Jason Bourne wrote:MormonMendacity wrote:...when he added his name to the Testimony of the Three WitnessesOliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and Martin Harris wrote:And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; (Emphasis added)
...or do we believe him when he told John H. GilbertJohn H. Gilbert wrote:Martin was something of a prophet: — He frequently said that "Jackson would be the last president that we would have; and that all persons who did not embrace Mormonism in two years would be stricken off the face of the earth.: He said that Palmyra was to be the New Jerusalem, and that her streets were to be paved with gold. Martin was in the office when I finished setting up the testimony of the three witnesses, — (Harris — Cowdery and Whitmer) I said to him, — "Martin, did you see those plates with your naked eyes?" Martin looked down for an instant, raise his eyes up, and said, 'No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.' (Wilford C. Wood, Joseph Smith Begins His Work, Vol. 1, 1958, introduction.) (Emphasis added)
...or do we believe him whenGrant Palmer wrote:On 25 March [1838], Martin Harris told a public meeting that none of the witnesses had physically seen or handled the plates, that they had not seen the plates with their "natural eyes" (Stephen Burnett to Lyman E. Johnson, 15 April 1838, Joseph Smith Letterbook, 2:64-66) (Emphasis added)
So was he lying then or now?During that year about 300 members had left the Church. Within a month after Harris made his statement, three of the apostles no longer believed in the Book of Mormon and two more were out of favor with the church. All three witnesses of the Book of Mormon and three of the eight additional witnesses had defected. (ibid.)
Why me wrote:
The problem here is very simple: What did Martin mean by spiritual eyes versus natural eyes? And here we have the problem. Such words, spiritual and natural are left open for interpretation. And unfortunately, we can only assume what he meant, if he said such words.
To put oneself in Martin's place when he would speak about the Book of Mormon is not a comfortable one. To have people well over a hundred years later to assume what he meant and to nitpick over his own words was not seen by him. If he said what is claimed...well...I can only speculate on his choice of words. And what is the point of that? He never denied his testimony of the Book of Mormon, regardless of spiritual eyes or natural eyes, his claim still stands...only his interpretation is now up for grabs. And lets face it, spiritual eyes, can have many interpretations. [/b]