clarkgoble Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Oliver is definitely the outlier. Confusing 1828 with 1829 does no help at all. It's pure speculation to say Harris' comments only refer to 1828. While a rift had occurred between them for a time he still was involved . He was continuing to fund the Book of Mormon translation and was one of the witnesses. Further he was around during the later translation. We know of his wife's attempts to generate a lawsuit at that time and Harris' attempts to see the plates. To assert that his comments only refer to his first period of translation is dubious at best. But again he's not the only other witness to the spectacles. Whitmer mentions them too as do others. So I don't understand why you keep portraying Oliver as the outlier. It's just not factually accurate and raising the 1828 date doesn't make it so. Also note that Harris testifies that the seer stone was used when he was scribe - thus the story of his switching the stones on Joseph. While some assume this refers to his 1829 scribing we just don't know that for sure. What of course makes things more complicated is that people don't appear to distinguish the spectacles from the seer stone typically. By the mid 1830's Urim & Thummim is applied to both but the spectacles also are sometimes just called stones. What we need are quotes that deal with the issue explicitly. There are few of those. Emma's is one of the few but there are problems in her account for various reasons. Even her comment about "the stone" is fairly ambiguous though. I assume it means the brown seer stone she describes in her other account but we can't be sure. So we have two accounts that even address the issue. One by Emma in March 27, 1870 and one by David Whitmer Nov 15, 1879. So both many decades after the fact. Emma says only the spectacles were used on the 116 pages and then the brown seer stone. Yet Harris strongly suggests Joseph used the seer stone for convenience and there are hints this was with the 116 pages. With Whitmer you have the claim that the spectacles were never used after being taken which seems factually false thus undermining the trustworthiness of his late memory. He also claims that Joseph received the seerstone after the loss of the 116 pages whereas the evidence is pretty abundant that this is the stone he had for a long time. Given the problems with both accounts and their lateness why on earth should we trust them in the details? Contrast this with the other witnesses who claim both were used. The reality is, as I've said many times, the accounts of both the spectacles and seer stones are ambiguous and don't really answer the questions we'd like. We have Emma's statements but know there are other problems with those statements. (Especially on the polygamy issues but also others) Edited March 23, 2017 by clarkgoble
Recommended Posts