My Response To Jeremy Runnells Part 4 Book Of Mormon Witnesses

[MormonFreeThinker]

My response to the Debunking FairMormon 

 

Jeremy wrote, "FAIR is incorrect in its claim. Harris has never seen the plates in a non-visionary manner. John H. Gilbert, the typesetter for most of the Book of Mormon, said that he had asked Harris, “Martin, did you see those plates with your naked eyes?” According to Gilbert, Harris “looked down for an instant, raised his eyes up, and said, ‘No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.’” – EMD 2:548When Martin Harris was asked, “But did you see them [plates] with your natural, your bodily eyes, just as you see this pencil-case in my hand? Now say no or yes to this.” Martin answered, “I did not see them as I do that pencil-case, yet I saw them with the eye of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me, though at the time they were covered over with a cloth.” – Origin and History of the Mormonites, p.406 " 

 

It is clear that Jeremy doesn't read FairMormon, that is a anti-mormon third hand account, it is out of context. Where is the massive evidence that Jeremy was talking about?  

 

Read http://blog.fairmormon.org/2013/01/23/wikipedias-deconstruction-of-martin-harris/

 

Full Context 

 

"A gentleman in Palmyra, bred to the law, a professor of religion, and of undoubted veracity told me that on one occasion, he appealed to Harris and asked him directly,-”Did you see those plates?” Harris replied, he did. “Did you see the plates, and the engraving on them with your bodily eyes?” Harris replied, “Yes, I saw them with my eyes,-they were shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.” “But did you see them with your natural,-your bodily eyes, just as you see this pencil-case in my hand?"

 

Jeremy wrote, "In the quote from the Murphy interview, it is clear that the experience was spiritual or visionary. Notice that Whitmer never denies this part of the interview nor does he state that he literally saw the angel and the plates in physical form and in a non-visionary manner. Further, Whitmer’s re-affirming of his testimony does not deny this statement made to Murphy. It gives insight into Whitmer’s experience being visionary." 

 

David Whitmer said, "He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear; It was no Delusion" 

 

That statement is consistent with what an observer remembers. 

"How well and distinctly I remember the manner in which Elder Whitmer arose and drew himself up to his full height—a little over six feet—and said, in solemn and impressive tones: ‘No sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes, and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!"

quoted in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), p. 88.

 

Jeremy missed the point, FairMormon's point is that Murphy's account is not reliable or unbiased. Read   

http://en.fairmormon.org/David_Whitmer/Interview_with_John_Murphy_in_June_1880

 

FAIR fails to share with their readers David Whitmer’s other testimony:“If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so it should be done unto them.’” – David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ (promoting his Whitmerite sect)

 

If Whitmer was a man that imagined a lot of stuff, why didn't he imagine an angel? Whitmer said that God "spake to me again" he didn't say that he saw an angel again. If Moroni was just the imagination of the Book of Mormon witnesses, why did it only happen once?  

 

Jeremy wrote, "Many possible reasons exist why Oliver might not have wanted to expose the fraud:By exposing Joseph Smith and the fraud, Oliver would likewise be exposing himself as the co-conspirator and co-founder of the Church"

 

and he could have been viewed as a hero, especially by the 19th century anti-mormons. 

 

 

"Oliver Cowdery competed with Joseph Smith for leadership in the Church and wanted to maintain his credibility as a potential future leader among the Church membership" Indeed, Oliver remained in Far West for a few months after his excommunication (until he feared for his life and left) and was known as a “dissenter.”

 

Why didn't Oliver expose the alleged fraud before he left? Oliver was not afraid to disagree with the prophet Joseph Smith. 

 

"Any person (even an honest person) hates to admit that he was flummoxed, or that he lied under oath, or that he has contributed to the deception of thousands of trusting people. "

 

"people can’t keep their mouths shut" - Michael Shermer  

 

In March 1850, while on his deathbed, Oliver used his dying breaths to testify of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Lucy P. Young, his half-sister, was at his bedside and reported:Oliver Cowdery just before breathing his last, asked his attendants to raise him up in bed that he might talk to the family and his friends, who were present. He then told them to live according to the teachings contained in the Book of Mormon, and promised them, if they would do this, that they would meet him in heaven. He then said, ‘Lay me down and let me fall asleep.’ A few moments later he died without a struggle. 

 

If it was all a fraud, why Oliver wasn't at least silent about that?  

 

Jeremy wrote, "the price in loss of respect and reputation was perhaps a price Oliver was simply unwilling to pay"

 

Jeremy wrote somewhere else that Oliver had no reputation for honesty, Jeremy is contradicting himself. 

 

Jeremy quoted, “Never saw the plates with his natural eyes but only in vision or imagination”– Letter from Stephen Burnett to "Br. Johnson," April 15, 1838, in Joseph Smith Letter Book, p.2 

 

Stephen Burnett? Give me a break. 

 

Jeremy wrote, "these men did not have reputations for honesty, as explained below." 

 

Jeremy contradicts himself, he wrote about Oliver Cowdery, "law and politics – was his perceived honor, integrity, and reputation with non-Mormons" "The price in loss of respect and reputation was perhaps a price Oliver was simply unwilling to pay" 

 

I am done reading Jeremy's inaccurate accusations.  We cannot prove that the Book of Mormon witnesses saw an angel, we cannot prove that the Imagination theory is false, but the testimony of the Book of Mormon witnesses is a reason to believe.   

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/%22Eye_of_Faith%22_and_%22Spiritual_Eye%22_statements_by_Martin_Harris

Edited September 6, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Wiki Wonka]

Jeremy wrote, "In the quote from the Murphy interview, it is clear that the experience was spiritual or visionary. Notice that Whitmer never denies this part of the interview nor does he state that he literally saw the angel and the plates in physical form and in a non-visionary manner. Further, Whitmer’s re-affirming of his testimony does not deny this statement made to Murphy. It gives insight into Whitmer’s experience being visionary." 

