“He was perfectly rational”

 (by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

Simon Smith, a Latter-day Saint bishop in Utah , wrote an 1880 letter to President Joseph Smith III and Mark H. Forscutt, of what was then known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, responding to their inquiries.  He told them of his visit with Martin Harris shortly before the Witness’s death:

On the 5th day of July, 1875, hearing of his sickness, I visited him, <and> as I entered the room where he was in bed he held out his hand, shook hands with me saying, “I am going to leave you now, Bishop,” meaning he was going to die.  At the time he was very low; and apparently, it was hard work for him to talk, but he was perfectly rational.  I laid my hand on his head, and asked the Lord to give him strength.  As soon as I commenced to talk to him and ask him questions respecting the Book of Mormon and your Father [Joseph Smith Jr.], he revived and talked to me very freely and with much earnestness (for about two hours).

I will give you the answers he gave me to a few prominent questions respecting his knowledge of your Father, the plates, & etc.  1st I asked him if he could still testify of seeing the plates and the angel of God.  His answer was he could.  And he did truly testify to me that he both saw and handled the plates that the Book of Mormon was translated from and that an angel of God did lay them before him and the other two witnesses as recorded in the Book of Mormon, and said he, I tell you of these things that you might tell others that what I have said is true, and I dare not deny it for what he had seen and had handled he had heard the voice of God commanding him to testify to the same.

He said also he knew not the reason why the Lord had suffered him to live to such a great age unless it was to testify of these things.  (He was nearly 93 years old.) . . .  And in regard to a question I asked him of your father’s education at the time of those circumstances and he said Joseph Smith’s education was so limited that he could not draw up a note of Hand [a promissory note].

These were Martin Harris’ exact words to me.  I do not mention this part to throw any gloom upon your father’s mission but to the contrary.  I mention it to show it was out of his power with such a limited education to produce such a book as the Book of Mormon much less to translate such a book from [a] foreign language unless he did it by the gift and power of God.  (Cited by Susan Easton Black and Larry C. Porter, Martin Harris: Uncompromising Witness of the Book of Mormon [Provo: BYU Studies, 2018], 500-501.)

 

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/09/he-was-perfectly-rational.html

Did David Whitmer heft the golden plates?

 (by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

Ronald E. Romig, Eighth Witness: The Biography of John Whitmer (Independence, MO: John Whitmer Books, 2014), cites one of the earliest newspaper reports about the experience of the Book of Mormon witnesses.  It appeared — perhaps republished from elsewhere — in the Painesville (Ohio) Telegraph on 29 March 1831.  The editor of the Telegraph and the author of the article was Eber D. Howe, who would go on to publish the very first anti-Mormon book, Mormonism Unvailed, in 1834.  The account reads as follows:

[David] Whitmar [sic] . . . [has] been of late permitted, not only to see and handle it [the plates], but to examine the contents.  Whitmar relates that he was led by Smith into an open field, on his [Whitmer’s] father’s farm near Waterloo, when they found the book lying on the ground; Smith took it up and requested him to examine it, which he did for the space of half an hour or more, when he returned it to Smith, who placed it in its former position, alleging that the book was in the custody of another, intimating that some divine agent would have it in safe keeping.  This witness describes the book as being something like eight inches square, the leaves were plates of metal of a whitish yellow color, and of the thickness of tin plate — the back was secured with three small rings of the same metal, passing through each leaf in succession.  (cited at page 54, italics in original)

Although the description of the plates and their connecting rings is fairly accurate here, there is nothing miraculous in this account, no angel, no voice of God, and nobody else present.  Moreover, it puts the discovery of the plates near the Whitmer farm in Waterloo rather than near the Smith farm adjacent to Palmyra (and more than twenty-five miles from Waterloo).  It seems to be a very loose second- or third-account report, possibly based on garbled rumor.  (Painesville was roughly twelve miles from Kirtland.  The Latter-day Saints were just beginning to be noticed in the Kirtland area.  Joseph Smith himself would move from to Ohio from New York only during the next month.)  But the official statement of the Three Witnesses — with its explicit mention of the angel and the divine voice, and signed not only by David Whitmer but also by Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery — had already been in print for nearly a year.

Romig continues in his own voice:

Of course, Whitmer witnessed about his angelic encounter in numerous interviews.  Whether he physically handled the plates is a more interesting question.  In at least two interviews, David seems to suggest that he did.  J. W. Chatburn reported Whitmer saying, “These hands handled the plates, these eyes saw the angel, and these ears heard his voice.”  And James H. Moyle recalled David saying “that he did see and handle the plates; that he did see and hear the angel and heard the declaration that the plates had been translated correctly.”  (54)

On the whole, I’m inclined to think that the Three Witnesses — at least in the experience to which they testify in the printed Book of Mormon itself — did not handle the plates.  Certainly, in their formal statement, they don’t claim to have done so.  However, Martin Harris held the plates on his lap on at least one occasion, while they were in a box, before his experience with the angel.  (He commented on their remarkable weight.). So, perhaps too, did his wife, Lucy Harris.  And it’s not impossible that David Whitmer had experienced them in similar fashion.  However, the Eight Witnesses emphatically did claim a direct encounter with the physical plates, “hefting” them and turning their pages.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/09/did-david-whitmer-heft-the-golden-plates.html

Hiram Page and His Seer Stone

 (by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

I share here some notes from Ronald E. Romig, Eighth Witness: The Biography of John Whitmer (Independence, MO: John Whitmer Books, 2014), on a topic that is briefly addressed in the Interpreter Foundation’s forthcoming Witnesses theatrical film:

In August 1830 or shortly before, Hiram Page began to receive revelations through a seer stone.  The Whitmer family (into which Hiram Page had married) and Oliver Cowdery (who would marry Elizabeth Ann Whitmer approximately two years later) were inclined to accept them.  Unfortunately, no texts survive, though they evidently had something to do with the “upbuilding of Zion,” and perhaps particularly with its organization and its location.

Ezra Booth, who joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in May 1831 and had left it by October 1831 to become a vocal critic, described the episode as follows:

Hiram Page, one of the eight witnesses, and also one of the “money diggers,” found a smooth stone, upon which there appeared to be a writing, which when transcribed upon paper, disappeared from the stone, and another impression appeared in its place.  This when copied, vanished as the former had done, and so it continued, alternately appearing and disappearing; in the meanwhile, he continued to write, until he had written over considerable paper.  It bore most striking marks of a Mormonite revelation, and was received as an authentic document by most of the Mormonites. (79)

In 1856, Emer Harris — Martin Harris’s brother — gave some further details about the incident at a stake conference in Provo, Utah:

Br. Hiram Page dug out of the earth a black stone put it in his pocket when he got home he looked at it it contained a sentence on paper to exce[rpt] it it as soon has [sic] he rote one sentence another sentence came on the stone until he rote 16 pages.  (79)

Ron Romig offers an informed speculation and an interesting fact:

This contest of authority could have resulted in a schism before the church was three months old. . . .  According to the minutes of this September 26 conference, the church now numbered sixty-two.  (81, 82)

So the principle of prophetic leadership vested in the president of the Church had to be established, and it was established very early — in a revelation given in September 1830 and now known as Doctrine and Covenants 28:

1 Behold, I say unto thee, Oliver, that it shall be given unto thee that thou shalt be heard by the church in all things whatsoever thou shalt teach them by the Comforter, concerning the revelations and commandments which I have given.

