A crítica do mormonismo/Documentos online/Carta a um Diretor SEI/Testemunhas - preocupações e perguntas

Índice

Resposta ao "Testemunhas - preocupações e perguntas"

Sacerdócio - preocupações e perguntas Restauração

A FairMormon Análise de: Carta a um Director SEI Uma obra de autor: Jeremy Runnells

Templos & Maçonaria - preocupações e perguntas

Avaliação das Alegações

Carta a um Diretor SEI

Navegação Rápida

• Resposta ao alegação: "Joseph Smith, o seu pai, e seu irmão (Hyrum) tinha um negócio de família de caça ao tesouro entre 1820-1827
• Resposta ao alegação: "Joseph foi contratado por pessoas como Josiah Stowell, que menciona Joseph em sua história"
• Resposta ao alegação: "Em 1826, Joseph foi preso e levado ao tribunal em Bainbridge, Nova York, para o julgamento sobre fraude"
• Resposta ao alegação: "Se o presente de Oliver Cowdery era realmente uma varinha de condão, então isso diz-nos que as origens da Igreja são muito mais envolvidas na magia popular e superstição"
• Resposta ao alegação: "que todos compartilhavam uma visão de mundo comum de segunda visão, magia e tesouro de escavação"
• Resposta ao alegação: "Martin Harris foi tudo menos uma testemunha cética"
• Resposta ao alegação: "Ele era conhecido por muitos de seus pares como, um homem crédulo e supersticioso e instável"
• Resposta ao alegação: "Antes Harris se tornar um mórmon, ele já tinha mudado de religião, pelo menos cinco vezes"
• Resposta ao alegação: "Harris continuou este padrão anterior, unindo e deixando cinco seitas mais diferentes"

∗       ∗       ∗

Resposta FairMormon

Propaganda O autor, ou fonte do autor, está fornecendo informações ou idéias de forma inclinada, a fim de incutir uma atitude particular ou resposta no leitor Joseph Smith e alguns membros de sua família fez participar de atividades de caça ao tesouro, mas não era o "negócio de família".

  NEEDS TRANSLATION  

Question: Was "money digging" Joseph Smith, Jr's primary source of income during his early years?

Tax records indicated that the Smith family was intensely engaged in activities related to improving their farm

The primary evidence–especially tax records, which provide a relatively unbiased look at the Smiths' work ethic—cannot support the argument that Joseph and his family were not intensely engaged in the duties related to farming.

LDS scholar Daniel C. Peterson notes,

[I]n order to pay for their farm, the Smiths were obliged to hire themselves out as day laborers. Throughout the surrounding area, they dug and rocked up wells and cisterns, mowed, harvested, made cider and barrels and chairs and brooms and baskets, taught school, dug for salt, worked as carpenters and domestics, built stone walls and fireplaces, flailed grain, cut and sold cordwood, carted, washed clothes, sold garden produce, painted chairs and oil-cloth coverings, butchered, dug coal, and hauled stone. And, along the way, they produced between one thousand and seven thousand pounds of maple sugar annually. "Laziness" and "indolence" are difficult to detect in the Smith family.

The data shows that the Smith farm increased in value, and was worth more than 90% of the farms owned by their neighbors

The data shows that the Smith farm increased in value, and was worth more than 90% of the farms owned by the four families—the Staffords, Stoddards, Chases, and Caprons—who would later speak disparagingly of the Smiths' work ethic. How did they manage this without doing farm work? These are physical improvements. They were too poor to pay someone else to do it. So, are we to believe that Joseph's family let Joseph just sit around doing his "magic business" while the rest of them worked their fingers to the bone?

The Smith farm had a perimeter of a one and 2/3 miles. To fence that distance with a standard stone and stinger fence required moving tons of stone from fields to farm perimeter, then cutting and placing about 4,000 ten-foot rails. This does not include the labor and materials involved in fencing the barnyard, garden, pastures, and orchard, which, at a conservative estimate, required an additional 2,000 to 3,000 cut wooden rails (McNall 59, 84, 87, 91, 110-11, and 144). Clearly, this work alone—all of it separate from the actual labor of farming—represents a prodigious amount of concerted planning and labor....

In comparison to others in the township and neighborhood, the Smiths' efforts and accomplishments were superior to most. In the township, only 40 percent of the farms were worth more per acre and just 25 percent were larger. In the "neighborhood," only 29 percent of the farms were worth more and only 26 percent were larger (Assessment Rolls 1-34).

Orlando Saunders: "They were the best family in the neighborhood in case of sickness; one was at my house nearly all the time when my father died"

What did Joseph's associates have to say about Joseph's work? Former neighbor Orlando Saunders recalled,

They were the best family in the neighborhood in case of sickness; one was at my house nearly all the time when my father died....[The Smiths] were very good people. Young Joe (as we called him then), has worked for me, and he was a good worker; they all were. . . . He was always a gentleman when about my place."

John Stafford, eldest son of William Stafford said that the Smiths were "poor managers," but allowed as how Joseph "would do a fair day's work if hired out to a man...."

Mrs. Palmer's father "loved young Joseph Smith and often hired him to work with his boys"

According to Truman G. Madsen,

Mrs. Palmer, a non-Mormon who lived near the Smith farm in Palmyra, said of Joseph that "her father loved young Joseph Smith and often hired him to work with his boys. She was about six years old, she said, when he first came to their home. . . .She remembered, she said, the excitement stirred up among some of the people over the boy's first vision, and of hearing her father contend that it was only the sweet dream of a pure-minded boy.”

Martha Cox's father said "that the boy [Joseph Smith] was the best help he had ever found

According to a contemporary, Martha Cox,

She stated that one of their church leaders came to her father to remonstrate against his allowing such close friendship between his family and the "Smith boy," as he called him. Her father, she said, defended his own position by saying that the boy was the best help he had ever found.

Joseph's brother William noted that derogatory comments about Joseph's character came only after he reported his visions,

We never heard of such a thing until after Joseph told his vision, and not then, by our friends. Whenever the neighbors wanted a good day's work done they knew where they could get a good hand and they were not particular to take any of the other boys before Joseph either… Joseph did his share of the work with the rest of the boys. We never knew we were bad folks until Joseph told his vision.

Joseph Knight said that Joseph Smith, Jr. was “the best hand [my father] ever hired”

Martin Harris described what a good hand Joseph was: "He lived close by my farm, and often worked for me hoeing corn for fifty cents a day, which was the biggest wages given in those times." "He also said that he had hoed corn with Joseph often, and that the latter was a good hand to work."

The Smith family produced maple sugar and constructed barrels

Furthermore, the Smiths produced maple sugar, a difficult and labor-intensive occupation:

Sources document over two dozen kinds of labor the Smiths performed for hire, including digging and rocking up wells, mowing, coopering, constructing cisterns, hunting and trapping, teaching school, providing domestic service, and making split-wood chairs, brooms and baskets. The Smiths also harvested, did modest carpentry work, dug for salt, constructed stone walls and fireplaces, flailed grain, cut and sold cordwood, carted, made cider, and "witched" for water. They sold garden produce, made bee-gums, washed clothes, painted oil-cloth coverings, butchered, dug coal, painted chairs, hauled stone, and made maple syrup and sugar (Research File).

