Mormon defender Daniel Peterson recently published an article about Book of Mormon witness Martin Harris. Appearing in the LDS-owned Deseret News, Dr. Peterson’s article, “Defending the Faith: Martin Harris: ‘Native honesty’ and life-long testimony,” is summarized:
“A recently republished document written by a man who disliked Mormonism but knew Martin Harris testifies yet again to the solid good character of one of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon.”
As his source, Dr. Peterson focuses mainly on an article published in the mid-1800s by the Christian Mirror of Portland, Maine. The Christian Mirror article was a reprint of an article written as a sort of obituary for Martin Harris (mistakenly believed to have been killed in Nauvoo, IL) and published in the Rochester Daily Democrat. Written by former Palmyra, New York resident Alvah Strong, the article is a personal reflection from one who knew Martin Harris as early as 1828.
I was unable to find the Christian Mirror article (online) to which Dr. Peterson refers, but I did find what appears to be the original article published by the Rochester Daily Democrat on June 23, 1841. The article does indeed praise the character of Martin Harris. Dr. Peterson relates the essence of Mr. Strong’s tribute,
“‘We have ever regarded Mr. Harris as an honest man,’ Strong wrote, referring also to Martin’s sturdy ‘native honesty.’ ‘He had long sustained an irreproachable character for probity.’ As Strong recalled him, Harris seemed to be sincere, and he had dedicated himself to the cause of Mormonism ‘even at the expense of his own pecuniary interests.’
“There is a particularly rich historical portrayal in one of Alvah Strong’s sentences about Martin:
“‘By his neighbors and townsmen with whom he earnestly and almost incessantly labored, he was regarded rather as being deluded himself, than as wishing to delude others knowingly, but still he was subjected to many scoffs and rebukes, all of which he endured with meekness becoming a better cause.’…
“…Strong remembered Harris as a humble, hardworking and sincere man, deeply devoted, notwithstanding mockery and opposition, to what he genuinely believed to be true.
“This is no insignificant fact: Martin Harris testified to the end of his life that, with David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery, he had ‘seen the plates’ and ‘the engravings which are upon the plates.’”
I believe just a couple of significant statements that Alvah Strong made about Martin Harris are missing from Dr. Peterson’s article. To put them in a fuller context, this is from the Rochester Daily Democrat:
“Though illiterate and naturally of a superstitious turn of mind, he had long sustained an irreproachable character for probity. He became an early believer in the doctrines of Mormonism, and neglected no opportunity of inculcating them, even at the expense of his pecuniary interests. By his neighbors and townsmen with whom he earnestly and almost incessantly labored, he was regarded rather as being deluded himself, than as wishing to delude others knowingly; but still he was subjected to many scoffs and rebukes, all of which he endured with a meekness becoming a better cause.”
And:
“We have not seen him since, and had supposed, until we saw the announcement of his death, and the cause of it conjectured, that he was still among the most zealous and conspicuous of Jo. Smith’s followers. But we were mistaken — Mr. Harris’s native honesty had gained the mastry of his credulity. He had been so long a confident of Smith and his leading associates, and had seen so much of their villainy, that he undoubtedly felt it a duty to expose them and their debasing doctrines. Hence his lectures against Mormonism in Illinois, and hence, too, his probable murder by some of that sect.” [Like the error of Martin Harris’ reported death, the report of his lectures against Mormonism seems also to be in error.]
Dr. Peterson made it clear in his article that Alvah Strong was no fan of Mormonism, and that comes through loud and clear in the Rochester Daily Democrat obituary. Nevertheless, perhaps Mr. Strong’s testimony to Martin Harris’ “superstitious turn of mind,” the context of the proselytizing nature of his “earnest and incessant labors” with his neighbors, and his “native honesty” being presented as something that finally overcame his unfortunate tendency toward gullibility, are important elements for readers wanting to understand Alvah Strong’s attestation of Martin Harris’ character.
Indeed, the fuller picture of what Alvah Strong wrote about Martin Harris fits well with other historical accounts about the man. Another resident of Palmyra wrote this about Martin Harris:
“He was first an orthodox Quaker, then a universalist, next a Restorationer, then a Baptist, next a Presbyterian, and then a Mormon.” (G.W. Stodard [Stoddard], November 28, 1833, Early Mormon Documents, 2:29-30)
Following his excommunication from the Mormon Church in 1837,
“Martin Harris remained at Kirtland for the next 30 years… In this period of his life he changed his religious position eight times, including a rebaptism by a Nauvoo missionary in 1842. Every affiliation of Martin Harris was with some Mormon group, except when he was affiliated with the Shaker belief…” (Improvement Era, March 1969, 63)
According to Phineas Young, who wrote a letter to his brother Brigham in 1844,
“Martin Harris is a firm believer in Shakerism, says his testimony is greater than it was of the Book of Mormon.” (Wayne Cutler Gunnell, BYU Dissertation, 52, quoted in Tanner and Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, 106)
In November 1846 the Mormon publication Millennial Star recorded,
“One of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, yielded to the spirit and temptation of the devil a number of years ago—turned against Joseph Smith and became his bitter enemy. He was filled with rage and madness of a demon. One day he would be one thing, and another day another thing. He soon became partially deranged or shattered, as many believed, flying from one thing to another, as if reason and common sense were thrown off their balance. In one of his fits of monomania, he went and joined the ‘Shakers’ or followers of Anne Lee. He tarried with them a year or two, or perhaps longer, having had some flare ups while among them; but since Strang has made his entry into the apostate ranks, and hoisted his standard for the rebellious to flock to, Martin leaves the ‘Shakers,’ whom he knows to be right, and has known it for many years, as he said, and joins Strang in gathering out the tares of the field.” (GospeLink, Orson Hyde, “Martin Harris,” Millennial Star, 8:124)
So while it seems pretty clear that Martin Harris was, as Dr. Peterson wrote, a man who could be counted on to be “deeply devoted…to what he genuinely believed to be true,” there is no reason to believe that he ever knew what actually was true.
A Mormon Student Manual says,
“Many in the Christian world are sincere, and their false doctrinal conclusions are not their own fault.” (Old Testament Student Manual 1Kings-Malachi Religion 302, 15-21, Isaiah 29:24, 166)
This charitable sentiment could easily be applied to the “humble, hardworking and sincere man,” Martin Harris.
Sincerity means little when it comes to truth. A lot of people sincerely, and adamantly, believe all sorts of things.
My impression of Martin Harris is that the guy was a spiritual gadfly and not real reliable. If he got on a witness stand in a court of law he’d have been demolished in regards to his religious testimony.
It must be remembered that these guys were into second sight vision and seeing things “through the eyes of faith”.
I find it amusing (and oh so typical) that Sharon deliberately omits the concluding paragraph of Dr. Peterson’s interesting article:
“This is no insignificant fact: Martin Harris testified to the end of his life that, with David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery, he had “seen the plates” and “the engravings which are upon the plates.” With Whitmer and Cowdery, he testified that the Book of Mormon had “been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us.” “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.”
The gist of the article is that notwithstanding the many trials and mockery Martin Harris suffered throughout his life as the result of his testimony regarding the veracity and divine origin of the Book of Mormon he never denied the simple reality that he had seen the Angel Moroni, that he saw and beheld the plates, and that he heard the voice of of the Lord who declared that the Book of Mormon has been “translated by the gift and power of God”.
Critics of the LDS Church love to denigrate Martin Harris and the many other eye witnesses of the Book of Mormon gold plates by falsely accusing them of being delusional idiots, and seeing the gold plates through “second sight”. What these uninformed critics fail to realize is that all these witnesses testify of physically holding, touching, hefting, and leafing through the leaves of gold upon which were the engravings.
The Testimony of the Eight Witnesses succinctly describes this physical reality of the Gold Plates of the Book of Mormon:
“Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jr., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated WE DID HANDLE WITH OUR HANDS; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for WE HAVE SEEN AND HEFTED, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.”
The accusation that the witnesses of the Book of Mormon did not physically see and feel the gold plates is patently false.
