Martin Harris's Visit To Charles Anthon: There's More To The Story

[Scott Lloyd]

This is another lecture I covered from the recent Sidney B. Sperry Symposium at BYU.

 

Richard Bennett spoke of Martin Harris's 1828 visit to Charles Anthon, a journey during which he also visited Samuel MItchell and Luther Bradish.

 

Some (to me) interesting insights:

 

• Anthon was far less able to translate and understand ancient Near East languages than he apparently let on.
• The most important scholarly confirmation came not from Anthon but from celebrated naturalist and linguist Samuel L. MItchell. Mitchell was highly interested in what Harris had to show him, because MItchell was an avid student of the Rosetta Stone and thus hieroglyphics in general and because he was interested in the origins of American Indians and had developed his own theory about that.
• Harris had received his own divine witness about the Book of Mormon and the work of translation even before he undertook the journey. In Bennett's words, there was as much of compliance as there was corroboration involved in Harris's making the trip.
• The apparent fulfillment of the Isaiah prophecy ("I cannot read a sealed book"), combined with Mitchell's enthusiastic confirmation of what Anthon may have said, was enough for Harris to provide the financial means to publish the Book of Mormon.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

• The apparent fulfillment of the Isaiah prophecy ("I cannot read a sealed book"), combined with Mitchell's enthusiastic confirmation of what Anthon may have said, was enough for Harris to provide the financial means to publish the Book of Mormon.

 

Seems like another example of a providential transformation of a perceived "disaster" re-defined into what the Lord wanted all along.

 

The Fall itself was such an event- seen as a "disaster" by much of Christendom and yet we see it as part of the Plan.

 

Abraham's potential sacrifice of Issac, on its face a mind-numbing commandment opposing all that is good, is transformed into a towering achievement of faith.

 

The loss of the 116 pages, apparently an irretrieviable loss of a large portion of the Lord's word, becomes the means to publish the rest of the Book of Mormon.

 

The crucifixion itself- the murder of God come to earth to share the message of peace and love, is transformed into the means by which all can receive salvation from their sins.

 

There seems to be a theme here. 

[ALarson]

This is interesting (and I admit a topic I'm not that familiar with).  

 

Did Samuel Mitchill write about or leave any record of Harris's visit or does the information come from others involved?

 

(Edited to correct the spelling of his surname.)

Edited November 5, 2015 by ALarson

[ALarson]

I found this on the Wikipedia page for Samuel L. Mitchill (emphasis added):

 

 Mitchill would have been unsympathetic to the view that Indians were related to the Jews or the Egyptians because he was one of the few scholars of his day who believed that Native Americans were descended from Asians. Mitchill left no record of Harris's visit. (From footnote 8 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_L._Mitchill

Edited November 5, 2015 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

Another interesting point from Bennett's lecture: the manuscript of Book of Mormon characters now in the archives of Community of Christ in Independence is probably not the same piece of paper that Martin Harris had when he undertook his journey to the east and visited Anthon and Mitchell.

[ALarson]

• The most important scholarly confirmation came not from Anthon but from celebrated naturalist and linguist Samuel L. MItchell. Mitchell was highly interested in what Harris had to show him, because MItchell was an avid student of the Rosetta Stone and thus hieroglyphics in general and because he was interested in the origins of American Indians and had developed his own theory about that.

Since we have no record of the visit written by Mitchill, how do we know he was "highly interested in what Harris had to show him"?  And how could there be a "scholarly confirmation" when he didn't write anything about Harris's visit?  Also, did Mitchill actually believe (as quoted above) that the Indians were descended from Asians?

 

(I'll try to look this up too.)

Edited November 5, 2015 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

This is interesting (and I admit a topic I'm not that familiar with).  

 

Did Samuel Mitchill write about or leave any record of Harris's visit or does the information come from others involved?

 

(Edited to correct the spelling of his surname.)

 

 

I found this on the Wikipedia page for Samuel L. Mitchill (emphasis added):

Mitchell left no record of Harris's visit that we know about.

 

However, Professor Richard Bennett's research has uncovered entries in the 1831 journal of New York newspaper reporter James Gordon Bennett (no relation to Richard Bennett that I know about)  to the effect that Harris carried the transcription of the engravings to Anthon, who said he did not know what language they were and told him to take them to Mitchell, who

examined them, compared them with other hieroglyphs which he had, thought them very curious, said they were the characters of a nation now extinct. And in a separate, published account that Richard Bennett found, James Gordon Bennett said essentially the same thing -- that Harris was told by Anthon to take the plates to Mitchell, that Mitchell received Harris "very prlitely," that Mitchell "made a learned dissertation of them," that he compared the characters to hieroglyphics discovered by Champollion in Egypt (he who deciphered the Rosetta Stone) "and then he set them down as the language of a people formerly in existence in the east but now no more."

 

Mitchell did believe Native Americans were descended from Asians, but I take exception to the Wikipedia assertion that he would have been "unsympathetic to the view that Indians were related to the Jews or the Egyptians." Mitchell's theories were only that, theories, and I get the impression from Bennett's lecture that he had a scientific curiosity and openness to scholarly possibilities. In his lecture, Bennett said this about Mitchell: "A man of the many and a friend of every class, he possessed a voracious curiosity and a taste for new discoveries. His door was always open, for he delighted to learn from everyone, no matter what their station in life."