Joseph Jr.'s account suggests honest industry in the face of difficult conditions: "Being in indigent circumstances," he says, "[we] were obliged to labour hard for the support of [our] Large family and . . . it required the exertions of all [family members] that were able to render any assistances" (Jessee 4). The Smith men had a reputation as skilled and diligent workers. William Smith asserted that "whenever the neighbors wanted a good day's work done they knew where they could get a good hand" (Peterson 11). Eight wells in three townships are attributed to the Smiths (Research File). They likely dug and rocked others, including some of the 11 wells dug on the farm of Lemuel Durfee, who lived a little east of Martin Harris. The Smiths did considerable work for this kindly old Quaker; some of their labor served as rent for their farm after it passed into his ownership in December 1825 (Ralph Cator; Lemuel Durfee Farm books).

Father Joseph, Hyrum, and Joseph Jr. were coopers. Coopering was an exacting trade, particularly if the barrel was designed to hold liquid. Dye tubs, barrels, and water and sap buckets were products of the Smiths' cooper shop. They also repaired leaky barrels for neighbors at cidering time (Research File).

Sugaring was another labor-intensive work. William recalls, "To gather the sap and make sugar and molasses from [1,200-1,500 sugar] trees was no lazy job" (Peterson 11). Lucy said they produced an average of "one thousand pounds" (50) of sugar a year. One neighbor reportedly said that the Smiths made 7,000 pounds of sugar one season and won a premium for their effort at the county fair (Brodie 10-11). Many people could make maple syrup, but it required considerable skill to make sugar and particularly good skill, dexterity, and commitment to make high quality sugar.

Resposta FairMormon

Fato O autor está fornecendo conhecimento sobre algum fato específico, assunto ou evento Isto está certo. Stowell contratou Joseph para ajudá-lo a procurar uma mina antiga.

  NEEDS TRANSLATION  

Question: Was Joseph Smith's participation in "money digging" as a youth a blot on his character?

Money digging was a popular, common and accepted practice in their frontier culture

Joseph Smith and some members of his family participated in "money digging" or looking for buried treasure as a youth. This was a common and accepted practice in their frontier culture, though the Smiths do not seem to have been involved to the extent claimed by some of the exaggerated attacks upon them by former neighbors.

In the young Joseph Smith's time and place, "money digging" was a popular, and sometimes respected activity. When Joseph was 16, the Palmyra Herald printed such remarks.

The local newspapers reported on "money digging" activities

• "digging for money hid in the earth is a very common thing and in this state it is even considered as honorable and profitable employment"
• "One gentleman...digging...ten to twelve years, found a sufficient quantity of money to build him a commodious house.
• "another...dug up...fifty thousand dollars!"

And, in 1825 the Wayne Sentinel in Palmyra reported that buried treasure had been found "by the help of a mineral stone, (which becomes transparent when placed in a hat and the light excluded by the face of him who looks into it)."

The Smith's attitude toward treasure digging was similar to a modern attitudes toward gambling, or buying a lottery ticket

Given the financial difficulties under which the Smith family labored, it would hardly be surprising that they might hope for such a reversal in their fortunes. Richard Bushman has compared the Smith's attitude toward treasure digging with a modern attitudes toward gambling, or buying a lottery ticket. Bushman points out that looking for treasure had little stigma attached to it among all classes in the 17th century, and continued to be respectable among the lower classes into the 18th and 19th.

Despite the claims of critics, it is not clear that Joseph and his family saw their activities as "magical."

Resposta FairMormon

Erros O autor afirmou informações errôneas ou incorretas ou mal interpretadas suas fontes É certo que José foi levado perante um juiz para uma audiência preliminar por parentes de Josiah Stowell, porque eles achavam que Joseph foi defraudar ele. A acusação era a de ser ser um "desordeiro". No entanto, não foi um julgamento, mas sim uma audiência preliminar e nenhum veredicto foi possível como resultado da audiência. Não houve nenhuma decisão feita para avançar para julgamento, e Joseph foi lançado.

  NEEDS TRANSLATION  

Question: What is Joseph Smith's 1826 South Bainbridge "trial" for "glasslooking"?

Joseph Smith appeared at a pre-trial court hearing in 1826 for "glasslooking"

In 1825 Josiah Stowel sought out the young Joseph Smith, who had a reputation for being able to use his seer stone to locate lost objects, to help him to locate an ancient silver mine. After a few weeks of work, Joseph persuaded Stowel to give up the effort. In 1826, some of Stowel's relatives brought Joseph to court and accused him of "glasslooking" and being a "disorderly person." Several witnesses testified at the hearing.

Joseph was released without being fined or otherwise punished - there was no verdict of "guilty" or "not guilty" because this was only a hearing rather than a trial

Joseph was ultimately released without being fined and had no punishment imposed upon him. Years later, a bill from the judge was discovered which billed for court services.

Gordon Madsen summarized:

"The evidence thus far available about the 1826 trial before Justice Neely leads to the inescapable conclusion that Joseph Smith was acquitted."

A review of all the relevant documents demonstrates that:

1. The court hearing of 1826 was not a trial, it was an examination
2. The hearing was likely initiated from religious concerns; i.e. people objected to Joseph's religious claims.
3. There were seven witnesses.
4. The witnesses' testimonies have not all been transmitted faithfully.
5. Most witnesses testified that Joseph did possess a gift of sight

The court hearing was likely initiated by Stowel's relatives as a concern that he was having too much influence on Stowel

It was likely that the court hearing was initiated not so much from a concern about Joseph being a money digger, as concern that Joseph was having an influence on Josiah Stowel. Josiah Stowel was one of the first believers in Joseph Smith. His nephew was probably very concerned about that and was anxious to disrupt their relationship if possible. He did not succeed. The court hearing failed in its purpose, and was only resurrected decades later to accuse Joseph Smith of different crimes to a different people and culture.

Understanding the context of the case removes any threat it may have posed to Joseph's prophetic integrity.

  NEEDS TRANSLATION  

Question: What events resulted in Joseph Smith's 1826 court appearance in South Bainbridge?

Josiah Stowell requested Joseph Smith's help in locating an ancient silver mine

In the spring of 1825 Josiah Stowell visited with Joseph Smith "on account of having heard that he possessed certain keys, by which he could discern things invisible to the natural eye." Josiah Stowell wanted Joseph to help him in his quest to find treasure in an ancient silver mine. Joseph was reluctant, but Stowell persuaded Joseph to come by offering high wages. According to trial documents, Stowell says Joseph, using a seer stone, "Looked through stone and described Josiah Stowell's house and out houses, while at Palmyra at Sampson Stowell's correctly, that he had told about a painted tree with a man's hand painted upon it by means of said stone."

Joseph ultimately persuaded Stowell to give up looking for the mine

Joseph and his father traveled to southern New York in November of 1825. This was after the crops were harvested and Joseph had finished his visit to the Hill Cumorah that year. They participated with Stowell and the company of workers in digging for the mine for less than a month. Finally Joseph persuaded him to stop. "After laboring for the old gentleman about a month, without success, Joseph prevailed upon him to cease his operations."

Joseph continued to work in the area for Stowell and others. He boarded at the home of Isaac Hale and met Emma Hale, who was one "treasure" he got out of the enterprise.

The following year, Stowell's sons or nephew (depending on which account you follow) brought charges against Joseph and he was taken before Justice Neely

In March of the next year, Stowell's sons or nephew (depending on which account you follow) brought charges against Joseph and he was taken before Justice Neely. The supposed trial record came from Miss Pearsall. "The record of the examination was torn from Neely's docket book by his niece, Emily Persall, and taken to Utah when she went to serve as a missionary under Episcopalian bishop Daniel S. Tuttle." This will be identified as the Pearsall account although Neely possessed it after her death. It is interesting that the first published version of this record didn't appear until after Miss Pearsall had died.