Sharon writes and the end of her blogpost:
“So while it seems pretty clear that Martin Harris was, as Dr. Peterson wrote, a man who could be counted on to be “deeply devoted…to what he genuinely believed to be true,” there is no reason to believe that he ever knew what actually was true.”
Well, Martin Harris testified that he had seen the Angel Moroni, that he saw and held the Gold Plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated, that he heard the voice of the Lord who declared that the Book of Mormon was “translated by the gift and power of God.”
Notwithstanding his fall out with Joseph Smith and the LDS Church, not once in his whole life did Martin Harris deny his testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon. Martin Harris knew with every fiber of his being that the Book of Mormon was divine and that it was of God. Martin Harris died affirming his testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon. Martin Harris knew what was true.
Alex
“Critics of the LDS Church love to denigrate Martin Harris and the many other eye witnesses of the Book of Mormon gold plates by falsely accusing them of being delusional idiots, and seeing the gold plates through “second sight”. What these uninformed critics fail to realize is that all these witnesses testify of physically holding, touching, hefting, and leafing through the leaves of gold upon which were the engravings.”
Why must you use such emotive language? I haven’t read anything on any of the posts saying that the witnesses were delusional idiots & why do you say the critics are uninformed? I tend to think that they are better informed than a Mormon who refuses to look at any argument other than his own.
Yes it’s true that the ‘witnesses’ all eleven of them, signed statements but it’s equally true that all eleven had left the Church within a few years, hardly the actions of people who had witnessed a miraculous event. And who actually wrote those statements? Why, it was none other than your false prophet himself, Joseph Smith.
Do you really believe that if such miraculous events had occurred & really were witnessed by those men that they would all have left the LDS within a few years of the event? The Apostle Paul was witness to a miraculous event & we know how it affected him. The fact is, some stories have a ring of truth but this one quite frankly, doesn’t
“Martin Harris knew with every fiber of his being that the Book of Mormon was divine and that it was of God. Martin Harris died affirming his testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon. Martin Harris knew what was true.”
Martin Harris did NOT know the BofM was divine; he may have believed it was but that’s very different to knowing it. Remember also that after the death of Smith, Harris followed James Strang another man who claimed to have a set of divine books. Doesn’t that say a lot about Harris’ superstitious & complicated personality? There are many accounts (far too many for them to be discounted) of Harris claiming to have seen the book not with his natural eyes but in a vision.
Ps. I don’t wish to resort to ad-hominen attacks but Daniel Peterson is not the kind of man I would look to for unbiased reasoning.
So one of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon stood by his original testimony about the book
his whole life , but early on he left the church , accusing Joseph Smith of false doctrines .
This was David Whitmer . He died affirming his testimony of the Book of Mormon , and he
also had a testimony about Joseph Smith —-which today’s LDS should hear . Then they can
ask themselves if both his testimonies are true . Martin Harris should’n get all the attention .
This is interesting. Martin Harris really had some fantastic spiritual experiences.
“Brother Harris then turned over as if he had no more to say and we made ready to leave. He spoke again and said, “I will tell you of the most wonderful thing that happened, after Joseph received the plates. Three of us, myself and two more, took some tools and went to the hill to dig for more plates of gold or something and indeed we found a stone box. We got quite excited and dug around it very carefully and just when we were ready to lift it up out of the hole, some unseen power slid it back into the hill. We stood and looked at it and one of us tried to drive a crowbar through the lid to hold it, but the crowbar glanced off and the corner of the lid was chipped off.”
“Sometime that box will be found and you will find one corner of the lid broken and you will know that I have spoken the truth. Brother’s just as sure as you are standing here and see me, just so sure did we see the Angel with the golden plates in his hand. He showed them to me and I promised I would bear witness of this truth both here and hereafter.”
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~archibald/Martin_Harris_Testimony.html
http://www.mrm.org/eleven-witnesses
There are so many problems with the witnesses to the Book of Mormon that it is hard to know where to start. But let’s stick to Harris for now. One does not really even need to recount the incident with the angel to get an idea of the magnitude of the lying that went on by Jo and the witnesses to the Book of Mormon.
The first problem is that Jo never would discuss the incident in a public setting. A little more than a year after the Book of Mormon was published, at an 1831 Church conference in Orange, Ohio, Joseph’s older brother Hyrum,
Joseph’s answer was no. He then explained,
Why not? Because Joseph knew that there were too many conflicting accounts of what happened, when it happened, who did what and with his timeline of events. For example, let’s recount what happened before Martin Harris became a “witness”.
Joseph wrote,
According to this account it was Martin’s idea (supposedly inspired by a vision) to have some of the characters copied so he could go to New York City with them. Also, Jo claims that “the Lord” appeared to Martin in “a vision” and showed him “his marvelous work”.
This version of events is remembered differently by Lucy Smith who spoke to the assembled Church in 1845 as recorded by William Clayton:
Norton Jacob also wrote an account of Lucy Smith’s speech and verified what Clayton wrote,
An account given by Martin Harris himself in 1859 also does not agree with Joseph’s 1832 history. In this account by Harris he states that “I had a revelation the summer before, [1827 ] that God had a work for me to do.” It is notable that Harris does not say that God revealed anything specific to him. Harris then affirms that,
Harris then states that he first visited Lucy Smith who told him the story of the gold plates and then “a day or so” later he went and visited Joseph. (ibid, 168)
Martin stated that Joseph told him that,
Harris then stated that,
Harris then recounts that he,
Martin does not claim that he had a vision about the plates. If Harris had already become “convinced of the visions” (as Joseph recounts), then it seems rather strange that he would ask God to acknowledge if “it was his work”, and then pester Joseph to have the characters verified by “the learned”. In this account Martin does not even mention his errand to New York City.
It was then, after Joseph had copied some of the characters; that Lucy mentions Martin Harris who she said was a “confidential friend to whom Mr. Smith [Joseph Smith, Sr.] mentioned the existence of the record 2 or 3 years before it came forth.” (Early Mormon Documents Vol. 1, page 343-44)
Lucy then states that ,
This account agrees with the Harris account in 1859 which states that Lucy came to visit Martin, and here we see that it was at the instigation of Joseph, not the other way around, and shows that Joseph just invented the details in his 1832 History which is probably why he abandoned it and never published or finished it.
In Lucy Smith’s account it is Lucy Harris that first gives Joseph money to help translate the plates, because she supposedly sees the plates in a dream. (Vogel, page 344) But this is not what Lucy Harris testified to later. She, in fact believed the whole thing a hoax, and that her husband told her he could “make money off of it”.
Lucy Smith writes that it was after this, “in Palmira at a public house” that Martin shows up with a bag of silver totaling $50 and gives it to Smith for his expenses. (ibid)
Also, Martin Harris states in 1859 that he first learned of the record from his Brother Preserved in 1827, not from Joseph Smith Sr. “2 or 3 years before it came forth.” (Tiffany Interview)
The problem with the Joseph Smith – Martin Harris stories are that they don’t match up. They never did. And this is even before we get into the business with the angel.
Every one of Harris’ neighbors gave him kudos for being a great businessman and a good farmer, but all of them said that he was wacko when it came to religious matters. Harris tried to mesh business with religion, by getting involved with printing a religious book, a book that was being promulgated by the great “Manchester Scryer” himself, the peep-stone carrying Jo Smith. Harris was in over his head but didn’t know it, and lost his farm, and everything he had, and was never as prosperous in his life again.
Jo could not have found a more superstitious religious fanatic to dupe than Martin Harris. Jo knew this, and that is why he told his mother to go find Harris, and then told Harris that he had “seen him” as the “one to help him” in his peep stone. How did Martin come to help Jo? He had the same experience all Mormons claim, he prayed about it and felt good about it. As for the angel… that is a whole other story, and Martin Harris did claim later that events did not happen as written in the Witness Testimony published in the Book of Mormon.
I’ll have more on Harris in my next installment….
Mike,
We can test Whitmer in other ways, because Whitmer was a liar. If he lied about other things, who is to say that he didn’t lie about seeing an angel? The following is clipped out of Part III of an article that I’ve been posting on my blog about the Jacob Hicks photo I found in Dec. 2012. You can read about that here. I’m hoping to have this Part up tomorrow.