2 But, behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses.

3 And thou shalt be obedient unto the things which I shall give unto him, even as Aaron, to declare faithfully the commandments and the revelations, with power and authority unto the church.

4 And if thou art led at any time by the Comforter to speak or teach, or at all times by the way of commandment unto the church, thou mayest do it.

5 But thou shalt not write by way of commandment, but by wisdom;

6 And thou shalt not command him who is at thy head, and at the head of the church;

7 For I have given him the keys of the mysteries, and the revelations which are sealed, until I shall appoint unto them another in his stead.

8 And now, behold, I say unto you that you shall go unto the Lamanites and preach my gospel unto them; and inasmuch as they receive thy teachings thou shalt cause my church to be established among them; and thou shalt have revelations, but write them not by way of commandment.

9 And now, behold, I say unto you that it is not revealed, and no man knoweth where the city Zion shall be built, but it shall be given hereafter. Behold, I say unto you that it shall be on the borders by the Lamanites.

10 Thou shalt not leave this place until after the conference; and my servant Joseph shall be appointed to preside over the conference by the voice of it, and what he saith to thee thou shalt tell.

11 And again, thou shalt take thy brother, Hiram Page, between him and thee alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me and that ^cSatan deceiveth him;

12 For, behold, these things have not been appointed unto him, neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church contrary to the church covenants.

13 For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.

Hiram Page, the Whitmers, and Oliver Cowdery came to accept this; Page’s “revelations” were destroyed and, according to Emer Harris, his seer stone was ground to dust.  It’s interesting, though, to read descriptions of how it functioned.  Presumably, Joseph’s seer stones worked, or were thought to work, in much the same fashion.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/09/hiram-page-and-his-seer-stone.html

 

Of seer stones and hearing angels sing

 (by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

I offer here three quotations from Ronald E. Romig, Eighth Witness: The Biography of John Whitmer (Independence, MO: John Whitmer Books, 2014), on two distinct topics.

The first two relate to seer stones, a topic that, while it’s certainly not a major theme of the theatrical movie, is alluded to at several points in the Interpreter Foundation’s Witnesses film project:

Influenced by Joseph Smith’s use of a seer stone, some of the Whitmers acquired similar stones.  Hiram Page and Jacob Whitmer are known to have possessed such stones.  Jacob’s remained in his family until the 1950s.  John may have also acquired a stone while serving as Joseph’s scribe.  The Whitmers were reportedly “so devoted to the importance of seer stones that David Whitmer, John Whitmer, and Hiram Page later dated the beginning of their own disenchantment with Mormonism at the time when Joseph Smith stopped using the seer stone as an instrument of revelation.”  Michael Quinn continues: “Their interest in seer stones continued long after their association with Smith.  David Whitmer’s family preserved their grandfather’s artifacts,” including an oblong stone with two holes, now in the possession of the Community of Christ in Independence, Missouri.  (58-59)

Orson Pratt, who subsequently associated with Smith’s movement, “once asked him [Smith] why he did not resort to the ancient instruments.  He was told that the translation of the Book of Mormon had made him ‘so well acquainted with the spirit of revelation and prophecy, that in the translation of the New Testament he did not need its aid.”  (73-74)

***

In 1847, Hiram Page, one of the Eight Witnesses, wrote a letter to William E. McLellin.  In it, he not only repeats his testimony of the Book of Mormon but alludes to a distinct angelophany:

As to the Book of Mormon, it would be doing injustice to myself and to the work of God of the last days, to say that I could know a thing to be true in 1830, and know the same thing to be false in 1847.  To say my mind was so treacherous that I have forgotten what I saw, to say that a man of Joseph’s ability, who at that time did not know how to pronounce the word Nephi, could write a book of six hundred pages, as correct as the Book of Mormon without supernatural power.  And to say that those holy Angels who came and showed themselves to me as I was walking through the field, to confirm me in the work of the Lord of the last days — three of whom came to me afterwards and sang an hymn in their own pure language; yes, it would be treating the God of heaven with contempt, to deny these testimonies.  (57)

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/09/of-seer-stones-and-hearing-angels-sing.html

B. H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon. Again???

 (by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

Sigh.

 

My late friend Bill Hamblin and I sometimes fantasized about starring someday in an autobiographical film entitled Bill and Dan’s Excellent Adventure in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell.  So many oft-repeated arguments against the claims of the Restoration were demolished generations back but just keep coming at us.  They’re rather like undead zombies who’ve been shot between the eyes but don’t falter even a step in their slow though brainless advance.

Roughly thirty-five years ago, perhaps a little more, a bit of a controversy ensued when some critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claimed that Elder B. H. Roberts (1857-1933) had lost his faith in the historicity of the Book of Mormon at least a decade before his death.  This is far and away not the silliest and most obviously bogus argument advanced against the Restored Gospel.  If true, indeed, it would be something of a big deal, since Elder Roberts was both one of the premier writers and intellectuals in the history of the Church and, from 1888 until his death, one of the seven presidents of the Seventy, its third highest leadership quorum.

I thought that we were completely done with that issue decades back.  The claims about Elder Roberts weren’t true.

But the matter has apparently burbled up again in at least certain circles, as if it were completely fresh and new.  As Ecclesiastes 1:9 so aptly puts it, “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.”

Now, though, the charge is not only that Elder Roberts lost his faith but that, since other General Authorities were familiar with his reasons for rejecting the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon, Church leaders have known full well for at least a century that its truth claim are bogus.  They have, in other words, been lying.

Let me respond, first, to that last assertion:  It has been my privilege, for quite a few years now, to have occasional personal dealings with many members of the Church’s presiding quorums.  Some I’ve known very well, for a long time.  If I have even the slightest capacity for reading people, these men are sincere.  They are genuinely committed believers.  The claim that they all “know” the Church and its claims to be false strikes me as flatly ridiculous.

As for the specific claim that B. H. Roberts came to reject the historicity of the Book of Mormon, here are two recent statements on that topic:

“B. H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon: Exhumation and Reburial”

 

“B. H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon: An Addendum”

 

And, for that matter, here are two easily accessible earlier responses to the general issue:

 

McKay V. Jones, “Evasive Ignorance: Anti-Mormon Claims that B.H. Roberts Lost His Testimony”

 

“B.H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon”

 

There has been considerably more published on this question.  Perhaps we’ll need to trot it out yet again.  And, if we feel so inclined, we may have still more to say.  We’ll see.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/09/b-h-roberts-and-the-book-of-mormon-again.html

Were the Whitmers marginal social outcasts and weirdos?

 (by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

One of the questions that must inescapably be answered with regard to the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon involves their character, their personalities, their sanity — which inevitably comes down, at this distance in time, to the question of their public reputations.  Now, of course, their public reputations suffered considerably from their association with Joseph Smith and the Restoration.  So indicators of what people thought about them prior to their involvement with Joseph and the recovery of the Book of Mormon are of particular interest.  Were they considered odd, eccentric, crazy?  Did their neighbors regard them as dishonest or unstable?  Were they marginal persons, on the fringes of acceptable society or even altogether beyond its bounds?

