Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: LDS (Mormon) Religion Message-ID: Date: 21 Aug 90 02:28:49 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Lines: 45 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu [This continues the discussion on Charles Anthon's evaluation of material from the Book of Mormon brought to him by Martin Harris. Cindy Smith posted some quotations from Anthon, claiming that he had told Harris that the material was fradulent. Harris later claimed that Anthon validated it, but refused to give him anything in writing. Hal Lillywhite responded with claims that Anthon was known to be less than totally honest in his scholarship, and that Harris was the more credible of the two. I tried to come up with an interpretation that was consistent with what both said. I was able to do so under the assumption that Anthon had said things that were ambiguous enough to be taken as support by Harris, but refused to give Harris his written evaluation when he saw how it would likely be interpreted and used. --clh] I must agree that Anthon was concerned that he might be embarrassed. However I don't see how he would be embarrassed by a written statement that the characters were bogus. This would be similar to the debunking routinely done by learned men when presented with error. Of course had he said the characters were (or might be) genuine his concern would be quite valid. Whatever Anthon actually said, I am convinced that his attitude changed when he heard that angels were involved in this event. [My theory was that Anthon did not believe that the Book of Mormon was genuine, but that he may have been more interested in looking impressive than in giving Harris clear information. Suppose he made learned-sounding comments about similarities and differences with Egyptian, Babylonian, etc., characters, rather than giving a clear opinion. Such talk could easily have misled Harris into believing Anthon was confirming the document as ancient. Whatever Anthon had written out (which Harris interpreted as a "certificate") might have been similar, though it's not clear from what Harris says that he ever actually had a chance to read the "certificate", so we really don't know what it said. My assumption was that Anthon was deterred, not so much by hearing about angels, but by realizing that his name might end up being used in public as an endorser of the Book of Mormon. It's one thing if some farmer ends up getting the wrong idea, but if Anthon was quoted publically as a supporter, it could make him a laughing stock among his scholarly peers. Clearly my comments are wildly conjectural. I was simply trying to show that it was possible to come up with an explanation that was consistent with what both people said. --clh]