Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 8

Chapter 7: The Bible

A FAIR Analysis of: Criticism of Mormonism/Books A work by author: Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson

Chapter 9: The Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price

Index of Claims in Chapter 8: The Book of Mormon

by Michael R. Ash

"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." (Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice [1596-1597], 1.3.99.)

Like nearly all other anti-Mormons, McKeever and Johnson constantly attempt to force their own version of LDS doctrine on their readers rather than letting "official" LDS doctrine speak for itself. For some reason it seems to bother our critics that certain LDS issues are either not fully defined (such as Book of Mormon geography, the translation process, or a host of other issues), or that LDS doctrines do not pigeonhole in their view of what LDS doctrine should be. Since official LDS beliefs are not such easy targets as they would like, they define LDS doctrine in ways that makes them easier to attack. This is known as the "straw man" argument. McKeever and Johnson frequently attempt to build straw man LDS doctrines by citing one or more LDS figures, as if such statements represent official LDS doctrine. What McKeever and Johnson fail to explain to the reader (and perhaps they fail to understand this themselves) is that not only do Mormons deny infallibility among their leadership, but we allow lay members and leaders alike, the free agency of publicly expressing personal opinions so long as they don't run counter to "official" LDS teachings.1 The three favorite tactics employed by McKeever and Johnson in their chapter on the Book of Mormon are: (1) "straw man" arguments, (2) "poisoning the well," and (3) repeating accusations which have already been answered.

Early in their chapter on the Book of Mormon, for example, they write: "According to Mormon belief, the descendants of the Lamanites are the American Indian."2 McKeever and Johnson give no source for this claim so it is difficult to ascertain why they've asserted that this is "Mormon belief." While this may have been (and still may be) the speculation (incorrectly, in my opinion) of some Latter-day Saints, it can hardly be called official doctrine--which I'm sure is what McKeever and Johnson attempt to imply with their comment: "According to Mormon belief..." "Translating" The Book of Mormon

McKeever and Johnson construct a straw man of LDS deception by first noting the (unidentified) paintings of Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon plates by leaning over them in a prayerful position.3 They then proceed to destroy their straw man by claiming that "testimony from his contemporaries paints another picture."4 McKeever and Johnson then point to the evidence that Joseph Smith used a "seerstone" for at least part of the translation process. They present this information in a manner that implies that the LDS Church has been concealing this fact.

A study of early Mormon sources reveals that the LDS Church has discussed this issue for years. George Q. Cannon, for example, who was a contemporary of Joseph Smith's and later a counselor in the First Presidency under Brigham, mentioned Joseph's seer stone more than once in his 1888, Life of Joseph Smith the Prophet.5

B.H. Roberts, of the Quorum of the Seventy, published his classic series A Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wherein he wrote:

The Prophet possessed a Seer Stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as with the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he sometimes used the Seer Stone. Martin said further that the Seer Stone differed in appearance entirely from the Urim and Thummim that was obtained with the plates, which were two clear stones set in two rims, very much resembling spectacles, only they were larger.

The Seer Stone referred to here was a chocolate-colored, somewhat egg-shaped stone which the Prophet found while digging a well in company with his brother Hyrum, for a Mr. Clark Chase, near Palmyra, N. Y. It possessed the qualities of Urim and Thummim, since by means of it--as described above--as well as by means of the Interpreters found with the Nephite record, Joseph was able to translate the characters engraven on the plates.6

Considering the fact that Roberts' series is often quoted by students of LDS history, it seems unreasonable, that any serious student of early LDS history would not have known about Joseph's seer stone. Joseph's use of a seer stone in translating was mentioned many times in official church publications including the Improvement Era in 1904 (again B.H. Roberts in "The Probability of Joseph Smith's Story," March), as well as the Improvement Era in 1906 (April), 1920 (September), and 1939 (October). Jumping ahead to 1977 (and I haven't done an exhaustive search between those thirty-nine years), we find an Ensign article by LDS historian Richard Lloyd Anderson entitled, "'By the Gift and Power of God'" (September 1977, 79-85). In this article Anderson quotes Edward Stevenson who learned about the Book of Mormon translation from Martin Harris.

