Martin Harris

[Zakuska]

Not good enough. CFR: Produce original, not secondary, sources for this statement.

We all know how far we can trust wiki.

[Monster]

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.

Make it about 5000 witnesses with verifiable evidence then it will have credence. Two or three witnesses with no evidence of something of this cosmic importance in nothing.

Memory is a touchy thing. Ask any prosecutor and they will tell you eye witness testimony is vague at best. To have one individual say something means little. Only if it is verifiable can it be conclusive evidence that it is fact. Testimony in this case is really only of value to the individual. He believed it so that is about the end of it. There are many individuals that claim and really believe in heavenly visitors that have nothing to do with Mormonism. Should we accept them also? Does having a firm belief in something make it so?

I see nothing wrong with believing in the BofM if you like. Just do not expect everyone to believe on the words of an individual that lived some years ago and no one living today has any real clue what they were like. If the BofM is so true whats wrong with asking to see the plates? That would solve most all the questions.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Monster

[ERayR]

Make it about 5000 witnesses with verifiable evidence then it will have credence. Two or three witnesses with no evidence of something of this cosmic importance in nothing.

Memory is a touchy thing. Ask any prosecutor and they will tell you eye witness testimony is vague at best. To have one individual say something means little. Only if it is verifiable can it be conclusive evidence that it is fact. Testimony in this case is really only of value to the individual. He believed it so that is about the end of it. There are many individuals that claim and really believe in heavenly visitors that have nothing to do with Mormonism. Should we accept them also? Does having a firm belief in something make it so?

I see nothing wrong with believing in the BofM if you like. Just do not expect everyone to believe on the words of an individual that lived some years ago and no one living today has any real clue what they were like. If the BofM is so true whats wrong with asking to see the plates? That would solve most all the questions.

Each can make their choice on this, You reaally do have a choice to believe or not.

[ERayR]

If the BofM is so true whats wrong with asking to see the plates? That would solve most all the questions.

It would solve some for some but would raise other for others and those that believe now would still believe would still believe and those that don't believe now would continue to disbelieve.

[Olavarria]

For the Mormonese definition of "spiritual eyes" see Moses 1:5.

[cdowis]

Make it about 5000 witnesses with verifiable evidence then it will have credence. Two or three witnesses with no evidence of something of this cosmic importance in nothing.

OK, basically you are saying that there is nothing that can convince you. I can respect that you are aware of that decision, and will unlikely change it.

Memory is a touchy thing. Ask any prosecutor and they will tell you eye witness testimony is vague at best. To have one individual say something means little.

You have already said it would take 5000 witnesses, so why belay the point. In this case the eight witnesses hefted the plates with the appearance of gold, turned the pages, and examined the engravings. No bright light, no vision, no Heavenly voice, just holding, hefting, examining a physical object.

But, of course, you need 5000 witnesses, so their testimony makes no impression on you. We are short by 4092. You have made your decision.

Only if it is verifiable can it be conclusive evidence that it is fact. Testimony in this case is really only of value to the individual. He believed it so that is about the end of it. There are many individuals that claim and really believe in heavenly visitors that have nothing to do with Mormonism. Should we accept them also? Does having a firm belief in something make it so?

We are talking about a shared event, not a single individual. Can you give us another example where there three witnesses of a vision, eight witnesses of a physical object with divine meaning, multiple witnesses of angels laying their hands on their head and bestowing the priesthood, a joint vision of Christ.

But we don't have the 5000 that you require, so you can safely ignore these witnesses. They fall short of your requirement, and you have already made a decision.

I see nothing wrong with believing in the BofM if you like. Just do not expect everyone to believe on the words of an individual that lived some years ago and no one living today has any real clue what they were like. If the BofM is so true whats wrong with asking to see the plates? That would solve most all the questions.

But your eyes can deceive, fool you, your memory can fail to properly record the event. And you are still at least 4900 short if you were also to see the plates.

The resurrected Christ did not visit Caesar, the Jewish leaders. He did not come to the Roman barracks to reveal himself to the soldiers who crucified Him.

That is not how God works.

So, you require either 5000 witnesses, or a sign from heaven. I sincerely wish you all the best.

Edited July 17, 2012 by cdowis

[CASteinman]

Make it about 5000 witnesses with verifiable evidence then it will have credence. Two or three witnesses with no evidence of something of this cosmic importance in nothing.

You have your standards and God has His. Everyone gets to choose.

[why me]

Make it about 5000 witnesses with verifiable evidence then it will have credence. Two or three witnesses with no evidence of something of this cosmic importance in nothing.