 

That was the CES Letter author's response to Whitmer's rebuttal to the Murphy statement? Really? If this is the response, then we don't need to make any corrections or adjustment to our existing Wiki response to the Murphy claim - because the author can do no more than simply reassert his original claim. Well, now that I'm thinking about it, I might as well add a few more of Whitmer's claims that he actually saw the plates and the angel to the article. http://en.fairmormon.org/David_Whitmer/Interview_with_John_Murphy_in_June_1880

 

 

 

John Murphy quotes David Whitmer in the Hamiltonian on 21 January 1881

 

[Murphy]: "First of all, I heard you saw an angel. I never saw one. I want your description of [the] shape, voice, brogue and the construction of his language. I mean as to his style of speaking. You know that we can often determine the class a man belongs to by his language."

[Whitmer]: "It had no appearance or shape."

[Murphy]: "Then you saw nothing nor heard nothing?"

[Whitmer]: "Nothing, in the way you understand it."

[Murphy]: "How, then, could you have borne testimony that you saw and heard an angel?"

[Whitmer]: "Have you never had impressions?"

[Murphy]: "Then you had impressions as the quaker when the spirit moves, or as a good Methodist in giving a happy experience, a feeling?"

[Whitmer]: "Just so."

 

Whitmer was annoyed at what Murphy published and how he was represented. In Whitmer's published response to Murphy, he reaffirms his testimony as it was published in the Book of Mormon, and this is what that published testimony says: "And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon".

 

David Whitmer publishes a rebuttal to John Murphy's portrayal of his witness experience on 19 March 1881

 

Unto all Nations, Kindreds, tongues and people unto whom this present Shall come.

It having been represented by one John Murphy of Polo Mo. that I in a conversation with him last Summer, denied my testimony as one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon.

To the end therefore, that he may understand me now if he did not then, and that the world may know the truth, I wish now standing as it were, in the very sunset of life, and in the fear of God, once for all to make this public Statement;

That I have never at any time, denied that testimony or any part thereof, which has so long since been published with that book as one of the three witnesses.

Those who know me best, well know that I have adhered to that testimony.—

And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do now again affirm the truth of all my statement, as then made and published.

He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear; It was no Delusion. What is written is written, and he that readeth let him understand.

 

 

So Whitmer's response to Murphy was that "It was no Delusion. What is written is written, and he that readeth let him understand". He is talking about his printed testimony in the Book of Mormon, and he says that it was no delusion, contrary to Murphy's portrayal. He can't get much clearer than that. And he kept saying it over and over again:

 

"“How well and distinctly I remember the manner in which Elder Whitmer arose and drew himself up to his full height—a little over six feet—and said, in solemn and impressive tones: ‘No sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes, and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!’" (Memoirs of Joseph Smith III, cit. Mary Audentia Smith Anderson, Joseph Smith III and the Restoration (Independence, Mo., 1952), pp. 311-12. Cited in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 88. ISBN 0877478465.)

Edited September 6, 2014 by Wiki Wonka

[MormonFreeThinker]

That was the CES Letter author's response to Whitmer's rebuttal to the Murphy statement? Really? If this is the response, then we don't need to make any corrections or adjustment to our existing Wiki response to the Murphy claim - because the author can do no more than simply reassert his original claim. Well, now that I'm thinking about it, I might as well add a few more of Whitmer's claims that he actually saw the plates and the angel to the article.

 

 

Please add the Bart Ehrman quote, because critics are saying that they have massive irrefutable historical evidence for their claims.  It may be very helpful to the people that are having a faith crisis. 

 

"Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past. The problem with historians is they can’t repeat an experiment. Today, if we want proof for something, it’s very simple to get proof for many things in the natural sciences; in the experimental sciences we have proof. If I wanted to prove to you that bars of ivory soap float, but bars of iron sink, all I need to do is get 50 tubs of lukewarm water and start chucking in the bars. The Ivory soap will always float, the iron will always sink, and after a while we’ll have a level of what you might call predicted probability, that if I do it again, the iron is going to sink again, and the soap is going to float again. We can repeat the experiments doing experimental science. But we can’t repeat the experiments in history because once history happens, it’s over" 

 

Definition of Strong Historical evidence 

 

"you want contemporary accounts, things that are close to the time of the events themselves, and it helps if you have a lot of these accounts. The more the merrier! You want lots of contemporary accounts, and you want these accounts to be independent of one another. You don’t want different accounts to have collaborated with one another; you want accounts that are independently attesting the results. Moreover, even though you want accounts that are independent of one another, that are not collaborated, you want accounts that corroborate one another; accounts that are consistent in what they have to say about the subject. Moreover, finally, you want sources that are not biased toward the subject matter. You want accounts that are disinterested. You want lots of them, you want them independent from one another, yet you want them to be consistent with one another" 

Edited September 6, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Duncan]

Runnells was supposed to come out with a rebuttal to Bro. Kevin Christensen's MI article but he said it was coming out in a couple of weeks-but that was in July, does anyone know if he came out with any rebuttals?

[Kevin Christensen]

Runnells was supposed to come out with a rebuttal to Bro. Kevin Christensen's MI article but he said it was coming out in a couple of weeks-but that was in July, does anyone know if he came out with any rebuttals?

Last time I looked a few weeks ago), he Runnells claims that his response to me is still in progress. In the meantime, FAIRMormon has upgraded their response to now include links to 127 separate pages.

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director

 

Kevin Christensen

West Jordan, UT (On vacation)

[tonie]

My response to the Debunking FairMormon

Jeremy wrote, "FAIR is incorrect in its claim. Harris has never seen the plates in a non-visionary manner. John H. Gilbert, the typesetter for most of the Book of Mormon, said that he had asked Harris, “Martin, did you see those plates with your naked eyes?” According to Gilbert, Harris “looked down for an instant, raised his eyes up, and said, ‘No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.’” – EMD 2:548When Martin Harris was asked, “But did you see them [plates] with your natural, your bodily eyes, just as you see this pencil-case in my hand? Now say no or yes to this.” Martin answered, “I did not see them as I do that pencil-case, yet I saw them with the eye of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me, though at the time they were covered over with a cloth.” – Origin and History of the Mormonites, p.406"

It is clear that Jeremy doesn't read FairMormon, that is a anti-mormon third hand account, it is out of context. Where is the massive evidence that Jeremy was talking about?