"He [Harris] said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone."7

Here we see that every Latter-day Saint with access to the official Church Ensign magazine (which I would guess may be over 60% of those in the US and Canada) would have had an opportunity to read about Joseph's use of a "seer stone." The seer stone was mentioned in Ensign articles again in 1979, 1986 (Dallin Oaks), 1987, 1993, 1994, and 1997 (Neal Maxwell) and perhaps since then (I quit searching after 1997). In a 1988 article in Ensign entitled, "A New Prophet and a New Scripture," Kenneth Godfrey wrote:

Once Martin found a rock closely resembling the seerstone Joseph sometimes used in place of the interpreters and substituted it without the Prophet's knowledge. When the translation resumed, Joseph paused for a long time and then exclaimed, "Martin, what is the matter, all is as dark as Egypt." Martin then confessed that he wished to "stop the mouths of fools" who told him that the Prophet memorized sentences and merely repeated them.8

McKeever and Johnson, however, suggest misinformation by Latter-day Saint because of the aforementioned "paintings" as well as a comment by Joseph Fielding Smith who said, "there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation."9 While President Smith claimed that he "personally" did "not believe that this stone was used for this purpose."10 McKeever and Johnson claim that he "denie[d] that such a rock was used."11

Joseph Fielding Smith continued his comments by noting that although a seerstone "may have been"12 used, he didn't believe that it was. Of course this portion of Joseph Fielding Smith's quote was omitted (which helps McKeever and Johnson's straw-man claim that Joseph Fielding Smith "denie[d]" the use of a seerstone).

The reason that some less-informed LDS seem to be unfamiliar with Joseph's use of a "seerstone" stems, in part, from a confusion in the historical record as to what is meant by the "Urim and Thummim." Generally, the Urim and Thummim referred to the Jaredite interpreters that Joseph Smith received with the plates. At other times, however, it referred to the seerstone.13 McKeever and Johnson even seem to recognize this when they note that William Smith referred to the seerstones as a Urim and Thummim.14

In an endnote to this chapter McKeever and Johnson claim that the Bible tells us that the Urim and Thummim was used to "receive revelation" from God not "for translation purposes" in contrast to Mormon claims.15 My reply is: "What?!" Have McKeever and Johnson ever really read any LDS literature? Are they really arguing that Mormons believe that the Urim and Thummim was some sort of automatic language translator done by means that excluded "revelation?" Perhaps they need to re-read LDS history. In the History of the Church, for example, we read that God told the three witnesses: "These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God."16 Perhaps even McKeever and Johnson didn't believe that their audience was so gullible as to believe their accusation, hence the claim was put in a footnote rather than the main body of text. The Book of Mormon Witnesses

When McKeever and Johnson undertake to malign the credibility of the Book of Mormon Witnesses, they really embarrass themselves. First they attempt to poison the well and disqualify the credibility of the Three Witnesses by quoting D. Michael Quinn's comments that all the witnesses were involved at one point or another in divining or the use of rods and/or seerstones.17 While this might be true (and the issue is far from settled), it is not apparent how this relates to their credibility. Many people in the early nineteenth century were involved in divining rods and seerstones. If they had read Quinn's entire section on this topic, they would have seen many more examples of non-LDS clergy who were involved in the same thing.18

The credibility of the Three Witnesses has been dealt with on numerous occasions by many competent authors, all of whom demonstrate that not one of these three men ever denied their testimony of the Book of Mormon even in spite of hardships, threats, excommunication, bad feelings, and persecution. McKeever and Johnson even note that "David Whitmer claimed that none of the three witnesses ever denied the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon."19 And (I suppose to their credit) McKeever and Johnson never attempt to show that they did deny their testimonies. Instead, they try to impugn the integrity of the witnesses by questioning their character as reliable witnesses.

