Showed Skepticism Of Joseph Smith’s Claims
- Martin Harris was very skeptical of Joseph Smith’s abilities, and tested it several times. According to one story, he secretly replaced the translator stone with a similar stone to see if it would work.
- Martin Harris took a copy of some characters from the gold plates to a professor in New York named Charles Anthon to see if they were authentic, who verified they were “true characters.” He also took them to an expert named Dr. Mitchell.
- Martin Harris repeatedly insisted that Joseph Smith give him the Book of Mormon translation to show his wife and prove the legitimacy of his work. This is why the 116 pages got lost.
Associates Considered Martin Harris A Good Man – CES Letter alleges:
“Martin Harris was anything but a skeptical witness. He was known by many of his peers as an unstable, gullible, and superstitious man.”
This is not true. Martin Harris’s overwhelmingly considered him intelligent and a good man. They called him “honest,” “industrious,” “benevolent,” and a “worthy citizen.” I don’t find any accounts from actual associates with anything bad to say about him.
Antimormons Would Complain If Martin Harris Were More Skeptical – This is a no-win argument for Mormons. If Martin Hariss were any more skeptical, Antimormons would be saying, “Look, even Joseph Smith’s own witness doesn’t believe him.” But when Martin Hariss’s skepticism isn’t over the top, Antimormons smear him as “unstable, gullible.” Either way, Antimormons attack his character.
Martin Harris Literally Saw Gold Plates
“Reports assert that he and the other witnesses never literally saw the gold plates, but only an object said to be the plates, covered with a cloth.”
Completely false. Martin Harris made clear that he had “seen and handled them all.” He testified that he saw the gold plates uncovered, and “an angel appeared to me and others and testified to the truthfulness of the record.” Martin Harris said:
Antimormon Attacks On Martin Harris’ Character
Each of CES Letter‘s quotes besmirching Martin Harris as a superstitious wreck come from lying Antimormons. They quote Ronald W. Walker who relates three stories.
Of course, CES Letter clips out the next sentence after this quote: “But such talk came easy. His exaggerated sense of the supernatural naturally produced caricature and tall and sometimes false tales.”
- The story of the sputtering candle was started by Antimormon Thomas Gregg, who started his feud with Mormons in Nauvoo and had nothing to do with Martin Harris’s early associates. He did not know Martin Harris back when this supposedly took place. He made it up and printed it many years after it supposedly happened.
- The story of the creature on his chest was not a literal creature, but a metaphor Martin used for the answer he had received in revelation in answer to his prayers “I felt something as big as a great dog sprang upon my breast.” Where do skeptics get “a creature” from this? It sounds like his feelings were impacted like a slug to the chest, nothing more.
- The story of Christ on the roofbeams comes from Antimormon journalist Fredrick G. Mather who collected Antimormon rumors. It is completely baseless.
CES Letter quotes Antimormon John A. Clark:
“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, 1840)
John A. Clark was an Antimormon Episcopalian minister in Palmyra, and his book from which this is quoted claims the Book of Mormon was copied from Solomon Spaulding’s lost manuscript, a claim that CES Letter evidently does not follow as they give us a complex, convoluted alternative theory. So why does CES Letter believe this one baseless claim yet not believe the book’s other claim?
CES Letter quotes another phony rumor by John A. Clark that Martin Harris saw the devil and he had “a head like that of a Jack-ass.”
Did Martin Harris Change Religions 5 Times?
“Before Harris became a Mormon, he had already changed his religion at least five times.”
Not true. CES Letter‘s source for this claim, Wikipedia, references a Dialogue article that makes no such claim. What do you expect from Wikipedia? Actually it was Antimormon E.D. Howe who started this rumor. But it is false. Associates agreed Martin Harris considered only two religions: Methodist and then Universalist (which isn’t even really a religion.) Martin Harris himself claimed that he had been a member of no church prior to Mormonism.
After he left the Mormon church, Martin Harris joined a couple sects that accepted the Book of Mormon, and he served a mission in England with one of them for the purpose of preaching the Book of Mormon. The Strangites sent him home for insisting on preaching the Book of Mormon.
