Viewpoint on Mormonism, the program that examines the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from a biblical perspective. Viewpoint on Mormonism is sponsored by Mormonism Research Ministry. Since 1979, Mormonism Research Ministry has been dedicated to equipping the body of Christ with answers regarding the Christian faith in a manner that expresses gentleness and respect. And now your host for today's Viewpoint on Mormonism. So glad you could be with us for this edition of Viewpoint on Mormonism.
I'm your host, Bill McKeever, founder and director of Mormonism Research Ministry, and with me today is Eric Johnson, my colleague at MRM. The film Witnesses, it was released into theaters on June 4, 2021, and it highlights the important role that three men, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer played in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. This film that was produced by the Interpreters Foundation, of course, is meant to be a faith-promoting film, and we are talking about some of the things that Eric and I saw when we went to go view the film for ourselves. Now, one of the things that we were talking about yesterday has to do with the credibility of the witnesses. If, in fact, the three men are not reliable sources, how important is their testimony? Of course, the film brings out that it's important because they allegedly saw actual gold plates, even though the film itself doesn't show you that. It does have them saying things like that, that they saw the plates, but did they really see tangible plates? Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Let's back up a little bit. Let's look at the character of the witnesses. If you have some condemning statements in your scripture regarding at least one of the witnesses, and the one that I'm thinking about is Martin Harris, who is portrayed in the film as kind of an easily pliable buffoon, really, in some parts, easily manipulated by his wife, Lucy, who doesn't believe in what he's doing with Joseph Smith regarding the plates, and actually takes him to court, and there's a court scene in there, you have to ask yourself, is Martin Harris someone that you want to trust? Well, the Doctrine and Covenants talks about Martin Harris, and not in a very flattering way. What does it say in the subheading regarding Doctrine and Covenants section 3, and then what does it say specifically about Martin Harris? It says, Revelation given to Joseph Smith the prophet at Harmony, Pennsylvania, July 1828, relating to the loss of 116 pages of manuscript translated from the first part of the Book of Mormon, which was called the Book of Lehi.
The prophet had reluctantly allowed those pages to pass from his custody to that of Martin Harris, who had served for a brief period as scribe in the translation of the Book of Mormon. The Revelation was given through the Urim and Thummim. And the Urim and Thummim would be the spectacles that were allegedly buried with the gold plates in the stone box, and Smith would look through these glass-type spectacles, and the reformed Egyptian on the gold plates would miraculously turn into English that he would read to a scribe who would write them down. Now, he didn't use them all the time, from what we understand. In fact, the film doesn't even bring out the Urim and Thummim, these spectacles.
You do see a lot regarding the seer stone and the hat, but you don't see the Urim and Thummim. But what does it say in Doctrine and Covenants 3, verses 12 and 13, that speaks specifically of Martin Harris? And when thou deliverest up that which God had given thee sight and power to translate, thou deliverest up that which was sacred into the hands of a wicked man, who has set at naught the counsels of God, and has broken the most sacred promises which were made before God, and has depended upon his own judgment, and boasted in his own wisdom. Now, Doctrine and Covenants section 10 also speaks of Martin Harris in the same manner, and it says, the hands of a wicked man. That's a direct reference to Martin Harris, because this revelation is being given, supposedly, by God to Joseph Smith.
Well, in D&C section 10, verses 6 and 7, this is what it has to say. Behold, they have sought to destroy you. Yea, even the man in whom you have trusted has sought to destroy you.
And for this cause I said that he is a wicked man, for he has sought to take away the things wherewith you have been entrusted, and he has also sought to destroy your gift. Now in the film, after Martin Harris loses this manuscript, Joseph Smith claims that he can no longer translate because the Lord is punishing him. And this seems to impress the character of Martin Harris in the film, that God would do that. But what does that say about the credibility of Martin Harris when he's twice referenced as a wicked man, someone you would think should not be trusted? And yet, I got the impression from the film that Martin Harris was quite repentant of his foolishness in taking the manuscript to his wife, who obviously did not have the same kind of faith as her husband, Martin Harris.
Eventually, they would be divorced over this whole issue. There's another reference to Martin Harris in a book titled New Witnesses for God that was written by B.H. Roberts, who was a 70 in the LDS church and also a Mormon historian. The edition that I happen to have is a 1920 edition, and it has this interesting story to tell about Martin Harris.
And the reason why it's worth bringing up is because this story is also brought up in the film. On page 109, B.H. Roberts writes, On one occasion, Harris sought to test the genuineness of the prophet's procedure in the manner of translation, that would be the translation of the Book of Mormon, as follows. And it says, Martin said that after continued translation they would become weary and would go down to the river and exercise in throwing stones out on the river, etc.