Cowdery, they charge, was excommunicated after accusing Joseph of "adultery, lying, and teaching false doctrines." They also claim that following Cowdery's excommunication he was accused of "'denying the faith,' 'persecuting the brethren,' 'urging on vexatious lawsuits,' 'falsely insinuating [Joseph Smith] was guilty of adultery,' and dishonesty."20 You would think, that had Cowdery been a victim of fraud, he would have turned on Joseph and denounced his testimony, but he never did.

McKeever and Johnson point out that Cowdery later joined the Methodists--a denomination, they claim, which "had been supposedly condemned by God."21 What LDS source do they cite for such a view of Methodism?

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were corrupt; that "they draw near me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof." (Joseph Smith History 1:19)

Once again we see the straw man raising his stuffed head. Nowhere does this verse state that Methodism, or any other denomination, is "condemned of God." Anti-Mormons love to claim Mormons have somehow attacked "Christianity" (of course since Latter-day Saints are Christian, the charge is ludicrous); I suppose such flawed logic is necessary to justify their attacks. What the verse above refers to, quite clearly, is the "creeds" which are abominations, and (somewhat more ambiguously) "those professors were corrupt."

A serious look at the "creeds" of historic Christianity will reveal that they indeed are abominations (or "polluted" per Webster's 1828 dictionary)--that they are heavily influenced by Greek philosophy.22

Who were the "professors" which were "corrupt"? And what does it mean to be "corrupt?" The 1828 Webster's dictionary number one definition for professor is:

One who makes open declaration of his sentiments or opinions; particularly, one who makes a public avowal of his belief in the Scriptures and his faith in Christ, and thus unites himself to the visible church.

It's possible that the "professors" refers to those who formulated the "creeds" or perhaps to those who, in Joseph Smith's day, proclaimed these creeds. In either case, the "professors" seems to be tied to those who supported the "creeds." Of the many 1828 definitions for "corrupt," the ones which make the most sense based on "creeds" which were "abominations" are the following: "tainted; unsound; lose purity; infected with errors or mistakes; polluted." In other words, those who proclaimed the (polluted) "creeds" are themselves "infected with errors or mistakes" for proclaiming such creeds. The Lord's statement in Joseph Smith History 1:19 is a condemnation of the creeds and the teaching of such false doctrine--not an objurgation against any denomination.

What then of Oliver Cowdery's joining the Methodists during his separation from the Mormons? As Richard L. Anderson has observed:

Since faith in Jesus Christ was the foundation of his religion, he logically affiliated himself with a Christian congregation for a time, the Methodist Protestant Church at Tiffin, Ohio. There is no more inconsistency in this than Paul's worshiping in the Jewish synagogue, or Joseph Smith's becoming a Mason in order to stem prejudice.23

The supposed relation between Oliver's temporary affiliation with the Methodists and his credibility as a witness to the Book of Mormon, is a red herring, and an ironic one at that. While McKeever and Johnson attempt to show that the Latter-day Saints believed that Methodism was "condemned of God," they also point out that Oliver Cowdery--a faithful witness to the Book of Mormon--had no problem joining this "condemned" denomination. Our critics want to have their cake and eat it too!24 There is a wealth of evidence that demonstrates that Oliver never denied his testimony of the Book of Mormon.25 For example, there is evidence that after leaving the Church and practicing law, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony.

The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.26

Oliver rejoined the Church and prepared to journey to Utah to unite with the main body of the Latter-day Saints when he suddenly became ill in Richmond Missouri. Oliver Cowdery had contracted tuberculosis. His dying breaths were spent testifying of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Lucy P. Young, his half-sister, was at his bedside and reported:

Oliver Cowdery just before breathing his last, asked his attendants to raise him up in bed that he might talk to the family and his friends, who were present. He then told them to live according to the teachings contained in the Book of Mormon, and promised them, if they would do this, that they would meet him in heaven. He then said, 'Lay me down and let me fall asleep.' A few moments later he died without a struggle.27