Martin Harris died in Utah in 1875 leaving David Whitmer the last of the three witnesses, consequently he was interviewed far more often at this time than any other in his life. In addition to giving interviews, David would sometimes display what he called “the original manuscript” of the Book of Mormon. David would also sometimes display for visitors what he called “the original characters presented to Professor Anthony of New York by Martin Harris, but there are no accounts of him displaying the characters before 1878. Whitmer kept these documents at his house in Richmond, and had the same attitude about them that Emma Smith had about the New Translation Manuscripts, that they were sacred and those who possessed them would be protected with them.
This was affirmed in the mind of David Whitmer and others when in the summer of 1877 a tornado ravaged the city of Richmond.
In the summer of 1878 Joseph F. Smith and Orson Pratt were sent on a mission to the east “in the interest of the history of the Church.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Life of Joseph F. Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret BookCompany, 1938), pages 236-7.)
In the fall of that year they visited Richmond and Joseph F. Smith wrote in his diary of the cyclone’s devastation:
Smith reported that
Later that year an account of their visit appeared in the Millennial Star where it was reported that David Whitmer told them that,
In a second meeting the next day with Whitmer, Joseph F. Smith recorded in his diary that,
In an article that appeared in the Deseret News, Joseph F. Smith reported,
Smith also wrote in his entry for that day that,
What is interesting about this visit of Smith and Pratt is that there is no mention of the Book of Mormon characters. Where was the document that John Whitmer showed to E.C. Brand in 1875? An answer may lie in two interviews given by P. Wilhelm Poulson, who Dan Vogel describes as “an eccentric Mormon with serious involvement with psychic and spiritualistic phenomena.” -Book of Mormon Witnesses Revisited, A Response to Richard L. Anderson, Stephen C. Harper, Daniel C. Peterson, Richard L. Bushman, and Alan Goff, online here. This is a great response by Dan Vogel to Daniel Peterson’s claims about Harris.
Poulson claimed that he interviewed John Whitmer in April of 1877, a little more than a year before his death on July 11, 1878. In this interview it is reported by Poulson that,
Dan Vogel writes:
If this part of Poulson’s account can be trusted, John Whitmer may have had the “Caractor” document in his possession until his death in 1878. Poulson also interviewed David Whitmer in April of 1877, and asked him about the engravings on the gold plates. According to Poulson, Whitmer replied that,
If this part of the interview is accurate then David did not have a copy of the characters in his possession at this time and referred Poulson to his brother John if he wanted to see them. David also states that “we copied some of them”, which doesn’t agree with what Whitmer always said about the “Caractor” document – that it was the original document that Martin Harris took to Charles Anthon in 1828. Could Poulson have heard this (“we copied some”) from John Whitmer since he interviewed both of the brothers during the same month in 1877? It is hard to know for sure until further information comes to light.
So, if David had a copy of the characters in 1878 why aren’t they mentioned by Joseph F. Smith and Orson Pratt? It is hard to imagine that they were simply left out of the account written by Smith, so they must not have been shown to the Utah Mormons. Joseph F. Smith may give us a reason why in his diary account. After leaving David Whitmer in Richmond, Smith and Pratt took the short journey to Far West where they visited with Jacob Whitmer, the son of John Whitmer, who Smith reported was “insolently gruff and abrupt.” -After asking if he could show them around Far West (to which Jacob refused), the conversation turned to the matter of John Whitmer’s papers:
In 1881 the Richmond Conservator reported that,
At this time Whitmer also claimed that the copy of the Book of Mormon characters in his possession was the original document taken by Martin Harris to Charles Anthon. Jesse R. Badham wrote,
Whitmer also had published in 1881 a “Proclamation” in which he stated that,
In 1884 James H. Hart included a description of the document that David Whitmer had in his possession:
Hart also gave an account to the Bear Lake Democrat a few days later which reads,
During that same year, George Q. Cannon paid a visit to David Whitmer at his home in Richmond, who showed him the Book of Mormon manuscript he had in his possession. But Cannon seemed far more interested in
In 1886 Whitmer was still lying that he had a copy of the characters taken by Martin Harris, but in this interview added some new details:
The year before he died, Whitmer published a rambling, 75 page pamphlet which he titled An Address To All Believers In Christ, that condemned the Utah branch of the Mormon Church, called Joseph Smith a fallen prophet, and admonished all men to believe in the Book of Mormon. Endeavoring to correct those that claimed he had denied his testimony; Whitmer also reprinted his “Proclamation” from 1881 which stated that,
Thus David Whitmer would affirm until his death that he had possession of the original Book of Mormon Manuscript and the copy of the characters that Martin Harris took to New York City in 1828.
After David Whitmer’s death, these items were passed to his son, David J. Whitmer, along with John Whitmer’s Church History and OTMan 3. This collection of documents were eventually given into the care of George Schweich, a nephew of David J. Whitmer, who subsequently sold them to the RLDS Church for $2450 in 1903.
————————————————————-
Whitmer was shown proof that his manuscript was not the Original, yet made a published PUBLIC statement later attesting that it was. It was a whopper of a lie. He then, knowing that his book of Mormon Characters were not the originals either (he knew that there was a bottom to the facsimilie that he showed for years that dated it to 1831 (a photo of which I discovered in December 2012) and was a copy made by his brother Christian Whitmer) and he still testified that it was the original paper that Harris took to Anthon. David Whitmer ripped off the bottom of the paper to try and bolster his story that it was the original. Too bad that his brother John had had Jacob Hicks take a picture of the document that has now been rediscovered. And Whitmer never got the “caractors” from Oliver Cowdery with the copy of the Printer’s Manuscript, he got them from his brother John, so he lied about that too.
This shows that David Whitmer would propagate a LIE to bolster his claims about the Book of Mormon. Like with Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery, Whitmer was a good business man – he ran a livery stable for years in Richmond and was an interim Mayor for two years, but when it came to the Book of Mormon, they would lie like the devil to protect their story. If they lied about other things, they cannot be trusted as witnesses, even though they themselves may have believed they saw… something.
grindael, thanks for the information about Whitmer . The point I tried to make was that for
LDS , especially investigators, to realize that just because someone had a testimony that the
Book of Mormon is true does not mean that today’s Mormon church is the one true church ,
because Joseph Smith and/or those leaders after him drifted into doctrinal error and thus
succumbed to apostasy . I think that scenario reflects the life of David Whitmer , and there
are other Book of Mormon groups/sects that definitely feel that way .
If Martin Harris had a testimony of the Shaker religion that was greater than his inner witness
of the Book of Mormon why believe him at all ? That’s a hard sell .
I fail to see the point of this thread in the first place. So a man had flaws in his character. Hardly surprising. What is the point in dragging it out.
Old Man
“Do you really believe that if such miraculous events had occurred & really were witnessed by those men that they would all have left the LDS within a few years of the event?”
I don’t know? Do think that if such miracles as the parting of the Red Sea and the Ten plagues of Egypt, and those other acts of Moses had occurred and were witnessed by ancient Israel that they would have fallen away within a few?
Oh, wait, you do think this because you accept the account of the Bible. What of Judas Iscariot who had witnessed all the miracles of Christ, and then betrayed him? You give one example in Paul of a man who witnessed a miraculous event and never fell away, but the Bible is filled with countless people who also witnessed great miracles and then fell away.
Shem,
The personality flaw gets to the heart of his believability. I can accept that he wholeheartedly believed he saw something, but that he wholeheartedly believed a myriad of other things raises some important questions.
Contextually, many of the Jews grumbled before Moses, and we have no reason to question Moses’ honesty before God spoke to him. Judas had specific motivation to fall away– gaining money. And just as Moses was, there’s nothing about Jesus’ character in question. Paul, for what its worth, was actively rounding up and killing Christians before his encounter, which speaks to the power and extent of his transformation. And besides Judas, whom Jesus knew would betray and who helped move prophecy forward, who else faltered?