What evidence would you like? A taped recorded message? I would say however that I would love to have 5,000 people to have signed an affidavit testifying to Christ's miracles. But alas it does not exist. But with martin we have him never denying his testimony. And we do have 11 people to testify of the book of mormon, that it was contained on plates.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

That might be O.K. if it were not for the fact that we have executed a great many innocent people in this country, while still others who are guilty as sin get off scott free because they can afford a clever legal team. It is all too easy in America to be convicted for a crime you have not committed and for which there is insufficient forensic evidence to make a case. Juries are generally selected from among the most ignorant, including people who are not well informed and don't keep up with the news. This Board has plenty of people you would not want on your jury!!

[Robert F. Smith]

Make it about 5000 witnesses with verifiable evidence then it will have credence. Two or three witnesses with no evidence of something of this cosmic importance in nothing.

Yeh, and we could try to herd some cats. Might be easier.

Memory is a touchy thing. Ask any prosecutor and they will tell you eye witness testimony is vague at best. To have one individual say something means little. Only if it is verifiable can it be conclusive evidence that it is fact. Testimony in this case is really only of value to the individual. He believed it so that is about the end of it. There are many individuals that claim and really believe in heavenly visitors that have nothing to do with Mormonism. Should we accept them also? Does having a firm belief in something make it so?

Excellent observations. Judges and prosecutors put a lot of emphasis on direct, eyewitness testimony, and forget about the very significant circumstantial evidence which everyone holds in disrepute -- things like motive, opportunity, and means (MOMS), without which there would be no real case.

I see nothing wrong with believing in the BofM if you like. Just do not expect everyone to believe on the words of an individual that lived some years ago and no one living today has any real clue what they were like. If the BofM is so true whats wrong with asking to see the plates? That would solve most all the questions.

This applies as well to the Bible as to the Book of Mormon, and we do not have to see the plates in order to make a case, for the same reasons that we do not need a dead body to charge someone with murder and get a conviction. Moreover, even if you got a look at the plates, and even handled them, you'd probably soon be doubting your own memory, and many others would soon come to doubt you too.

We are left with an English Book of Mormon in manuscript and in an 1830 edition. It can be analyzed on its own terms, with reasonably substantial results, quite apart from anyone's testimony. In short, circumstantial evidence is often more useful in assaying the value of a case.

[Jaybear]

Not good enough. CFR: Produce original, not secondary, sources for this statement.

Your petty demand for a CFR shows that are not following the conversation.

The statement I made, for which I provided a link was: "the record is far from clear."

So, yes, to establish my point that the public record on the subject is far from clear, my citation to Wiki, which like it or not, is part of the public record, is not only good enough, but pretty much makes my point.

This applies as well to the Bible as to the Book of Mormon, and we do not have to see the plates in order to make a case, for the same reasons that we do not need a dead body to charge someone with murder and get a conviction.

Your analogy doesn't work. No one disputes that the bible is a translation from an ancient manuscript. Now had the source documents for the KJV bible purportedly been shown to a select few by an angel and then taken back to heaven, you would have an apt comparison.

Moreover, even if you got a look at the plates, and even handled them, you'd probably soon be doubting your own memory, and many others would soon come to doubt you too.We are left with an English Book of Mormon in manuscript and in an 1830 edition. It can be analyzed on its own terms, with reasonably substantial results, quite apart from anyone's testimony. In short, circumstantial evidence is often more useful in assaying the value of a case.

I am sure that you are not surprised that Smith's unwillingness to present the plates to public inspection, followed by his claim that they were taken by an angel, in the absence of other remarkable evidence, pretty much resolves the question for most people.

The book purports to be a 19th century translation of an elusive ancient manuscript. Analysis ... apart from testimony .... shows that the text incorporates many of the same translation errors that were made during the 16th translation of the KJV bible. Ergo, the book obviously lifted text directly from the KJV bible, and is therefore not what it purports to be.

Produce the requested reference or leave the thread.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Chaos

[why me]

The book purports to be a 19th century translation of an elusive ancient manuscript. Analysis ... apart from testimony .... shows that the text incorporates many of the same translation errors that were made during the 16th translation of the KJV bible. Ergo, the book obviously lifted text directly from the KJV bible, and is therefore not what it purports to be.

This doesn't explain how 11 people, plus emma could have been duped. Emma taught her children from the book even after Joseph was murdered. And the witness testified to their experience through out their lives. Something occurred...we just have to think what happened.