Next, McKeever and Johnson turned their sights on David Whitmer. Whitmer, like Cowdery, was excommunicated from the Church, and Whitmer (unlike Cowdery and Harris) never returned. Whitmer, these critics correctly point out, believed that Joseph Smith was once a true prophet who had fallen. Repeating one of the more common anti-Mormon chestnuts, McKeever and Johnson attempt to besmirch Whitmer's credibility by quoting something he had written in his Address to All Believers in Christ:

If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them.' In the spring of 1838, the heads of the church and many of the members had gone deep into error and blindness. I had been striving with them for a long time to show them the errors into which they were drifting, and for my labors I received only persecutions. (p. 27)

Is Whitmer's testimony of the Book of Mormon suspect because he later claimed that God told him to separate himself from the Mormons? Nineteen years before McKeever and Johnson published their book, Richard L. Anderson already answered that question:

After the excommunications of Oliver Cowdery and David and John Whitmer, Sidney Rigdon ...preached his "Salt Sermon," warning dissenters not to interfere with Mormon society. The Whitmers and Cowdery were next told to get out of town, and with turmoil caused by forcible rejection, they left the Mormon center of Far West. Joseph Smith and the Twelve later criticized Sidney Rigdon's aggressive speeches and also the secret threatenings of Sampson Avard, probably the chief mover in this expulsion. What kind of a "voice" did David hear then? David does not really say; he only implies that it was audible by comparing it with the command to testify of the Book of Mormon. But there are problems with that because David Whitmer did not treat the two experiences equally in his long lifetime. He only mentioned the undefined voice at Far West once, in this last writing to fellow believers--but he had repeatedly testified of an audible voice authenticating the Book of Mormon. Those with him in 1830 in the New York grove certified that they had also heard God's voice then, but neither Oliver Cowdery nor John Whitmer, both of whom left Far West with David at this time, say anything about the heavenly command of 1838. Whatever came to David Whitmer, the later experience fails to contradict his earlier divine command to testify of the ancient record. David Whitmer could have received true spiritual comfort because of the unjust methods that his former associates were using against him; or he may have only felt that God spoke to him because of the powerful indignation that swelled up in his soul; or if he gave way to the spirit of anger and retaliation, he invited Satan to inspire him and deceive him. For instance, once in later life he was tempted to lead, thereby dictating several revelations that he later considered false. The Far West "voice" might fall into this category.28

One might argue that if the Far West "voice" was false, then so was the voice proclaiming the truth of the Book of Mormon. As Anderson notes, however, the two incidents are completely different. In Whitmer's Far West "voice" he mentions the event once and it only involves a "voice"--whatever that means. In his testimony of the Book of Mormon he hears a "voice" from God, sees an angel with the Book of Mormon plates, and testifies to this fact frequently throughout his entire life.

Whitmer's testimony to the Book of Mormon was put to the test on many occasions. In 1833 when Missouri vigilantes were harassing the Mormons, a mob of about five hundred men put David's testimony to the test. The mob drove David and several others to the public square, stripped, tarred, and feathered them, aimed their guns then threatened these men to deny the Book of Mormon and confess it to be a fraud, or die instantly. David Whitmer raised his hands and bore witness to these angry men that the Book of Mormon was the Word of God. The mob trembled with fear and let them go. Afterwards, an unbelieving doctor told David that his fearless testimony and the fear that gripped the mob had made him a believer in the Book of Mormon.29

David Whitmer left the LDS Church in 1838 but continued to proclaim and assert his testimony and the truthfulness of what he had seen and heard. Although he never returned to Mormonism, in the fifty years he lived outside of the Church he insisted that he knew the Book of Mormon was divinely revealed. Anyone seriously interested in Whitmer's testimony should read Lyndon W. Cook's, David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness.30 Cook documents seventy-two interviews with David Whitmer concerning his experience with the angel and plates--the experience upon which his Book of Mormon testimony is based. All seventy-two interviews took place after David Whitmer had left the Church. If he had lost his testimony following his excommunication, he would have had ample opportunity to deny his earlier proclamation. Instead, however, we find that Whitmer continued to assert its truthfulness.