Contrast this with Smith, who does have a sketchy past pre-founder, and look at the folks who followed him.
I’ll let others get into specifics, but it hardly seems accurate to compare the followers of Smith with those of Moses and Jesus.
MJP
John 6: 66 “From that time many of his adisciples went back, and bwalked no more with him.”
Many of those who initially followed Christ and witnessed the miracles he performed fell away because they could not handle the doctrine he taught.
However, you are missing the point. Old Man made the claim that them falling away is proof that what they testified to didn’t actually happen, regardless of the fact that the never denied that testimony. His point was that if they had actually seen what they claimed they never would have left the church. This claim is ridiculous and is proven false by the many examples of the Bible.
Critics of the LDS Church insist that the Plates of Gold from which the Book of Mormon was translated never existed. To admit to the existence of the Plates of Gold is to admit the veracity of the claim that the Book of Mormon is divine in origin and was translated by the gift and power of God.
Critics insist that the testimonies of the 3 witnesses and the 8 witnesses mentioned were the product of some induced hallucination or “second sight” and hence bogus. What critics deliberately gloss over is the fact that these witnesses not only saw the Plates of Gold but also physically handled them as testified by the 8 witnesses. It is worth repeating that the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses succinctly describes this physical reality of the Gold Plates of the Book of Mormon:
“Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jr., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated WE DID HANDLE WITH OUR HANDS; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for WE HAVE SEEN AND HEFTED, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.”
One cannot handle or heft an object by the medium of “second sight”. The critic’s argument that the testimonies of the various witnesses is the byproduct of some hallucination is false. Again, the accusation that the witnesses of the Book of Mormon did not physically see and feel the gold plates is patently false.
It is important to note that notwithstanding personal discord with Joseph Smith and the LDS Church, none of the 11 witnesses denied the veracity of their testimonies throughout their whole lives. Had the whole incident been a fraud it would seem most likely that at least one of the eleven witnesses would have stated as much. This never happened.
The miraculous nature of the Book of Mormon and indeed the LDS Church goes to the heart of the matter: Jesus Christ has re-established His Church and Kingdom on earth and Jesus Christ directly leads and guides His Church through modern day revelation. Of this great truth there are thousands upon thousands of individuals who have had similar and comparable spiritual experiences as those of the 11 Witnesses.
Alex said
Please Alex, Can you say, Mark Hoffemen? What about word for word quotes in the BoM that were taken from the Bible? Thats plagiarism, and King James Language did not exist 600 years BC.
I love Alex How you LDS come out from under the bridge when it is topics like this, yet when Topics like Adam God Challenge, Grinadel wrote. Or the 4 part Trinity Topic.
You guys run away from those topics or make excuses, start debating them and we will take you a little more serious.
Since Alex is arguing against something that the OP does not discuss (i.e., what the Book of Mormon witnesses actually saw), for those of you who are not familiar with this controversy, some of the facts that contribute to the critics’ skepticism are provided by Bill McKeever at mrm.org: “Did the Eleven Witnesses Actually See the Gold Plates?
Yea lets compare Harris and Smith and that whole bunch of miscreants, schemers and frauds with Jesus. Have you no shame?
The LDS church has done its best to try and make these farcical treasure hunters into some sort of spiritually gifted and talented religious heroes but the historical record speaks for itself.
All we have is examine is who the LDS church ended-up claiming as their god and we see what Smith and company had wrought. If these guys did have any actual “visions”, the source came from the occult practicing Smith. My guess is that Smith was a version of Patrick Jane on the “Mentalist”, the character who was able to manipulate people by using cheap parlor tricks and a lot of suggestive power.
That’s all we really have to know. Smith was a seer stone peeping exploiter of the gullible and those who buy into his ruse today are beyond naive.
Mormon Bubble talk. Eyes closed, fingers in ears and screaming la, la, la, la, la, la, la! So as not to be able to see or hear the truth. So what if Jo and Martin Harris lied about everything connected with the Book of Mormon! What’s the point? I’m going to believe it anyway, and so should you…
Ah, Bubbles….I find your reply “hardly surprising”.
You can if the object is under a cloth. And there is evidence that Oliver Cowdery did deny is testimony, and Martin Harris said that he never saw the plates with his “natural eyes”, but in a vision, which he also said was just like the vision he saw of the Shaker’s “sacred roll”. So which is it? Or did he see both? If so, why is Shakerism denounced by the Mormon Hierarchy? You can’t have it both ways. Harris simply lied, as did the rest of them, who have been caught in so many lies that it boggles the mind that anyone would believe anything they said. There is not one account of when and were these men supposedly saw those plates that can’t be contradicted by another account. The saw and hefted… fake plates under a cloth, and as Martin Harris said to many, “the eight witnesses never saw them & hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it”.
Shem, you continue to miss our point. Funny how this always happens in these discussions.
Even if we were to accept as true your argument that people falling away is not evidence of truth– that does not change our point. See, I happen to agree that people falling away is not necessarily proof of anything. However, the matter is not just that people fall away. The matter is the subjects in question to begin with. In this case– the followers of Moses, Jesus, Paul, and Joseph Smith are in question, in addition to Mosel, Jesus, Paul, and Smith. Those that follow Smith, unlike the others, have shown to be quite questionable in and of themselves. Moses, Jesus, and Paul have spotless reputations before and after the major events that make them relevant that make them believable. Smith cannot claim that.
You and I have talked before about Smith’s reputation and actions both before and after he founded his movement that call into question the truth of his movement. Harris, and others, have enough issues concerning their reputations to fairly bring into question their stories. When put together with Smith’s, it is not out of bounds to question the entire thing.
Sorry, I know you will reject this, but its truth cannot be denied except by saying all of them are telling the truth. However, the evidence is sufficient to think they are deceived or are outright lying.
You can argue another point all you want, but that is what we are discussing here. The very character of all the players in early Mormonism is extremely relevant.
Shem
“Oh, wait, you do think this because you accept the account of the Bible. What of Judas Iscariot who had witnessed all the miracles of Christ, and then betrayed him? You give one example in Paul of a man who witnessed a miraculous event and never fell away”
I have a couple of points to make concerning what you have said. When I said miraculous events I was talking not just about so-called gold plates but also about the entire spiritual experience of the witnesses as described on the LDS site. Neither Judas nor any of the people you mention, experienced such things so your comparison is incorrect.
I used Paul as an example simply because the events, i.e. his conversion & what was supposedly experienced by the three witnesses were almost identical.
Let’s look at what Martin Harris & the others are supposed to have witnessed so that we can do a like for like comparison
“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; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.”
Further, “the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things”
(“The Testimony of Three Witnesses,” Book of Mormon).
Perhaps you would care to read Acts 9:3-4 to see how similar the stories are. Surely the witnesses would have been as affected by what they saw & heard as was Paul by what he witnessed therefore my comparison with Paul is a valid one
Who never saw the plates either. Thank you.
…………………..similar and comparable experiences?
Do you really want to go there? Go get the book “Temple Manifestations”. You’ll be especially impressed with how these folks saw dead people during the temple ceremony. This is called necromancy and is a good fit for the occult foundation of Mormonism.
The sects that bailed out were the smart ones. They at least have avoided all the weird and wacky doctrines and practices of the LDS and their home boys the FLDS. OOPS, the FLDS think the LDS are a bunch of apostates.
So we have all of these Mormons having “spiritual” experiences that provide for them the “knowing” that the whole Joseph Smith program is the real deal.
Are these Mormons then willing to sign on to other religious spiritual experiences that prove that another religion is the truth? Evidently Martin Harris would jump on board just about any religious movement that provided such a spiritual experience for him.
And what about all of those marvelous spiritual experiences that Joseph Smith treated his friends and family to when they use to romp about the countryside at night looking into the ground with his magic rock to find buried treasure.
It’s pretty obvious that what Smith did was combine his proclivity for folk magic, mix it up with other things going on in his environment (searching for Indian burial grounds, religious revivals etc.) and walla, a new religion. He liked it all so much that when he joined the Free Masons he incorporated their rituals into his temple (rituals).