Edited November 5, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[mapman]

Since we have no record of the visit written by Mitchill, how do we know he was "highly interested in what Harris had to show him"?  And how could there be a "scholarly confirmation" when he didn't write anything about Harris's visit?  Also, did Mitchill actually believe (as quoted above) that the Indians were descended from Asians?

 

(I'll try to look this up too.)

This article by Bro. Bennett explains pretty well what Mitchell thought about American Indian origins: http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1422&index=4 Also to clarify, Mitchell thought that the majority of Indians descended from Asians, but thought that there was another ancient race in America that was of European descent that was exterminated by the Asian-descended people in New York. My understanding is that he thought that this race was the moundbuilders. So I can see him being interested in the golden plates for that reason.

Edited November 5, 2015 by mapman

[Scott Lloyd]

Since we have no record of the visit written by Mitchill, how do we know he was "highly interested in what Harris had to show him"? 

(I'll try to look this up too.)

Bennett said Mitchell welcomed Harris back (Mitchell had earlier received him and sent him to Anthon) and sanctioned what Harris showed him for at least two reasons: Mitchell's own intense interest in Egyptian hieroglyphics (he was the country's foremost student of the Rosetta Stone at the time) and Mitchell's own interest about the origins of the American Indians, about which he had developed his own two-races theory. Bennett said Mitchell's interest in the American Indians would have been at a peak at the time Harris visited him.

 

And how could there be a "scholarly confirmation" when he didn't write anything about Harris's visit?  

 

 

 

I hope by now you have seen my posts about Bennett's discoveries of the accounts of New York newspaper reporter James Gordon Bennett.

 

And as I said, we don't know that "he didn't write anything about Harris's visit." We can only state that he didn't write anything that we know about.

 

 

Also, did Mitchill actually believe (as quoted above) that the Indians were descended from Asians?

 

 

As i said, he had developed his own theoy about this, but I take it it was just a theory.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

Thanks for the reply, Scott.  I'll try to read more about this.

 

It is unfortunate that we have nothing written by Mitchill himself to corroborate any of this.  But it is an interesting subject for sure. 

[ALarson]

This article by Bro. Bennett explains pretty well what Mitchell thought about American Indian origins: http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1422&index=4 Also to clarify, Mitchell thought that the majority of Indians descended from Asians, but thought that there was another ancient race in America that was of European descent that was exterminated by the Asian-descended people in New York. My understanding is that he thought that this race was the moundbuilders. So I can see him being interested in the golden plates for that reason.

Thanks for this, mapman.  As I said, I'll try to read more when I get the chance.

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks for the reply, Scott.  I'll try to read more about this.

 

It is unfortunate that we have nothing written by Mitchill himself to corroborate any of this.  But it is an interesting subject for sure. 

Bear in mind though, that we do have the accounts by New York newspaper reporter James Gordon Bennett. I think that is a significant find, and Richard Bennett is to be commended for discovering those accounts.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

 

This is another lecture I covered from the recent Sidney B. Sperry Symposium at BYU.

 

Richard Bennett spoke of Martin Harris's 1828 visit to Charles Anthon, a journey during which he also visited Samuel MItchell and Luther Bradish.

 

Some (to me) interesting insights:

 

• Anthon was far less able to translate and understand ancient Near East languages than he apparently let on.
• The most important scholarly confirmation came not from Anthon but from celebrated naturalist and linguist Samuel L. MItchell. Mitchell was highly interested in what Harris had to show him, because MItchell was an avid student of the Rosetta Stone and thus hieroglyphics in general and because he was interested in the origins of American Indians and had developed his own theory about that.
• Harris had received his own divine witness about the Book of Mormon and the work of translation even before he undertook the journey. In Bennett's words, there was as much of compliance as there was corroboration involved in Harris's making the trip.
• The apparent fulfillment of the Isaiah prophecy ("I cannot read a sealed book"), combined with Mitchell's enthusiastic confirmation of what Anthon may have said, was enough for Harris to provide the financial means to publish the Book of Mormon.

 

 

 

Interesting stuff.  Though for me, even when I was more solid on the Church views I found Martin to be an unstable, superstitious and not very comforting witness.  Oliver and David always gave me more comfort.

[Scott Lloyd]

Interesting stuff.  Though for me, even when I was more solid on the Church views I found Martin to be an unstable, superstitious and not very comforting witness.  Oliver and David always gave me more comfort.

I think Martin gets a bad rap.

 

Like David and Oliver, he remained true to his Book of Mormon testimony until the day he died. Unlike David, he rejoined the Church of Jesus Christ in full fellowship. Unlike Oliver he lived long enough to come west and be with the Latter-day Saints in their Rocky Mountain Zion.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Avatar4321]

I always found Martins account very credible. Seems to me you would be less inclined to provide money to translate and print if you were told by experts that they were bogus and less likely to lie to cover it up.

[Thinking]

And as I said, we don't know that "he didn't write anything about Harris's visit." We can only state that he didn't write anything that we know about.

