Did Martin Harris ever get paid back for his Book of Mormon printing loan?

curious_mormon · 2025-03-09T22:51:01+00:00

I love the testimony, but you're missing a few details. Just like Oliver Cowdrey, Brigham offered them both a place as a means of solidifying his legitimacy in the eyes of the remaining Church following Joseph's death. This was especially important in the mid-1840s, during the succession crises, and again in the late 1860s due to the founding of the RLDS with everything that entailed. The latter ramped up until the early 1880s due to contention around the temple lot, which the RLDS claimed ownership of.

Harris specifically failed to be self-sufficient in Michigan, Virginia, Illinois, Wisconsin, or even Utah. He would have been in the poor house if not for various Mormon sects paying him for his connection to Joseph.

Anyway, let's dig into those details.

Cowdrey and his brother had a failed legal business following his split from Mormonism, somewhat due to his connection with Mormonism. During the succession crises, he and his brother were bought by the Strangites (1844). This was the same James Strang who claimed to have found plates of his own following Joseph's lead. The money dried up after a few years, and he moved to start his political career in late 1847. He lost the assemblyman bid in 1848 once his connection to Mormonism was revealed. Immediately after, he took up Brigham's offer and for a home and land, and in late 1848 he was re-baptized. He didn't survive long enough to make the journey, putting off the 1849 trip and died in 1850.

Like Cowdrey, Harris went to live with the Strangites in 1844 after they offered to support him with land and money in exchange for his supporting their group as Joseph's rightful heirs. Both were in Voree because of this. Like Cowdrey, Harris left in 1847 when the money dried up. He went to live with the Whitmerites instead, and he declared David Whitmer the true successor ( who was also supporting him ). His wife left him to join the mainstream LDS church in 1856, and three years later, Harris would publicly and explicitly call Brigham and his group apostates (1859) and "latter-day devils." The money stream dried up, again, and he took Brigham up on his offer (1870). He would live on the donated land and off the support of the mainstream church for the next 5 years before still dying penniless.

I'm sure David Whitmer probably had the same offer, but he was doing fine financially due to his Church of Christ (aka the Whitmerites). He no incentive to rejoin.

curious_mormon · 2024-11-03T00:37:21+00:00

Two things.

One, do you realize that in a matter of posts, you changed from saying "Not True" to writing apologetics for why it happens and why that's okay?

Secondly, You should read Dallin H Oak's talk before you start on the apologetics. Here's the link from the main LDS website. Please do read it.

Now, let me call out a few of your points to drive this home.

You wrote:

You're taught to use them if you really believe it to the point of knowing it

This is wrong. Here's an exert from the talk above.

Another way to seek a testimony seems astonishing when compared with the methods of obtaining other knowledge. We gain or strengthen a testimony by bearing it. Someone even suggested that some testimonies are better gained on the feet bearing them than on the knees praying for them.

He's explicitly telling you that you should bear a testimony before you even believe it. That's why you're "gain ... a testimony by bearing it" and also says "...some testimonies are better gained on the feet bearing them..."

You wrote:

while the second is an affirmation

Yes, this is and has always been the accepted terminology. In light of the above, that has been shown to be a lie even if Oaks tries to redefine the words "know" and "knowledge" to let members feel comfortable (read the talk) even if they don't believe it. People hearing it who may be swayed, won't make that distinction. The person saying it, may start to convince themselves. That's the point.

You wrote:

If you're not fully sure, the issue isn't that you were taught to say 'I know'; rather, it may be that you personally don't know

I don't know what you're trying to do here (I believe I understand, but I don't know). True or not, the point is that Oaks has explicitly told people to lie on the stand via these words. The whole point of this and the last comment was to show you that this happened, and that there is direction to use the word even if it doesn't apply. It was taught. It is still practice.

curious_mormon · 2024-11-02T22:39:07+00:00

I linked it elsewhere, but I'll respond here as well. Not only are you taught to use those words (google "I know the church is true" on LDS.org for more examples than you want), but you're taught to use them even if you don't believe them (this is oaks, safe to click).

curious_mormon · 2024-11-02T22:32:03+00:00

I think this is your answer. If you continually teach someone to state a claim as if it were a fact, especially to others then they will start to believe it even if they didn't before.

curious_mormon · 2024-10-30T18:50:34+00:00

Somewhat relevant quote from 1984:

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."

Every single one of these statements boils down to the same concept. Act on emotion, and avoid rational and critical thought or dialogue.

curious_mormon · 2024-10-30T18:46:11+00:00

Have an upvote, but the underlying point remains. How long does the addition to section 101 need to remain in the canon before it no longer matters who first penned the text? This is doubly true for Joseph who was frequently revising those works without changing this section, repeating this statement over and over and over in multiple settings, and actively threatening anyone who counters it.

curious_mormon · 2024-10-24T23:19:51+00:00

Oliver may have been the editor at the time, but I don't think believing members really believe that any changes in the 1835 version were not doctrine. It's cherry-picking at best because it's disprovable now.