Yea, Smith and Co. are definitely a bunch of people you’d want to join-up with!
Joseph Smith was always looking for someone to scam and Martin Harris was the perfect rube for a religious con.
A precursor to the scam as a religious prophet:
“Prisoner examined: says that he came from the town of Palmyra, and had been at the house of Josiah Stowel in Bainbridge most of time since; had small part of time been employed by said Stowel on his farm, and going to school. That he had a certain stone which he had occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold mines were a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowel several times, and had informed him where he could find these treasures, and Mr. Stowel had been engaged in digging for them. That at Palmyra he pretended to tell by looking at this stone where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania, and while at Palmyra had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was of various kinds; that he had occasionally been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years, but of late had pretty much given it up on account of its injuring his health, especially his eyes making them sore; that he did not solicit business of this kind, and had always rather declined having anything to do with this business.”
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech4.htm
Now our TBMs can come up with all sorts of explanations (after having to admit the truth of this matter) as to why being a practitioner of folk magic and a seeker of treasure with a magic rock shouldn’t disqualify or call into question Smith’s visionary experiences. He was a master con artist who could use his persuasive powers to bilk people out of money and convince them that they had indeed seen things with spiritual eyes or the eyes of faith.
The fact that folks who have this information continue to cover for Smith’s preposterous claims is really sad.
Old Man
Ancient Israel was giving the opportunity of experiencing the presence of God, and when they felt the smallest amount cried out in fear and asked not to see God. The mountain shook at his presence, and they knew it.
How many of them saw angels? We don’t know, because such a figure is not recorded.
But then, there is Balaam, who was visited by an angel and yet still defied God and was latter set up as an example of such folly.
Cain spoke directly to God and yet still killed Abel and made a deal with Satan.
Of course, since we have only a fragmented record of such ancient times we can’t really know who saw an angel and then fell away. You have one example of a person who saw a vision and stayed faithful. That proves nothing, except that Pual stayed faithful. Others saw many great miracles and did fall away. The similarity counts for very little.
There is no logic in your argument.
MJP
I do get your point, but I wasn’t addressing that point. I was addressing a single point made by Old Man and that was it.
The real problem with your point is that we can’t make a detailed analysis of the character and reputation of those who followed Moses, or Christ, or any other figure in the Bible. We have a few accounts of individuals, but no substance. If we did you would likely find many people who were like Martin Harris in all ages of the world. It still is a very weak point and has no real purpose.
Shem
The examples you give are very different to what was experienced by Paul and, according to the LDS, the three witnesses. As you seem incapable of figuring it out I’ll try to explain even though you seem determined not to accept what should be clear to you.
Unlike those men & the events you refer to, Christ called Paul for His purpose.
Joseph Smith & the three witnesses made the same claim.
Paul was called as an apostle to spread the Gospel of Christ.
Joseph Smith & the three witnesses made the same claim.
“Others saw many great miracles and did fall away. The similarity counts for very little.
There is no logic in your argument.”
I was not & am not talking about people witnessing miracles. None of the examples you have given are concerned with Christ, with His message of salvation, or with having been chosen by God. This was a one off event, never to be repeated, except of course in the mind of Joseph Smith.
I’ll leave it for others to decide if there is logic in what I say.
Well, then, Shem, if the disciples were like Harris, we’d have little to hang our hat on concerning our faith. The thing is that there may well have been other followers who were like that. I am reminded of Monty Python’s “The Life of Brian” on that point. But the 12 disciples less Judas, all went to their death reaffirming what they had seen in their lives. Keep in mind also that they all were lost and confused after Jesus died on the cross. They had the experience of touching Jesus and his wounds, and there were hundreds of other witnesses to Jesus return. It was not just a few people writing a prepared document suggesting what they saw was true.
There may be weaknesses in the argument, but its far stronger than yours, which relies on a few people who we know had problems flowing with the wind, so to speak.
The whole problem with Shem’s argument is that Martin Harris never saw “a miracle”. If he did (which is doubtful) he experienced an ever greater “miracle” about Ann Lee’s “Shaker Roll”, because Harris said so to many people. Which one is true then, Shem… because according to Mormonism, the latter one could not be. So, Martin Harris is either delusional, or a liar.
Take your pick. Harris did deny that he saw an angel, because in too many statements he NEVER SAW ONE…H. Michael Marquardt writes,
Harris BELIEVED that the BOM was true, and that was all. He, nor the other “witnesses” ever saw an angel, and NONE OF THEM ever saw the gold plates. As Dan Vogel writes,
To understand how ridiculous all this is, you have a Mormon Scholar giving an historical paper on this, and actually DATING when they saw the plates, and when the “8 witnesses” saw them (July 2, 1829). Now, this author, Gale Yancey Anderson, (Spring 2012), “Eleven Witnesses Behold the Plates”, Journal of Mormon History 38:2, is either into fantasy, or doesn’t know about a newspaper article that was discovered by H. Michael Marquardt in 2005 in which Samuel H. Smith (one of those witnesses) told the Boston Investigator in August of 1832:
This account shows that they were not just shown them on a certain day, but supposedly “saw” them “at various times”…Now… they could not have been seen during the translation, because Jo never had them with him when he was translating after he left Harmony, Pennsylvania, and when he did have them with him, EVERY SINGLE STATEMENT about them says that they were covered by a cloth when he was “translating”, or hidden behind a curtain. Isaac Hale said they were “hidden in the woods” while he translated at Harmony, and others said the same thing at the Whitmer Farm, and when they saw Jo “translate” it was only with a stone in his hat sans the plates.
William Smith said his father ‘never saw the plates except under a frock” (Marvin Hill, ‘Brodie Revisited,’ in ‘Dialogue,’ Vol.7, No.4, p .84). William said, ‘In consequence of his vision, and his having the golden plates and refusing to show them, a great persecution arose against the whole family, and he was compelled to remove into Pennsylvania with the plates. He went on to say that his brother translated the plates using the “Urim and Thummim” placed in a hat, the plates were “lying nearby covered up.”’ (‘A New Witness for Christ in America,’ Vol. 2, pp. 416-17).
They “saw them during the translation”? Nope, they didn’t. If this is true, then why did Jo go to such extraordinary lengths with Harris, as he did at Harmony…Isaac Hale said that while Joseph was translating, the plates were “hid in the woods.” Hale said that Martin Harris demanded that Smith give him a “greater witness,” and Smith told Harris to “go into the woods where the Book of Plates was, and that after he came back, Harris should follow his track in the snow, and find the Book, and examine it for himself. Harris informed me afterwards, that he followed Smith’s direction, and could not find the Plates, and was still dissatisfied.” “Mormonism, Susquehanna Register and Northern Pennsylvanian 9 (May 1, 1834): 1 in EMD 4: 286–87.
“No primary witness reported that Joseph used [the plates] in any way.” Grant H. Palmer, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 2–5.
We see that even in 1832, Samuel Smith was lying. Seriously folks, Jo and his gang couldn’t even keep their stories straight. Here is what Jo claimed happened,
This is a simple account, right? All four, ON THE SAME DAY, AT THE SAME TIME, go to the woods and then have a “vision”, with the doubter Harris getting his “vision” later immediately after the others. But when you start investigating, you find all kinds of problems with Jo-Jo’s account, like all the witnesses have their own versions of what happened, and THEY DON’T MATCH.
A Richmond Democrat reporter interviewed David Whitmer, who told him that while plowing “Smith and Cowdery” came and “requested that he accompany them into the woods, [located] on a hill across the road for the purpose of witnessing a manifestation.” No Martin Harris. Flatly contradicts Jo’s story.