The late, great Richard Lloyd Anderson gathered a surprising amount of useful material on precisely such matters.  Here are a couple of  small, brief items from Professor Anderson’s research that are highlighted in Ronald E. Romig, Eighth Witness: The Biography of John Whitmer (Independence, MO: John Whitmer Books, 2014).  They are both about members of the Whitmer family.  Christian Whitmer was one of the Eight Witnesses to the Book of Mormon.  David Whitmer was one of the Three Witnesses:

As a young man, Christian, being recognized as a natural leader, was commissioned as an officer in the 102nd New York Militia in 1825, and served as Fayette Township constable in 1828-29 when he would have been thirty or thirty-one.  (14)

Like Christian, David also served in the military, becoming a sergeant in 1826 in Fayette’s newly organized militia, the “Seneca Grenadiers.”  (15)

And here, while I have Ron Romig’s book open, is a little sketch of the Whitmers at the period most relevant to the translation of the Book of Mormon:

In the spring of 1829, at the time of Joseph and Oliver’s arrival, the Whitmer family formed a close grouping.  In the home were parents Peter Sr. and his wife, Mary; their eighteen-year-old unmarried hired girl, Sarah Conrad; and four of the Whitmer children; twenty-six-year-old John; twenty-four-year-old David; nineteen-year-old Peter Jr.; and fourteen-year-old Elizabeth.  Jacob and Elizabeth were living just a few steps away in the old Whitmer cabin.  Christian and Anne may have been living with Frederick and Anna Schott one farm to the north.  Hiram [Page] and Catharine, also, probably lived in the immediate neighborhood.  (16-17)

David Whitmer would be one of the Three Witnesses.

 

John Whitmer, Peter Whitmer Jr., Jacob Whitmer, Christian Whitmer, and Hiram Page would see the plates in the experience of the Eight Witnesses.

 

Elizabeth Whitmer would eventually marry Oliver Cowdery, one of the Three Witnesses.

 

And Mary Whitmer, wife of Peter Whitmer Sr. and mother to David, John, Peter Jr., Jacob, Christian, and Elizabeth would be one of what I call the “informal” or “unofficial” witnesses, and perhaps the earliest of all the witnesses to the golden plates as such.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/09/were-the-whitmers-marginal-social-outcasts-and-weirdos.html

“The Expanse of Joseph Smith’s Translation Vision”

 (by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/09/the-expanse-of-joseph-smiths-translation-vision.html

Reconsidering the emotions of God, with the help of Moses 7

 (by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

Don’t forget the Tracing Ancient Threads in the Book of Moses Conference, which begins on Friday evening, 18 September 2020, and continues on Saturday, 19 September 2020.  You can watch it at no charge.

In honor of the conference, I share again a column that I first published in the Deseret News on 30 January 2014:

The scripture John 11:35 (“Jesus wept”) is well known as the shortest verse in the King James Bible. It’s less known, however, as one of the Bible’s most significant passages. But it is precisely that.

Why? Because it demonstrates the Savior’s personal care for humanity and shows him, though divine, to be emotionally involved with us.

But, in that regard, Moses 7:28-29 in the Pearl of Great Price is even more remarkable:

“And it came to pass that the God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and he wept; and Enoch bore record of it, saying: How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as the rain upon the mountains? And Enoch said unto the Lord: How is it that thou canst weep, seeing thou art holy, and from all eternity to all eternity?”

How is it possible for God to weep? For centuries, classical Jewish, Christian and Islamic theologians have agreed that it isn’t. Such behavior would be unworthy of him. God’s emotions seem, it’s true, to be on display throughout the scriptures, but the passages describing them have typically been dismissed as metaphorical, as symbolic of something else.

Recent biblical scholarship, however, is reconsidering the emotions of God. The sections of the book of Jeremiah that precede the Babylonian captivity, to choose from among many possible examples, are absolutely replete with images and divine statements that depict God as deeply caring, worried even, about the punishment that he himself has to impose upon his people.

In Jeremiah 12:7-8, for instance, the Lord is represented as saying, “I have given the dearly beloved of my soul into the hands of her enemies.”

These words remind us of the internal conflict within the soul of a father who loves his children, but who must still punish them and to not intervene when consequences occur. The God speaking here is no distant, uninvolved, unemotional monarch. He loves Israel.

But even while biblical scholars increasingly recognize God’s “passions” as genuinely scriptural, doing so is deeply problematic in the view of many traditional systematic theologians.

For how is it possible to have emotions without a body? Emotions are inseparably connected with such things as tears, rapid heartbeat, “feelings.” Pure mind, if such a thing exists, would seem incapable of anything remotely recognizable as emotion. If, these theologians argue, God has emotions, it must follow that he has some sort of body. But he cannot have a body. Thus, he can have no emotions. Which means not only that he can’t be angry with us but that he can’t love us in any human-like sense of the word, or care for us, or feel our pain, or mourn our poor choices.

Like Enoch, theological commentators have been astonished at the sheer notion that God might weep. Unlike Enoch, though, who was an eyewitness, they flatly reject it. Classical theology has historically tended to depict God as a distant, dispassionate and literally apathetic being unmoved by emotion. The unmoved mover doesn’t weep. He (or, perhaps better, it) moves, but is not moved. Nothing can have any impact on him.

If emotional displays such as tears require a body, classical theism’s solution is to deny all the emotions mentioned for God in the Bible, just as it denies or reinterprets the many passages that seem to describe him as having bodily form. (The embodied Jesus of John 11:35 can be permitted emotions precisely because he assumed flesh and human nature; it’s far less acceptable to grant such “feelings” to his Heavenly Father or to God before the Incarnation.)

The question is whether Christians will in the final analysis opt for their traditional theology, or for the Bible. The two are difficult if not impossible to reconcile.

The Pearl of Great Price’s account of Enoch offers a spectacular instance of a suffering and weeping God, far clearer, even, than anything in the Bible. Fortunately, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are entirely comfortable with an embodied deity.

For those who accept the scriptures of the Restoration, Heavenly Father is not only a being with emotions, but a God who, because he is perfect and perfectly embodied, feels more deeply than we can even begin to imagine. “God is love,” says 1 John 4:8. He not only has and enjoys an emotional life, but the most perfect emotional life possible. His love is richer, deeper, than any love we can imagine. Therefore, he feels both pain and sorrow for his children, and boundless love and joy for them.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/09/reconsidering-the-emotions-of-god-with-the-help-of-moses-7.html

At the very end

 (by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

I return yet again to Susan Easton Black and Larry C. Porter, Martin Harris: Uncompromising Witness of the Book of Mormon (Provo: BYU Studies, 2018).