Readhttp://blog.fairmormon.org/2013/01/23/wikipedias-deconstruction-of-martin-harris/

Full Context

"A gentleman in Palmyra, bred to the law, a professor of religion, and of undoubted veracity told me that on one occasion, he appealed to Harris and asked him directly,-”Did you see those plates?” Harris replied, he did. “Did you see the plates, and the engraving on them with your bodily eyes?” Harris replied, “Yes, I saw them with my eyes,-they were shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.” “But did you see them with your natural,-your bodily eyes, just as you see this pencil-case in my hand?"

Two issues, that if address that would, in my opinion improve your response:

First, where does Jeremy mention "massive evidence"? If he did make that a statement about "massive evidence" then you should provide it and in context. If he didn't make the statement about "massive evidence" then you should not suggest that he did - doing so negatively affects your credibility.

Second, does the article you link to on fairmormon provide "full context" to the John H. Gilbert statement and does fairmormon address the John H. Gilbert statement? What is the full context for the John H. Gilbert statement; which is a statement found in a Book by Dan Vogel? As I understand it, the quote you provide ONLY addresses a specific statement as reported in Origin and History of the Mormonites, p.406? By just repeating what you find on fairmormon, you didn’t address the statement from John H. Gilbert. So you should refine your response to remove the holes and gaps.

Edited September 7, 2014 by tonie

[MormonFreeThinker]

First, where does Jeremy mention "massive evidence"? If he did make that a statement about "massive evidence" then you should provide it and in context. If he didn't make the statement about "massive evidence" then you should not suggest that he did - doing so negatively affects your credibility.

 

Jeremy wrote "Delusion is believing when there is an abundance of evidence against something. To me, it’s absolute insanity to bet my life, my precious time, my money, my heart, and my mind into an organization that has so many serious problematic challenges to its foundational truth claims" 

 

 

 

Second, does the article you link to on fairmormon provide "full context" to the John H. Gilbert statement and does fairmormon address the John H. Gilbert statement? What is the full context for the John H. Gilbert statement; which is a statement found in a Book by Dan Vogel? As I understand it, the quote you provide ONLY addresses a specific statement as reported in Origin and History of the Mormonites, p.406? By just repeating what you find on fairmormon, you didn’t address the statement from John H. Gilbert. So you should refine your response to remove the holes and gaps.

 

"To know how much this testimony [of three witnesses] is worth I will state one fact. A gentleman in Palmyra, bred to the law, a professor of religion, and of undoubted veracity told me that on one occasion, he appealed to Harris and asked him directly,-”Did you see those plates?” Harris replied, he did. “Did you see the plates, and the engraving on them with your bodily eyes?” Harris replied, “Yes, I saw them with my eyes,-they were shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.” “But did you see them with your natural,-your bodily eyes, just as you see this pencil-case in my hand? Now say no or yes to this.” Harris replied,-”Why I did not see them as I do that pencil-case, yet I saw them with the eye of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see any thing around me,-though at the time they were covered over with a cloth" ("Martin Harris interviews with John A. Clark, 1827 & 1828,” Early Mormon Documents 2:270.) 

 

 

"John H. Gilbert, the typesetter for most of the Book of Mormon, said that he had asked Harris, “Martin, did you see those plates with your naked eyes?” According to Gilbert, Harris “looked down for an instant, raised his eyes up, and said, ‘No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.’”"

“John H. Gilbert, ‘Memorandum,’ 8 September 1892” Early Mormon Documents 2:548.

 

"Spiritual Eye" can be interpreted in many ways, for example

 

"There are lessons to be learned in everything that God created if we will only take the time to look at everything through spiritual eyes" - Bob GouldingJeremy ignored better accounts "Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time. Martin Harris, you say, called it ‘being in vision.’ We read in the Scriptures, Cornelius saw, in a vision, an angel of God. Daniel saw an angel in a vision, also in other places it states they saw an angel in the spirit. A bright light enveloped us where we were, that filled at noon day, and there in a vision, or in the spirit, we saw and heard just as it is stated in my testimony in the Book of Mormon. I am now passed eighty-two years old, and I have a brother, J. J. Snyder, to do my writing for me, at my dictation" [signed] David WhitmerLetter of David Whitmer to Anthony Metcalf, March 1887, cit. Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years Before the Mast (Malad, Idaho, 1888)

 

"But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him." Moses 1: 11

 

"There are lessons to be learned in everything that God created if we will only take the time to look at everything through spiritual eyes" - Bob Goulding

Edited September 7, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[MormonFreeThinker]

My argument against the Hallucination Theory 

 

Hallucination - "something (such as an image, a sound, or a smell) that seems real but does not really exist and that is usually caused by mental illness or the effect of a drug"

 

A group of people cannot hallucinate the same thing during the same time period. 

 

My argument against the Imagination Theory

 

Was Moroni just the imagination of the Book of Mormon witnesses? The problem with that theory is that they only saw Moroni once, not one of them saw Moroni later on in life.  Their statements contradict the Imagination Theory. 

 

My argument against a someone in a custom theory 

 

The problem with that theory is that Joseph Smith did not tell Martin Harris to wait before he left. 

 

My argument against the Magic Mushrooms theory 

 

The problem with that theory is that Martin Harris was not affected, Martin Harris saw the angel in a different time. 

 

My argument against the Shakers comparison 

 

There were many Shakers, some of them said they had visions. In a large society or religion, some people will claim to see things. The Book of Mormon Witnesses experience was predicted before they had it, it was not the other way around. Joseph Smith did not choose three individuals who had the reputation of seeing angels. Custom, magic mushrooms, and imaginations theories can apply to the Shakers. 

Edited September 7, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Wiki Wonka]

Last time I looked a few weeks ago), he Runnells claims that his response to me is still in progress. In the meantime, FAIRMormon has upgraded their response to now include links to 127 separate pages.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director

Kevin Christensen

West Jordan, UT (On vacation)

A number of months ago, we changed the structure of our Wiki responses to MormonThink and the CES Letter (and any items of a similar nature that we may respond to in the future.)

The way we used to respond to each claim was by pulling a short summary out of the relevant Wiki article and then adding a link to the full article at the bottom of the summary. We did this for each item we were responding to. However, that means that we duplicated efforts on MormonThink and the CES Letter when the responses were essentially the same. People don't actually follow the links, so they assumed that the sum total of our response is in the short summary. The summary, however, was simply an introduction to the linked Wiki article. It became obvious that certain people didn't really get that. They complained that we didn't address things that we actually did address in the link to the full wiki article.

