assume...just for the heck of it...that this marriage was not made in heaven? What we have is a situation that has occurred throughout the ages. Hence, very much part of the human condition. Either way, it does not distract from Martin Harris and his testimony and his work for the church.

Who is not a sinner in this life?

[Hyrum Page]

BTW: If anyone has Mp3 of "Welcome to the Jungle" and "Sweet Child of Mine" could you hook a brother up?

I wish! I really need to get those myself. How I miss G&R.

[Hyrum Page]

Or can we assume...just for the heck of it...that this marriage was not made in heaven? What we have is a situation that has occurred throughout the ages. Hence, very much part of the human condition.

I am sure we can assume that it was not a marriage made in heaven. But then, what marriage is? My personal opinion is that a marriage is made by mutual attraction, commitment, and a lifetime of acts of love and forgiveness.

It is always dangerous to comment on another person's marital situation, but I am pretty convinced that the person whom we know was contemplating adultery and murder was likely the more culpable. So, human condition or not, I can't endorse Martin wholeheartedly. I trust other Book of Mormon witnesses much more than I trust him.

Either way, it does not distract from Martin Harris and his testimony and his work for the church.

Were his witness standing alone, I would say that his character does detract from its value. For me, it is the fact that his witness is corroborated by people of greater caliber that buttresses it. I give him greater credit because better men agreed with him.

[Daniel Peterson]

FYI: I was surprised and pleased, yesterday, to see a considerable stack of copies of Richard Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses on display in the BYU Bookstore. The book has been fairly uncommon for quite a while now; perhaps it's been reprinted. If so, that's very good news. Those who haven't read it but are interested in the topic should get a copy and read it.

[SlackTime]

Either way, it does not distract from Martin Harris and his testimony and his work for the church.

Were his witness standing alone, I would say that his character does detract from its value. For me, it is the fact that his witness is corroborated by people of greater caliber that buttresses it. I give him greater credit because better men agreed with him.

I give him credit fo a lot of reasons, but two of my biggest are:

1. He humbled himself and repented, my forgiveness he has, Christ will forgive who He will forgive but I am not the one to judge him.

2. He maintained his testimony despite great adversity.

-SlackTime

[Scott Lloyd]

I have been accused of living in the past, especially when it comes to my musical tastes, which are most 20th-century weeniefied.

Then you've found a soul mate here because I can't listen to anything post 1989 (except some country music which for some reason I really enjoy). The lineup on my Mp3 player is currently populated with songs from AC/DC, Billy Joel, Van Halen, Bon Jovi, John Mellencamp (whom I absolutely detested in the 80's but quite enjoy now) Hall & Oats, and even a little classic "Poison" (who, upon seeing the cover of their first album "Look What the Cat Dragged In" commented that he'd never seen such a pretty girl band).

BTW: If anyone has Mp3 of "Welcome to the Jungle" and "Sweet Child of Mine" could you hook a brother up?

C.I.

Actually, you guys were born too late (as was most of the population these days, I'm afraid).

The greaser character in "American Graffitti" said it best: "Rock and Roll's been going downhill ever since Buddy Holly died."

[USU78]

Actually, you guys were born too late (as was most of the population these days, I'm afraid).

The greaser character in "American Graffitti" said it best: "Rock and Roll's been going downhill ever since Buddy Holly died."

Ain't that the truth.

Born too late for you to notice me

To you, I'm just a kid that you won't date

Why was I born too late?

Born too late to have a chance to win your love

Oh why, oh why was it my fate

To be born too late?

I see you walk with another

I wish it could be me

I long to hold you and kiss you

But I know it never can be

For I was

Born too late for you to care

Now my heart cries

Because your heart just couldn't wait

Why was I born too late?

Born too late for you to care

Now my heart cries

Because your heart just couldn't wait

Why was I born too la-a-a-a-ate?

Why was I born too late?

Too late

USU "Always wanted to be a Coaster" 78

[why me]

Or can we assume...just for the heck of it...that this marriage was not made in heaven? What we have is a situation that has occurred throughout the ages. Hence, very much part of the human condition.

I am sure we can assume that it was not a marriage made in heaven. But then, what marriage is? My personal opinion is that a marriage is made by mutual attraction, commitment, and a lifetime of acts of love and forgiveness.

It is always dangerous to comment on another person's marital situation, but I am pretty convinced that the person whom we know was contemplating adultery and murder was likely the more culpable. So, human condition or not, I can't endorse Martin wholeheartedly. I trust other Book of Mormon witnesses much more than I trust him.

Either way, it does not distract from Martin Harris and his testimony and his work for the church.

Were his witness standing alone, I would say that his character does detract from its value. For me, it is the fact that his witness is corroborated by people of greater caliber that buttresses it. I give him greater credit because better men agreed with him.

I can see your point. Martin had his (difficulties) that is for sure. And I can agree that if Martin was standing alone as a witness, the bofm would be having a great problem today.

What I find interesting is the human aspect of the witnesses lives. In reality, they were not much different than many of us living today. Regardless, what they saw, they still had to live life and find their way through the life-maze. And they did, but not always with roses in their hands or with a halo around their heads.

[Scott Lloyd]

USU "Always wanted to be a Coaster" 78

Speaking of '50s R&B, did you hear that Sam Warren, a founding member of the Drifters, has joined the Church? No kidding. He was mentioned in a Church News article last week as participating in a Church-sponsored Black Heritage Month event in Washington, D.C.