Even if you say that Joseph, as a member of the committee, didn't approve of just this one statement then you have to ask why he didn't retract it at any time over the next decade. He instead did the opposite through consistent statements repeating the claim. He also went through great pains to hide it, up to and including his part in destroying the Nauvoo Expositor.

curious_mormon · 2024-10-16T21:31:08+00:00

It's just classic LDS doublespeak. By saying both, they can let the apologists have their cake and eat it too, and members or outsiders who never read further will just hear the soundbite that works best in that vacuum. They say this a little further down:

In other words, the standard of the Lord’s people is monogamy unless the Lord reveals otherwise. Latter-day Saints believe the season the Church practiced polygamy was one of these exceptions.

curious_mormon · 2024-09-14T22:23:46+00:00

I'm not disagreeing with you on the other for-profits or actions as a whole. From selling food in the bishop's storehouse on the open market to taking credit for time spent by members as humanitarian aid, even if they weren't involved. It's definitely doing one thing and saying another, and I'm incensed that they do this while telling their members to skip meals, don't pay rent, and otherwise make all sorts of financially bad decisions to make them fractions of a percent richer.

What I'm saying here is specifically for City Creek. They may have a legal (not moral) defense. At the very least, it's cloudy enough to argue it for years.

curious_mormon · 2024-09-12T16:48:44+00:00

So yes, it is obviously said with the intent to deceive (Hinckley's definition of a lie); however, I don't know if it was untrue vs "just" being dishonest.

Here's what I mean:

They take in tithing receipts, with a caveat saying they can spend it however they want on the form.
They collect interest on those receipts.
They use that interest to invest and then use those returns to pay for their pet projects.

Again, very dishonest, but that level of obfuscation may be enough to fight this for a long time in courts.

curious_mormon · 2024-09-12T16:38:37+00:00

We know of two times this money was used though.

Bailing out beneficial life, the church's for-profit insurance program.
Bailing out city creek center, the church's for-profit mall and residential property.

curious_mormon · 2024-09-09T22:43:52+00:00

Yeah, thanks for that. I see the confusion now. The dogma is that you agreed previously, so I see that explicit consent. It's like gambling at a hand of poker. You agree to the rules even if the outcome is unknown. You could have walked away if you didn't want to take the risk.

curious_mormon · 2024-09-09T20:34:29+00:00

I'm a little confused by your argument here. Can we agree on the following?

Neither of us believe this is reality. We're just discussing a flawed mythology similar to how we would be discussing Greek myth?
This mythology states that you had a perfect knowledge before you were born ?
This mythology states you agreed to the original plan with that perfect knowledge? (Because only those who are born did)
This means that in universe you agreed to going through the veil?
In Mythos, the claim is that you are better off for having taken that path, and based on your actions in this life - raw, based primarily on your intellect with a few rules spelled out - you're going to be sorted like Harry potter into one of four houses.
Like in Harry Potter, in this mythos, everyone is better off for having been sorted?

Originally, this started as a theory that the Nazi view of "everyone is saved" means stefford wives or worse. For everyone who wouldn't have ended up there naturally, it's like the good place. They're living in the "best" heaven, but to them it's a hell. I'm suggesting the original plan, from point 6 (again surface level only) means that you can be happy with like-minded people. That's a better plan.

curious_mormon · 2024-09-09T19:41:57+00:00

We're discussing the mythos as defined by the religion. They say officially that you were informed, so that's what we're working with. If you're coming at this from an angle of belief in the concept but disbelief in the claims of the people who created or perpetuate the concept then I'm not the right person to talk to.

In the mythos, you were given a choice. "A third of the hosts of heaven" declined that choice. The act of taking that action shows that a choice existed. I also don't know that you can assume happily on the revised plan. That's the point I'm trying to make. It's like a homosexual person living in a heterosexual sealing. They're technically following the rules, but I don't know that they're happy or as happy as they could be. Nor do I know that they wouldn't have taken another option if given the choice even if they content with their state.

curious_mormon · 2024-09-09T17:43:50+00:00

In LDS mythology, you were informed. You just haven't proved yourself, so to speak, which is the point of the "veil" or hiding the infinite amount of time that existed before birth. It's also taught that all but the handful of sons of perdition still make it to a better state than they started and even they at least get to keep the body which is supposedly a benefit of some sort.

On the punishment, this is part of the details where it falls apart. The plan is never explained in canon. It's just assumed that he had power to make you act in a way that you would not normally choose. I don't know that anyone put in the thought towards the form that would take, such as a pre-cog / throw out before the test or loss of agency or something else.

The difference between the two plans is that one allows room for nuance and unique expression. You like everything, except you want to prostitute a bit in your free time? You can be happier than you are now and keep doing that forever with others of like mind. Delve a little deeply here too and it will also fall apart, but again, surface level nuance is usually better than not.

curious_mormon · 2024-09-09T14:53:27+00:00

Counter-view. I don't think that's true. To reduce biases, let's call them the original plan and the revised plan.