The foreman in the Palmyra printing office that produced the first Book of Mormon said that Harris “used to practice a good deal of his characteristic jargon and ‘seeing with the spiritual eye,’ and the like.” Pomeroy Tucker, Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1867), 71 in EMD, 3: 122. John H. Gilbert, the typesetter for most of the book, 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, in EMD, 2: 548. Two other Palmyra residents said that Harris told them that he had seen the plates with “the eye of faith” or “spiritual eyes.” Martin Harris interviews with John A. Clark, 1827 & 1828 in EMD, 2: 270; Jesse Townsend to Phineas Stiles, 24 December 1833, in EMD, 3: 22. In 1838, Harris is said to have told an Ohio congregation that “he never saw the plates with his natural eyes, only in vision or imagination.” Stephen Burnett to Lyman E. Johnson, 15 April 1838 in EMD, 2: 291. A neighbor of Harris in Kirtland, Ohio, said that Harris “never claimed to have seen [the plates] with his natural eyes, only spiritual vision.” Reuben P. Harmon statement, c. 1885, in EMD, 2: 385.
What about Harris and the Shakers? H. Michael Marquardt writes,
Martin Harris joined the Shakers for about two years. Here is the statement of members of the Shakers:
Jo Smith only had three witnesses who claimed to see an angel. The Shakers, however, had a large number of witnesses who claimed they saw angels and the Roll and Book. So which “miracle” are we to believe? The one where Harris saw the Book of Mormon… or the one where he says that his evidence was even greater for the Shaker Roll?
Even Brigham Young knew that some of them had denied their testimony:
The second description that Young gives was not a member of the quorum of the Twelve, but one of the original twelve “apostles” (not the same as the 1835 QT) Hiram Page, who said that he was shown the BOM plates, not by Jo, but by an angel…and said it was a “spiritual manifestation” not just Jo showing him the plates.
The church today may portray these events as two separate coherent events that took place within a few days of each other, where Jo just gathered them up and they saw the plates. But from the descriptions of the actual supposed “witnesses”, it was nothing of the kind. What we actually find is nothing like the way Jo portrayed events, which shows that he cannot be trusted, and neither can the supposed “witnesses”.
I don’t know.
These Mormons show-up here and act like it’s a really bad thing that someone would actually check out the claims of mystical experiences and the people who claim to have them.
They’d much rather promote a false religious/spiritual experience as a means of truth telling than the exercise of healthy skepticism. But then that takes away all of the religious fun and the emotional rewards that accompany it.
So the prospect to join the Mormon religion is told to read this “other book of scripture” and pray to receive a physical/emotional reaction which is said to be confirmation from God that what’s in this book is indeed an actual history of real events which occurred on the American continent. What a scam! Instead of actually taking an intellectual approach to determine if what’s in it is true, the prospect is given a pre-suggestion warm-up. Then if the person doesn’t get the reaction they are told to keep reading the “scripture” over and over and pray to receive the reaction.
This is a mini-version of the game that was played when Smith’s witnesses were manipulated into seeing all sorts of spirit beings with “the eyes of faith”. In addition to this, have you ever heard the story of who appeared to Smith to restore the Mormon priesthood? And what about the angel with the sword who appeared to him and told him if he didn’t practice plural marriage the angel would kill him?
At a certain point people are required to use their head and not be guided by their emotions which are subject to manipulation.
Even if Mr. Harris believed whole heartedly he saw the golden plates, why is that any sort of proof that the church is of God? People can believe anything they want and do, whole heartedly. Our minds have incredible ways of conjuring manifestations of what we believe or want to believe. Why is Mr. Harris seeing the plates proof they existed? Why is that proof that they were from God?
It is very difficult to trust our minds because we have powerful imaginations and powerful flesh. This is why prophecy and miracles are vital for us to know whether something is real or not.
He may have even seen golden plates, they may very well have been real. But even if they were, so what? Does that mean they are truly from God? No one else saw the angel Maroni (Who could have just as easily been Satan in disguise, if he even was real), No one else saw God. No real miracles were performed. JS supposedly translated the plates with a seer stone, never by the hand of God. Many LDS believe that his translating was a miracle but ONLY he interpreted the original text, who’s to say that he didn’t just make up what he was translating. Who’s to say that it was even from God? Couldn’t Satan have manipulated him to write all this stuff to contradict the word of God?
Then we have the whole persecution proved he believed it was true.
Persecution? Like what?
Dan Vogel said it best, and succinctly,
Everything else is irrelevant, including Jo Smith, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and the rest of the supposed “witnesses” who saw nothing but what they were cajoled into thinking they might have seen in a self induced hallucination. When simple events about what happened can’t be matched up at all by those who claimed to be there, that is just one more nail in the coffin for the whole bogus business. Jo’s humbug was epic, but doomed to fail because he invented a group of people that never existed.
No Nephites = No plates.
That’s perfect! Absolutely perfect!!
End of discussion. But here’s the deal with cults. They’ll rope people in by convincing them that there’s a spiritual/supernatural experience that over rides all common sense and evidence. The person is then led to believe that they are special because they’ve had a direct communication from God. In the case of Mormonism, it means that everything in the program is true regardless of how nonsensical it is or how it lacks any real credibility. The member is taught that it is a great show of faith to believe something that has no basis in fact.
MJP
Personally, I really don’t care one way or the other. That is why I didn’t address it in the first place. I feel sorry for poor Martin, as I do for many people who have fallen away from the truth.
However, I would point out that your argument is weaker than you think because of the context of events. At the time of Christ what were the choices of the disciples: Believe in Christ or believe the Jews. They also had Christ himself as their teacher and constant companion. On the other hand Martin Harris and others of that time had dozens if not hundreds of denominations all trying to attract people to their faith and they did not have the constant contact with Christ.
Now, I make no judgments as to whether any of Christ’s twelve apostles would have been like Martin Harris if they lived today, or that Martin would have been as steady as them if he had lived back then. But the consideration must be made.
Old Man
Christ called Judas for his purpose as well, and yet Judas fell away. I know people want to think that is okay because he was fulfilling prophecy, but then why does Christ pronounce woe upon him and say that it would have been better if he had not been born.
However, what you are saying still does not prove anything. You have one event, and that is not sufficient to draw any conclusion as to how similar events would play out. Until you can give a number of such accounts and show that not a single person that experienced them ever fell away later in life than your argument is pointless. All you have is evidence of Paul’s character, and nothing else. To claim that Paul’s character is proof of how others would act is illogical.
Shem
“Christ called Judas for his purpose as well, and yet Judas fell away.”
That has nothing to do with what I have been patiently trying to explain to you & I’m not going to waste my time explaining why Judas was called if you can’t figure it out for yourself.
I believe you are deliberately misunderstanding what I say because the alternative is anathema to you. You know full well that I was comparing two similar if not identical events because I have told you this already. The only apostle who had an experience similar to the three Mormon witnesses was Paul, that is of course assuming that the events described on the LDS site are accurate. Why would I use Judas Iscariot or the other apostles as an example when the way they were called were totally different to both Paul & the 3 witnesses? I told you clearly in a previous post that I was comparing like for like yet you still insist on using different events to discredit what I say.
I don’t have to give a number of accounts, how many accounts can the LDS give? It gives just one & that’s exactly what I am doing, giving one account because it is the only one that bears comparison.
“To claim that Paul’s character is proof of how others would act is illogical.”
When & where did I claim that Pauls character is proof of anything? What you are saying is a complete misrepresentation of all that I have said & you know it.
It was you who introduced Pauls character into the debate, not I, & having done so you then try to make it appear that I had introduced it by saying that I am using his character as proof of how others would act.
You should have been a politician.
Shem,
I realize my argument is not perfect. Do you recognize the weaknesses in yours?
And by golly, do you even care to read Grindael’s reports on Harris? The guy affirmed other experiences as true that would nullify his Mormon testimony. How reliable is he?
And the others? Seeing something beneath a sheet! “Geez, those things must be what Smith tells us.”
Reliable? You tell us.
Shem said,
At the time of Christ what were the choices of the disciples: Believe in Christ or believe the Jews……….On the other hand Martin Harris and others of that time had dozens if not hundreds of denominations all trying to attract people to their faith
I say,
You don’t know much about history do you.
At the time of Christ there were multitudes of religious sects and groups. ever hear of the Pharisees and Sadducees and Zealots and Samaritans not to mention dozens of pagan and Synchronizing groups all vying for the religious affections of the people.