So, in order to fix this problem, we removed all of the summaries and links and instead we now transclude the body text of each complete wiki article into the response frameworks for MormonThink and the CES Letter. This approach has a number of advantages:

1) It significantly lowers our maintenance. When anyone updates a single article, the change is instantly displayed in the MT and CES responses without us having to look at each response.

2) It puts our full answer in the response, instead of just a summary of our answer that was located elsewhere.

3) The transclusion brings over all of the citations.

4) Adding responses to new claims is really, really quick - all we have to do is add a single template in order to transclude another wiki article. We already have responses to these things - they just aren't all displayed in the CES Letter response framework. For example, I notice that the author mentioned Whitmer's statement about God telling him to leave the Saints. We have had a Wiki article responding to this for years, and it is already transcluded into the MormonThink response. It would only take a few minutes to add it to the CES Letter response.

Here is the actual article: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/David_Whitmer_told_to_leave

Here is how this looks transcluded into the MormonThink response: http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The_Witnesses#.22God_spake_to_me_again_by_his_own_voice_from_the_heavens.2C_and_told_me_to_separate_myself_from_among_the_Latter-day_Saints.22

When I get the time, I'll add it to the CES Letter (or Debunking) response.

 

Edited to add: I've now transcluded the "David Whitmer told to leave" article into the CES Letter response here (time it took to add this: 10 minutes)

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director/Witnesses_Concerns_%26_Questions#.22God_Himself_spoke_to_Whitmer_.27by_his_own_voice_from_the_heavens.27_in_June_1838_commanding_Whitmer_to_apostatize_from_the_Lord.E2.80.99s_one_and_only_true_Church.22

Edited September 8, 2014 by Wiki Wonka

[Wiki Wonka]

Second, does the article you link to on fairmormon provide "full context" to the John H. Gilbert statement and does fairmormon address the John H. Gilbert statement? What is the full context for the John H. Gilbert statement; which is a statement found in a Book by Dan Vogel? As I understand it, the quote you provide ONLY addresses a specific statement as reported in Origin and History of the Mormonites, p.406? By just repeating what you find on fairmormon, you didn’t address the statement from John H. Gilbert. So you should refine your response to remove the holes and gaps.

 

 

I'll copy the relevant section of the FairMormon Blog post that was linked (which was originally published in Meridian Magazine). The "John Clark" source is third-hand, and is not an actual interview between John Clark and Martin Harris. Clark said that some unnamed individual told him what Harris said.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

Let’s examine one of the references for the “eye of faith” claim. The Wikipedia footnote supporting the “eye of faith” comment cites “Martin Harris Interviews with John A. Clark, 1827 & 1828.” (Early Mormon Documents, Vol. 2:270).

 

John A. Clark, a former pastor who considered Joseph Smith a fraud and the Book of Mormon “an imposture,” states,

 

To know how much this testimony [of three witnesses] is worth I will state one fact. A gentleman in Palmyra, bred to the law, a professor of religion, and of undoubted veracity told me that on one occasion, he appealed to Harris and asked him directly,-”Did you see those plates?” Harris replied, he did. “Did you see the plates, and the engraving on them with your bodily eyes?” Harris replied, “Yes, I saw them with my eyes,-they were shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.” “But did you see them with your natural,-your bodily eyes, just as you see this pencil-case in my hand? Now say no or yes to this.” Harris replied,-”Why I did not see them as I do that pencil-case, yet I saw them with the eye of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see any thing around me,-though at the time they were covered over with a cloth.

 

Rather than being an interview between Clark and Harris, as implied by the title of reference work using in the citation, Clark’s actual statement clearly says that he received his information from a “gentleman in Palmyra…a professor of religion,” who said that he had talked with Harris. This is not an interview between Clark and Harris. Larry E. Morris notes that the “claim that ‘Harris told John A. Clark’ is not accurate. This is not secondhand testimony but third-hand—’he said that he said that he said.’….As if that weren’t enough, Clark does not name his source—making it impossible to judge that person’s honesty or reliability. What we have is a thirdhand, anonymous account of what Martin Harris supposedly said.” 

To know how much this testimony [of three witnesses] is worth I will state one fact. A gentleman in Palmyra, bred to the law, a professor of religion, and of undoubted veracity told me that on one occasion, he appealed to Harris and asked him directly,-”Did you see those plates?” Harris replied, he did. “Did you see the plates, and the engraving on them with your bodily eyes?” Harris replied, “Yes, I saw them with my eyes,-they were shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.” “But did you see them with your natural,-your bodily eyes, just as you see this pencil-case in my hand? Now say no or yes to this.” Harris replied,-”Why I did not see them as I do that pencil-case, yet I saw them with the eye of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see any thing around me,-though at the time they were covered over with a cloth.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Wiki Wonka

[tonie]

wiki wonka, to make my "second" point more clear. It appears to me, that the John H. Gilbert statement is a independant statement from the "professor of religion" statement. If so, Mormonfreethinker needs to do more that simply copy and paste fairmormon. Is the John H. Gilbert statement a "anti-mormon" statement and a "third hand account" that is "out of context"?

Mormonfreethinker's rebuttal labels both John H. Gilbert statement (spiritual eye) and the "eye of faith" statement as third hand accounts. Are the two statements given by two different people?

Edited September 8, 2014 by tonie

[MormonFreeThinker]

wiki wonka, to make my "second" point more clear. It appears to me, that the John H. Gilbert statement is a independant statement from the "professor of religion" statement. If so, Mormonfreethinker needs to do more that simply copy and paste fairmormon. Is the John H. Gilbert statement a "anti-mormon" statement and a "third hand account" that is "out of context"?

Mormonfreethinker's rebuttal labels both John H. Gilbert statement (spiritual eye) and the "eye of faith" statement as third hand accounts. Are the two statements given by two different people?

 

I was quoting Jeremy, and I was talking about the "I did not see them as I do that pencil-case" account, which is a late third hand account, and Jeremy quoted it out of context, clearly not strong evidence.  