Stowell's relatives felt that Joseph was exercising "unlimited control" over their father or uncle

William D. Purple took notes at the trial and tells us, "In February, 1826, the sons of Mr. Stowell, ...were greatly incensed against Smith, ...saw that the youthful seer had unlimited control over the illusions of their sire... They caused the arrest of Smith as a vagrant, without visible means of livelihood."

Whereas the Pearsall account says: "Warrant issued upon oath of Peter G. Bridgman, [Josiah Stowell's nephew] who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an imposter...brought before court March 20, 1826"

So, we have what has been called "The 1826 Trial of Joseph Smith", even though the records show that this wasn't actually a trial. For many years LDS scholars Francis Kirkham, Hugh Nibley and others expressed serious doubts that such a trial had even taken place.

  NEEDS TRANSLATION  

Question: Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't found guilty of anything?

Joseph was never fined - the bills from Judge Neely and Constable DeZeng were for court costs

The court did not assess a fine against Joseph. There were bills made out by Judge Neely and Constable DeZeng, but these were for costs. Those bills were directed to the County for payment of witnesses, etc., not to Joseph.

  NEEDS TRANSLATION  

Ensign (June 1994): "Highlights in the Prophet’s Life 20 Mar. 1826: Tried and acquitted on fanciful charge of being a “disorderly person,” South Bainbridge, Chenango County, New York

Ensign (June 1994):

Highlights in the Prophet’s Life 20 Mar. 1826: Tried and acquitted on fanciful charge of being a “disorderly person,” South Bainbridge, Chenango County, New York. New York law defined a disorderly person as, among other things, a vagrant or a seeker of “lost goods.” The Prophet had been accused of both: the first charge was false and was made simply to cause trouble; Joseph’s use of a seer stone to see things that others could not see with the naked eye brought the second charge. Those who brought the charges were apparently concerned that Joseph might bilk his employer, Josiah Stowell, out of some money. Mr. Stowell’s testimony clearly said this was not so and that he trusted Joseph Smith.

  NEEDS TRANSLATION  

Question: Didn't Hugh Nibley claim that a record of this trial would be "the most damning evidence in existence" against Joseph Smith?

Nibley felt that the "court record" didn't seem to be correct

Hugh Nibley had serious doubts as to whether or not Joseph Smith was actually brought to trial in 1826, and he felt that the only real trial was in 1830. For the most part, Nibley felt that the "court record" didn't seem to be correct. The following quote is taken from Nibley's book "The Myth Makers:"

"if this court record is authentic it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith."

Why are the 1971 discoveries important?

It was easy to cast doubt on the reality of the 1826 hearing until the bills from Judge Albert Neely and Constable Philip De Zeng were found in 1971. These documents were removed from their purported site of discovery by Dr. Wesley Walters, a well-known anti-Mormon author.

Walters wrote, "Because the two 1826 bills had not only suffered from dampness, but had severe water damage as well, Mr. Poffarl hand-carried the documents to the Yale University's Beinecke Library, which has one of the best document preservation centers in the country." The problem with this action is, once you have removed a document from a historical setting and then try to restore it to the same setting, you can't prove that you have not altered the document.

The actions of Walters and Poffarl compromised the documents. By having the documents removed and only returned under threat of a lawsuit by the County, it opened the possibility that they could be forged documents. They are generally considered to be authentic.

Nibley's real point at issue is not whether or not there was a trial, but whether or not a record existed proving Joseph guilty of deceit

Since Wesley Walters has found some bills related to the trial, the critics now claim that the case is proven and that Nibley has proven their case for them. Nothing is further from the truth. First of all you need to look at the whole quote. Nibley was chastising Tuttle for not actually using the trial record that he had. He was questioning why he would do that if it was so important.

"You knew its immense value as a weapon against Joseph Smith if its authenticity could be established. And the only way to establish authenticity was to get hold of the record book from which the pages had been purportedly torn. After all, you had only Miss Pearsall's word for it that the book ever existed. Why didn't you immediately send he back to find the book or make every effort to get hold of I? Why didn't you "unearth" it, as they later said you did? . . . The authenticity of the record still rests entirely on the confidential testimony of Miss Pearsall to the Bishop. And who was Miss Pearsall? A zealous old maid, apparently: "a woman helper in our mission," who lived right in the Tuttle home and would do anything to assist her superior. The picture I get is that of a gossipy old housekeeper. If this court record is authentic, it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith. Why, then, [speaking to Tuttle] was it not republished in your article in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge after 1891? . . . in 1906 Bishop Tuttle published his Reminiscences of a Missionary Bishop in which he blasts the Mormons as hotly as ever. . . yet in the final summary of his life's experiences he never mentions the story of the court record - his one claim to immortal fame and the gratitude of the human race if it were true!" (Nibley "The Myth Makers", 246)

The Pearsall account, which has never been produced, claims that the defendant was found guilty. The real point at issue is not whether or not there was a trial, but whether or not a record existed proving Joseph guilty of deceit. A document proving such guilt has not been found.

  NEEDS TRANSLATION  

Question: What did critics of the Church during Joseph Smith's lifetime think of the 1826 court hearing?

Critics of Joseph Smith's time ignored the 1826 court hearing

Critics of Joseph Smith's time ignored the 1826 court hearing:

1. They didn't bring it up in another trial in the same area in 1830.
2. It was not mentioned in any of the affidavits collected by Hurlbut in 1833, even though he was diligently looking for every piece of dirt he could find.
3. Although the trial was briefly mentioned in 1831, it was not mentioned again in a published record for 46 years.

The attraction of this event for a later generation of critics, however, lies in the fact that:

• Society had changed
• Seer Stones were no longer acceptable
• Treasure digging was considered abnormal
• Spiritual gifts were reinterpreted as manifestations of the occult

Many people of the 1800s did not see any differences between what later generations would label as "magic" and religiously-driven activities recorded in the Bible

Many people of the 1800s did not see any differences between what later generations would label as "magic" and religiously-driven activities recorded in the Bible—such as Joseph's silver cup (see Gen. 44:2,5) in which 'he divineth' (which was also practiced by the surrounding pagans and referred to as hydromancy), or the rod of Aaron and its divinely-driven power (Ex. 7:9-12).

The Bible records that Jacob used rods to cause Laban's cattle to produce spotted, and speckled offspring (see Gen. 30:37-39) — one can only imagine what the critics would say should Joseph Smith have attempted such a thing!

In Joseph Smith's own day other Christian leaders were involved in practices which today's critics would call 'occultic'

In Joseph Smith's own day other Christian leaders were involved in practices which today's critics would call 'occultic.' Quinn, for instance, observes that in "1825, a Massachusetts magazine noted with approval that a local clergyman used a forked divining rod.... Similarly, a Methodist minister wrote twenty-three years later that a fellow clergymen in New Jersey had used a divining rod up to the 1830s to locate buried treasure and the 'spirits [that] keep guard over buried coin'...."

Activities of the early 1800s or Biblical times which later generations would view skeptically were simply thought of as part of how the world worked

It is important to realize that every statement about "magic" or the "occult" by LDS authors is a negative one. Joseph and his contemporaries would likely have shocked and dismayed to be charged with practicing "magic." For them, such beliefs were simply how the world worked. Someone might make use of a compass without understanding the principles of magnetism. This mysterious, but apparently effective, device was useful even if its underlying mechanism was not understood. In a similar way, activities of the early 1800s or Biblical times which later generations would view skeptically were simply thought of as part of how the world worked.