Here's the link (though you'll probably need a subscription to access the on-line content):

http://www.desnews.com/cn/view/1,1721,445005438,00.html

[Calm]

FYI:  I was surprised and pleased, yesterday, to see a considerable stack of copies of Richard Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses on display in the BYU Bookstore.  The book has been fairly uncommon for quite a while now; perhaps it's been reprinted.  If so, that's very good news.  Those who haven't read it but are interested in the topic should get a copy and read it.

This makes it really easy: http://store.fairlds.org/prod/p0875792421.html

And only $12.95 plus shipping.

Shipping tends to be minimal (no handling charges added on last I checked), no tax either.

[smac97]

Analytics,

>> Pahoran: Nice one, Analytics. Let's rely upon legal technicalities to establish questions of fact.

> A: I

[Jaybear]

I step away for awhile and look what I miss. Well here goes:

DCP:

I think you meant to say dogmatic. It's a bit early for you to be lamenting the lack of evidence as to how Martin Harris was duped, since there is no evidence that he was duped. But again, as I say, your need to assume that he was may be so urgent that it will override trivial factors like, say, utter lack of evidence.

As I indicated, I am not willing to present my evidence, until you concede background facts. Though, there you go again with the "dogmatic" insult.

DCP:

I have no problem with conceding universally accepted and undisputed facts of history.

Do you?

Sure. But I also know the difference between conceeding a fact, and admitting that you would conceede a fact if it were true. The "Do you?" comment was really unnecessary. I don't know what you consider to be unversally true.

DCP:

And her view isn't quite compatible with that of Jaybear, anyway. Jaybear thinks that Martin Harris was simply a credulous dupe. Lucy Harris thinks that her former husband was himself in it to make money.

Perfectly compatible. I never said credulous dupes have no interested in making money. Of course they do. Ever hear the dream mine?

But let me make a point clear. By calling Harris a dupe, I am giving the benefit of the doubt. In asserting the he witnesses an Angel present the plates, one has to believe that he was either lying, duped or there really was an angel. (Putting aside other bizzare theorys, such as the angel was satan, an alien, or a time traveller from the future).

DCP:

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.

Simple question. Was Martin Harris promised his money back along with a return on his investment?

DCP:

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.

Unless, of course, he was duped. Who likes to admit they were duped. Duped or not, I suspect he got alot of mileage from the thousands of true believers.

Pahoron:

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.

Again, I wonder if the LDS here believe that Martin Harris put up money to fund the book of mormon production, without any expectation of recieving a return on his investment. It would seem his wife would be the best position to know why he put up the money.

CI:

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?

This is an excellent point. However to draw any meaningful consclusion from the Anthon vist, it would be important to note how much Martin had invested by the time he visted the professor, and what the professor actually told Harris.

From one perspective, if Harris had already sunk substantial amounts into the project, and he went to Anthon for validation, which he did not get. What would be his options, admit that he was duped and had lost his money, or discount what Anthon said, and then lie about the visit.

But I will grant you that if he had not yet invested money, and was told by Anthon, what Anthon later recalled, then I would have to reconsdider my opinion that Harris was duped.

CI:

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".

Sorry, but that sounds hookey. If he were such a skeptic, he would have looked at the plates. At the very worst, he would have died knowing that God exists, and was petty and vengeful. Not a bad tradeoff.

Paharon:

Martin Harris has gone down in history as one of the leading figures of the Restoration; his wife Lucy is remembered, to the extent that she is remembered at all, as a poor man's version of Mary Todd Lincoln, only meaner. Yet some people think she was smarter than her husband. (Dumb dumb dumb dumb really really dumb.)

How Martin Harris is remembered in history, would seem to depends on who is writing the history. I would expect mormons to be quite harsh to Lucy, afterall she conspired with certain unnamed others to alter the lost pages, had JS retranslated the BoM. Well that is if you believe JS.

Why Me:

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.

The witnesses, warts and all, would seem to provide the validation mormons are looking for to support their testimony. But when LDS want to present an agument that it is irrational (or dogmatic) for critics to rufuse to accept the statment of the witnesses at face value, then you are taking the witnesses to far.

[Confidential Informant]

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".

Sorry, but that sounds hookey. If he were such a skeptic, he would have looked at the plates. At the very worst, he would have died knowing that God exists, and was petty and vengeful. Not a bad tradeoff.

But he never doubted that Jospeh had the plates, did he? His doubt was in regards to the translation being produced from them.

Moreover, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you claiming this event never happened?

C.I.

[Jaybear]

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".

Sorry, but that sounds hookey. If he were such a skeptic, he would have looked at the plates. At the very worst, he would have died knowing that God exists, and was petty and vengeful. Not a bad tradeoff.

But he never doubted that Jospeh had the plates, did he? His doubt was in regards to the translation being produced from them.

Moreover, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you claiming this event never happened?

C.I.

My point is that changing the rock is a hookey way to test a self proclaimed seer. I don't doubt that it happens. Its just a dumb way to test JS. Another way to test the translation would be to ask him to reproduce the dictation, and compare it to what he previoulsy dictated. That would be smart.

[cdowis]

>Another way to test the translation would be to ask him to reproduce the dictation, and compare it to what he previoulsy dictated. That would be smart.

And to read the dictation itself -- discover complex, interrelated narratives with no substantive corrections or errors.

The book of Mosiah, for example.

[Daniel Peterson]

As I indicated, I am not willing to present my evidence, until you concede background facts.

[Pahoran]

And did he beat her?