Edited September 8, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[tonie]

I was quoting Jeremy, and I was talking about the "I did not see them as I do that pencil-case" account, which is a late third hand account, and Jeremy quoted it out of context, clearly not strong evidence.  

The context, I would say, does not matter. Whether a 3rd hand account of professor of religion who boiled the tar (my hyperbole) or a first hand recollection, the end analysis of "eye of faith" or "spiritual eye" is the same.

Edited September 8, 2014 by tonie

[MormonFreeThinker]

The context, I would say, does not matter. Whether a 3rd hand account of professor of religion who boiled the tar (my hyperbole) or a first hand recollection, the end analysis of "eye of faith" or "spiritual eye" is the same.

 

The "I did not see them as I do that pencil-case" account is clear, but it is not reliable because it is a hostile third hand account, no strong evidence. The context confirms that it is a third hand account. 

 

"A gentleman in Palmyra, bred to the law, a professor of religion, and of undoubted veracity told me that on one occasion"

 

The "spiritual eye" can be interpreted in many ways. 

 

"But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him." Moses 1: 11

 

"There are lessons to be learned in everything that God created if we will only take the time to look at everything through spiritual eyes" - Bob Goulding

Edited September 8, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Robert F. Smith]

................................................................................................  

You forgot to mention that both Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris returned to the Church and were rebaptized.  Why would they do that if Mormonism were a fraud?  While outside the Church neither of them lied about their testimonies.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Tacenda]

Why do so many stay in the church and not believe Robert? For family, friends, fraternity...a good life perhaps??

[Wiki Wonka]

wiki wonka, to make my "second" point more clear. It appears to me, that the John H. Gilbert statement is a independant statement from the "professor of religion" statement. If so, Mormonfreethinker needs to do more that simply copy and paste fairmormon. Is the John H. Gilbert statement a "anti-mormon" statement and a "third hand account" that is "out of context"?

 

Yes, the Gilbert statement ("spiritual eyes") is independent of the "professor of religion" (the "pencil case") statement. Both statements can be found in Early Mormon Documents. (I wrote the FairMormon blog post that was linked, and I own the full five volume set of Early Mormon Documents - it is a very useful resource).

 

The Gilbert statement isn't "anti-Mormon", and I think that it is first-hand, but I would need to review the source to be sure. On the other hand, the "professor of religion" statement was third-hand and filtered through at least one (possibly two) hostile sources before we hear what Harris allegedly said.

 

I don't doubt that Martin Harris talked about seeing things with his "spiritual eyes." There's enough scriptural support for the term that I don't see any reason why he wouldn't have. However, I believe in looking at as many sources as one can find, whether they be "pro" or "anti", and taking into account what types of filters they have gone through (primary-, secondary- or tertiary-source, "pro" or "anti" filters). Was it a direct interview with Harris, or is someone repeating what someone else said that Harris said?

 

As I recall, the CES Letter author said at one point something along the lines of "why didn't Harris just say he saw them instead of talking about the 'spiritual eye'?"

 

Well, Harris apparently did make such statements, but the CES Letter author doesn't examine them - he just focuses on the "spiritual eye". Why not "debunk" all of Harris's other statements? Here are a few more statements attributed to Harris. Kind of like David Whitmer, Martin seems to have had a tendency to try and clarify what he had heard others claim that he had said. This first one and third one look like third-hand sources (Harris said something to Glenn, who repeated it to Fischbacher, and something Flinders repeated to Lundwall), so they ought to get at least as much attention as the "professor of religion" statement. The last one is a sworn affidavit.

-----------------------------

Gentlemen, do you see that hand? Are you sure you see it? Are your eyes playing a trick or something? No. Well, as sure as you see my hand so sure did I see the angel and the plates.

—Martin Harris, quoted in "Statement of William M. Glenn to O. E. Fischbacher," May 30, 1943, Cardston, Alberta, Canada, cited in Deseret News, October 2, 1943.

 

It is not a mere belief, but is a matter of knowledge. I saw the plates and the inscriptions thereon. I saw the angel, and he showed them unto me.

—Martin Harris, quoted in Robert Aveson, "Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon," Deseret News, April 2, 1927.

 

Well, just as plain as you see that chopping block, I saw the plates; and sooner than I would deny it I would lay my head upon that chopping block and let you chop it off.

—Martin Harris, quoted in "Statement of Comfort Elizabeth Godfrey Flinders to N. B. Lundwall," September 2, 1943, Ogden, Utah, cited in Assorted Gems of Priceless Value.

 

 I know what I know. I have seen what I have seen, and I have heard what I have heard. I have seen the gold plates...An angel appeared to me and others.

 —Martin Harris, quoted in "Affidavit of George Godfrey, October 29, 1921, original still held by attesting notary John J. Shumway, Garland, Utah.

 

Here's a hostile newspaper account (no "pro-Mormon" bias here.) which indicates that Harris claimed that he actually saw the angel and handled the plates by the power of God:

 

From “Martin Harris . . .,” Painesville Telegraph (Painesville, Ohio) 2, no. 39 (15 March 1831). They are mocking the idea that Harris could have "seen and handled" the plates by the power of God:

 

"Martin Harris, another chief of Mormon imposters, arrived here last Saturday from the bible quarry in New-York. He immediately planted himself in the bar-room of the hotel, where he soon commenced reading and explaining the Mormon hoax, and all the dark passages from Genesis to Revelations. He told all about the gold plates, Angels, Spirits, and Jo Smith.—He had seen and handled them all, by the power of God!"

 

Here's what Harris is reported to have said before he died:

 

"The Book of Mormon is no fake. I know what I know. I have seen what I have seen and I have heard what I have heard. I have seen the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon is written. An angel appeared to me and others and testified to the truthfulness of the record, and had I been willing to have perjured myself and sworn falsely to the testimony I now bear I could have been a rich man, but I could not have testified other than I have done and am now doing for these things are true."

—George Godfrey, “Testimony of Martin Harris,” from an unpublished manuscript copy in the possession of his daughter, Florence (Godfrey) Munson of Fielding, Utah; quoted in Eldin Ricks, The Case of the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1971), 65–66.)