19th century America had nothing on the 1st century Roman empire as far as religious diversity. Yet the disciples did not fall away.
You say,
They also had Christ himself as their teacher and constant companion.
I say,
Harris had the founder of your religion (JS) close at hand for far longer than the three years that The disciples had access to Jesus. I think MJP’s argument is a lot stronger that you give it credit for
You say,
but then why does Christ pronounce woe upon him [Judas] and say that it would have been better if he had not been born.
I say,
Because to fall away after having the kind evidence he had is damnable treason.
By the way Judas never ever denied that Jesus was the Christ. like Harris he kept his testimony till his death. As far as affirming brute facts but denying their implication go Judas and Harris testimonies are remarkably similar.
Unlike Mormons Christians don’t need to rely on the sort of weak evidence that traitors provide.
peace
Speaking of the comparison between Judas and Harris
Judas fell away and the disciples did not have to miss a beat. They simply chose another to take his place out of the number of folks who were qualified (Acts 1:15-22)
Contrast that to the sad state of affairs in Mormonism. Harris also completely abandons his faith and the organization is forced because of the drought of witnesses to continue to rely on the trustworthiness of his character.
peace
Old Man
You brought Paul’s Character into the discussion simply by comparring him to Martin Harris in a discussion centered on Harris’s Character. You comparison is useless without a discussion of character.
As to similarities, if you care to actually examine things you would know that Martin Harris was called by Joseph Smith, through revelation, and not directly by Christ. In fact he sought out the calling, requesting to be one of the witnesses. If you are trying to make comparisons of similarities than you have failed because there is actually very little they have in common. Both saw a vision, yes; but Paul saw a vision in which Christ called him to minister, while Martin saw a vision only after he requested of the Prophet that the prophet ask God if he could be allowed to minister.
The only similarities are the some ones that I drew between ancient Israel and Balaam, that of seeing a vision. Nothing else is similar between the two.
MJP
No, I have not read anything Grindael posted, and I have mentioned why on previous threads.
Fifth
I know all about history. I purposely did not include the pagan traditions because Martin Harris, just like the ancient apostles, did not consider them as an option. I also did not mention that Hinduism, Wicca, and other such religions were available to Martin Harris, because they were never a consideration for him.
the only consideration for Martin was which of Christian denominations was right, and this presented a plethora of choices. To Christ’s apostles the only real choice was between Jewish denominations (as the Christian church was considere at the time). You want to divide that into four choices, fine but it is still not the number of choices available today in Christianity.
As to the presence of Christ, I didn’t think I would ever see anyone comparing Joseph Smith to Christ. Joseph Smith was great man and great prophet, but he was not Christ, nor did he have the presense of Christ. Joseph Smith is better compared to Moses, and we know that many Israelites in his day rebelled. To be in the presence of Christ is far greater than to be in the presence of any prophet, and that will affect a person’s actions.
Oh, and we do not rely on Martin Harris, and never have. The witnesses to this work are in the millions, and Martin Harris falling away had no serious affect on its progression.
Shem
“As to similarities, if you care to actually examine things you would know that Martin Harris was called by Joseph Smith, through revelation, and not directly by Christ. In fact he sought out the calling, requesting to be one of the witnesses. If you are trying to make comparisons of similarities than you have failed because there is actually very little they have in common. Both saw a vision, yes; but Paul saw a vision in which Christ called him to minister, while Martin saw a vision only after he requested of the Prophet that the prophet ask God if he could be allowed to minister.”
I will be happy to admit that I was wrong but only if you are prepared to admit that the church site from where I gathered my information is wrong.
Allow me to present once again the evidence concerning Harris as it is found on the LDS site.
“While Joseph Smith was translating the Book of Mormon, the Lord revealed that, in addition to the Prophet’s testimony, the world would have “the testimony of three of my servants, whom I shall call and ordain, unto whom I will show these things” (D&C 5:11; “They shall know of a surety that these things are true,” the Lord declared, “for from heaven will I declare it unto them” (D&C 5:12).” ………
“These witnesses solemnly testify that they “have seen the plates which contain this record” and “the engravings which are upon the plates.” They witness that these writings “have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us.” They testify, “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; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.”
Further, “the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things” (“The Testimony of Three Witnesses,” Book of Mormon”
Let’s look again at what D&C 5:11-12 mentioned above says…………
“And IN ADDITION TO YOUR testimony, the atestimony of THREE OF MY SERVANTS, WHOM I SHALL CALL AND ORDAIN, UNTO WHOM I WILL SHOW THESE THINGS, and they shall go forth with my words that are given through you.
12 Yea, they shall know of a asurety that these things are true, FOR FROM HEAVEN WILL I DECLARE IT UNTO THEM.
It doesn’t get any clearer than that so tell me, did God call & ordain them, or not, did God speak to them from Heaven, or not? If he did then my argument is valid, if he didn’t then the LDS is practising deception.
Someone is being dishonest here, it certainly isn’t me so who is it Shem, you or the LDS?
shem says,
You want to divide that into four choices, fine but it is still not the number of choices available today in Christianity.
I say,
The four sects I mentioned are by no means the limit of the Jewish sects present in the first century
We also know about several different groups of Essenes and also followers of John the baptist that were not associated with the followers of Jesus. There were the Hellenist Jews and the Herodians there were Jews who held to gnostic beliefs etc etc.
besides that the countryside was filled with those claiming to be Prophets and wanabe Messiahs.
Like I said 19th century America had nothing on the first century,
You said,
As to the presence of Christ, I didn’t think I would ever see anyone comparing Joseph Smith to Christ.
I say,
If there were no Jesus there would be no Christians if there were no JS there would be no Mormons. Christian distinctives can all be traced to the person of Jesus Mormon distinctives can all be traced to JS.
No Jesus no Christianity. No Joseph Smith Mormonism those are simply the facts.
Mormons have told me many times when I point out some odd doctrine that everything depends of whether JS was a prophet or not.
Harris was with the founder of your religion for years. JS supposedly did what Christ was unable to do he supposedly founded an organization that would not commit apostasy.
Yet Harris fell away.
you say,
Joseph Smith is better compared to Moses, and we know that many Israelites in his day rebelled.
I say,
Moses’s affirming miracles were very public. The entire nation, believers and rebels alike walked through the sea.
It’s not surprising that that folks who never believed in the first place would simply continue this behavior.
quote:
On that day I swore to them that I would bring them out of the land of Egypt into a land that I had searched out for them, a land flowing with milk and honey, the most glorious of all lands. And I said to them, Cast away the detestable things your eyes feast on, every one of you, and do not defile yourselves with the idols of Egypt; I am the LORD your God. But they rebelled against me and were not willing to listen to me. None of them cast away the detestable things their eyes feasted on, nor did they forsake the idols of Egypt
(Ezekiel 20:6b-8a)
end quote:
On the other hand it is very surprising that Harris someone who supposedly truly believed someone who was supposedly anointed by the Holy Spirit for a special work would fall away.
quote:
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. But you have been anointed by the Holy One (1 John 2:19-20a)
end quote:
you say,
The witnesses to this work are in the millions, and Martin Harris falling away had no serious affect on its progression.
I say,
So unlike Christianity with Mormonism it’s not about the actual evidence when we get right down to it all comes down to how a teaching makes you feel!!!!
quote:
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.
(2 Timothy 4:3-4)
end quote:
nuff said
peace
peace
This just cracks me up. Of course, since Harris is totally discredited here, Shem takes the easy way out and throws Harris under the bus. But that is not what the Mormon Hierarchy says, they say he was ESSENTIAL. Here is “apostle” Dallin Oaks,
Hmmm, could be be talking to you… Shem? Oaks continues,
Is there any “rescue” for Martin Harris? Oaks tries, but he doesn’t tell the whole story. But one thing is certain, Oaks places far more importance on Harris than the likes of Shem, because he IS important to Mormonism. Sadly, the truth about Martin Harris shows that this “important man” was so fatally flawed as a witness that he (along with the rest of them) discredit the very thing they endeavour to witness about.