But, it is a huge leap from this realization to charging that Joseph and his followers believed they were drawing power from anything but a divine or proper source.

Resposta FairMormon

Propaganda O autor, ou fonte do autor, está fornecendo informações ou idéias de forma inclinada, a fim de incutir uma atitude particular ou resposta no leitor O autor estava perfeitamente bem como um século 21. Mórmon quando ele acreditava que Joseph usou duas pedras de vidente montados em uma moldura em forma de um "número oito" para converter caracteres "egípcio reformado" em Inglês, mas confuso com a pedra eo chapéu.

Falácia Lógica: Inconsistência O autor aplica normas contraditórias, dependendo de qual grupo ele está se concentrando em. Mórmons no século 21 acreditam que Joseph traduzido usando duas pedras de vidente montados em uma armação de metal, mas têm problemas com a idéia de que ele usou uma única pedra de vidente colocado em um chapéu.

Resposta FairMormon

Propaganda O autor, ou fonte do autor, está fornecendo informações ou idéias de forma inclinada, a fim de incutir uma atitude particular ou resposta no leitor Na verdade, tudo o que isso nos diz é que Joseph e Oliver acreditava na "magia popular" antes para a organização da Igreja. Tais crenças foram substituídos de forma relativamente rápida depois que a Igreja foi organizada, em última análise, com Joseph Oliver dando sua pedra de vidente, porque ele não precisa mais.

Falácia Lógica: Causa Falsa O autor assume que um relacionamento real ou percebida entre dois eventos significa que um causou o outro.

  NEEDS TRANSLATION  

Pergunta: Será que Joseph Smith tentar "encobrir" o trabalho de Oliver Cowdery com uma varinha de condão, mudando essa revelação?

The edits to this portion of the revelation were actually performed by Sidney Rigdon, likely with Joseph's approval

A revelação recebida por Joseph elogiou o dom de Oliver Cowdery de usar talentos divinos. A revelação foi publicada no Livro de Mandamentos, na sua forma original, e em seguida, posteriormente modificada em Doutrina e Convênios. We do not know why Sidney Rigdon chose to alter the wording of the revelation, but he is the one that actually changed the wording to "rod of nature."

Sabemos com base no texto da revelação que Oliver possuía o dom de trabalhar com algo alternadamente referido como um "broto", "coisa da natureza", ou "vara da natureza". Sabemos também que o Senhor aprovou o uso de Oliver deste dom. A referência foi mais tarde alterada para o "dom de Aarão", mas só podemos especular sobre a razão exata pela qual o Senhor permitiu-o. Segundo o site da História da Igreja, a "vara", referida por Sidney Rigdon quando editou a revelação era provável uma vara de condão. It is possible that "gift of Aaron" was substituted as the revelatory device because if carried fewer negative connotations than "divining rod." However, a "cover up" is not usually done by committee, and it is clear that multiple individuals assisted in editing the revelations before they were to be published in the Doctrine and Covenants. It is also difficult to claim a "cover up" since "rod of nature" was to be published in the Book of Commandments in 1833, only two years before change to "gift of Aaron" was published in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants.

Nós sabemos que o dom de Oliver tinha a ver com o recebimento de revelação, e que Oliver tentou empregá-lo durante o período em que o Livro de Mórmon estava sendo traduzido. Sabemos, também, que a experiência de Oliver na tentativa de traduzir produziu uma das lições duradouras que continua a ser ensinada na Igreja ainda hoje: o conhecimento de que é preciso estudar as coisas em sua mente, a fim de saber a verdade de algo.

Pergunta: E se a "vara da natureza" era de fato um objeto físico, como uma varinha de condão

Deus permitiu que Oliver a utilizasse como uma ferramenta para receber orientação espiritual.

Se nós presumimos, para fins de argumentação, que a revelação do Livro de Mandamentos de 1829 se referia a uma vara física, é útil considerar apenas o que foi dito a Oliver:

A primeira revelação de Oliver Cowdery ordenou-lhe que pusesse de lado o mundo e construísse o reino restaurado: "Não busque riquezas, mas sabedoria, e eis que os mistérios de Deus te serão revelados e então serás enriquecido. Eis que é rico aquele que tem a vida eterna." (D&C 6:7) Seja qual for o uso prévio que Oliver tenha feito de seu "dom de trabalhar com a vara," esta revelação o dirigiu para o tesouro celestial. De fato, este primeiro mandamento se refere a nada mais que um poder especial: "Teu dom" é "sagrado e vem do alto." É definido como a habilidade de "inquirir" e "conhecer os mistérios que são grandes e maravilhosos." Assim, Oliver é ordenado a " exercer seu dom para que desvendes mistérios, para que leves muitos a conhecerem a verdade, sim, para convencê-los do erro de seus caminhos." Assim, seu dom de conhecimento da salvação conduzirá ao "maior de todos os dons", o "dom da salvação" (D&C 6:10-13).

A revelação inicial de Oliver finaliza com a ordem de buscar "tesouros" celestes por auxiliar a trazer à luz, com o seu dom, com teu dom, as partes de minhas escrituras que foram escondidas por causa de iniqüidade." (D&C 6:27). A revelação sobre o dom da vara provavelmente seguiu-se em cerca de uma semana.

Seguiu com o tema de aprender verdades antigas através de tradução: "Lembra-te, este é teu dom." (D&C 8:5). E poderia ser exercido através da crença "receberás conhecimento concernente a gravações de velhos registros" (D&C 8:1) Então, uma segunda promessa foi feita:

Agora, isto não é tudo, pois tens um outro dom, que é o dom de trabalhar com a vara. Eis que a ti tem dito coisas. Eis que nenhum outro poder existe, a não ser o poder de Deus, que pode fazer com que esta vara da natureza funcione em suas mãos, pois é a obra de Deus. Portanto, tudo o que perguntar-me por este meio, lhe concederei e aquilo saberás

Mas havia limites estritos para esta promessa: "Não trates essas coisas levianamente; não peças o que não deves. Pede que te seja concedido conhecer os mistérios de Deus e que possas traduzir e receber conhecimento de todos os registros antigos(...)"

Dessa forma, a "vara da natureza" nas mãos de Cowdery seriam meios de receber revelação sobre doutrinas.

Assim, a alteração que descreve a "vara" como "o dom de Aarão" esclarece a intenção do Senhor e explica como Oliver e Joseph entendiam o assunto. A vara de Aarão era um instrumento de poder, porém apenas quando o "Senhor" a revelou e o instruiu a usar. Tal perspectiva não é em nada semelhante com as conecções de "ocultismo" o qual críticos tentam estabelecer:

D&C 8 aprova a vara apenas para informações sagradas. Sugere também a vara que demonstrou o poder de Deus nas pragas do Egito, partindo uma rocha por água ou chamando a força dos guerreiros de Israel. Aquela vara possuía um eixo reto, o cajado de pastor possuído por Moisés em seu chamado (Êx 4:2-4). Utilizado por Moisés e Aarão, era de fato a "vara de Deus" e também de Moisés, mas formalmente chamada de "vara de Aarão". Funcionava como um sinal visível de autoridade, assim como o "cetro" de Judá era um sinal de realeza divina na benção de Jacó ou o cajado de Elias, segurado pelo servo que foi em seu nome. Assim, a revisão de 1835 do "dom de Aarão" sugerem que o poder espiritual de Oliver de auxiliar Joseph Smith era como o de Aarão ajudando Moisés.