 

So if someone is going to make a life-altering decision that is partly based upon a few quotes attributed to Martin Harris, then one ought to gather all of the available quotes and address them (or at least acknowledge that they exist rather than simply asking "why didn't he just say so?", as if they are unaware of them), rather than just focusing on the few which seem to support their point-of-view.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Wiki Wonka

[tonie]

So if someone is going to make a life-altering decision that is partly based upon a few quotes attributed to Martin Harris, then one ought to gather all of the available quotes and address them (or at least acknowledge that they exist rather than simply asking "why didn't he just say so?", as if they are unaware of them), rather than just focusing on the few which seem to support their point-of-view.

I agree that a person should consider all the evidence and make an decision.

Edited September 8, 2014 by tonie

[Wiki Wonka]

I agree that a person should consider all the evidence and make an decision.

 

That's what I've always tried to do for the last 38 years. It's just a lot easier to obtain information now than it was back in the 70s, but I have been studying Church history since the late 70s. It has always fascinated me. For me, my "life altering" decision took the course of years, and it resulted in a solid belief in the Restoration. I cannot fathom anyone making a life altering decision in just a few months or a year.

 

And, to respond to a different "CES Letter" related nugget:  I'm not "delusional," "dishonest" or "deceptive," as the CES Letter author would like to have everyone believe (those are the childish terms he uses to describe all members of FairMormon) - I am a true believer and I always will be. My associates at FairMormon are also true believers. We do what we do because we believe, because we certainly don't get paid for our time or efforts (we actually have pay to be part of FairMormon). The "evidence" continues to accumulate for me. I think that calling someone names is simply a way to avoid dealing with issues, and a simple inability to comprehend that anyone could truly believe without being dishonest, or mentally incapable. This is the critic's version of "cognitive dissonance" I suppose. I've had 38 years of "life altering" course corrections (starting with discovering Joseph Smith's polygamy before my mission), and, ultimately, this is where they have led me.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

Kevin Christensen

West Jordan, UT (On vacation)

Its going to be nice this week. Even a nice storm this evening. Glad you could join the West Jordanites.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Jeremy wrote, "FAIR is incorrect in its claim. Harris has never seen the plates in a non-visionary manner"

 

That is just an unproven theory, and Dan Vogel admitted that. 

 

Dan Vogel wrote, "this discovery opens the possibility of hallucination, but it does not prove it. I’m not that naive" 

 

Here are 4 unproven theories (Not scientific theories)

 

"there are several possible reconstructions, which I explored in my 2002 essay. “Assuming the experience of the eight witnesses was visionary,” I said, “there are at least three possible scenarios to explain how they both saw and handled the plates.” First, there is Palmer’s view that the witnesses saw and handled the plates in vision. Second, as some former Mormons told Thomas Ford, Joseph Smith may have produced an empty box and the witnesses were induced to see the plates. In this instance, handling of the plates necessarily refers to previous exposure to the covered plates of at least some of the witnesses. Third, the box Joseph Smith showed the witnesses contained a set of fake plates or some other material of similar weight and the witnesses viewed the plates supernaturally or clairvoyantly through the box. In this instance, the witnesses could claim that they had both seen and hefted the plates. Fourth, it is also possible that a set of fake plates were presented concealed in a cloth, which would allow for all the elements to occur on the same day to all the men" - Dan Vogel 

 

I agree with the critics that we cannot prove that the Book of Mormon witnesses saw an angel and golden plates, but the problems with that Imagination theory are 

 

1. No witness doubted the existence of the Golden Plates, it appears that John Whitmer did doubt the story of the Book of Mormon for a period of time, but he did not doubt the existence of the Golden Plates. 

http://en.fairmormonevidence.org/Category:John_Whitmer

2. No witnesses saw Moroni or the plates again, the experience only happened once, but imaginations are frequent.  

3. The Testimony of the Book of Mormon witnesses was predicted. 

4. The Translation process was remarkable. 

Edited September 10, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Robert F. Smith]

Why do so many stay in the church and not believe Robert? For family, friends, fraternity...a good life perhaps??

You are correct, Tacenda.

I imagine that some people stay in the church they were raised in just because it feels comfortable, and some switch to other religions for the same reason.  At least that is the conclusion of Frank Newport, "The Religious Switcher in the United States," American Sociological Review, 44 (1979), 528-552; and William McKenzie, "The God Gene: The family that prays together .  .  . well, you know the rest," The Weekly Standard, 19/44 (August 4, 2014), online at http://www.weeklystandard.com/author/william-mckenzie.

 

See also J. T. Richardson, ed., special issue on "Conversion and Commitment in Contemporary Religion," American Behavioral Scientist, 20/6 (July-Aug 1977); Lewis R. Rambo, Understanding Religious Conversion (1995); Lavina Fielding Anderson, "What Are Nonmembers Interested In?" Ensign, 7/10 (Oct 1977), 72-76, based on research on July 1975 LDS converts by Gordon C. Whiting and M. Richard Maxfield.  See also S. L. Albrecht & H. M. Bahr, "Patterns of Religious Disaffiliation: A Study of Lifelong Mormons, Mormon Converts, and Former Mormons," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22 (1983), 366-379; “Why People Leave the LDS Church,” Sunstone Review, 4/3 (Mar 1984), 10.  Sociologist Gary Tobin now says that 2 of every 5 “Americans switch religion at least once” (Moment, 27/4  [Aug 2002], 58).

 

You migth also be interested in Robert Rees, Why I Stay: The Challenges of Discipleship for Contemporary Mormons (Signature Books, 2011).

  Edited September 11, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Wiki Wonka]

Jeremy wrote, "FAIR is incorrect in its claim. Harris has never seen the plates in a non-visionary manner"

 

FairMormon is correct in its claim (which, by the way, is what the Church claims). The CES Letter author is incorrect. Here's a list of statements made by Martin Harris, or statements that others report that he made. Martin's reported "spiritual eye," "pencil-case" and "city through a mountain" statements are in the minority.

 

Here's a page with a list (more are being added): http://en.fairmormonevidence.org/Category:Martin_Harris/Witness_to_the_Book_of_Mormon.