This extract comes from a letter written by Martin Harris Jr. to President George A. Smith, dated 9 July 1875:

He has continued to talk about and testify to the truth of the Book of Mormon, and was in his happiest mood when he could get somebody to listen to his testimony. . . .  We begin to think that he has borne his last testimony.  The last audible words he has spoken were something about the three witnesses of the book of Mormon but we could not understand what it was.  (509)

William Homer gave this description of Martin Harris’s final moments.  Martin died at 7:45 PM on 10 July 1875, in Clarkston, Utah:

I stood by the bedside holding the patient’s right hand and my mother at the foot of the bed.  Martin Harris had been unconscious for a number of days.  When we first entered the room the old gentleman appeared to be sleeping.  He soon woke up and asked for a drink of water.  I put my arm under the old gentleman, raised him, and my mother held the glass to his lips.  He drank freely, then he looked up at me and recognized me.  He said, “I know you.  You are my friend.”  He said, “Yes, I did see the plates on which the Book of Mormon was written; I did see the angel; I did hear the voice of God; and I do know that Joseph Smith is a Prophet of God, holding the keys of the Holy Priesthood.”  This was the end.  Martin Harris, divinely-chosen witness of the work of God, relaxed, gave up my hand.  He lay back on his pillow [“he gasped two or three times for his breath”] and just as the sun went down behind the Clarkston mountains, the soul of Martin Harris passed on.  When Martin Harris, Jr., and his wife returned to the house they found that their father had passed away, but in passing, Martin Harris, favored of God, repeated an inrefutable [sic] testimony of the divine inspiration and the prophetic genius of the great Prophet, Joseph Smith.  (510-511)

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/09/at-the-very-end.html

Orson Pratt, reacting to the death of Martin Harris

 (by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

Here is a passage from a speech given by Elder Orson Pratt of the Council of the Twelve.  It was delivered in the “new tabernacle” in Salt Lake City on the afternoon of Sunday, 18 July 1875, just a few days after the death of Martin Harris in Clarkston, Utah, to the north, on 10 July 1875.  Elder Pratt had known the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, including Martin Harris, for decades:

Now let me say a few words concerning the nature of this testimony. This testimony was given prior to the publication of the book, and also previous to the organization of the Latter-day Saint Church. The book was printed early in 1830, with their testimony. Thus you perceive that this work, this marvelous work, was not presented to the inhabitants of the earth for their belief, until God had favored them with four persons who could bear witness to what their eyes had seen, what their ears had heard, and what their hands had handled, consequently there was no possibility, so far as these four men were concerned, that they themselves could be deceived. It would be impossible for four men to be together, and all of them to be deceived in seeing an angel descend from heaven, and in regard to the brightness of his countenance and the glory of his person, hearing his voice, and seeing him lay his hands upon one of them, namely David Whitmer, and speaking these words—”Blessed be the Lord and they who keep his commandments.” After seeing the plates, the engravings upon them, and the angel, and hearing the voice of the Lord out of heaven, every person will say that there was no possibility of either of these men being deceived in relation to this matter; in other words, if it were to be maintained that in their case it was a hallucination of the brain, and that they were deceived, then, with the same propriety might it be asserted that all other men, in every age, who profess to have seen angels, were also deceived; and this might be applied to the Prophets, Patriarchs, Apostles, and others who lived in ancient times, who declared they saw angels, as well as to Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer. But says the objector—”No, those who testify that they saw angels anciently were not deceived, but they who come testifying about such ministrations in the latter days may be deceived.” Now let me ask, is there anything logical in such reasoning as this? If these, in the latter days, who testify to having seen angels, were deceived, all who testify to the same things in former days might have been deceived on the same grounds. And then, if these men, whose testimonies are attached to the Book of Mormon, were not deceived, it must be admitted that they were impostors of the most barefaced character, or else that the Book of Mormon is a divine record sent from heaven; one or the other must be admitted, there is no halfway in the matter. If they were not deceived—which they could not possibly have been according to the very nature of their testimony—then there are only two alternatives—they were impostors, or else the Book of Mormon is a divine revelation from heaven.

Now let us inquire what grounds there are to suppose that they were impostors? Forty-six years have passed away since this angel appeared and showed the plates to these individuals. Has anything transpired during this time that would give us any grounds to suppose that they were impostors? For instance, has either of these witnesses, or the translator of the engravings on the plates, ever, under any circumstances, denied his testimony? No. We have some accounts in the Bible of men of God, some of the greatest men that lived in ancient times, denying the things of God. We read of Peter cursing, and swearing that he never knew Jesus, and yet he was one of the foremost of the Apostles. His testimony was true so far as seeing and being acquainted with Jesus was concerned, and in regard to the divinity of Jesus. Why? Because God had revealed it to him and yet he denied it. “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonah,” said Jesus, speaking to Peter, “for flesh and blood have not revealed this unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven.” Peter knew, just as well as he knew that he had a being, that Jesus was the son of God, it had been revealed to him from the heavens and though he afterwards, through fear, in the presence of the high priest, cursed and swore and denied it, yet the former testimony that he had given was true.

Now did either of these three men or did the translator of the Book of Mormon, ever deny the truth, as Peter did? Did they ever in any way deny the divinity of the Book of Mormon? Never, no never. Whatever the circumstances they were placed in, however much they were mobbed and ridiculed, however much they suffered by the persecution of their enemies, their testimony all the time was—”We saw the angel of God, we beheld him in his glory, we saw the plates in his hands, and the engravings thereon, and we know that the Book of Mormon is true.” Joseph Smith continued to bear this testimony until the day of his death; be sealed his testimony as a martyr in this Church, being shot down by his enemies, who were blackened up and disguised, in order that they might not be known. Oliver Cowdery did not live his faith as he should have done, and he was excommunicated from this Church during Joseph’s lifetime. Did he still continue to hold fast to his testimony? He did. Never was he known to swerve from it in the least degree; and after being out of the Church several years, he returned to Council Bluffs, where there was a Branch of the Church, and at a conference he acknowledged his sins, and humbly asked the Church to forgive him, bearing his testimony to the sacred things recorded in the Book of Mormon—that he saw the angel and the plates, just according to the testimony to which he had appended his name. He was rebaptized a member of the Church, and soon after departed this life.

Martin Harris did not follow up this people in the State of Missouri, neither did he follow us up to the State of Illinois; but we often heard of him, and whenever we did so we heard of him telling, in public and in private of the great vision that God had shown to him concerning the divinity of the Book of Mormon. A few years ago he came to this Territory, an old man, between eighty and ninety years of age, and spoke from this stand, in the hearing of the people. He then located himself in Cache County, in the northern part of the Territory, where he continued to live until last Saturday, when he departed this life in his ninety-third year—a good old age. Did he continue to bear testimony all that length of time—over forty-six years of his life? Did he, at any time during that long period, waver in the least degree from his testimony? Not at all. He had a great many follies and imperfections, like all other people, like the ancient Apostles, like Elijah the Prophet, but after all, he continued to testify to the very last concerning the truth of this work. Nothing seemed to delight him so much as to tell about the angel and the plates that he had seen. It was only a short time prior to his death that one of our Bishops went in to see the old man; his pulse was apparently sluggish in its movements, and nearly gone, but the sight of the Bishop seemed to revive him, and he said to him—”I am going.” The Bishop related to him some things which he thought would be interesting, among them that the Book of Mormon was translated into the Spanish language, for the benefit of a great many of the descendants of Israel in this country, who understand the Spanish language, in Mexico and Central America. This intelligence seemed to revive the old man, and he began to talk about the Book of Mormon; new strength, apparently, was imparted to him, and he continued his conversation for some two hours, and in his last testimony he bore record concerning the divinity of the work, and was rejoiced to think that it was going forth in another language, that those who understood that language might be made acquainted with the wonderful works of God.  (Journal of Discourses 18:158-160)

 

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/09/orson-pratt-reacting-to-the-death-of-martin-harris.html