While so doing on one occasion, Martin found a stone very much resembling the one used for translating, and on resuming their labors of translation, Martin put in place of the seer stone the stone that he had found. He said that the prophet remained silent, unusually long, and intently gazing in darkness, no trace of the usual sentence appearing. Much surprised, Joseph exclaimed, Martin, what is the matter?
All is dark as Egypt. Martin's countenance betrayed him, and the prophet asked Martin why he had done so. Martin said, to stop the mouths of fools, who had told him that the prophet had learned these sentences and was merely repeating them.
Now this scene, as I said, is in the film. But I don't get the impression that Martin was really being wicked in this particular case. He was merely trying to prove to himself that Joseph Smith was in fact a prophet so that he could, by his own experience, relate that to those who were trying to discredit Joseph Smith. My personal problem with this account lies with the seer stone itself. Martin Harris changes the rock with one that he finds, and yet Smith doesn't seem to recognize that this rock doesn't look exactly the same as the original seer stone that he had been using all along.
To me, that sounds pretty curious. When he gets the 116 pages and he takes them back home, it's obvious in the movie and it's obvious in history that Lucy was not happy with that. And when he loses them, I don't think he really loses them. It appears that Lucy steals them. Now, whether she destroys the manuscript or whether she hides them somewhere, either way, Joseph Smith is in a predicament. What is he going to do now that these pages are lost? And he decides he's not going to re-translate the book of Lehi. Now wouldn't you think that that would tend to expose Joseph Smith as a con man? Because if he's really getting a translation from the gold plates given to him through the means of this seer stone, or even the Urim and Thummim, the spectacles, why couldn't he just duplicate them?
But he doesn't. He seems to be, as you say, in quite a predicament, he's going to have to come up with this. And you would think, since the way the translation was done, characters at a time, and they wouldn't go on to the next set of characters until it was read back correctly, there's no margin for error. So he's going to have to replace what Martin Harris lost with an exact duplicate, if in fact that's the way the translation process is going. This is why, in real history, he responds, all is lost. All is lost?
What's all lost? The translation that he had done, these 116 pages, and he could not bet that Lucy did not keep them. And so if he were to try to re-translate them, all Lucy would have had to do is pull that out and say, obviously Joseph Smith is a fraud.
He does not know how to translate, because here is what he did the first time, and here is what he does the second time. Well, Joseph Smith also takes umbrage with Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer, the two other witnesses to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. The film does bring this out, but what it doesn't bring out is a letter that Joseph Smith wrote from Liberty Jail that was written on December 16th, 1838. In this letter, Smith is venting as to how he has been betrayed by those who were close to him. In this letter, and it's pretty lengthy, really, it's found in the Documentary History of the Church, Volume 3, and it begins on page 226.
But on page 232, Joseph Smith lists a number of men that he felt have betrayed them. Listen to what he says here. He speaks of a man named George Hinkle. I don't know if that's pronounced Hinckley, I don't know, quite honestly. But he also mentions Korill, C-O-R-R-I-L-L, Phelps, this would be W. W. Phelps, and then there's Avard, Reed Peck, Clemenson, and various others who are so very ignorant that they cannot appear respectable in any decent and civilized society, and whose eyes are full of adultery and cannot cease from sin.
Listen to the next line. Such characters as McClellan, that would be William McClellan, John Whitmer, the brother of David Whitmer, who's mentioned next, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris are too mean to mention, and we had liked to have forgotten them. Notice, the three men featured in the film, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris, Joseph Smith speaks of them as being too mean to mention for the way he feels that they have betrayed Joseph Smith. And if you read that letter written from Liberty Jail, the December 16th, 1838 letter from Joseph Smith, he is not at all very flattering, and he's not too happy about how he felt he was betrayed by these men who were close to them. In fact, on page 228, it says that William McClellan, who comes up to us as one of Job's comforters, God suffered such kind of beings to afflict Job, but it never entered into their hearts that Job would get out of it all. This poor man, who professes to be much of a prophet, has no other dumb ass to ride but David Whitmer.
And there's a footnote on this page. In order to appreciate the allusions here made to David Whitmer, it will be necessary to remember that William E. McClellan claimed that President Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet and himself sought to bring into existence a reorganized church with David Whitmer as the president thereof. These are the men that we, as viewers of this film, are supposed to put our trust in because ultimately they seem to be repentant and never really denied their testimony in the Book of Mormon. Tomorrow we're going to look at what this film has to say regarding these three witnesses. Thank you for listening. If you would like more information regarding Mormonism Research Ministry, we encourage you to visit our website at www.mrm.org where you can request our free newsletter, Mormonism Research. We hope you will join us again as we look at another viewpoint on Mormonism.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-10-31 00:59:05 / 2023-10-31 01:04:40 / 6