why me Posted July 15, 2012 Posted July 15, 2012 In 1870, at the urging and with the assistance of Brigham Young, Martin, now 87 years old, made the long trek by train and joined the Saints in Utah. Over the next five years, he bore powerful testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon publicly, twice in the Tabernacle. Even on his deathbed, he proclaimed, “I did go in the woods with Joseph Smith … and beheld an angel descend from heaven in a dazzling light of glory. … I saw the gold plates. I saw him turn the leaves over one by one … and I was commanded by God’s voice to testify to all the world what I had seen and heard.”13http://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/07/the-life-of-martin-harris-patterns-of-humility-and-repentance?lang=engWhat I find amazing is the final testimonies of the witnesses. In this testimony we see Martin on his deathbed, boldly ready to meet his maker and with his testimony on his lips, he states that he saw the plates and saw the angel turn the leaves over one by one. He seems certain and reliable. I see no spiritual eyes in this final testimony...just an assurance what he experienced.How can this be explained by the critics?
Glenn101 Posted July 15, 2012 Posted July 15, 2012 How can this be explained by the critics?Chemically induced hallucinations?Glenn
why me Posted July 15, 2012 Author Posted July 15, 2012 Chemically induced hallucinations?GlennNice try....anything else? When we consider martin, it failed when he was with the group. It was only a little later did he experience what he experienced. And his deathbed testimony is quite convincing. No trace of hallucinations.
CASteinman Posted July 15, 2012 Posted July 15, 2012 How can this be explained by the critics?A few days ago someone asked what they thought was a really hard problem for critics of the Church. I gave 3 things that I thought were hard for critics to overcome. (I never got a reply to that)At the top of my list, the Testimony of the Witnesses.
Darth_Bill Posted July 15, 2012 Posted July 15, 2012 I think the refutation would be that Martin said a lot of things and if you are willing to accept all his words and visions, critics would willingly take this at face value too. 2
Buzzard Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 I think the refutation would be that Martin said a lot of things and if you are willing to accept all his words and visions, critics would willingly take this at face value too.I have also done a few silly things in my life, though no visions, thank you very much. But while I do not know the exact timeline of my demise, I do know that I will not live to be an old man. When confronted with this reality, I can tell you that you begin to weigh your words a bit more carefully, because you know you will have to account for them sooner than later.So I think it is safe to give greater credence to Martins final testimony over what he may or may not have claimed in Iowa in the 1860's, just as Elder McKonkies final testimony and JS seeking comfort in the BOM on the way to Carthage can be given extra credibility. Staring death in the face has a way of generating focus.
Pahoran Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 I think the refutation would be that Martin said a lot of things and if you are willing to accept all his words and visions, critics would willingly take this at face value too.And I would reply to those critics: What visions?Martin Harris was a man with many opinions and convictions that changed over the years. The one constant throughout (or at least after 1829) was his testimony of the Book of Mormon. That never changed.LDS defenders are not asking any critics to accept all of Martin's opinions and convictions; we are asking that they take seriously a claimed supernatural experience that did not change with his opinions.Ironically, given recent topics of discussion, it is worth noting that those critics are really using a form of the ad hominem fallacy.Regards,Pahoran 1
cdowis Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) I think the refutation would be that Martin said a lot of things and if you are willing to accept all his words and visions, critics would willingly take this at face value too.Such a statement ignores the simple fact that there were multiple witnesses for the events in his testimony, whilst the other stuff is unsupported by any witnesses. His testimony, given on his deathbed, is supported by eyewitnesses. Edited July 16, 2012 by cdowis
CASteinman Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 I think the refutation would be that Martin said a lot of things and if you are willing to accept all his words and visions, critics would willingly take this at face value too.I don't believe that.
cinepro Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) Generally speaking, I've never understood how a person's conviction in a belief can speak to the validity of that belief. It's possible that Martin Harris was thoroughly convinced of an error for 40+ years of his life. And the longer someone is convinced something is true, the less likely they are to change their minds, regardless of the reason.Generally speaking, of course. In this specific case, Martin's testimony is a great support to the truth claims of the Church. Edited July 16, 2012 by cinepro 2
CASteinman Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 Generally speaking, I've never understood how a person's conviction in a belief can speak to the validity of that belief. It's possible that Martin Harris was thoroughly convinced of an error for 40+ years of his life. And the longer someone is convinced something is true, the less likely they are to change their minds, regardless of the reason.Generally speaking, of course. In this specific case, Martin's testimony is a great support to the truth claims of the Church.You raise a good point and that is why the Lord asserts that it shall be out of the mouths of two or three witnesses.
