Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: LDS (Mormon) Religion Message-ID: Date: 16 Aug 90 16:44:53 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Lines: 144 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu [Cindy writes about the visit of Martin Harris to Charles Anthon I will quote only part of the Anthon letter to Howe below and will then give my summary and response. HL] >**** Begin Quote **** > >New York, N.Y., Feb. 17, 1834 >Mr. E. D. Howe >Painseville, Ohio > >Dear Sir: ... >suspicions to him, warning him to beware of rogues. He requested an opinion >from me in writing, which of course I declined giving, and he then took his ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^?? >leave carrying the paper with him. This paper was in fact a singular scrawl. It is not at all obvious to me why Anthon would decline giving a written opinion, particularly if he was interested in preventing a fraud as he claimed. ----------------------------- At this point I will attach some comments of my own: The Visit of Martin Harris to Charles Anthon In February 1828 Martin Harris visited Professor Charles Anthon in New York City, showing him some characters Joseph Smith said he had copied from the Book of Mormon Plates, together with the translation of some of them. This much is not in dispute. However, Harris and Anthon give drastically different accounts as to what happened during this visit: Harris: Anthon stated that the characters were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic and that the translation was correct. "He gave me a certificate" [to that effect]. However, when told that the plates had been found under the direction of an angel he asked for the certificate back, tore it to pieces and said that there was no longer any such thing as ministering of angels. Anthon: Harris did show him the characters but he found them to be clumsy imitations and advised Harris not to waste his money supporting such a cause, refusing however to provide the written opinion Harris requested. Clearly one of the 2 men was not telling the truth. The question is which? I think there are some things which can help us decide. First, what had each man to gain by what he said or could have said? Harris: Martin Harris was being asked to provide financial support for the publication of the book. If he believed it a hoax he would clearly feel no obligation to do so. There seems to be no reason for Harris to claim the characters were genuine if they were not. Calling the characters bogus would allow him to return to his normal life without the persecution and probable financial loss he would suffer by continued association with the book. However, calling them genuine if the were not would risk both his reputation and financial security. Anthon: As a "man of letters" he could reasonably worry about the adverse effect of this incident on his reputation. He would gain nothing by agreeing with Harris' story and might loose much. A professor supporting an unpopular religion, especially a story about the appearance of angels, might become the subject of ridicule. Even if Harris' account is true, he had to be tempted to deny it. Second, what about the honesty of the 2 men? Harris: Harris' honesty was not in question among his contemporaries and even Charles Anthon consistently recalled that he sought assurance that his possible investment of time and money in the Joseph Smith venture would be prudent. (Richard L. Anderson, _Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses_ SLC, Deseret Book, 1981, pp 95-120, 167-170, esp p108) Anthon: Charles Anthon was probably the best qualified person in New York in the Egyptian language, having probably the best library for the purpose in private hands in the U.S. His reputation for honesty however seems a bit lacking. He was regarded as a shameless plagiarist. (B.L. Gildersleeve, "Necessity of the Classics," _Southern Quarterly Review_, 10 [26] (July 1854) pp163-4,166. Also see Stephen Newmyer, "Charles Anthon: Knickerbocker Scholar," _Classical Outlook_, 59:2 (Dec-Jan 1981-82), pp41-44) Third, could anybody else shed light on the subject? Not many, but there was an Episcopal priest in Palmyra, Rev. John A. Clark who spoke to Harris on his return trip. Clark said that the description given then by Harris conveyed nothing of the supposed "discouragements which the professor threw upon his enterprise." (Clark, _Gleanings by the Way_, NY: R Carter/Phila.:W.K. & J.K. Simon, 1842, pp229, 238). Finally, what was the outcome of this visit? Martin Harris went home and morgaged his farm to pay for the printing of the Book of Mormon. Eventually he had to sell half the farm to pay that morgage. Hardly the action we expect of a man who has just taken a lot of trouble to investigate an enterprise and found it to be a hoax. While not definite proof, the evidence points to Harris as the more trustworthy of the 2 and his story as more in accord with the other known facts. Based on the evidence I believe Anthon was at best indulging in selective memory recall. Harris' story seems more likely to be true. [Maybe one of the two is lying. However it's surprising how two people can have different memories of the same incident. My suspicion is that Anthon may not have been quite so clear in his denials -- particularly as heard by someone who might not have followed all of his scholarly references -- as he later remembered. And that Harris may have been eager enough to have his wishes confirmed that he heard ambiguous language as confirmation. About tearing up the certificate: both reports agree that Anthon refused to let Harris leave with a written document. Anthon's somewhat odd comment about asking for written confirmation, which he refused to give, together with Anthon's story of the torn-up certificate, suggests to me that Anthon did in fact start out by writing something for Harris, but tearing it up. It's hard to be sure why. Again, I suspect that Anthon's statement may have been hedged in qualifications, and that during the course of the discussion he realized Harris would treat it as confirmation and use it in ways that would embarrass Anthon. --clh]