 

Martin Harris said that "He had seen and handled them all"

 

The Painesville Telegraph published the following on 15 March 1831:

 

[Martin Harris] told all about the gold plates, Angels, Spirits, and Jo Smith—He had seen and handled them all, by the power of God.^[2]

 

Martin Harris said that "All would be damned that rejected it"

 

George A. Smith wrote the following in a letter dated 30 March 1838:

 

Martin Harris then bore testimony of its truth and said all would be damned that rejected it.^[3]

 

Martin Harris...gave me a particular description of the plates

 

Joseph Fielding stated on 20 June 1841 in the Millennial Star:

 

Martin Harris...gave me a particular description of the plates and of the Urim and Thummim, &c.^[4]

 

Martin Harris: "I know what I know. I have seen what I have seen"

 

Martin Harris's response to George Godfrey, after Godfrey suggested that Harris had been deceived,

 

I know what I know. I have seen what I have seen, and I have heard what I have heard. I have seen the gold plates....An angel appeared to me and others.^[5]

 

Martin Harris: "As sure as you see my hand so sure did I see the angel and the plates"

 

Martin Harris said in the presence of 12-year-old William Glenn:

 

Gentlemen, do you see that hand? Are you sure you see it? Are your eyes playing a trick or something? No. Well, as sure as you see my hand so sure did I see the angel and the plates.^[6]

 

Martin Harris: "I saw the plates and the inscriptions thereon. I saw the angel, and he showed them unto me"

 

Martin Harris told Robert Aveson,

 

It is not a mere belief, but is a matter of knowledge. I saw the plates and the inscriptions thereon. I saw the angel, and he showed them unto me.^[7]

 

George Mantle on Martin Harris (1846): "Do you know that is the sun shining on us? Because as sure as you know that, I know that Joseph Smith...translated that book"

 

George Mantle recalls what Martin Harris said while he was in Birmingham on a mission for the Strangites. This was well after Martin had left the Church:

 

When we came out of the meeting Martin Harris was beset with a crowd in the street, expecting that he would furnish them with material to war against Mormonism; but when he was asked if Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, he answered yes; and when asked if the Book of Mormon was true, this was his answer: 'Do you know that is the sun shining on us? Because as sure as you know that, I know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, and that he translated that book by the power of God.'^[8]

 

David Dille on Martin Harris (1855): "As many of the plates as Joseph Smith translated I handled with my hands"

 

Mr. Harris replied and said —"I was the right-hand man of Joseph Smith, and I know that he was a Prophet of God. I know the Book of Mormon is true." The smiting his fist on the table, he said—"And you know that I know that it is true." I know that the plates have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice declared it unto us; Therefore I know of a surety that the work is true. For," continued Mr. Harris, "did i not at one time hold the plates on my knee an hour-and-a-half, whilst in conversation with Joseph, when we went to bury them in the woods, that the enemy might not obtain them? Yes, I did. And as many of the plates as Joseph Smith translated I handled with my hands, plate after plate." Then describing their dimensions, he pointed with one of the fingers of his left hand to the back of his right hand and said, "I should think they were so long, or about eight inches, and about so thick, or about four inches; and each of the plates was thicker than the thickest tin."^[9]

 

Martin Harris (1871): "No man ever heard me in any way deny the truth of the Book of Mormon"

 

Martin Harris wrote the following in a letter to Hanna B. Emerson in January 1871:

 

I answer emphatically, No, I did not;—no man ever heard me in any way deny the truth of the Book of Mormon, the administration of the angel that showed me the plates; nor the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, under the administration of Joseph Smith Jun., the prophet whom the Lord raised up for that purpose, in these the latter days, that he may show forth his power and glory. The Lord has shown me these things by his Spirit—by the administration of holy angels—and confirmed the same with signs following, step by step, as the work has progressed, for the space of fifty-three years. ^[10]

 

Martin Harris: "I did not see them, as i do that pencil-case, yet I saw them with the eye of faith"

 

John A. Clark, a former pastor who considered Joseph Smith a fraud and the Book of Mormon “an imposture,” states that he heard a "gentleman in Palmyra" repeat something Harris had said,

 

To know how much this testimony [of three witnesses] is worth I will state one fact. A gentleman in Palmyra, bred to the law, a professor of religion, and of undoubted veracity told me that on one occasion, he appealed to Harris and asked him directly,-”Did you see those plates?” Harris replied, he did. “Did you see the plates, and the engraving on them with your bodily eyes?” Harris replied, “Yes, I saw them with my eyes,-they were shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.” “But did you see them with your natural,-your bodily eyes, just as you see this pencil-case in my hand? Now say no or yes to this.” Harris replied,-”Why I did not see them as I do that pencil-case, yet I saw them with the eye of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see any thing around me,-though at the time they were covered over with a cloth.^[11]

 

Martin Harris: "Just as plain as you see that chopping block, I saw the plates"

 

Well, just as plain as you see that chopping block, I saw the plates; and sooner than I would deny it I would lay my head upon that chopping block and let you chop it off.^[12]

 

Eber D. Howe on Martin Harris: "He does not pretend that he ever saw the wonderful plates but once"

 

Eber D. Howe, author of the first "anti-Mormon" book Mormonism Unvailed, had this to say about Harris:

 

[Martin Harris] does not pretend that he ever saw the wonderful plates but once, although he and Smith were engaged for months in deciphering their contents.^[13]

 

Stephen Burnett on Martin Harris: "But he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain"

 

Stephen Burnett, who considered Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon to be "notorious liars," related what he heard Martin Harris say:

 

After we were done speaking M Harris arose & said he was sorry for any man who rejected the Book of Mormon for he knew it was true, he said he had hefted the plates repeatedly in a box with only a tablecloth or a handkerchief over them, but he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain. And said that he never should have told that the testimony of the eight was false, if it had not been picked out of [h]im but should have let it passed as it was....I am well satisfied for myself that if the witnesses whose names are attached to the Book of Mormon never saw the plates as Martin admits that there can be nothing brought to prove that any such thing ever existed for it is said on the 171 page of the book of covenants that the three should testify that they had seen the plates even as J S Jr & if they saw them spiritually or in vision with their eyes shut—J S Jr never saw them any other way & if so the plates were only visionary...^[14]

 

Martin Harris: "I knew from the heft that they were lead or gold, and I knew that Joseph had not credit enough to buy so much lead"