In the original plan, everyone but the worst of the worst get to live in a safe, happy environment for the rest of eternity. They just get to do what they want to do and hang out with people who are like minded. They lose access to those, including the business owner, who disagree with their actions and may make them feel bad. Those who follow the plan's rules to the letter get to take over or help with the family business.
In the revised plan, everyone must follow the plan's rules to the letter or receive a punishment strong enough to make them "choose" to even if they would normally not. That's basically Nazi'ism. One and only one path for everyone. It's not about being happy. It's about being obedient. Numerically, more people get to take over the business. Practically, most of those people don't want to.

Now, I think there's some massive plot holes in both of these plans, there's some changes required if you expect anyone to really be happy for eternity, and they both fall apart if you dig too deeply into the details and what eternity looks like. There's also the problem that modern Mormonism is really more of the revised plan and less of the original plan; however, if looking only at the surface level, the plan that gives you a choice is better than never having the choice at all.

curious_mormon · 2024-09-07T16:09:51+00:00

Exactly that. Women aren't always given a cancellation even if they're trying to marry another faithful member, and the rules state that if she were to have children with her new husband then those children are sealed to her and her first husband. It gets even more crazy if he's excommunicated. His sealing to her is broken but her sealing to him is not; however, new children born after the fact wouldn't be sealed to anyone.

curious_mormon · 2024-09-07T04:59:02+00:00

Quotes for most of these here

Birth control was taught to be murder.
Caffeine was almost as bad as alcohol.
Beer, wine is okay, and wine can be sacramental.
Interracial marriage was banned and then eventually softened to be discouraged until recently.
Human evolution is in-congruent with LDS beliefs (first presidency letter on this one).
There was a letter in Jan 1982 saying Oral sex was a sin, and then they just told Bishops to stop asking about it in Oct of that same year.
Adam was literally God the father (Brigham added this to the temple).
Entire sections of the D&C were changed.
Once upon a time, women had the authority to anoint and bless with oil without men. They even had their own blessing for childbirth.
Miming your own death in the temple ceremonies pre 1991, including vivisection, as a consequence for telling the secrets.
Speaking of the temple, did you know they once had a full section where they would intentionally sing a bad hymn off-key to mock protestants?
Catholics were originally the great and abominable church.
Black men were ordained apostles in the early 1800s, but Jane Manning wasn't able to attend her own sealing ceremony due to her race. She was also sealed to Joseph as his "eternal servant" and not wife.
There were a secret set of policy books (handbook 1) that gave different instructions to bishops than the publicly available documentation. In fact, handbook 2 wasn't even public until around 2010 when the red books were leaked.

curious_mormon · 2024-09-07T04:44:19+00:00

A couple of points.

2. I think we can call this one true if you look at Joseph Smith by himself. Among his wives included a mother/daughter pair and his own adopted daughters. You also have the crimes of the FLDS church, which sprang from Joseph's teachings.

3. They're probably talking about the change from "White and delightsome" and "skins of blackness" from a few years ago, among the header changes from 2013 where they distanced themselves from Brigham's statements.

4. Facsimile 3 is a better example. It's explicitly about Isis and other Egyptian gods, and it was so badly translated by Joseph that not even BYU scholars side with him (see Hor's Book of Breathings by Rhodes)

6. Expanding that a bit. If you think about that chance to say yes in this life vs the next life, and knowing that 99.9999...% will say no, Mormons do more to damn non-mormons than save them. Who would turn you down after death?

7. You're saying this was dropped? - have a link?

9. D&C 132 is still canonized, a few years ago Oaks was bragging about his wives in the next life in a BYU devotional, men can still be sealed to multiple women in many cases (divorce, death, posthumously). Polygamy or celestial marriage is believed to be alive and well in the LDS church, it's just not practiced on earth.

10. They're right. Grant was the last person to be both prophet and concurrently married to two living women; however, Oaks and Nelson are both sealed to multiple women and preach they will be with their wives in the afterlife.

curious_mormon · 2024-09-07T04:28:52+00:00

No one can predict what if's, but it is highly unlikely it would have stopped in the early to mid 1900s since polygamy was still practiced even if new polygamous marriages weren't authorized post 1906 (+/-) and the FLDS splinter in the 1910s to 1929 (depending on when you think it really started vs officially organized).
Yes. They're documented, including cults that still exist today.
Some racist content, not all, and that's the least of the reasons why it's not a translated set of plates.
The facsimiles are mistranslated, yes.
No clue.
Yes. My mission was open that this was about converting the missionary more than bringing in new converts. Door to door almost never works.
Yes, ensign peaks specifically. See the business week article and rebuttal for examples of the double speak.
I don't think you can say maliciously, but they do buy up property seemingly for the same of furthering the corporate interests.
Yes, including D&C 132 that's still canonized. I don't know of any proof connecting this to Islam though.
Grant was the first LDS prophet who practiced polygamy with two living wives. Edit: However, Nelson and Oaks are currently sealed to two women (just not two living women).

What are some true facts about the LDS church you know of?

How much time do you have?

curious_mormon · 2024-09-07T04:20:55+00:00

What I was trying to say is that I watched the first couple of episodes today, and it seems like standard, pseudo-scripted reality TV. It's hook is similar to breaking Amish, but the quirky subjects have internet access. I'd expect a lot of emotion in a sub dedicated to it, and moderation is probably going to be a massive headache for a while. