Bob Crockett Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 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.Yeah, these are sources used by historians. However, they technically may not be hearsay (unless a third person is recounting what a second person said about the first person) for various legal reasons if the rules of evidence apply. But, they are still very unreliable sources. For instance, we have Orson Hyde signing an affidavit against the Saints in Missouri. That's a stain on his character and is very valuable stuff because it comes directly from him, but Hyde led a life after that to atone for this breach of trust.We also have accounts of newspaper reporters writing stories about David Whitmer recanting, only to have him send a letter to the editor complaining that he was misquoted and reaffirming directly his testimony.So, these stories about Martin Harris partially recanting are easily disparaged, and rightfully so. For Martin Harris, we don't have any statement he signed, or any stenographic account of him
Nevo Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 So, these stories about Martin Harris partially recanting are easily disparaged, and rightfully so. I actually don't read either of those statements as a partial recanting. Harris still affirms that he saw the plates in vision. I don't think a visionary experience is inconsistent with what was reported in the original Testimony of Three Witnesses. To be sure, Burnett and Metcalf are hostile sources (I doubt very much that "entranced" was Harris's term), but a number of others reported hearing Harris say similar things (e.g., John H. Gilbert, John A. Clark, Jesse Townsend, and Reuben P. Harmon). Now it may be that all six men are lying through their teeth and Harris never said a word about seeing the plates in vision or with "spiritual eyes" or with "the eye of faith," but I wouldn't be upset if he did. Whether Martin Harris claimed to have seen the plates with his "natural eyes" or with his "spiritual eyes" is immaterial. To my mind, the one claim is not inherently more believable or unbelievable than the other.
Calm Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 To my mind, the one claim is not inherently more believable or unbelievable than the other.We call the first vision a "vision", if that is acceptable I don't see the use of similar terms for the visit of the angel that accompanied the plates for the three witnesses as issue myself. Applying it to the eight is quite different though, imo.
Verum Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) 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.By your own argument though, even if I provided evidence that Martin acted delusional, like if he believed "in bigfoot or alien abductions" as you said, it wouldn't matter because you say these examples are just ad hominem attacks on Harris and "completely irrelevant", so what would be the point?. The fact of the matter is, I think most people do see these things as relevant when one is trying assess the credibility of eyewitness accounts.My view, as I stated earlier, is that Harris was regarded as an honest man, but perceived by some as gullible and perhaps superstitious. Does this invalidate the truthfulness of his claim? Of course not. Would it question his competency as someone who is able to properly perceive certain realities? Yes. Is that a large enough issue to outweigh the fact that he upheld his testimony till he died? That is for one to judge. I think his experience is complex but its not as slam-dunk, clean-cut and reliable claim as some believe it be, unless one is just being "deliberately obtuse" of course.... Edited July 18, 2012 by Verum
Jaybear Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Yeah, these are sources used by historians. However, they technically may not be hearsay (unless a third person is recounting what a second person said about the first person) for various legal reasons if the rules of evidence apply. But, they are still very unreliable sources. For instance, we have Orson Hyde signing an affidavit against the Saints in Missouri. That's a stain on his character and is very valuable stuff because it comes directly from him, but Hyde led a life after that to atone for this breach of trust.We also have accounts of newspaper reporters writing stories about David Whitmer recanting, only to have him send a letter to the editor complaining that he was misquoted and reaffirming directly his testimony.So, these stories about Martin Harris partially recanting are easily disparaged, and rightfully so. For Martin Harris, we don't have any statement he signed, or any stenographic account of himUnreliable? Can you be specific. Why is Burnett's statement unreliable? The oft repeated assertion is that Martin Harris never denied his testimony. Anyone who makes that claim without addressing the statements noted above, can't be taken serious.
Jaybear Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 I actually don't read either of those statements as a partial recanting. Harris still affirms that he saw the plates in vision. I don't think a visionary experience is inconsistent with what was reported in the original Testimony of Three Witnesses. To be sure, Burnett and Metcalf are hostile sources (I doubt very much that "entranced" was Harris's term), but a number of others reported hearing Harris say similar things (e.g., John H. Gilbert, John A. Clark, Jesse Townsend, and Reuben P. Harmon). Now it may be that all six men are lying through their teeth and Harris never said a word about seeing the plates in vision or with "spiritual eyes" or with "the eye of faith," but I wouldn't be upset if he did. Whether Martin Harris claimed to have seen the plates with his "natural eyes" or with his "spiritual eyes" is immaterial. To my mind, the one claim is not inherently more believable or unbelievable than the other.Smith's inability/unwillingness to show the plates to anyone who was not spiritually worthy, makes the former claim more believable than the latter.