[cinepro]

If the BofM is so true whats wrong with asking to see the plates? That would solve most all the questions.

Exactly. Just look at the Joseph Smith Papyri. They found that back in the 1960's, and it summarily "solved most all the questions" and stopped the discussion in its tracks.

[USU78]

From toi, citing nonsense 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."

From moi: Not good enough. CFR: Produce original, not secondary, sources for this statement.

Your petty demand for a CFR shows that are not following the conversation. The statement I made, for which I provided a link was: "the record is far from clear."

So, yes, to establish my point that the public record on the subject is far from clear, my citation to Wiki, which like it or not, is part of the public record, is not only good enough, but pretty much makes my point.

Horsefeathers.

Provide original sources for your sly insinuations . . . or withdraw said sly insinuations.

The record is quite clear, and what JB quoted is supported by no evidence that I'm aware of.

[Robert F. Smith]

Quote

I see nothing wrong with believing in the BofM if you like. Just do not expect everyone to believe on the words of an individual that lived some years ago and no one living today has any real clue what they were like. If the BofM is so true whats wrong with asking to see the plates? That would solve most all the questions.

I am sure that you are not surprised that Smith's unwillingness to present the plates to public inspection, followed by his claim that they were taken by an angel, in the absence of other remarkable evidence, pretty much resolves the question for most people.

How nice of you to speak for "most people." It is precisely your lack of awareness of "other remarkable evidence" which is at issue here, as it would be for a detective or prosecutor who had not done his homework and therefore bungled the case.

The book purports to be a 19th century translation of an elusive ancient manuscript. Analysis ... apart from testimony .... shows that the text incorporates many of the same translation errors that were made during the 16th translation of the KJV bible. Ergo, the book obviously lifted text directly from the KJV bible, and is therefore not what it purports to be.

You miss my point, which is that even without all the other paraphernalia it is possible to analyze cases or documents on their own terms by not only carefully studying the cases and reading the documents, but also by comparing them to data available from history, linguistics, science, etc. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Pahoran]

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.

And this, as I said, is absolutely textbook ad hominem.

And it's about time everyone admitted that it is not "Mormon apologists" but critics who resort to it.

The Strangites got annoyed with Martin because he basically ignored the Voree material and only taught the Book of Mormon. Every group you named, except the Shakers, was originally a Book of Mormon believing group. As such your list is heavily padded; changing from being a Strangite to a Whitmerite involved no change in his views on the Book of Mormon.

His sojourn with the Shakers was a short one, possibly because they were unable to "shake" his testimony of the Book of Mormon. I have seen nothing that suggests that he remained interested in them after he left.

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..

Whether he did or not, the fact remains that his eyewitness testimony of the Plates and the Angel has nothing to do with "belief." Therefore, whether he believed in David Whitmer's claims, or James Strang's, or in Bigfoot or alien abductions, is entirely irrelevant.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Nevo]

For USU78:

• ". . . but when I came to hear Martin Harris state in a public congregation that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver [Cowdery] nor David [Whitmer] & also that the eight witnesses never saw them & hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it, the last pedestal gave way. . ."
  

Source:

Stephen Burnett to Lyman E. Johnson

, 15 April 1838, Joseph Smith Letterbook (1837-43), 2:64–66, Joseph Smith Papers, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah, in Dan Vogel, comp.,

Early Mormon Documents

, vol. 2 (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1998), 291.

• "He [Martin Harris] said: 'I never saw the golden plates, only in a visionary or entranced state.'"
  

Source:

Anthony Metcalf,

Ten Years Before the Mast. Shipwrecks and Adventures at Sea! Religious Customs of the People of India and Burmah's Empire. How I Became a Mormon and Why I Became an Infidel!

([Malad City, Idaho]: n.p., [1888]), 70-73, in Dan Vogel, comp.,

Early Mormon Documents

, vol. 2 (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1998), 346.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Nevo

[ERayR]

For USU78:

• ". . . but when I came to hear Martin Harris state in a public congregation that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver [Cowdery] nor David [Whitmer] & also that the eight witnesses never saw them & hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it, the last pedestal gave way. . ."
  

Source:

Stephen Burnett to Lyman E. Johnson, 15 April 1838, Joseph Smith Letterbook (1837-43), 2:64–66, Joseph Smith Papers, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah, in Dan Vogel, comp.,

Early Mormon Documents

, vol. 2 (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1998), 291.

• "He [Martin Harris] said: 'I never saw the golden plates, only in a visionary or entranced state.'"
  