Throughout Richmond, Missouri, David Whitmer was known as an honest and trustworthy citizen by the non-Mormons. When one anti-Mormon lectured in David's hometown, branding David as disreputable, the local (non-Mormon) paper responded with "a spirited front-page editorial unsympathetic with Mormonism but insistent on 'the forty six years of private citizenship on the part of David Whitmer, in Richmond, without stain or blemish.'"31

The following year the editor penned a tribute on the eightieth birthday of David Whitmer, who "with no regrets for the past" still "reiterates that he saw the glory of the angel."

This is the critical issue of the life of David Whitmer. During fifty years in non-Mormon society, he insisted with the fervor of his youth that he knew that the Book of Mormon was divinely revealed. Relatively few people in Richmond could wholly accept such testimony, but none doubted his intelligence or complete honesty.32

When another anti-Mormon published an article claiming that David had denied his testimony, David printed a "proclamation" testifying to the truth of the Book of Mormon and reiterating the fact that he had never denied that testimony. He wrote:

It is recorded in the American Cyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica, that I, David Whitmer, have denied my testimony as one of the Three Witnesses to the divinity of the Book of Mormon: and that the two other witnesses, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, denied their testimony to that book.

I will say once more to all mankind, that I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof. I also testify to the world, that neither Oliver Cowdery nor Martin Harris ever at any time denied their testimony. They both died affirming the truth of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon.33

Attached to Whitmer's proclamation was an accompanying statement signed by twenty-two of Richmond's political, business, and professional leaders who certified that they had been "long and intimately acquainted" with Whitmer and knew him to be "a man of the highest integrity and of undoubted truth and veracity."34 A few days before he died an article in the Chicago Tribune recorded:

David Whitmer, the last one of the three witnessed to the truth of the Book of Mormon, is now in a dying condition at his home in Richmond. Last evening he called the family and friends to his bedside, and bore his testimony to the truth of the Book of Mormon and the Bible.35

Following his death the Richmond Conservator wrote:

On Sunday evening before his death he called the family and his attending physician, Dr. George W. Buchanan, to his bedside and said, "Doctor do you consider that I am in my right mind?" to which the Doctor replied, "Yes, you are in your right mind, I have just had a conversation with you." He then addressed himself to all present and said: "I want to give my dying testimony. You must be faithful in Christ. I want to say to you all that the Bible and the record of the Nephites, (The Book of Mormon) are true, so you can say that you have heard me bear my testimony on my death bed....

On Monday morning he again called those present to his bedside, and told them that he had seen another vision which reconfirmed the divinity of the "Book of Mormon," and said that he had seen Christ in the fullness of his glory and majesty, sitting upon his great white throne in heaven waiting to receive his children.36

The Richmond Democrat also added this comment:

Skeptics may laugh and scoff if they will, but no man can listen to Mr. Whitmer as he talks of his interview with the Angel of the Lord, without being most forcibly convinced that he has heard an honest man tell what he honestly believes to be true.37

Like Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris, David Whitmer bore the testimony to the truthfulness of reality of his encounter with the angel and the authenticity of the Book of Mormon until the day he died. Book of Mormon critics have not been able to impugn their testimonies but have instead resorted to character assassination. As history demonstrates, however, the honesty, integrity and reliability of these witnesses confound the critics every bit as much as the testimony of the three witnesses confounds those who refuse to accept the revealed word of God.

Lastly, McKeever and Johnson turn to Martin Harris. They claim that Joseph became upset with Harris when he declared that (quoting from History of the Church), "'Joseph drank too much liquor when he was translating the Book of Mormon,' and that he knew more than Smith did."38

The next paragraph in the History of the Church, however, states:

Brother Harris did not tell Esq. Russell that Brother Joseph drank too much liquor while translating the Book of Mormon, but this thing occurred previous to the translating of the Book; he confessed that his mind was darkened, and that he had said many things inadvertently, calculated to wound the feelings of his brethren, and promised to do better. The council forgave him, with much good advice.39

How convenient for McKeever and Johnson to omit this information. Did they really not read past the paragraph that suited their argument, or did they purposefully fail to inform their audience as to the rest of the story?