“The Waters of Mormon, Baptism, the Love of God, and the Bitter Fountain”

 (by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/09/the-waters-of-mormon-baptism-the-love-of-god-and-the-bitter-fountain.html

Late 1870, near Logan, Utah

 (by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

Here are some reminiscences from William Pilkington, as given in Susan Easton Black and Larry C. Porter, Martin Harris: Uncompromising Witness of the Book of Mormon (Provo: BYU Studies, 2018).  Young William boarded with and worked for Martin Harris Jr. for a year, near Logan, Utah, and, while there, met a very old man who was also living in the house.  Here is a memory of their first serious conversation:

Willie did you ever go to Sunday School?  I promptly told him yes Sir!  What class were you in?  I was in the Book of Mormon class.  his eyes sparkled and his whole body seemed to reviberate.  he seemed like a changed being.  he was very excited, trembling.  as I gazed in his eyes, he said Did you ever read the Book of Mormon?  Yes Sir!  Well if you have read the Book of Mormon, What is the first reading in the Preface of the Book that you find?  After a little thinking.  I said, the first reading in the Book of Mormon is the Testimony of Three Men testifying to the whole World that they saw an Angel come down from Heaven.  that they saw the Gold Plates. from which the Book of Mormon was translated. and the angel told them that the Translation was correct and we bare record that Joseph Smith is a true Prophet of God.  and that there [sic] names will forever go befor the World testifying that the Book of Mormon is True. he then said I know now Willie that you have read that glorious Book.  Willie: I am going to ask you one more question?  What was those three men’s names?  I told him they were Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and Martin Harris.

The elderly gentleman had not yet identified himself.

This little old man, then 92 years of age of whome In my mind I had likened to Rip Van Winckle, whose whole being at this time was wonderful to behold.  all lit up with the Spirit of God whoes Eyes, now were sparkling who’s whole being was transformed.  stood up before me on that memorable occasion and putting his walking cane in his left hand straightened up and striking his Breast with his right hand.  Exclaimed “I Am Martiin Harris.”  Can anyone imagane my feelings standing there before one of the Three Witnesses to the Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, a man who had the privilidge of standing before Angels.  a man who[se] Eyes beheld the Golden Plates a man who’es Ears heard the voice of God from Heaven declare that the Book was Translated correct.  and commanded him to Testifie to all the World. that it was correct I say again; can you imagan, me a mear Boy, not yet 14 years of age until the next month November [his birthday was November 13, 1860] as this was October of the year 1874.  (479-481)

I talked to him hundreds of times, and he would always tell me that he wanted me to tell the people what he had told me. . . .  In his talks with me he would say: ‘Now, Willie, I am not going to live very long and after I am dead I want you to tell the people what I have told you, for it is all true.’  (481)

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/09/late-1870-near-logan-utah.html

Martin Harris, testifying in 1870

 (by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

Here are some further reports about Martin Harris just before and following his arrival in Utah in 1870, from Susan Easton Black and Larry C. Porter, Martin Harris: Uncompromising Witness of the Book of Mormon (Provo: BYU Studies, 2018):

Edward Stevenson first heard Martin Harris bear testimony that an angel had shown him the golden plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated near the town of Pontiac, in Oakland County, Michigan Territory, in 1833.

Now, thirty-six years later, Stevenson met with Martin once again on February 11, 1870.  He saw him coming out of the Kirtland Temple and observed, “He took from under his arm a copy of the Book of Mormon, the first edition, I believe, and bore a faithful testimony.”  He heard Martin say, “it was his duty to continue to lift up his voice as he had been commanded to do in defence of the Book that he held in his hand, and offered to prove from the Bible that just such a book was to come forth out of the ground.”  Martin confessed to Stevenson that “he was daily bearing testimony to many who visited the Temple.”  (417)

Eventually, Edward Stevenson brought the aging witness westward to Utah Territory.  En route by train, they reached Des Moines, Iowa, on Monday, 22 August, 1870.  There, the president of the local LDS branch invited him to speak to a “special meeting” of the congregation.  “Martin responded by bearing ‘testimony as to viewing the plates, the angel’s visit, and visiting professor Anthony [Charles Anthon.”  (425)

On 4 September 1870, arrived in Salt Lake City, Martin Harris gave a public address during which, according to a contemporary account written down by Edward Stevenson, he related that “Martins Wife had hefted them & felt them [the gold plates] under cover as had Martin.”  (433)

Wanting many to hear his confirming testimony, Edward Stevenson took Martin to meetinghouses throughout the Salt Lake Valley.  In each place, Martin testified of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.  (440)

During the morning session of the semiannual general conference of the Church in the Salt Lake Tabernacle on Sunday, 9 October 1870, according to a record of the conference,

“Mr. Martin Harris, one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, arose and bore testimony to its divine authenticity.”  Joseph Hunter was in the congregation and was impressed to record Martin’s declaration:  “Martin Harris bore his testimony to the truth of the book of Mormon and also that an angle [angel] of the Lord laid the plates before them.”  Mary Ann Weston Maughan, wife of Peter Maughan of Cache Valley, wrote in her journal: “Martin Harris bore a faithful testimony to the truth of the Book of Mormon.  I was there and heard him speak.”  (442)

President Brigham Young concluded the session with a rehearsal of the “manner in which the witnesses of the book of Mormon left the church.  He related circumstances showing that none of those witnesses had ever denied their testimony.”

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/09/martin-harris-testifying-in-1870.html

“Faith, Hope, and Charity: The ‘Three Principal Rounds’ of the Ladder of Heavenly Ascent”

 (by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/09/faith-hope-and-charity-the-three-principal-rounds-of-the-ladder-of-heavenly-ascent.html

A friend’s statement of faith

 (by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

I’ve been thinking about this statement from my friend Don Bradley, who gave me permission to use it here some time ago:

I want to share part of my faith here with those who aren’t familiar with it, and to testify of it to them, to my co-religionists, and to my children.

The prophet-founder of my faith declared one of its foundational principles to be gathering up truth, wherever it may be found:

“It is one of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.”

He taught that we must embrace the truths of all religions and “get all the good in the world” in order to “come out a pure Mormon.”

He also taught that “Friendship is one of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism,” and that Mormonism was designed to “revolutionize and civilize the world” by making us all friends and brothers and sisters.

“We,” he said speaking of various religions, “do not differ so far in our religious views but that we could all drink into one principle of love”: religions are animated by the same principle of love as the parts of the body all (as Paul said) “drink into one spirit” and are animated by the same spirit. Animated by the same spirit of love, all religions are thus part of the same body.

Joseph taught that people of different faiths “should cultivate the friendship of each other.” And he lived this principle. He advocated for the rights of all religions. And when a minister of another faith came to Nauvoo, Joseph would lend him his pulpit and let him preach. He sought to “weld” together people of all religions in bonds of love and friendship. 

These are foundations of my religion. My religion not only _allows_ me to gather truth from other religions and to build bonds of friendship and brotherhood and sisterhood with their adherents and worship with them; it REQUIRES me to do so.

If you ever find me reading devotionally in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Bhagavad-Gita, Tao Te Ching, or Hidden Words of Baha’u’llah; studying what sciences like positive psychology reveal to us about living a good life; practicing loving-kindness meditation developed by Buddhists; or worshipping with Christians of all denominations, and with Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs..; that may look like religious and philosophical eclecticism. It will actually be me endeavoring to live _my_ religion.