 

Joel Tiffany interviewed Martin Harris in 1859. Martin said the following during the time that Joseph was translating the plates, but before he became a witness:

 

While at Mr. Smith's I hefted the plates, and I knew from the heft that they were lead or gold, and I knew that Joseph had not credit enough to buy so much lead.^[15]

 

William Harrison Homer on Martin Harris: "For I saw the angel, I heard his voice. I saw and handled the plates upon which the Book of Mormon was written"

 

 

On our asking [Harris] to show us the [Kirtland] temple, he very kindly offered his services. After going through the building from the roof to the basement, during which time he uttered a great many abusive words and sentiments against President Brigham Young. I asked him what he now thought of the divinity of the Book of Mormon. Hes answer was, 'Young man, do you see that sun shining through that window? Just so sure as that sun shines and gives us light by day, and the moon and stars give us light by night, just so sure I know that the Book of Mormon is true. For I saw the angel, I heard his voice, I saw and handled the plates upon which the Book of Mormon was written; and by the power and influence of the Holy Ghost, whom I know by the power and gift of the Holy Ghost, was a true Prophet of God, chosen to open up the last dispensation—or the dispensation of the fullness of times, when all things shall be gathered into one.'^[16]

1. ↑ "Letter of Somon Smith to President Joseph Smith III, Dec. 29, 1880, Clifton, England, Saints' Herald 28 (1881):43. Cited in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 118. ISBN 0877478465.
2. ↑ Painsville Telegraph, 15 March 1831.
3. ↑ Letter from George A. Smith to Josiah Fleming, 30 March 1838, LDS Church Archives.
4. ↑ Joseph Fielding, Millennial Star 2 [1841]: 52.
5. ↑ Affidavit of George Godfrey, Oct. 29, 1921, original still held by attesting notary John Shumway, Garland, Utah. Cited in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 117. ISBN 0877478465.
6. ↑ Statement of William M. Glenn to O. E. Fischbacher, May 30, 1943, Cardston, Alberta, Canada, cited in Deseret News, Oct. 2, 1943. Cited in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 116. ISBN 0877478465.
7. ↑ Robert Aveson, "Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon," Deseret News, Apr. 2, 1927. Cited in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 116. ISBN 0877478465.
8. ↑ Letter of George Mantle to Marietta Walker, Dec. 26, 1888, Saint Catherine, Mo., cited in Autumn Leaves 2 (1889):141. Cited in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 112-113. ISBN 0877478465.
9. ↑ Statement of David B. Dille, Sept. 15, 1853, deposited in Millennial Star Office, cited in Millennial Star 21 (1859):545. Cited in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 113. ISBN 0877478465. Cited in "Martin Harris Interview with David B. Dille, 1853," Early Mormon Documents 2:297.
10. ↑ Letter of Martin Harris, Sr., to Hanna B. Emerson, Smithfield, Utah Territory, in Early Mormon Documents, 2: 338.
11. ↑ “Martin Harris interviews with John A. Clark, 1827 & 1828,” Early Mormon Documents 2:270. Also cited in "Origin and History of the Mormonites," The Eclectic Magazine of Foreign Literature, Science, and Art, September to December 1850.
12. ↑ Martin Harris, quoted in "Statement of Comfort Elizabeth Godfrey Flinders to N. B. Lundwall," September 2, 1943, Ogden, Utah, cited in Assorted Gems of Priceless Value. Cited in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 116. ISBN 0877478465.
13. ↑ "Eber D. Howe on Martin Harris, 1834," Early Mormon Documents 2:285.
14. ↑ Stephen Burnett to Lyman E. Johnson, 15 April 1838, Joseph Smith Letterbook (1837-43), 2:64-66, Joseph Smith Papers, LDS Church Archives. Cited in "Stephen Burnett to Lyman E. Johnson, 15 April 1838," Early Mormon Documents 2:292-293.
15. ↑ "Martin Harris Interview with Joel Tiffany, 1859," Early Mormon Documents 2:309.
16. ↑ "Martin Harris Interview with William Harrison Homer, 1869," Early Mormon Documents 2:313-314.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Wiki Wonka

[Kevin Christensen]

Neal Rappleye has posted two pdfs in response to Runnells. part 1, here

http://www.studioetquoquefide.com/2014/08/an-open-letter-1-to-jeremy-runnells.html

And part 2 here:

http://www.studioetquoquefide.com/2014/08/an-open-letter-2-to-jeremy-runnells.html

Very much worth reading for their content and logic, as well another example of what a difference a different approach can make.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[mfbukowski]

 

You are correct, Tacenda.

I imagine that some people stay in the church they were raised in just because it feels comfortable, and some switch to other religions for the same reason.  At least that is the conclusion of Frank Newport, "The Religious Switcher in the United States," American Sociological Review, 44 (1979), 528-552; and William McKenzie, "The God Gene: The family that prays together .  .  . well, you know the rest," The Weekly Standard, 19/44 (August 4, 2014), online at http://www.weeklystandard.com/author/william-mckenzie.

 

See also J. T. Richardson, ed., special issue on "Conversion and Commitment in Contemporary Religion," American Behavioral Scientist, 20/6 (July-Aug 1977); Lewis R. Rambo, Understanding Religious Conversion (1995); Lavina Fielding Anderson, "What Are Nonmembers Interested In?" Ensign, 7/10 (Oct 1977), 72-76, based on research on July 1975 LDS converts by Gordon C. Whiting and M. Richard Maxfield.  See also S. L. Albrecht & H. M. Bahr, "Patterns of Religious Disaffiliation: A Study of Lifelong Mormons, Mormon Converts, and Former Mormons," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22 (1983), 366-379; “Why People Leave the LDS Church,” Sunstone Review, 4/3 (Mar 1984), 10.  Sociologist Gary Tobin now says that 2 of every 5 “Americans switch religion at least once” (Moment, 27/4  [Aug 2002], 58).

 

You migth also be interested in Robert Rees, Why I Stay: The Challenges of Discipleship for Contemporary Mormons (Signature Books, 2011).

 

 

OK Bob, fess up.

 

How do you come up with all these fantastic references at the drop of a hat???

 

You always impress me, but this is simply outrageous!