Fly Fisherman Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 Martin Harris is my favorite witness. Here is an excellent Maxwell Institue article that all should read by Susan Easton Black and Larry C. Porter:http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=20&num=1&id=589
why me Posted July 16, 2012 Author Posted July 16, 2012 So I think it is safe to give greater credence to Martins final testimony over what he may or may not have claimed in Iowa in the 1860's, just as Elder McKonkies final testimony and JS seeking comfort in the BOM on the way to Carthage can be given extra credibility. Staring death in the face has a way of generating focus.When one is about to meet their maker, one usually weighs their words carefully. This is also in the catholic tradition when one makes a last rite confession to a priest. One has the need to make things right.I see martin at the whitmer home surrounded by other BoM witnesses making his final testimony to humans and to god. Certainly, if all these people knew that it was a fraud, such a testimony would be laughed at. But that was not the case. These guys were off and about doing their own thing. But on the final day of judgement they bore their testimony about the book of mormon. That is incredible when one considers human nature and our ability to stray away and doubt our previous experiences. The exmormons should realize since they have strayed and doubted. But not Martin or the others.
Verum Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 In 1870, at the urging and with the assistance of Brigham Young, Martin, now 87 years old, made the long trek by train and joined the Saints in Utah. Over the next five years, he bore powerful testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon publicly, twice in the Tabernacle. Even on his deathbed, he proclaimed, “I did go in the woods with Joseph Smith … and beheld an angel descend from heaven in a dazzling light of glory. … I saw the gold plates. I saw him turn the leaves over one by one … and I was commanded by God’s voice to testify to all the world what I had seen and heard.”13http://www.lds.org/e...ntance?lang=engWhat I find amazing is the final testimonies of the witnesses. In this testimony we see Martin on his deathbed, boldly ready to meet his maker and with his testimony on his lips, he states that he saw the plates and saw the angel turn the leaves over one by one. He seems certain and reliable. I see no spiritual eyes in this final testimony...just an assurance what he experienced.How can this be explained by the critics?The problem is that Martin Harris loses credibility since he also had periods of being a Strangite, Whitmerite, Gladdenite, Williamite, and Shaker. For a brief period of time, he was a missionary for the Strangites who claimed to have their own plates and witnesses. I guess you could say that a final deathbed testimony refutes all of these inconsistencies, but the bottom line is, he had history of falling for a lot of bogus beliefs.. 1
Jaybear Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 And I would reply to those critics: What visions?Martin Harris was a man with many opinions and convictions that changed over the years. The one constant throughout (or at least after 1829) was his testimony of the Book of Mormon. That never changed.His one constant? Can you please show us where he withdrew other spiritual claims he made? LDS defenders are not asking any critics to accept all of Martin's opinions and convictions; we are asking that they take seriously a claimed supernatural experience that did not change with his opinions.Ironically, given recent topics of discussion, it is worth noting that those critics are really using a form of the ad hominem fallacy.You are simply wrong. When the issue is Martin's credibilty as a witness, its not an fallacy to introduce facts that challenge his credibility.I guess you could say that a final deathbed testimony refutes all of these inconsistencies, but the bottom line is, he had history of falling for a lot of bogus beliefs..There is a broad misconception that deathbed "testimonials" carry some special weight of authority. They don't, except perhaps to true believers. Reputations survive death. What carries special weight are deathbed confessions. Statements which put them in a poor light a the time of their death, are given special protection against hearsay. Think about it, criminals are often put to death, while claiming their innocence. No big deal. The idea that "Well, he must have been telling the truth." in that context, is completely laughable.
Darth_Bill Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 I didn't say that I can counter the witness statements. I think there are some questions I have. Personally, I know someone who had a vision telling them that there wasn't a Christ. The only reason I could point to Martin's being more valid is conformation bias. I haven't had that experience. I don't know what the witness statements really tell me, other than someone had an experience. I know people that have had experiences with Rama too. Oh well.I just did a quick glance at mormonthink.com and the board that shall not be named and there are arguements to be made. Not that I agree or disagree, but there are questions.
cinepro Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 You raise a good point and that is why the Lord asserts that it shall be out of the mouths of two or three witnesses.Yes, because if more than one person firmly believe something, it's much .
why me Posted July 16, 2012 Author Posted July 16, 2012 The problem is that Martin Harris loses credibility since he also had periods of being a Strangite, Whitmerite, Gladdenite, Williamite, and Shaker. For a brief period of time, he was a missionary for the Strangites who claimed to have their own plates and witnesses.If you notice something about martin is that he was religious. He experienced what he experienced with the gold plates and never denied it regardless where he was in his life. He believed in that vision. And he came back to the faith because he knew where the truth was and bore his testimony to the Whitmer's and Page before he died. That does say something. Human nature would have dictated that he would deny the experience when he showed an interest in shakerism or left the church.