Following in the footsteps of other anti-Mormons, McKeever and Johnson claim that the witnesses testimony of having "'seen the plates' is suspicious."40 (True to anti-Mormon intellectual inbreeding, their quote from former BYU instructor, Marvin Hill, on this topic appears to be direct "cut and paste" from the Tanners' The Changing World of Mormonism--ellipses and all.41) They base this charge on a statement by Martin Harris who claimed to have seen the plates with his "spiritual eye" rather than his "naked eyes." Does the belief that the experience had visionary qualities contradict the claim that the plates were real? Consider this: On separate occasions Harris also claimed that prior to his witnessing the plates he held them (while covered) "on his knee for an hour and a half"42 and that they weighed approximately fifty pounds.43 It seems unlikely--from his physical descriptions as well as his other testimonies and the testimonies of the other two witnesses--that the entire experience was merely in his mind. For example, on one occasion, critics charged that Martin (and the other two witnesses) had merely imagined he saw an angel--that he was deluded. Martin responded by extending his right hand:

Gentlemen, do you see that hand? Are you sure you see it? Are your eyes playing a trick or something? No. Well, as sure as you see my hand so sure did I see the angel and the plates.44

David Whitmer helps clear up the "spiritual" vs. "natural" viewing of the plates. Responding to the questions of Anthony Metcalf (the same Metcalf who interviewed Harris) Whitmer wrote:

In regards to my testimony to the visitation of the angel, who declared to us three witnesses that the Book of Mormon is true, I have this to say: Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time. Martin Harris, you say, called it 'being in vision.' We read in the Scriptures, Cornelius saw, in a vision, an angel of God. Daniel saw an angel in a vision; also in other places it states they saw an angel in the spirit. A bright light enveloped us where we were, that filled at noon day, and there in a vision, or in the spirit, we saw and heard just as it is stated in my testimony in the Book of Mormon. I am now passed eighty-two years old, and I have a brother, J. J. Snyder, to do my writing for me, at my dictation. [Signed] David Whitmer.45

David, like Martin, had been charged with being deluded into thinking he had seen an angel and the plates. One observer remembers when David was so accused, and said:

How well and distinctly I remember the manner in which Elder Whitmer arose and drew himself up to his full height--a little over six feet--and said, in solemn and impressive tones: "No sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes, and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!"46

On another occasion in which Whitmer was asked about the plates, the interviewer recorded:

He then explained that he saw the plates, and with his natural eyes, but he had to be prepared for it--that he and the other witnesses were overshadowed by the power of God and a halo of brightness indescribable.47

Paul understood the difficulty of describing spiritual experiences when he wrote:

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)48

Paul's vision was real, yet he was unsure whether he had the experience in or out of his body. Harris may have felt a similar experience. He knew the plates were real, yet he also knew that when the angel showed him the plates he was only able to see them by the power of God. On a separate occasion Harris testified to the reality of his vision. The scene as recorded by Edward Stevenson was instrumental in getting Harris to re-enter the Church.

On one occasion several of his old acquaintances made an effort to get him tipsy by treating him to some wine. When they thought he was in a good mood for talk they put the question very carefully to him, "Well, now, Martin, we want you to be frank and candid with us in regard to this story of your seeing an angel and the golden plates of the Book of Mormon that are so much talked about. We have always taken you to be an honest good farmer and neighbor of ours but could not believe that you did see an angel. Now, Martin, do you really believe that you did see an angel, when you were awake?" "No," said Martin, "I do not believe it." The crowd were delighted, but soon a different feeling prevailed, as Martin true to his trust, said, "Gentlemen, what I have said is true, from the fact that my belief is swallowed up in knowledge; for I want to say to you that as the Lord lives I do know that I stood with the Prophet Joseph Smith in the presence of the angel, and it was the brightness of day."49