Source:

Anthony Metcalf,

Ten Years Before the Mast. Shipwrecks and Adventures at Sea! Religious Customs of the People of India and Burmah's Empire. How I Became a Mormon and Why I Became an Infidel!

([Malad City, Idaho]: n.p., [1888]), 70-73, in Dan Vogel, comp.,

Early Mormon Documents

, vol. 2 (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1998), 346.

That doesn't line up with this:

The Testimony of Eight Witnesses

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

[Pahoran]

For USU78:

• ". . . but when I came to hear Martin Harris state in a public congregation that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver [Cowdery] nor David [Whitmer] & also that the eight witnesses never saw them & hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it, the last pedestal gave way. . ."
  

Source:

Stephen Burnett to Lyman E. Johnson, 15 April 1838, Joseph Smith Letterbook (1837-43), 2:64–66, Joseph Smith Papers, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah, in Dan Vogel, comp.,

Early Mormon Documents

, vol. 2 (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1998), 291.

So Lyman E. Johnson said that Stephen Burnett told him that Martin Harris had made a statement. Note, please, that this kind of hearsay is as good as it gets. Let us consider what Burnett asserts:

1. Martin Harris only imagined that he saw the plates;
   
2. So did David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery;
   
3. None of the Eight Witnesses saw the plates either; and
   
4. He said all this in a public meeting.
   

Note that if he really said it in a public meeting, there were necessarily other witnesses present. Why have none of them corroborated Burnett's claim? Why is it that the only person to report this sensational admission is the one who is using it to justify his own apostasy, according to yet another apostate?

And how can Harris (according to Burnett according to Johnson) state what David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery experienced? He wasn't there at the time.

Neither was he present when the Plates were shown to the Eight Witnesses.

Note that at around the same time (and possibly in the very same meeting) when Martin Harris is supposed to have made this admission that was so important that no-one else remembered it, apostates challenged another witness, John Whitmer regarding his published testimony. John said, in effect: "I don't know if the Book of Mormon is true or not. I couldn't read the engravings on the plates, so I don't know if they were translated correctly."

Burnett's hearsay report is anomalous, and directly contradicts what the Three Witnesses unanimously maintained throughout their lives.

• "He [Martin Harris] said: 'I never saw the golden plates, only in a visionary or entranced state.'"
  

Source:

Anthony Metcalf,

Ten Years Before the Mast. Shipwrecks and Adventures at Sea! Religious Customs of the People of India and Burmah's Empire. How I Became a Mormon and Why I Became an Infidel!

([Malad City, Idaho]: n.p., [1888]), 70-73, in Dan Vogel, comp.,

Early Mormon Documents

, vol. 2 (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1998), 346.

And so we have another apostate justifying his apostasy by appealing to a hearsay account. One wonders by what kind of legerdemain an 1888 apostasy narrative becomes, in Mr Vogel's mind, an "early Mormon document."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Nevo]

So Lyman E. Johnson said that Stephen Burnett told him that Martin Harris had made a statement. Note, please, that this kind of hearsay is as good as it gets....

And so we have another apostate justifying his apostasy by appealing to a hearsay account. One wonders by what kind of legerdemain an 1888 apostasy narrative becomes, in Mr Vogel's mind, an "early Mormon document."

Both Burnett and Metcalf claim to be reporting what they personally heard Martin Harris say. They may have misheard or misinterpreted what Harris said, or they may have lied about what he said, but their reports are first-hand.

[Darth_Bill]

Wait, didn't the testimony state that they were in a vision? It doesn't state that they saw it with their physical eyes, does it? I've always understood it to be a vision...so MH stating that they never saw the physical plates really isn't that shocking, is it? No reason to assail the hearsay if it can be worked into the testimony we already have.

Do we have anything from the Eight that states anything more revealing than what we have? I'm not sure if there are any real qualifications or meaning behind the witness statements, as they aren't really qualified to "witness" specifics other than it was shiney and heavy. The rest is supposition. I wish they were something other than family or friends too....like maybe that methodist minister. That would be better.

Since Joseph translated with his head in a hat...the plates were superfluous anyway.

[Verum]

And this, as I said, is absolutely textbook ad hominem.

And it's about time everyone admitted that it is not "Mormon apologists" but critics who resort to it.

Of course there are critics that use ad hominem attacks. Unfortunately there are many people here who believe that apologists do not, but that is another topic.

Whether he did or not, the fact remains that his eyewitness testimony of the Plates and the Angel has nothing to do with "belief." Therefore, whether he believed in David Whitmer's claims, or James Strang's, or in Bigfoot or alien abductions, is entirely irrelevant.