OLD MAN
There is no desception. He was called of God, as was Aaron, through the prophet. He beheld in a vision the plates and he was commanded by the voice of God to declare the truth of what he saw. However, long before this happened he had learned that God would call three witnesses, and he went to Joseph Smith and asked him to ask God it he could be allowed to be one of the three.
In the introduction of section 5 we read that it was given “at the request of Martin Harris.” In verse 23 the Lord speaks “concerning the man that desires the witness.”
Martin saught out the vision that he had. Paul did not.
Martin was called of God through his prophet. Paul was called directly by God.
The two accounts are not very similar.
Seems a bit fishy to ask someone for a specific vision and to be a witness…
Call me crazy…
“There is no desception. He was called of God, as was Aaron, through the prophet.”
“Martin was called of God through his prophet. Paul was called directly by God.
The two accounts are not very similar.”
If what you say concerning the witnesses is true then I have to concede that the two accounts are not very similar & you are correct. But, I still maintain that unlike the simple & clear account of Aarons calling given throughout Exodus, D&C 5:11 is at best confusing & at worst deceptive.
Let’s take a brief look at it.
“And in addition to your testimony, the atestimony of three of my servants, WHOM I SHALL CALL & ORDAIN unto whom I will show these things, and they shall go forth with my words that are given through you.”
Reading that without bias simply as it is given one could be forgiven for thinking, as I did, that God called the witnesses directly.
However, having said all that, it’s irrelevant whether a man is called directly or indirectly. The crux of the matter is this, a man called by God will NOT fall away. God has NEVER called & will never call anyone to failure. That is the vital difference between a man genuinely called of God via whatever medium God chooses & men called via their own imagination with or without the aid of a false prophet.
It was my intention to send my comments in two parts hopefully avoiding a spell in mod jail, which for me at least often results from a long comment, however my cunning plan didn’t work & my comment was still languishing in jail when I went to bed. This then is the rest of my post.
In fairness I think it should also be mentioned that while admitting my comparison is ‘not very similar’ your comparison of Aaron with Martin Harris is not exactly a good one either. Aaron was called directly by God to meet Moses in the desert. (Exodus 4:27) Martin Harris asked to be a witness. Not really the same is it?
One final point I believe is worth mentioning, something I touched on above, bear in mind that this is a purely subjective opinion, nothing that can be proven, but nevertheless it’s something to think about & I would be interested in hearing the thoughts of others concerning it.
I mentioned the ‘simple & clear account’ of Aarons calling given in exodus & compared it with the confusing account surrounding Harris & the other witnesses in D&C. the more I read from D&C the more convinced I become that it is something from Smiths fertile imagination. To be honest when compared to scripture it reads more like a fairy tale than Gods word. Something is missing, & that something is known as an undesigned coincidence more commonly known as ‘The ring of truth’
Old Man
“The crux of the matter is this, a man called by God will NOT fall away. ”
Than what of Judas, or Balaam, or Korah (who was a leader among the Levite, called of God to minister in the Tabernacle), or David (called of God to be king, and yet fell into murder). Your argument only held if the accounts were similar, and they aren’t. Many have been called of God to various positions and duties and later fell away.
A few other things to note:
D&C 5: 11-12 taken by themselves, out of the context of the entire revelation as well as the events of the time, can cause confusion. I have heard many Christians tell us to take things in context, but then they seem to forget this when commenting about our scripture.
As to Aarons calling, I agree it was clear. God told Aaron to go meet Moses, and then Moses told Aaron how God had called him to assist in delivering Israel, acting as mouth piece. Aaron did not receive his call from God, but was sent by God to Moses, and it was Moses that then issued the call to Aaron.
However, when I mentioned the calling of Aaron I was more specifically speaking to his calling as High Priest, as recording in Exodus 28, in which God tells Moses to call Aaron and consecrate him to the office.
Fifth
My point is that a comparison across centuries is never going to be accurate. I have heard of all the groups you mention, and many of them were more political factions than religious. The society and religious atmosphere was very different then making a reliable comparison impossible.
“So unlike Christianity with Mormonism it’s not about the actual evidence when we get right down to it all comes down to how a teaching makes you feel!!!!”
So what about millions of witnesses did you not get. If you want to break it down to just those who have seen visions you are still talking hundreds if not thousands. The evidence is there, it is just that people like you reject it because if you acknowledge it it would throw things out of wack for you.
Of course, the greatest evidence will always be the spirit of God as it communicates to us, and we do not deny this. Just as those on the day of Pentacost were pricked in their hearts, so we have also experienced this spiritual witness that speaks directly to our spirit and illuminates our understanding.
What evidence did John have that caused him to declare that Jesus was Christ when he came to be baptized? What evidence did Peter base his statement that Jesus was “The Christ, the Son of the Living God” on? What evidence has the vast majority of the faithful throughout the ages had of God? The evidence has always hung on the witness of the Spirit as felt by those who seek it. Disparage this evidence all you want, but in the end it is the only reliable source of truth, and it will be upheld by God.
Shem said,
If you want to break it down to just those who have seen visions you are still talking hundreds if not thousands.
the Bible says,
quote:
Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind,
(Colossians 2:18)
The evidence is there, it is just that people like you reject it because if you acknowledge it it would throw things out of wack for you.
sorry about that it was an accidental and premature post. ha ha
My point was that according to Bible “visions” are no garuntee of truth are are actually detrimental when they are “without reason” .
you say,
The evidence is there, it is just that people like you reject it because if you acknowledge it it would throw things out of wack for you.
I say,
Please present it. remember feelings don’t count as evidence
you say,
Just as those on the day of Pentacost were pricked in their hearts, so we have also experienced this spiritual witness that speaks directly to our spirit and illuminates our understanding.
I say,
The pricking of their hearts was a human response to evidence it is not an itself evidence
the Bible says,
quote:
And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?
(Acts 2:7-8)
and
“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—
(Acts 2:22)
and
This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.
(Acts 2:32)
end quote:
you say,
What evidence did John have that caused him to declare that Jesus was Christ when he came to be baptized?
The Bible says,
quote:
And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’
(John 1:32-33)
end quote:
You say,
What evidence did Peter base his statement that Jesus was “The Christ, the Son of the Living God”
just before Peter’s confession Jesus said,
quote:
Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you gathered?
(Matthew 16:9b-10)
end quote:
Peter had lots of other evidence as well
You say,
What evidence has the vast majority of the faithful throughout the ages had of God?
I say,
let me count a few
1) The miraculous coherence of the scripture with itself.
2) the miraculous preservation of scripture
3) the testimony of the apostles
4) the empty tomb
5) the very early testimony of over 500 eyewitnesses (1Co 15:6)
6) fulfilled prophecy
7) various Philosophical proofs
8) obvious design in nature
9) the transcendental argument
10) the Sensus divinitatis
etc etc etc
peace
“Than what of Judas, or Balaam, or Korah (who was a leader among the Levite, called of God to minister in the Tabernacle), or David (called of God to be king, and yet fell into murder). Your argument only held if the accounts were similar, and they aren’t. Many have been called of God to various positions and duties and later fell away.”
I spent a long time last night typing out a refutation to what you have said concerning those men but on reflection that would only succeed in prolonging the debate, making the post unnecessarily long & would probably result in it ending up in Mod jail 😉
Might I suggest therefore, that you read the accounts again, especially that of Balaam & Korah, before using them as examples.
If after that you still insist on looking for men as examples of falling away then use men who were called after the giving of the Holy Spirit because that would be more in line with the topic & would be far more relevant. That of course includes Paul, Martin Harris & the other witnesses.
To ‘fall away’ in the context of this discussion means abandoning previously held beliefs as in the case of the three witnesses. A man, having been called by God will be born again & will know the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. God will not let go of such a man. Why call him if, in His foreknowledge, He knew that the calling would ultimately fail? A man so called can fall into sin but that is not the same thing as falling from Grace & losing his salvation. If Martin Harris & the other witnesses were truly called by God then the above would apply to them, they would never have left the LDS church to join the Methodists, Strangites or whatever .
As I said in a previous post “God does not call a man to failure”