Not A Witness For Other Scripture – CES Letter falsely claims:
“Not only did Harris join other religions, he testified and witnessed for them. It has been reported that Martin Harris ‘declared repeatedly that he had as much evidence for a Shaker book he had as for the Book of Mormon’ (The Braden and Kelly Debate, p.173).”
There is no credible evidence that Martin Harris ever testified for or witnessed for non-Mormon scripture. This claim about the Shaker book is totally made up by provable liar Clark Braden.
Maybe the Shakers and Gladden Bishop claimed Martin Harris as a witness, but Martin Harris never himself claimed it. In everything, Martin Harris never denied or contradicted his testimony of the Book of Mormon. He demonstrated upstanding intelligence and character as a witness.
CES Letter Logical Fallacies
|Falsehood||Martin Harris displayed plenty of skepticism, contrary to what CES Letter claims. The detractors who besmirched him were not his peers, but competing religious leaders.
Martin Harris made it clear that he saw and felt the gold plates, in a very literal sense.
CES Letter says Martin Harris joined the Shakers, but this is impossible because the Shakers advocated celibacy. Martin Harris definitely was not celibate.
CES Letter‘s claim that Martin Harris joined 5 religions before Mormonism is completely false, and references a phony Wikipedia article.
|Red Herring||CES Letter says the Book of Mormon witnesses “all shared a common worldview of second sight, magic, and treasure digging – which is what drew them together in 1829.” There is literally nothing in their narrative of Martin Harris that substantiates any of this. Everything they say about Martin Harris is a non sequitur to this claim.|
|Ad Hominem||The entire argument is an attack on Martin Harris’s character. CES Letter asks, “If someone testified” all of this, “would you believe his claims? Or would you call the nearest mental hospital?” Call a mental hospital? Really? That’s easy to say about a man no longer living who can’t defend himself. At least Martin Harris didn’t quote white supremacists to attack a religion of people.|
CES Letter uses wacky third-hand accounts from people who did not know Martin Harris and who have a conflict of interest in what they are claiming. Yet CES Letter accuses Martin Harris of having “a direct conflict of interest in being a witness” because he mortgaged the farm to help out the church. Did Martin Harris ever earn money being a witness? If not, then how does supporting a point of view lead to a conflict of interest when you advocate for that point of view? A conflict of interest? I do not think that means what you think it means!
CES Letter relies on a source for one of their fake quotes that backed the Spaulding theory which contradicts CES Letter‘s narrative for how the Book of Mormon was produced.
|Begging The Question||Martin Harris mortgaged, and lost, his farm because he had a witness testimony, not the other way around. Shouldn’t this be further evidence of his sincere conviction?|
|Argument From Ignorance||It is very easy to attack a man’s character 200 years after his death, from wacky third-hand rumors from religious competitors who hated him, known liars.||Etymology||CES Letter uses present tense to describe a past event. They say superstition “is” what drew them together, rather than “was” what drew them together. The incorrect use of present tense suggests the superstitious mindset applies still to Mormons today .|
The Importance Of Book Of Mormon Witnesses – At first, I was confused why some skeptics devote so much to attacking the Book of Mormon witnesses. Like most Mormons I never considered the witnesses and anything more than a nice supporting page for the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, not really all that necessary. Why attack their characters, almost as much as they attack Joseph Smith’s? Derision is currency for Antimormon; people will be turned off if they display too much bitterness so they need to choose their battles carefully.
Daniel C. Peterson gave a great explanation for the importance of the Book of Mormon witnesses. It is not by accident that they attack them after having reduced Mormon testimonies as nothing more than emotion. Suddenly, the witness testimonies of the Book of Mormon are like the positive vibes you feel from watching Forrest Gump?
We are living in a secular Western world, and ex-Mormons tend to become secularists. The witness testimonies are some of the best secular evidences for the Book of Mormon’s truth. It is one thing for a guy to claim visions, but it gains a lot more credibility when a dozen other men swear they the same thing and know it for a fact. Skeptics are reduced to dismissing the entire 19th century New England area as a bunch of superstitious primitives? For people who insist on sound physical evidence, I am stunned that some skeptics would attack a man–indeed, the entire 19th century New England civilization–based on such shaky evidence and fake quotes.
(All claims in this article are personal opinion and speculation. Quotes regarding CES Letter are derived the March 2015 version of CES Letter and may not reflect more recent versions.)