Como Dallin H. Oaks declarou:

Deve se reconhecer que tais ferramentas como o Urim e Tumim, Liahona, Pedra Vidente e outros artigos tem sido utilizados apropriadamente em tempos bíblicos, do Livro de Mórmon e em tempos modernos por aqueles que possuem o dom e autoridade de obter revelação de Deus em conexão com o seu uso. Ao mesmo tempo, registros escriturísticos e experiência pessoal demonstra que pessoas não autorizadas, embora bem intencionadas, tem feito uso inapropriado de objetos tangíveis enquanto procuram ou alegam receber orientação espiritual. Aqueles que utilizam mágica folclórica utilizando qualquer uso de objetos tangíveis como maneira de ajudar no recebimento de orientação espiritual, confundem o real com o falsificado. Eles enganam a si mesmos e a seus leitores.

Fonte:Oaks:Eventos recentes envolvendo História da Igreja e documentos falsos:Ensign:outubro 1987:ferramentas como o Urim e Tumim, a Liahona, seerstones, e outros artigos têm sido utilizados de forma adequada {{:Fonte:Tópicos do Evangelho:A Tradução do Livro de Mórmon:a Bíblia menciona outros instrumentos físicos usados para acessar o poder de Deus: a vara de Aarão, uma serpente de bronze, óleos consagrados para unção, a Arca da Aliança e até mesmo terra do chão, misturada com saliva para curar os olhos de um homem cego}}

Resposta FairMormon

Propaganda O autor, ou fonte do autor, está fornecendo informações ou idéias de forma inclinada, a fim de incutir uma atitude particular ou resposta no leitor A "visão de mundo comum da segunda visão, magia e tesouro cavando" não é o que atraiu as Testemunhas de Jeová juntos em 1829. Estes homens, independentemente de quaisquer crenças que tinham na magia popular, foram bem sucedidos e respeitados em sua comunidade.

Falácia Lógica: Ad hominem Características pessoais do autor ataques de alguém em uma tentativa de minar seu argumento ou posição.

Pergunta: O que os associados de Oliver Cowdery dizer sobre o seu personagem?

William Lang, que foi aprendiz no escritório de advocacia de Cowdery muito tempo depois que ele deixou a Igreja, o conhecia há muitos anos

William Lang, que foi aprendiz no escritório de advocacia de Cowdery, o conhecia há muitos anos. Lang foi um membro do tribunal de Ohio, e serviu como "advogado de acusação, juiz de paz, prefeito de Tiffin,tesoureiro do condado teve dois mandatos no Senado de Ohio. Ele foi indicado por seu partido para secretarias principais do Estado por duas vezes."

Lang escreveu sobre Cowdery:

O Sr. Cowdery era um advogado capaz e um grande defensor. Seus costumes eram gentis; ele foi educado, digno, e ainda cortês ... Mesmo com toda sua disposição gentil e amigável, havia um certo ar de tristeza que parecia impregnar todo o seu ser. Sua associação com as pessoas, era marcada pela grande quantidade de informação transmitida e pela beleza de sua voz musical. Seus discursos para o tribunal do júri foram caracterizados por um alto grau de oratória, com força brilhante e forense. Ele era modesto e reservado, nunca falou mal de ninguém, nunca se queixou.

1843 announcement in the Seneca Advertiser, Tiffin, Ohio, with Oliver Cowdery and his partner's law practice.

Harvey Gibson, um adversário político de Oliver, e outro advogado , escreveu que Cowdery era um "cavalheiro irrepreensível"

Harvey Gibson, um adversário político de Oliver, e outro advogado (cuja estátua está agora na frente do Palácio da Justiça do condado de Sêneca) escreveu:

Cowdery era um advogado capaz e [um] agradável, cavalheiro irrepreensível.

Pergunta: O que os associados não-mórmons de Martin Harris dizer sobre o seu personagem?

Até mesmo os primeiros anti-mórmons que conheciam Harris, ou conhecia pessoas familiarizadas com Harris, acreditavam que ele era "honesto" "trabalhador", "benevolente", e um "cidadão digno"

Até mesmo os primeiros anti-mórmons que conheciam Harris, ou conhecia pessoas familiarizadas com Harris, acreditavam que ele era "honesto" "trabalhador", "benevolente", e um "cidadão digno". Um jornal local escreveu sobre a partida de Harris com o Santos:

Várias famílias, totalizando cerca de cinquenta almas, partiram desta cidade na semana passada para a "terra prometida", entre as quais estava Martin Harris, um dos crentes originais do "Livro de Mórmon". O Sr. Harris estava entre os primeiros colonizadores desta cidade, e já teve o caráter de um homem honrado e íntegro, um vizinho prestativo e benevolente. Ele tinha assegurado para si mesmo por meio de honesta industriosidade uma respeitável fortuna e deixou um grande círculo de amigos e conhecidos lamentando sua ilusão.

Pomeroy Tucker, que conheceu Harris, mas não acreditava no Livro de Mórmon, observou certa vez:

Conciliar o ato de Harris em assinar seu nome a tal declaração [seu testemunho do Livro de Mórmon] tendo em vista o caráter de honestidade que sempre foi concedido a ele, nunca poderia ser facilmente explicado.

Associação de Martin Harris com um número de "grupos dissidentes" SUD

Alguns argumentam que a tendência de Harris em associar-se com "grupos dissidentes" SUD indica que ele era "instável e facilmente influenciado por líderes carismáticos."

Esta afirmação distorce fundamentalmente as atividades de Harris durante este período. Escreveu Matthew Roper:

Martin foi excomungado em dezembro de 1837 em Kirtland, Ohio, onde permaneceu por 32 anos. Durante este tempo, Harris associou-se com Warren Parrish e outros dissidentes de Kirtland que organizaram uma igreja. Em 30 de março de 1839, George A. Smith escreveu uma carta de Kirtland descrevendo algumas das divisões no grupo de Parrish. "No último Sábado aconteceu uma divisão no grupo de Parrish sobre o Livro de Mórmon; John F. Boynton, Warren Parrish, Luke Johnson e outros disseram que era um absurdo. Martin Harris então prestou testemunho de sua verdade e disse que todos seriam condenados se rejetassem-no "Tais ações sugerem um significativo grau de independência a Harris a quem geralmente não é dado o devido crédito.

Harris conseguiu frustrar muitos outros grupos religiosos por sua insistência continuou a pregar o Livro de Mórmon, em vez de suas doutrinas. Ele finalmente retornou à Igreja e morreu em plena comunhão.

As testemunhas eram homens considerados honestos, responsáveis e inteligentes. Seus contemporâneos não sabiam bem o que fazer com esses três homens que testemunharam sobre anjos e placas de ouro, mas eles não impugnaram o caráter ou a confiabilidade dos homens que prestaram esse testemunho.

Pergunta: O que os associados de David Whitmer dizer sobre o seu personagem?

Ao longo de Richmond, Missouri, os não-mórmons conheciam David Whitmer como um cidadão honesto e confiável

Ao longo de Richmond, Missouri, os não-mórmons conheciam David Whitmer como um cidadão honesto e confiável. Quando um anti-Mórmon deu uma palestra na cidade natal de David, apontando-o como de má reputação, o jornal local (não-mórmon) respondeu com "um fervoroso editorial de primeira página antipático com o mormonismo, mas insistente sobre "os 46 anos de cidadania pessoal sem mancha ou defeito por parte de David Whitmer, em Richmond, . '"

... No ano seguinte, o editor escreveu um tributo sobre o octogésimo aniversário de David Whitmer, que "sem arrependimentos no passado" ainda "reafirma que viu a glória do anjo."