Far from contaminating Mormonism, such a universal search for truth, goodness, and unity is the only way, in our founding prophet’s definition, to “come out a *pure* Mormon.”

When I have most fully remembered and enacted the expansive vision Joseph Smith gave us for Mormonism, my faith has been the strongest, my life the happiest and most exciting, my heart the most open, and my searches for truth of all kinds–moral, spiritual, scientific, practical–the most fruitful and the most harmonious.

Of that I am God’s witness.

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/141-32-41.pdf

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/09/a-friends-statement-of-faith.html

Shared Revelations

 (by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

On the general subject of witnesses, here are some quotations about the 1978 revelation on priesthood from Adventures of a Church Historian, the memoirs of the late Dr. Leonard J. Arrington:

“Those in attendance said that as he began his earnest prayer, they suddenly realized that it was not Kimball’s prayer, but the Lord speaking through him. A revelation was being declared. Kimball himself realized that the words were not his but the Lord’s. During that prayer some of the Twelve—at least two who have said so publicly—were transported into a celestial atmosphere, saw a divine presence and the figures of former presidents of the church . . . smiling to indicate their approval and sanction. Others acknowleged the voice of the Lord coming, as with the prophet Elijah, ‘through the still, small voice.’ The voice of the Spirit followed their earnest search for wisdom and understanding.

“At the end of the heavenly manifestation, Kimball, weeping for joy, confronted the [other members of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve], many of them also sobbing, and asked if they sustained this heavenly instruction. Embracing, all nodded vigorously and jubilantly their sanction. There had been a startling and commanding revelation from God—an ineffable experience.

“Two of the apostles present described the experience as a ‘day of Pentecost’ similar to the one in the Kirtland Temple on April 6, 1836, the day of its dedication. They saw a heavenly personage and heard heavenly music. To the temple-clothed members, the gathering, incredible and without compare, was the greatest singular event of their lives. Those I talked with wept as they spoke of it. All were certain they had witnessed a revelation from God.”[1]

 

“It is a common regret among Latter-day Saints that general authorities do not speak openly about their remarkable spiritual experiences in the way Joseph Smith and other early prophets used to do. Although they unquestionably do have such experiences, they have said little about this one.”[2]

Arrington terms this revelation “indisputable evidence of God’s presence and direction in these latter days—divine reaffirmation of the faith and values of our church.”[3]

 

[1] Leonard J. Arrington, Adventures of a Church Historian (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois, 1998), 177. On the preceding page, Professor Arrington remarks that “As a historian I sought to learn the particulars and record them in my private diary. The following account is based on dozens of interviews with persons who talked with church officials after the revelation was announced. Although members of the Twelve and the First Presidency with whom I sought interviews felt they should not elaborate on what happened, I learned details from family members and friends to whom they had made comments.” He acknowledges that “Some of these statements may have involved colorful, symbolic language that was taken literally.” Arrington’s entire chapter on the subject, “The Long-Promised Day,” pp. 175-185, is of interest.

[2] Arrington, Adventures of a Church Historian, 176 (emphasis in the original).

[3] Arrington, Adventures of a Church Historian, 176.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/09/shared-revelations.html

Must one know the precise GPS coordinates of the final Jaredite and Lehite battles in order to be a good Latter-day Saint?

 (by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

I have no real interest in Mr. Jonathan Neville.  I have no real interest in his ideas.  I’m generally familiar with his views, but I don’t read his blog.  I don’t read his books.  I pay essentially no attention to him.  Although, increasingly, I regard his attitudes as dangerous to the unity of the Saints — even potentially schismatic — and although I’m unpersuaded by the arguments of the “Heartland” movement itself and am, in fact, somewhat troubled by certain of its features, I would very likely ignore him altogether if he would stop attacking me and if he would stop attacking friends and colleagues of mine.  Life is short, and I would leave it to others to respond to him — as I pretty much do already.  In any event, the geography of the Book of Mormon is not a principal interest of mine.  I’m a satisfied “Mesoamericanist,” but I’m not dogmatic about it.

However, his attacks continue and, accordingly, I sometimes feel the need to respond to him.  Happily, other people have been doing the heavy lifting.  (Actually, it’s not very heavy.  Mr. Neville offers himself as a very easy target.)

Here is a recent comment from Robert Boylan, the indefatigable Ireland-based proprietor of the superb blog Scriptural Mormonism:

“Jonathan Neville’s Hatred of Proponents of a Mesoamerican Geography is Greater than his love for the gospel”

And here is an entry on the sadly necessary Neville-Neville Land blog:

“Jonathan Neville attacks defenders and defends attackers of the restored gospel”

On 29 August 2020, I posted a rather provocatively-titled blog entry called “An exceptionally stupid argument against the Restoration.”  As any reader will readily see, I said nothing in it with even the remotest connection to Book of Mormon geography, the location of the Nephite Hill Cunorah, or Mr. Jonathan Neville.

Nevertheless, in ostensible response to that blog entry, someone calling himself “TwoCumorahRLDSFraud” posted the following comment:

Well said, Dr Peterson, who doesn’t believe Oliver Cowdery who in his Letter VII stated in response to the anti-Mormon book “Mormonism Unvailed” [sic] that the Hill Cumorah with it’s final Jaredite and Nephite battles is in New York.

Dan Peterson would rather promote the 1920s RLDS Two-Cumorah Geography Fraud for The Book of Mormon than defend Oliver Cowdery. That’s Dan Peterson claims he’s an “LDS Apologist.”

When do you plan on stop being an idiot, Dr. Peterson?
Before of after the Resurrection when your brain will be restored to you?

 

“TwoCumorahRLDSFraud” had previously posted a fair number of other personally insulting comments on my blog under other pseudonyms, and, although I’m a patient and long-suffering host, had previously been banned for doing so.  I strongly suspect, though I cannot prove it, that “TwoCumorahRLDSFraud” is none other than Mr. Jonathan Neville himself.  Certainly, “TwoCumorahRLDSFraud” adheres to Mr. Neville’s views, shares his particular themes, and manifests Mr. Neville’s disdainful opinion of those who fail to share his geographical notions.  In any event, “TwoCumorahRLDSFraud”‘s comment appears to offer us a clear look at how Mr. Jonathan Neville’s opinion of those who don’t accept his theory of Book of Mormon geography is expressed when anonymity allows it to be unencumbered by any pretense of civility, fellowship, and charity.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/09/must-one-know-the-precise-gps-coordinates-of-the-final-jaredite-and-lehite-battles-in-order-to-be-a-good-latter-day-saint.html

“Visions in a Seer Stone”?

 (by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

Two new book reviews have just appeared in Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, one by Brian Hales and the other by Brant Gardner:

“Theories and Assumptions: A Review of William L. Davis’s Visions in a Seer Stone”

A review of William L. Davis, Visions in a Seer Stone: Joseph Smith and the Making of the Book of Mormon. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2020, 264 pp. paperback $29.95, hardcover $90, e-book $22.99, ISBN: 1469655675, 9781469655673.