 

Well, there you have it folks. Lack of evidence is actually evidence of the possibility of future evidence being discovered.

[The Nehor]

Well, there you have it folks. Lack of evidence is actually evidence of the possibility of future evidence being discovered.

 

So what's the problem with that? I mean you obviously sound stupid saying it that way but if you rephrased it to something less stupid sounding that means the same thing like...

 

"Well, there you have it folks. Lack of evidence does not discount the possibility of future evidence being discovered."

 

...suddenly you look stupid for mocking it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, there you have it folks. Lack of evidence is actually evidence of the possibility of future evidence being discovered.

This is a distortion of my point.

 

Nehor actually restated it accurately: "Lack of evidence does not discount the possibility of future evidence being discovered."

 

And I too am wondering why you have a problem with that.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[canard78]

This article by Bro. Bennett explains pretty well what Mitchell thought about American Indian origins: http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1422&index=4 Also to clarify, Mitchell thought that the majority of Indians descended from Asians, but thought that there was another ancient race in America that was of European descent that was exterminated by the Asian-descended people in New York. My understanding is that he thought that this race was the moundbuilders. So I can see him being interested in the golden plates for that reason.

I was about to post a link to that article. It's excellent and well-worth reading in full.

As it happens, it was one of the texts that allowed me accept the potential scenario that the Book of Mormon was/is a product solely of the 19thC and not ancient.

Don't let that put you off though, that's certainly not Bennett's intention.

[canard78]

I always found Martins account very credible. Seems to me you would be less inclined to provide money to translate and print if you were told by experts that they were bogus and less likely to lie to cover it up.

There's plenty of evidence that Harris was given information on that trip to build, not erode confidence in the BoM (especially by Mitchell more than Anthon). The question remains about whether Harris received evidence that was credible and reliable.

If you read the article linked above, Mitchell had a view of Native American origins that has some strong overlap with the BoM, but little basis in the reality of their origins.

[Thinking]

So what's the problem with that? I mean you obviously sound stupid saying it that way but if you rephrased it to something less stupid sounding that means the same thing like...

 

"Well, there you have it folks. Lack of evidence does not discount the possibility of future evidence being discovered."

 

...suddenly you look stupid for mocking it.

 

Once again it's OK for an apologist to insult a critic in a passive aggressive sort of way.

 

By the way, my statement was supposed to sound stupid.

[Duncan]

Mitchell left no record of Harris's visit that we know about.

 

However, Professor Richard Bennett's research has uncovered entries in the 1831 journal of New York newspaper reporter James Gordon Bennett (no relation to Richard Bennett that I know about)  to the effect that Harris carried the transcription of the engravings to Anthon, who said he did not know what language they were and told him to take them to Mitchell, who

examined them, compared them with other hieroglyphs which he had, thought them very curious, said they were the characters of a nation now extinct. And in a separate, published account that Richard Bennett found, James Gordon Bennett said essentially the same thing -- that Harris was told by Anthon to take the plates to Mitchell, that Mitchell received Harris "very prlitely," that Mitchell "made a learned dissertation of them," that he compared the characters to hieroglyphics discovered by Champollion in Egypt (he who deciphered the Rosetta Stone) "and then he set them down as the language of a people formerly in existence in the east but now no more."

 

Mitchell did believe Native Americans were descended from Asians, but I take exception to the Wikipedia assertion that he would have been "unsympathetic to the view that Indians were related to the Jews or the Egyptians." Mitchell's theories were only that, theories, and I get the impression from Bennett's lecture that he had a scientific curiosity and openness to scholarly possibilities. In his lecture, Bennett said this about Mitchell: "A man of the many and a friend of every class, he possessed a voracious curiosity and a taste for new discoveries. His door was always open, for he delighted to learn from everyone, no matter what their station in life."

 

 

Richard Bennett used to be my Stake President, he is a genuine swell man!!! short but a spiritual giant! I have a spiritual story about him but it's probably not appropriate for a message board. His family is from Ontario,Canada I am not sure he has Yankee blood

Edited November 6, 2015 by Duncan

[Thinking]

This is a distortion of my point.

 

Nehor actually restated it accurately: "Lack of evidence does not discount the possibility of future evidence being discovered."

 

And I too am wondering why you have a problem with that.

 

Of course it is, but your point is pointless. That's why I distorted it.

 

Here's the real deal.

"Lack of evidence does not discount the possibility of future evidence being discovered. However, the more time that passes without evidence being discovered, the more the probability is reduced that evidence will be discovered."

 

In short, possible does not mean probable.

[The Nehor]

Once again it's OK for an apologist to insult a critic in a passive aggressive sort of way.

 

By the way, my statement was supposed to sound stupid.

 

I resent that.

 

There was nothing passive about my comment.

[Teancum]

I think Martin gets a bad rap.

 

Like David and Oliver, he remained true to his Book of Mormon testimony until the day he died. Unlike David, he rejoined the Church of Jesus Christ in full fellowship. Unlike Oliver he lived long enough to come west and be with the Latter-day Saints in their Rocky Mountain Zion.

Good points.