Ad hominem attacks are fallacious when someone negates a claim to truth by pointing out a negative characteristic of the person supporting INSTEAD of addressing the claim itself.

So, how does one assess the credibility of Martin's personal, eyewitness account by itself? When we're talking about eyewitness accounts, multiple factors such as gauging ones honesty,consistency, and power or ability of perception are indeed entirely relevant. It's simply source critique.. Of course, denoucning the credibility of Martin's ability to perceive things correctly does not negate the claim itself but how does one objectively assess the validity of the claim itself without evaluating the reliability of its source.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Verum

[ERayR]

Wait, didn't the testimony state that they were in a vision? It doesn't state that they saw it with their physical eyes, does it? I've always understood it to be a vision...so MH stating that they never saw the physical plates really isn't that shocking, is it? No reason to assail the hearsay if it can be worked into the testimony we already have.

Do we have anything from the Eight that states anything more revealing than what we have? I'm not sure if there are any real qualifications or meaning behind the witness statements, as they aren't really qualified to "witness" specifics other than it was shiney and heavy. The rest is supposition. I wish they were something other than family or friends too....like maybe that methodist minister. That would be better.

Since Joseph translated with his head in a hat...the plates were superfluous anyway.

See post # 43 above.

[Pahoran]

Both Burnett and Metcalf claim to be reporting what they personally heard Martin Harris say.

Yes, that's what hearsay is: "I heard him say," hence, hearsay.

They may have misheard or misinterpreted what Harris said, or they may have lied about what he said, but their reports are first-hand.

First-hand reports of what they claim Martin said. They are not first-hand accounts by Martin Harris of his experience with the Plates and the Angel; as to that, they are pure hearsay.

Furthermore, Burnett reports that when Martin Harris heard him give his reaction to Martin's alleged statement, Martin disagreed that it meant what Burnett thought it did.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited July 18, 2012 by Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Of course there are critics that use ad hominem attacks. Unfortunately there are many people here who believe that apologists do not, but that is another topic.

While those among whom it is an article of faith that apologists do nothing else have failed entirely to produce any evidence therefor; but I agree, that is another topic.

Ad hominem attacks are fallacious when someone negates a claim to truth by pointing out a negative characteristic of the person supporting INSTEAD of addressing the claim itself.

Yes, and here is a textbook example of the ad hominem fallacy:

"Person X claims to have seen an angel who showed him some golden plates. But X joined various churches at various times. This makes him an unreliable witness."

No. It does not. It says nothing whatsoever about the reality or otherwise of the claimed experience; it only shows him to be something of a "joiner."

So, how does one assess the credibility of Martin's personal, eyewitness account by itself? When we're talking about eyewitness accounts, multiple factors such as gauging ones honesty,consistency, and power or ability of perception are indeed entirely relevant. It's simply source critique.. Of course, denoucning the credibility of Martin's ability to perceive things correctly does not negate the claim itself but how does one objectively assess the validity of the claim itself without evaluating the reliability of its source.

Martin's tendency to "join" various groups at various times is entirely irrelevant to the question of his honesty, or whether he can tell a hawk from a handsaw in broad daylight.

Martin didn't join the Shakers and claim that an angel showed him the Shaker roll and commanded him to testify of its truth throughout the world; he joined the Shakers, a group that accepted extrabiblical revelation -- and kept right on talking about the Book of Mormon. Whatever opinions or convictions he held at different times in his life, his testimony of the Book of Mormon was an unchanging constant that was clearly of a different order than any of them.

Darth Bill rather glibly and flippantly referred to Martin's "visions" that contradict LDS truth claims and demanded that LDS defenders need to account for those before we can rely upon his testimony. I asked: "What visions?" My question has been answered with thundering silence.

Because, of course, there were none. Martin's opinions apart from his eyewitness experience of the plates and the angel were ordinary opinions; his eyewitness experience was not.

And now, as I am beginning to wonder if I am dealing with deliberate obtuseness here, I admit that my patience is wearing thin.

There is no way any honest person can suppose that Martin's religious wanderings, while out of the Church, have any bearing whatsoever upon his eyewitness experience. He continued to maintain it wherever he went, which explains in part why his sojourns with those groups were so short-lived; his single-minded devotion to that experience made them uncomfortable.

If you have evidence that Martin was dishonest, let us see it. If you have evidence that he was delusional, or easily suggestible, then by all means produce it. But a mere appeal to prejudice, along the lines of "but those Shakers were, like, weird, man!" is not evidence.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran