Credibility of the Witnesses (11 October 1923)

CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES.

J. M. Sjodahl.

(Continued from page 627.)

Martin Harris was somewhat older than Joseph Smith. Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer. He was born May 18, 1783, at East Town, New York. At the time of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon he was about forty-four years old. His judg­ment was that of a mature man. At that time he lived in Palmyra, New’ York.

Martin Harris met the Prophet in 1827, shortly after the latter had received the plates and when the excitement among the rabble seemed about to break out in violence. He promptly came to the financial aid of the Prophet and enabled him to settle his affairs in Manchester and to move to Harmony, in Pennsylvania, where he found peace and time to devote to the work in hand.

In February, 1828, Martin visited Joseph in Harmony, and the specimens of Book-of-Mormon letters, or characters, as they are more generally called, which he submitted to the inspection of Professor Anthon in New York, was then given him.

Martin Harris was evidently anxious to learn the truth, but at the same time he was cautious. There was in him a great deal of the disposition of Thomas, who said, “Except I shall see. … I will not believe” (John 20:25). It was owing to this disposition, how­ever, that the remarkable prophecy of Isaiah1 was literally fulfilled.

Martin Harris remained with the Church until, by the perse­cution in Missouri, the Saints were scattered. In September, 1837, he was released from his position in the Kirtland High Council, but no action was ever taken against him with the view of excommunicating or depriving him of his fellowship in the Church.

It appears, however, that at one time, while drifting about he approached the so-called Shakers, but their creed had no light that could guide his storm-tossed bark to a safe place of anchor­age. At another time he fell in with Strangites and, in 1846, accompanied two of their missionaries to England2 in all prob­ability not knowing that they represented an apostate organi­zation. At least, he publicly denied that he was a Strangite, or that he was in any way connected with Strang.

In 1870 Martin Harris came to Utah. He died at Clarkston, Cache Comity, July 10, 1875, a little over 92 years of age.

Now, suppose that the testimony of these three men had been given in a U. S. Court; what facts or circumstances would an intelligent jury consider in passing oil its credibility?

Judge Charles H. Hart answers that question3 as follows:

“What are jurors instructed to do when they are considering the weight to be attached to testimony? … They are charged that they may consider the demeanor of the witness, his means of information, the opportunities he has had for knowing the truth of which he testifies; the interest, if any, which he has in the case, his intelligence; or lack of intelligence; and from all the circumstances appearing upon the trial, determine what credence should be given to his testimony, and to give weight accordingly.”

This is in perfect accord with the principles of law and of common sense. If a number of witnesses agree in all essential particulars; if they are of mature age and of sound mind; if they enjoy the confidence of their fellowmen; if they know whereof they speak; if they are not financially, or otherwise, interested in misrepresentation, and if there is no collusion to deceive, an impartial jury must accept the testimony as true, and enlightened public opinion must do the same.

Test the declaration by the witnesses by these principles that govern whenever evidence is considered. They were responsible, intelligent men, having a standing in the communities in which they lived. Their word was just as good in business dealings and in the courts, as that of any other citizen of irreproachable character, and they gave their testimony at a time when to do so was to risk all worldy prospects and life itself.

The theory that the Prophet Joseph and the witnesses were in col­lusion with each other to deceive the world can not be entertained for a moment, if it is considered in the light of reason. Judge Hart, in the conference sermon just referred to, April 1920, quoted an eminent jurist on the question of conspiracy to deceive, as follows:

“Where several persons conspire to commit perjury, there must be convert; they must first be persons so depraved that they are willing to join in the commission of high crime and so lost to all sense of shame as to be willing to confess their infamy one to another. They must likewise agree not only upon the main body of their story, but upon its details and upon the order in which they occurred, and if, while they are undergoing the ordeal of cross-examination, defects in their story are exposed, they will not dare to change it, for if they do, they will run the risk of bring con­tradicted by their associates, and if they adhere to it, they know they will incur the hazard of detection together with all its dangerous consequences.”

In the light of these self-evident truths, the supposition of a conspiracy between the Prophet Joseph and the witnesses is seen to been impossible. Dr. Prideaux, in his Letter to the Deists,4 in defence of the Bible, discussing the question from a theological point of view, uses this forceful argument:

“There never was an imposture in the world that had not the following characteristics:—(1) It must always have for its end some carnal interest. (2) It can have none but wicked men for its authors. (3) Both of these must necessarily appear in the very contexture of the imposture itself. (4) It can never be so framed that it will not contain some palbable falsities, which will discover the falsity of all the rest. (5) Wherever it is propagated, it must be done by craft and fraud. (6) When entrusted to many persons it cannot be long concealed.”

By this test the Book of Mormon can no more than the Bible be the product of imposture.

But is there no possibility that both the Prophet Joseph and the witnesses were utterly and unaccountably mistaken?

Two reasons force us to reject this suggestion. In the first place, the witnesses testify that they saw and handled the plates, and they saw the angel, and that they heard his voice. On this testimony they could have no hallucination.5

In the second place—and this argument will appeal to all whose Christian experience has taught them to believe in the promises of God regarding prayer—these men were earnestly praying to God for light and guidance. They received their testimony in answer to prayer. Would God deceive them? Would He lead them astray? Does our Heavenly Father ever give His children a stone, when they ask for bread?

One more question remains to be considered in this connection. The three witnesses were not always loyal to the Prophet or faith­ful in the Church. Does not that prove that they, themselves, repudiated their earlier testimony?

No. The fact is that none of them ever denied that Joseph was an inspired messenger from God at the time he received the plates. Even David Whitmer to the day of his death regarded Joseph as a true Prophet in the beginning of the work, though he maintained that the Prophet fell, later. Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery never questioned the integrity of Joseph.

(To be continued).

• 1. “And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed.”—Isa. 29:11.
• 2. Mill. Star, Vol. 8, pp. 124, 128, 137.
• 3. Con. Rep., April 6, 1920, p. 141.
• 4. Dr. Clark, Com. Vol. I, p. 394.
• 5. “It would be impossible for four men to be together and all of them 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.’ … If it were to be maintained that in their case it was hallucination of the brain, … then with the same propriety it might be asserted that all other men, in every age, who profess to have seen angels, were deceived.”—Orson Pratt; Jour. Of Dis., Vol. 4, p. 158.