Esta é a questão fundamental da vida de David Whitmer. Durante 50 anos numa sociedade não-mórmon, ele insistiu com o fervor de sua juventude que sabia que o Livro de Mórmon foi divinamente revelado. Relativamente poucas pessoas em Richmond poderia aceitar tal testemunho totalmente, mas nenhuma duvidou de sua inteligência ou honestidade completa.

  NEEDS TRANSLATION  

Another newspaper declared:

And no man can look at David Whitmer's face for a half-hour, while he charit[abl]y and modestly speaks of what he has seen, and then bodldly and earnestly confesses the faith that is in him, and say that he is a bigot or an enthusiast.

Twenty two non-Mormon citizens signed the following statement, including, Mayor, county clerk, county treasurer, postmaster, revenue collector, county sheriff, two judges, two medical doctors, four bankers, two merchants, and two lawyers:

We the undersigned citizens of Richmond Ray CO Mo where David Whitmer Sr has resided since the year AD 1838, Certify that we have been long and intimately acquainted with him, and know him to be a man of the highest integrity, and of undoubted truth and veracity....

Another said:

Mr. Whitmer is an old citizen of this town, and is known by every one here as a man of the highest honor, having resided here since the year 1838.

Upon Whitmer's death, the local newspaper wrote:

He lived in Richmond about half a century, and we can say that no man ever lived here, who had among our people, more friends and fewer enemies. Honest, conscientious and upright in all his dealings, just in his estimate of men, and open, manly and frank in his treatment of all, he made lasting friends who loved him to the end.

Pergunta: É alguém confiável porque eles praticavam "caça ao tesouro" e acreditava no uso de pedras de vidente para encontrar objetos perdidos?

Resposta FairMormon

Falsidade O autor tem divulgado informações falsas Martin Harris foi absolutamente cético. Ele necessária confirmação, que ele recebeu de Charles Anthon.

Pergunta: Martin Harris era uma testemunha ingênua que simplesmente acreditar em qualquer coisa que foi dito?

Martin ficou claro que ele exige a prova considerável para apoiar Joseph

Em sua primeira conversa com Joseph Smith, Martin informou que ele lhe disse que precisaria de provas. Ele demonstrou que não estava disposto a simplesmente aceitar a palavra de Joseph para as coisas da seguinte maneira:

Eu disse [a Joseph] que se é obra do diabo eu não tenho nada a ver com isso, mas se é do Senhor, você pode ter todo o dinheiro necessário para trazê-la ao mundo. Eu disse, Joseph, você conhece minha ideologia, que amaldiçoo todo aquele que confia no homem, e faz da carne seu [sic] braço; e sabemos que o diabo tem um grande poder nos últimos dias para enganar, se possível, os próprios eleitos; e eu não sei se você é um dos eleitos. Agora você não pode me culpar por não aceitar a sua palavra. Se o Senhor me mostrar que é o seu trabalho, você pode ter todo o dinheiro que quiser.

Mesmo em assuntos religiosos, em seguida, Martin estava bem ciente do risco de erro e decepção.

Martin era na verdade cético no início em relação à habilidade de tradução de Joseph

Há duas coisas específicas que Martin fez para testar Joseph.

1. Ele levou uma cópia de caracteres que Joseph havia copiado das placas para vários professores em Nova York, a fim de tentar verificá-los.
2. Ele trocou a pedra vidente que Joseph estava usando durante a tradução do Livro de Mórmon, a fim de testar a capacidade do profeta.

É de conhecimento geral que Martin Harris levou cópias dos caracteres do Livro de Mórmon para Charles Anthon e outro especialista em linguagem. Enquanto Anthon diria mais tarde (em declarações parcialmente contraditórias) que ele tinha dito a Harris que era tudo uma fraude, Harris voltou mais convencido do que nunca de que Joseph realmente podia traduzir.

Durante a tradução do Livro de Mórmon, Joseph Smith, muitas vezes usava uma pequena pedra vidente. Em uma ocasião, Martin Harris trocou a pedra para outra pedra da mesma aparência. Martin relata o que aconteceu:

Certa vez, Martin encontrou uma pedra muito semelhante à pedra vidente que Joseph às vezes usava no lugar dos intérpretes e substituiu-a sem o conhecimento do Profeta. Quando a tradução recomeçou, Joseph parou por um longo tempo e então exclamou: "Martin, qual é o problema, tudo está tão escuro quanto o Egito." Martin, em seguida, confessou que desejava "calar as bocas dos tolos" que lhe diziam que o profeta memorizava frases e simplesmente as repetia. [2]

Novamente, Martin realizou um hábil "teste cego" da habilidade de Joseph, e Joseph passou a convencer Martin ainda mais.

A história do desejo de Martin Harris levar as 116 páginas do manuscrito do Livro de Mórmon para convencer sua família e amigos de que Joseph era um verdadeiro profeta é bem conhecida. Novamente, Martin procurou usar prova empírica (o próprio manuscrito) como prova de que Joseph podia fazer o que ele dizia.

Fonte:Kenneth W. Godfrey:Um Novo Profeta e um Novo Escritura:Ensign:janeiro 1988:Uma vez que Martin encontrou uma rocha que assemelha-se de perto a seerstone

Pergunta: Charles Anthon validou os caracteres, trazidos por Martin Harris, que tinham sido copiados das placas do Livro de Mórmon?

Se Anthon não validou os caracteres, então por que Martin Harris voltou imediatamente para casa e financiou o Livro de Mórmon?

Se Charles Anthon realmente tivesse dito a Martin que os caracteres e a tradução eram falsos, seria muito estranho Martin Harris voltar imediatamente para casa, ajudar Joseph a traduzir o Livro de Mórmon, fornecer fundos, e, eventualmente, hipotecar sua fazenda para ajudar a imprimi-lo.

Por outro lado, Anthon evidentemente não tinha nenhuma vontade de ter o seu nome associado ao "mormonismo", e por isso ele tinha motivos evidentes para alterar a história após o fato.

Martin Harris disse que Anthon validou os caracteres

O relato de Martin Harris da visita a Charles Anthon foi incluído em Joseph Smith - História em 1838:

64 “Fui à cidade de Nova York e apresentei os caracteres que tinham sido traduzidos, assim como sua tradução, ao professor Charles Anthon, famoso por seus conhecimentos literários. O professor Anthon declarou que a tradução estava correta, muito mais que qualquer tradução do egípcio que já vira. Mostrei-lhe então os que ainda não haviam sido traduzidos e ele disse-me serem egípcios, caldeus, assírios e arábicos; e acrescentou que eram caracteres autênticos. Deu-me uma declaração, atestando ao povo de Palmyra que eram autênticos e que a tradução, como fora feita, também estava correta. Peguei a declaração e coloquei-a no bolso; estava saindo da casa quando o Sr. Anthon me chamou e perguntou-me como soubera o jovem que havia placas de ouro no lugar onde ele as encontrara. Respondi-lhe que um anjo de Deus lho revelara.

65 Disse-me então: ‘Deixe-me ver essa declaração’. Tirei-a do bolso e entreguei-a a ele, que a pegou e rasgou em pedacinhos, dizendo que já não existiam coisas como ministério de anjos e que, se eu lhe desse as placas, ele as traduziria. Informei-o de que parte das placas estava selada e que me era proibido levá-las. Ele respondeu: ‘Não posso ler um livro selado’. Saí de lá e procurei o Dr. Mitchell, que confirmou tudo o que o Sr. Anthon dissera a respeito dos caracteres e da tradução. ”(JOSEPH SMITH—HISTÓRIA 1:64–65).