USU78 Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 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.Ain't nothin' new. But I thank you for your coming to Jaybear's aid. I'm sure he appreciates it. I just don't find these sources any more compelling/reliable than I do the Hurlbut affidavits.
Pahoran Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 By your own argument though, even if I provided evidence that Martin acted delusional, like if he believed "in bigfoot or alien abductions" as you said, it wouldn't matter because you say these examples are just ad hominem attacks on Harris and "completely irrelevant", so what would be the point?. The fact of the matter is, I think most people do see these things as relevant when one is trying assess the credibility of eyewitness accounts.It doesn't matter what "most people" think, especially when "most people" haven't been polled on those questions.A person is not delusional if he believes in Bigfoot; he is delusional if he thinks he shared a joint with Bigfoot over a campfire one night. He isn't delusional if he accepts other peoples' accounts of alien abductions; he's delusional if he has hallucinations about being abducted and "probed."Martin Harris wasn't delusional for listening to David Whitmer or the Shakers or anyone else. The only evidence anyone has ever offered for him playing with less than a full deck is his claim that an angel showed him the plates.My view, as I stated earlier, is that Harris was regarded as an honest man, but perceived by some as gullible and perhaps superstitious. Does this invalidate the truthfulness of his claim? Of course not. Would it question his competency as someone who is able to properly perceive certain realities? Yes.No.The notion that someone holding opinions you don't share makes them intellectually incompetent is nothing short of bigotry."Gullible" people don't see things that aren't there; mentally ill people do. "Superstitious" people don't experience things that aren't real; they merely suppose that things that go bump in the night might be spooks. Non-superstitious people are more likely to attribute such things to a cat knocking over a trash can; but neither of them is any more likely than the other to hear a bump that wasn't there. Is that a large enough issue to outweigh the fact that he upheld his testimony till he died? That is for one to judge. I think his experience is complex but its not as slam-dunk, clean-cut and reliable claim as some believe it be, unless one is just being "deliberately obtuse" of course....I agree that one of us is.Regards,Pahoran
Nevo Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Martin Harris wasn't delusional for listening to David Whitmer or the Shakers or anyone else. The only evidence anyone has ever offered for him playing with less than a full deck is his claim that an angel showed him the plates.Well, I wouldn't say that is the only evidence. He is also supposed to have claimed that Jesus "walked along by the side of him in the shape of a deer for two or three miles," on one of his trips to Pennsylvania, "talking with him as familiarly as one man talks with another" (in Vogel, EMD 2:271).
Jaybear Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Martin Harris wasn't delusional for listening to David Whitmer or the Shakers or anyone else. The only evidence anyone has ever offered for him playing with less than a full deck is his claim that an angel showed him the plates.If that is true, you need to fix this Wiki summary on Harris:A biographer wrote that Harris's "imagination was excitable and fecund." For example, Harris once imagined that a sputtering candle was the work of the devil.[4] An acquaintance said that Harris claimed to have seen Jesus in the shape of a deer and walked and talked with him for two or three miles.[5][6] The local Presbyterian minister called him "a visionary fanatic."[7] A friend, who praised Harris as being "universally esteemed as an honest man," also declared that Harris's mind "was overbalanced by 'marvellousness'" and that his belief in earthly visitations of angels and ghosts gave him the local reputation of being crazy.[8] Another friend said, "Martin was a man that would do just as he agreed with you. But, he was a great man for seeing spooks."[9] 1
Calm Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Well, I wouldn't say that is the only evidence. He is also supposed to have claimed that Jesus "walked along by the side of him in the shape of a deer for two or three miles," on one of his trips to Pennsylvania, "talking with him as familiarly as one man talks with another" (in Vogel, EMD 2:271).Interesting. What is the original source for that claim?
Jaybear Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Interesting. What is the original source for that claim?Per Vogel: John A. Clark letter, August 31, 1840
Calm Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) Thank you.Found a bit more of the quote:"No matter where he went, he saw visions and supernatural appearances all around him. He told a gentleman in Palmyra, after one of his excursions to Pennsylvania, while the translation of the Book of Mormon was going on, that on the way he met the Lord Jesus Christ, who walked along by the side of him in the shape of a deer for two or three miles, talking with him as familiarly as one man talks with another."http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_Wikipedia/Martin_Harris Edited July 18, 2012 by calmoriah 1
USU78 Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Thank you.Found a bit more of the quote:http://en.fairmormon...a/Martin_HarrisThanks, Cal, for the reminder that attempts to discredit another by imputing things to him may well be both documentary and historical without having any basis in fact.
Recommended Posts