Verum Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) If you notice something about martin is that he was religious. He experienced what he experienced with the gold plates and never denied it regardless where he was in his life. He believed in that vision. And he came back to the faith because he knew where the truth was and bore his testimony to the Whitmer's and Page before he died. That does say something. Human nature would have dictated that he would deny the experience when he showed an interest in shakerism or left the church.I think human nature dictates that most people just protect their egos when confronted with new information or situations that challenge them. So Martin Harris is probably more likely to uphold his testimony than admit the he was involved in a very elaborate lie for a long time.I am not arguing that this was necessarily the case for Martin, but using the example that he upheld his testimony till very end does not necessarily increase the validity of his claim.I think the fact that Martin Harris was involved with Strangite, Shakers, and other things that involved folk lure/magical claims says more about his naivety than it does about this personal integrity. I think from what we have written, people regarded Harris as an honest man, but there is a lot of other things written to suggest that he fell for a lot of foolish things. And it reference to his specific experience of seeing the plates, the details of his story have often been changed. Edited July 16, 2012 by Verum
cdowis Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 Yes, because if more than one person firmly believe something, it's much .You are pretending to conflate a believer with an eyewitness. You are too smart to get them confused.
why me Posted July 16, 2012 Author Posted July 16, 2012 I think human nature dictates that most people just protect their egos when confronted with new information or situations that challenge them. So Martin Harris is probably more likely to uphold his testimony than admit the he was involved in a very elaborate lie for a long time.I am not arguing that this was necessarily the case for Martin, but using the example that he upheld his testimony till very end does not necessarily increase the validity of his claim.I think the fact that Martin Harris was involved with Strangite, Shakers, and other things that involved lure/magical claims says more about his naivety than it does about this personal integrity. I think from what we have written, people regarded Harris as an honest man, but there is a lot of other things written to suggest that he fell for a lot of foolish things. And it reference to his specific experience of seeing the plates, the details of his story have often been changed.I think that you will find a different interpretation here:http://www.fairlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Book_of_Mormon_Witnesses_3.pdfHe never denied his testimony regardless of where he was in his life's journey.
cdowis Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 I didn't say that I can counter the witness statements. I think there are some questions I have. Personally, I know someone who had a vision telling them that there wasn't a Christ.How many witnesses does he have to that vision? You do understand that we are talking about eyewitnesses. There are many single witnesses to a supernatural event, and many of them put away in a special place to protect them.The only reason I could point to Martin's being more valid is conformation bias. I haven't had that experience. I don't know what the witness statements really tell me, other than someone had an experience. I know people that have had experiences with Rama too. Oh well.Oh well, indeed. In the case of the BOM, we have witnesses to the angel with the plates and the voice of God, witnesses to a non-vision and physically handling of the plates, witness with JS of the Saviour, witnesses to angels.Now tell us about those simultaneous, multiple witnesses to Rama.Regarding "what they mean", that is a decision that you must make. You can find some clever, imaginary explanation, like Vogel, who gave a scenario out of whole cloth of his own imagination. I just did a quick glance at mormonthink.com and the board that shall not be named and there are arguements to be made. Not that I agree or disagree, but there are questions.
why me Posted July 16, 2012 Author Posted July 16, 2012 I think human nature dictates that most people just protect their egos when confronted with new information or situations that challenge them. So Martin Harris is probably more likely to uphold his testimony than admit the he was involved in a very elaborate lie for a long time.The problem with this understanding is that he bore his testimony in front of the Whitmer's and Hiram Page. And Page also had a deathbed testimony at least according to his son:Hiram died and was buried on his farm on 12 August 1852. His son Philander stated his father was "true and faithful to his testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon till the very last." [Jenson, LDS Biographical Encyclopedia, 1277-78.]http://www.jwha.info/mmff/hpbio.htmBut to bear it in front of the whitmer's would be folly to be sure, if he was mistaken or in on the fraud.
Jaybear Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 If you notice something about martin is that he was religious. He experienced what he experienced with the gold plates and never denied it regardless where he was in his life. He believed in that vision. And he came back to the faith because he knew where the truth was and bore his testimony to the Whitmer's and Page before he died. That does say something. Human nature would have dictated that he would deny the experience when he showed an interest in shakerism or left the church.That is a bold statement to make, when the record if far from clear. From WIki.In March 1838, disillusioned church members said that Harris had publicly denied that any of the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon had ever seen or handled the golden plates—although he had not been present when Whitmer and Cowdery first claimed to have viewed them—and they claimed that Harris's recantation, made during a period of crisis in early Mormonism, induced five influential members, including three Apostles, to leave the Church.Even at the end of his long life, Harris said that he had seen the plates in "a state of entrancement."
USU78 Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 That is a bold statement to make, when the record if far from clear. From WIki.In March 1838, disillusioned church members said that Harris had publicly denied that any of the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon had ever seen or handled the golden plates—although he had not been present when Whitmer and Cowdery first claimed to have viewed them—and they claimed that Harris's recantation, made during a period of crisis in early Mormonism, induced five influential members, including three Apostles, to leave the Church.Even at the end of his long life, Harris said that he had seen the plates in "a state of entrancement."Not good enough. CFR: Produce original, not secondary, sources for this statement.
Recommended Posts