Abstract: Within the genre of Book of Mormon studies, William L. Davis’s Visions in a Seer Stone presents readers with an innovative message that reports how Joseph Smith was able to produce the words of the Book of Mormon without supernatural assistance. Using oral performance skills that Smith ostensibly gained prior to 1829, his three-month “prodigious flow of verbal art and narrative creation” (7) became the Book of Mormon. Davis’s theory describes a two-part literary pattern in the Book of Mormon where summary outlines (called “heads) in the text are consistently expanded in subsequent sections of the narrative. Termed “laying down heads,” Davis insists that such literary devices are anachronistic to Book of Mormon era and constitute strong evidence that Joseph Smith contributed heavily, if not solely, to the publication. The primary weaknesses of the theory involve the type and quantity of assumptions routinely accepted throughout the book. The assumptions include beliefs that the historical record does not support or even contradicts (e.g. Smith’s 1829 superior intelligence, advanced composition abilities, and exceptional memorization proficiency) and those that describe Smith using oral performance skills beyond those previously demonstrated as humanly possible (e.g. the ability to dictate thousands of first-draft phrases that are also refined final-draft sentences). Visions in a Seer Stone will be most useful to individuals who, like the author, are willing to accept these assumptions. To more skeptical readers, the theory [Page 152]presented regarding the origin of the Book of Mormon will be classified as incomplete or inadequate.

“Oral Creation and the Dictation of the Book of Mormon”

Review of William L. Davis, Visions in a Seer Stone: Joseph Smith and the Making of the Book of Mormon (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2020). 250 pages with index. $90.00 (hardback), $29.95 (paperback).

Abstract: Visions in a Seer Stone: Joseph Smith and the Making of the Book of Mormon introduces a new perspective in the examination of the construction of the Book of Mormon. With an important introduction to the elements of early American extemporaneous speaking, Davis applies some of those concepts to the Book of Mormon and suggests that there are elements of the organizational principles of extemporaneous preaching that can be seen in the Book of Mormon. This, therefore, suggests that the Book of Mormon was the result of extensive background work that was presented to the scribe as an extended oral performance.

 

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/09/visions-in-a-seer-stone.html

An “Update” from Professor Muhlestein regarding work on the Book of Abraham

 (by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/09/an-update-from-professor-muhlestein-regarding-work-on-the-book-of-abraham.html

The aged Martin Harris in Utah

 (by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

Reports about Martin Harris upon his arrival in Utah in 1870, from Susan Easton Black and Larry C. Porter, Martin Harris: Uncompromising Witness of the Book of Mormon (Provo: BYU Studies, 2018):

From Irinda McEwan, his grandniece, at whose home in Salt Lake City he stayed for a while:

Anyone who heard Martin Harris describe the scenes and bear his testimony to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon could not help but be deeply impressed with his sincerity and his absolute conviction of the truth of what he was saying.  (cited on 435)

William Waddoups, who conversed with Harris while the witness was there in the city, reports what he said:

“Young man, I had the privilege of being with the Prophet Joseph Smith, and with these eyes of mine,” pointing to his eyes, “I saw the angel of the Lord, and saw the plates and the Urim and Thummim and the sword of Laban, and with these ears,” pointing to his ears, “I heard the voice of the angel, and with these hands,” holding out his hands, “I handled the plates containing the record of the Book of Mormon, and I assisted the Prophet in the translation thereof.  I bear witness that this testimony is true.”  (cited on 436)

Joseph F. Smith, in a record of Martin Harris’s 17 September 1870 re-baptism that is dated 28 September 1870:

He still firmly declares that his Testimony in the Book of Mormon is true.  And has ever been unwavering in his faith in that book and his testimony thereto.  (cited on 437-438)

[Edward] Stevenson invited a number of friends, including James T. Woods and G. D. Keaton, to his residence for an evening in which Martin related certain of his experiences.  Woods asked the witness to explain the manner in which the angel Moroni exhibited the plates to him.  He confidently responded, “The angel stood on the opposite side of the table on which were the plates, the interpreters, &c., and took the plates in his hands and turned them over.”  To illustrate the angel’s position, “Martin took up a book and turned the leaves over one by one.”  He testified, “The angel declared that the Book of Mormon was correctly translated by the power of God and not of man, and that it contained the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the Nephites.”  He further attested that “the witnesses were required to bear their testimony of these things, and of his open vision to all the people, and he (Harris) testified, not only to those present but to all the world, that these things were true, and before God whom he expected to meet in the day of Judgment he lied not.”  (440)

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/09/the-aged-martin-harris-in-utah.html

Attacking Other Faiths

 (by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

The 2020-2021 BYU academic year has begun.  My own classes will begin tomorrow (Tuesday).  They are:

 

• Introduction to the Religion of Islam
• Classical Arabic Texts
• Introduction to the Humanities of Islam

In all of them — and, for obvious reasons, especially in the first — considerable attention will be paid to the faith of the world’s approximately 1.8 billion Muslims.  And, barring some unforeseen brain event, that attention will be positive and sympathetic.  It has always been positive and sympathetic, in these classes and in others (e.g., in courses on Islamic philosophy and introductions to Middle Eastern studies and in courses that I’ve team-taught on medieval philosophy and on “Judaism and Islam”), as well as in my various publications on the subject, including my April 2018 article for the Ensign.

I’ve occasionally been asked, when I’m at academic conferences, what it’s like to teach at a religiously-affiliated university where I’m expected to expose the errors of other faiths.  I’ve invariably responded that I wouldn’t have any idea what it would be like, since the university at which I teach has no such expectations.  Indeed, quite the contrary.  Fifteen or twenty years ago, we had a fellow who taught briefly at BYU — not an American, for whatever that may be worth — who thought it his duty to do precisely that in a world religions course.  He was soon called in by university authorities and told to stop it.

It’s a matter of calm satisfaction to me that BYU offers no courses of the type that I’ve often seen in the catalogues of certain Evangelical Protestant colleges and seminaries (e.g., “Cults and False Religions,” “World Religions and Christian Counterfeits” and other such titles).  While briefly visiting the tiny Catholic Chapel of St. Catherine of Siena in the Colorado Rockies a few weeks back, I noticed an anti-Mormon pamphlet, an anti-Mormon book, and an anti-Mormon CD on sale in their gift shop.  You won’t find Latter-day Saint equivalents at Deseret Book of Seagull Books, and you certainly won’t find them in our visitor centers at Latter-day Saint temples and historical sites.

This is simply not a Latter-day Saint way of approaching the faiths of others.

If there are members of the Church out on the lecture circuit giving accounts of their “escape from the Assemblies of God” or revealing the sordid evils of their Catholic upbringing, I’ve never heard of them.  Evangelical bookstores often have sections labeled something like “Sects, Cults, and World Religions”; I’ve never seen any Latter-day Saint bookstore with any such section.  If the Church is publishing pamphlets attacking the Methodists or the Christian Scientists or even Jehovah’s Witnesses, I haven’t seen them.  If Latter-day Saints are organizing picket lines against synagogues, mosques, gurdwaras, fire temples, ashrams, meditation centers, or other churches, I’ve entirely missed it.  Moreover, I would expect, in such a case, that Church leaders would ask such organizers to cease and desist.  If any member of the Church has launched a website assaulting any other faith, I’m unaware of it.