Anthon negou que ele tivesse validado os caracteres e a tradução, mas seus dois relatos são contraditórios.

Anthon negou que houvesse validado cada um dos caracteres ou a tradução de Joseph, embora seus dois relatos escritos contradigam um ao outro em pontos-chave . Por exemplo:

• em sua primeira carta, Anthon se recusa a dar um parecer escrito a Harris
• em sua segunda carta, Anthon afirma que ele escreveu sua opinião, "sem qualquer hesitação" porque queria expor que ele tinha certeza que era uma fraude.

A pista do que Anthon disse pode ser encontrada na reação de Martin Harris. Martin se comprometeu a financiar a tradução de O Livro de Mórmon.

Resposta FairMormon

Propaganda O autor, ou fonte do autor, está fornecendo informações ou idéias de forma inclinada, a fim de incutir uma atitude particular ou resposta no leitor Este é o perigo de copiar acriticamente informações off Wikipedia. Neste caso, as informações sobre Martin ser um membro bem sucedido e respeitado da comunidade é minimizada, e as suas qualidades supersticiosas enfatizou.

Falácia Lógica: Ad hominem Características pessoais do autor ataques de alguém em uma tentativa de minar seu argumento ou posição.

  NEEDS TRANSLATION  

Question: Is Wikipedia's portrayal of Martin Harris as a gullible, superstitious man accurate?

Martin Harris is portrayed by critics as unstable, gullible and superstitious

One critic of the Church states that Martin Harris "was known by many of his peers as an unstable, gullible, and superstitious man...."

The following quotes are taken from Wikipedia's article "Martin Harris (Latter Day Saints)" to support this assertion:

“Once while reading scripture, he reportedly mistook a candle’s sputtering as a sign that the devil desired him to stop. Another time he excitedly awoke from his sleep believing that a creature as large as a dog had been upon his chest, though a nearby associate could find nothing to confirm his fears. Several hostile and perhaps unreliable accounts told of visionary experiences with Satan and Christ, Harris once reporting that Christ had been poised on a roof beam.” – BYU professor Ronald W. Walker, “Martin Harris: Mormonism’s Early Convert,” p.34-35

“No matter where he went, he saw visions and supernatural appearances all around him. He told a gentleman in Palmyra, after one of his excursions to Pennsylvania, while the translation of the Book of Mormon was going on, that on the way he met the Lord Jesus Christ, who walked along by the side of him in the shape of a deer for two or three miles, talking with him as familiarly as one man talks with another.” – John A. Clark letter, August 31, 1840 in Early Mormon Documents, 2: 271

“According to two Ohio newspapers, shortly after Harris arrived in Kirtland he began claiming to have “seen Jesus Christ and that he is the handsomest man he ever did see. He has also seen the Devil, whom he described as a very sleek haired fellow with four feet, and a head like that of a Jack-ass.” – Early Mormon Documents 2: 271, note 32.

The Wikipedia article emphasizes Harris's superstitious qualities and ignores his religious qualities

The Wikipedia article from which these quotes are taken deliberately emphasizes Harris's superstitious qualities while minimizing his work for the community and his religious qualities.

Upon reading the Wikipedia article about Martin Harris, we encounter quite a contrast from those things that we learn in church. The first thing that we learn about Martin is that he “was a prosperous farmer,” and that his neighbors “considered him both an honest and superstitious man.” The article then goes on in detail to note that Harris’s “imagination was excitable,” that he “once imagined that a sputtering candle was the work of the devil,” and that he was considered “a visionary fanatic.” The article continues by stating that “his belief in earthly visitations of angels and ghosts gave him the local reputation of being crazy,” and that “he was a great man for seeing spooks.” It is easy to see which aspects of Harris’s life the Wikipedia article attempts to emphasize. There are a few token mentions of honesty and prosperity, followed by extensive recitations of Harris’s superstitious qualities.

Resposta FairMormon

Propaganda O autor, ou fonte do autor, está fornecendo informações ou idéias de forma inclinada, a fim de incutir uma atitude particular ou resposta no leitor Esta é uma acusação antiga de um dos primeiros anti-Mórmon funciona, ea evidência não apoiá-lo.

Falácia Lógica: Ad hominem Características pessoais do autor ataques de alguém em uma tentativa de minar seu argumento ou posição. Tal acusação é simplesmente ad hominem — a recusar o testemunho de Harris por causa de crenças que ele tinha antes da restauração.

  NEEDS TRANSLATION  

Question: Did Martin Harris change his religion five times prior to the Restoration?

Palmyra sources do not yet prove that Martin was a Quaker, though his wife probably was, and there is no evidence yet that associates Martin with the Baptist or Presbyterian churches

This is an old charge from one of the earliest anti-Mormon works. Richard L. Anderson noted:

The arithmetic of Martin's five religious changes before Mormonism is also faulty. The claim comes from the hostile Palmyra affidavits published by E. D. Howe; G. W. Stoddard closed his in sarcasm against Martin Harris: "He was first an orthodox Quaker, then a Universalist, next a Restorationer, then a Baptist, next a Presbyterian, and then a Mormon." Palmyra sources do not yet prove that Martin was a Quaker, though his wife probably was. And no evidence yet associates Martin with the Baptist or Presbyterian churches. Note that the other two names are religious positions, not necessarily churches—philosophical Universalists dissent from traditional churches in believing that God will save all, and Restorationists obviously take literally the many Bible prophecies of God's reestablished work in modern times. An early Episcopal minister in Palmyra interviewed Martin and reduced his five positions to two: "He had been, if I mistake not, at one period a member of the Methodist Church, and subsequently had identified himself with the Universalists." Of course Martin could have been a Universalist and Restorationer simultaneously. This view fits what other Palmyra sources say about Martin Harris. In the slanted words of Pomeroy Tucker, who knew him personally, "He was a religious monomaniac, reading the Scriptures intently, and could probably repeat from memory nearly every text of the Bible from beginning to end, chapter and verse in each case."

Martin Harris: "In the year 1818—52 years ago—I was inspired of the Lord and taught of the Spirit that I should not join any church, although I was anxiously sought for by many of the sectarians"

This impression of Martin as Bible student outside of organized religions is just what Martin says in his little-known autobiography of this period:

In the year 1818-52 years ago—I was inspired of the Lord and taught of the Spirit that I should not join any church, although I was anxiously sought for by many of the sectarians. I was taught two could not walk together unless agreed. What can you not be agreed [is] in the Trinity because I cannot find it in my Bible, Find it for me, and I am ready to receive it. . . . Others' sects, the Episcopalians, also tried me—they say 3 persons in one God, without body, parts, or passions. I told them such a God I would not be afraid of: I could not please or offend him. . . . The Methodists took their creed from me. I told them to release it or I would sue them . . . The Spirit told me to join none of the churches, for none had authority from the Lord, for there will not be a true church on the earth until the words of Isaiah shall be fulfilled. . . . So I remained until the Church was organized by Joseph Smith the Prophet. Then I was baptized . . . being the first after Joseph and Oliver Cowdery. And then the Spirit bore testimony that this was all right, and I rejoiced in the established Church. Previous to my being baptized I became a witness of the plates of the Book of Mormon.

The above is Martin Harris's creed, held for the half-century before giving this statement on returning to the Church, plus the five additional years that he lived in Utah. For the dozen years prior to joining Mormonism he was a seeker, like scores of other LIDS converts, and through life never departed from his confidence that the Bible prophecies were fulfilled in the Restoration through Joseph Smith. This core belief was what everything else related to, the structure that stood before, during, and after any gingerbread decorations at Kirtland.

In any case, such a charge is simply ad hominem--to deny Harris' testimony because of beliefs he had prior to the restoration.

Resposta FairMormon

Propaganda O autor, ou fonte do autor, está fornecendo informações ou idéias de forma inclinada, a fim de incutir uma atitude particular ou resposta no leitor O fato de que Martin se juntou a outras seitas, antes que ele finalmente retornou à Igreja não tem qualquer influência sobre o seu testemunho do Livro de Mórmon, que ele reiterou ao longo de sua vida.

  NEEDS TRANSLATION  

Question: Does Martin Harris' involvement with other faiths after the Restoration discredit him?

Harris's decision to oppose Joseph Smith in Kirtland led him into a series of theological adaptations

Richard L. Anderson discussed Martin’s involvement with various LDS break-off groups following his excommunication:

Martin Harris displays a certain instability not at all characteristic of David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery, but his lifetime religious positions have a consistency that is clear because of remarkable information from him. As discussed, the Book of Mormon remained the mainstay of a life that was repeatedly confused by the loss of family, wealth, friends, and religious security. His decision to oppose Joseph Smith in Kirtland led him into a series of theological adaptations; eight of them brought him back the full circle to rejoin the Latter-day Saints in the West. This figure has been seized upon for condemnation rather than insight. Furthermore, one early source claims that Martin went through five religious positions before becoming a Mormon, so the "case" against the witnesses adds eight and five to exclaim in shock that Martin made thirteen changes. But this ignores my specific explanations of the eight changes after his 1838 excommunication: except for Shakerism, "every affiliation of Martin Harris was with some Mormon group." Beginning algebra teachers caution against adding eight oranges and five apples—the answer is not thirteen because the categories do not mix.

We shall see that the "five changes" prior to Martin's New York conversion are overstated—but differing churches of that period do not mix with Martin's Ohio variations on Mormonism, which he told visitors he had never left. His specific Ohio stages include the following: (1) the Parrish-Boynton party (which he condemned for denying the Book of Mormon at the time he met with them); (2) an 1842 rebaptism by a Nauvoo missionary; (3) an 1846 English mission with a Strangite companion (where documents suggest that the Book of Mormon was really Martin's message); (4) participation in McLellin's attempts to set up Midwest leaders for the Church in 1847-48; (5) concurrent with one or more stages, sympathy for Shakerism without full participation; (6) support of Gladden Bishop in his program of further revelations based on the Book of Mormon; (7) continuation of his original "dissenter" status of stressing the Book of Mormon and early revelations of Joseph Smith—even when occasionally meeting with William Smith and others, he maintained this position for fifteen years after his 1855 conversations with Thomas Colburn; (8) his 1870 return to the Church in Salt Lake. Note that the emphasis could be on the number "eight" or Martin's support of the Book of Mormon through all stages, which blended as different ways of trying to further the Restoration.

The fact that Martin joined other sects does not affect Harris's testimony of the Book of Mormon, which for years remained the mainstay of his life

Matthew Roper wrote:

There is no evidence for the Tanners' claim that Martin Harris ever denied or doubted his testimony of the Book of Mormon. However, since he affiliated with several Mormon splinter groups between 1838 and 1870, the Tanners claim that he was "unstable and easily influenced by charismatic leaders." But that statement does not hold true of Harris's testimony of the Book of Mormon, which for years remained the mainstay of his life. As one historian correctly notes, with each of these splinter groups "[Harris] desired to preach to them more than to listen to them. While separated from the body of the Church, he responded in friendship to those who sought his support and fussed over him. But in each case Harris wanted to preach Book of Mormon, which usually led to a dividing of the ways." Martin was excommunicated in December 1837 in Kirtland, Ohio, where he remained for the next thirty-two years. During this time, Harris associated himself with Warren Parrish and other Kirtland dissenters who organized a church. On March 30, 1839, George A. Smith wrote a letter from Kirtland describing some of the divisions in the Parrish party. "Last Sabbath a division arose among the Parrish party about the Book of Mormon; John F. Boynton, Warren Parrish, Luke Johnson and others said it was nonsense. Martin Harris then bore testimony of its truth and said all would be damned if they rejected it." Such actions suggest a significant degree of independence for which Harris is generally not given credit.

After the Saints left Kirtland, Harris lost contact with the main body of the Church and was not in harmony with some Church doctrines during this time. However, a rebaptism in 1842 suggests that he still sympathized with Mormon teachings. Although in 1846 Martin briefly affiliated with the Strangites and was sent by them on a mission to England, available sources from this period indicate that he was never fully committed to the Strangite cause. His main motivation in going seems to have been to testify of the Book of Mormon. On one occasion Martin attempted to address a conference of Latter-day Saints in Birmingham, but was forbidden from doing so, and then was curtly asked to leave the meeting. Bitter and obviously embarrassed by the rebuff, Harris then reportedly went out into the street and began to rail against Church leaders. However, George Mantle, who witnessed the event, later recalled:

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

Harris sympathized for a time with other dissenters such as William McLellin and Gladden Bishop, but these men still accepted the Book of Mormon. As Anderson rightly notes, "Every affiliation of Martin Harris was with some Mormon group, except when he accepted some Shaker beliefs, a position not basically contrary to his testimony of the Book of Mormon because the foundation of that movement was acceptance of personal revelation from heavenly beings."

The Tanners attempt to downplay the significance of the witnesses' written testimony by noting similarities between it and several nineteenth-century Shaker writings in which some Shaker believers claimed to have seen angels and visions. "Joseph 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 book. [In Shaker writings,] there are over a hundred pages of testimony from 'Living Witnesses.' " But the quantity of witnesses has little meaning if those witnesses afterwards admit that they were wrong. Unlike the Book of Mormon, the Shaker Roll and Book afterwards fell into discredit and dishonor among the Shakers themselves and was abandoned by its leaders and most believers, while the Book of Mormon continued to be a vitally important part of Mormon scripture to which each of the witnesses, including Martin Harris, continued to testify, even while outside of the Church.

On page 14 of their recent newsletter, the Tanners assert that "Martin Harris' involvement with the Shakers raises some serious doubts regarding his belief in the Book of Mormon. We feel that a believer in the Book of Mormon could not accept these revelations without repudiating the teachings of Joseph Smith." But such a conclusion is absurd, since the witnesses obviously did at times reject some of Joseph Smith's teachings, while still maintaining that the Book of Mormon was true and that their experience was real. However, the Tanners' conclusion is unjustified for another reason: Martin Harris never accepted all Shaker beliefs. For instance, while devoted Shakers advocated celibacy, Martin remained married during this period and had several children. Further, Harris never joined nearby communities of Shakers as the fully committed would have done. Shakers believed in spiritual gifts and emphasized preparation for Christ's Second Coming, things that Harris had believed even before he joined the Church. Even an early revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith suggested that the Shakers had some truths (D&C 49:1–28). Harris was likely enthusiastic about certain elements of Shakerism that paralleled his own beliefs in a restoration, but he rejected other Shaker beliefs and practices, which his actions during these years clearly show. Thus, Harris's brief interest in the Shaker Roll and Book is quite understandable and consistent. "Since it claimed to come from angels to prepare the world for the Millennium, it would be broadly harmonious with Martin Harris' commitment to the Book of Mormon, which in a far more historical and rational sense is committed to the same goal." But although Harris's interest in Shakerism was short-lived, evidence from the same period shows that he never wavered from his testimony of the Book of Mormon.