I’m also happy to point out that exposés of Catholicism, critiques of Buddhist teaching, refutations of Judaism, assaults on the Southern Baptists, criticisms of Presbyterianism, attacks on Islam, and similar things don’t appear in Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship.  Never.  They aren’t primary, secondary, or tertiary themes of the Interpreter Radio Show.  The Interpreter Foundation has, thus far, produced one film (on the life and work of the Latter-day Saint musician and composer Robert Cundick) and has nearly completed a second and much more ambitious one on the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon.  These are affirmative productions, not negative ones; they are certainly not attacks on anybody else’s faith.

And the same is true of the Interpreter Foundation’s sister organizations:  If FairMormon has ever published anything devoted in whole or in significant part to attacking another faith, I don’t recall it.  If any speaker at the annual FairMormon conference has ever focused principally or even secondarily on criticizing a non-Latter-day Saint religion or denomination, I’ve certainly missed it.  And, as their names suggest, Book of Mormon Central and Pearl of Great Price Central concentrate on defending the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price and on supporting their value and authenticity.  Attacks on Catholics, animists, Muslims, Baptists, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Shintoists, and Zoroastrians simply aren’t what they do.

I’m very happy about this.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/08/attacking-other-faiths.html

“Baptized for the Dead”

 (by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/08/baptized-for-the-dead.html

An exceptionally stupid argument against the Restoration

 (by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

In my experience, theistic anti-Mormonism is largely (though not entirely) a conservative Protestant or evangelical enterprise.  (Secularist anti-Mormonism is increasingly visible and influential, but it’s another story completely.)

 

There is some Catholic anti-Mormon activity; I picked up a little pamphlet attack the faith of the Latter-day Saints in the Colorado Rockies just a few weeks ago.  In fact, I’ve even seen a Muslim anti-Mormon pamphlet.  Still, it’s Protestants who are, by and large, the folks who set up “ministries,” publish newsletters, broadcast radio shows, travel on the lecture circuit, churn out pamphlets, teach divinity school classes, produce videos, hold public seminars, offer online courses, organize picket lines, air television shows, sponsor “mission trips,” author books, and run a myriad of websites aimed at criticizing Mormonism, and who, in a comparatively small but surprising number of cases, earn their livings by attacking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

Thus, it’s not unexpected, given all their undertakings, that fundamentalist and evangelical Protestants have come up with most of the stupidest arguments against Mormon beliefs.  (At some point, I’ll probably share an example or two of what I mean.)

Although the Muslim pamphlet that I once saw was fairly unimpressive, it at least attempted to mount a sober argument, and the few Catholic criticisms that I’ve seen have always been at least a cut above many evangelical attacks.  Sometimes, in fact, they’ve even been fairly interesting.

 

But our Irish friend Robert Boylan, who might understandably be more attentive to Catholic criticisms of Mormonism because of his location near Dublin, has located what surely has to rank as one of the most obviously laughable anti-Mormon arguments that I’ve ever seen, and it’s from a Catholic:

 

http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2016/07/answering-one-of-silliest-arguments.html

 

I’m grateful to him for pointing it out.  I’ve kept something of a mental list of such particularly ridiculous arguments since the day on my mission in Switzerland when, in a small bookstore in the Berner Oberland, I ran across the claim of a nineteenth-century woman to have escaped from white slavery in a Mormon harem by leaping from a western window of the Salt Lake Temple.  She landed in the Great Salt Lake and swam to freedom.  I had heard about such stories, but had always assumed that they were joking exaggerations.  However, there it was . . . in a serious book — well, from its looks and its tone, it was intended to be taken seriously — designed to rebut the claims of the Restoration and to cast doubt on the integrity of Latter-day Saints.  (I regret more than I can express that I didn’t buy the little book in which the woman’s story appeared and that I no longer remember her name.  Presumably, though, she went on to set all sorts of track and field records; anybody capable of a standing broad jump of at least twenty miles, even if she did have the advantage of leaping from an upper window, would have been — to put it mildly — an athlete to reckon with.)

Incidentally, the Cowdrey, Davis, and Scales book to which Brother Boylan refers was pretty funny even back when it was published in 1977, both because it was deliciously awful and because Wayne Cowdrey was claiming to be a descendent of Oliver Cowdery.  (He explained the difference in the spellings of their names — Cowdrey versus Cowdery — as merely a family variant that was without significance.)  Alas, though, Oliver Cowdery fathered only one child, a daughter, who survived to maturity.  When she married, she took the name of her husband, which was neither Cowdery nor Cowdrey but Johnson.  Had she had children, they would have been named Johnson.  But she never had children.  Which is to say that, if Wayne Cowdery was actually a descendent of Oliver Cowdery, it must have been through some wholly unaccountable miracle.

 

And this was absolutely fitting, because the Cowdrey, Davis, and Scales book was pushed and publicized by the late “Dr.” Walter R. Martin, a then-famous evangelical Protestant countercult impresario who had built up a very large ministry (headquartered in southern California) based not only on his own charisma but, among other things, on his possession of a bogus doctorate from a diploma mill housed in a strip mall and on a demonstrably false claim of direct descent from Brigham Young.

 

[I corrected an error in the Cowdery family history, on which I was going by distant memory.  It was kindly pointed out by Sam LeFevre.]

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/08/an-exceptionally-stupid-argument-against-the-restoration.html

“Some Notes on Jacob 4:14, Revelation, Canon, Covenant, and Law”

 (by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/08/some-notes-on-jacob-414-revelation-canon-covenant-and-law.html

Trump Facilitates HISTORIC Peace Deal and the Media CANNOT Believe It

BYU students release petition asking BYU to return to a ‘Christ-centered education’

(by Geoff B. millennialstar.org 8-4-20)

BYU students Hanna Seariac and Tristan Mourier have released a petition asking that BYU return to a “Christ-centered education.”

As of this writing, the petition, which can be signed here, had 667 signatures. Here are some quotations from the petition:

We ask for an assessment of whether or not the University encourages courses, clubs, panels, conferences, events, and activities to align themselves with Latter-day Saint religious values. We write this letter to make the University aware that students and alumni fear that some public and some less-known decisions by the University may have opposed or did not support the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its religious values. The members of the Church deserve to have confidence that they are sending their sons and daughters to BYU to have their faith strengthened, not weakened.

We recognize the faculty’s need for academic freedom, and acknowledge that academic thought does not necessarily constitute personal opinion. At the same time, we recognize the need to, as Wilkinson put it, “place LDS religious values in all of the activities of the institution…to produce students who are fully appreciative of the principles of the Latter-day Saint faith and of their roles in the universe as sacred and independent individuals.”

We do not believe that the University should trade the eternal life of its students for the praise and accolades of modern, secular academia. To do so would be to sell our birthright for a mess of pottage. We are grateful to the University for maintaining the Honor Code, religious education requirements, and other aspects of the University that show commitment to BYU’s mission. However, we ask that the University consider whether correct doctrine is consistently taught in classes, whether the connection to religious knowledge is made clear throughout the entire curriculum and not just within religious education courses, and the University’s commitment to religious standards.  

We along with many other students have felt that the University’s commitment to this has wavered on a practical level and would ask for an assessment of whether or not the University encourages courses, clubs, and activities to align themselves with Latter-day Saint religious values.

 https://www.millennialstar.org/byu-students-release-petition-asking-byu-to-return-to-a-christ-centered-education/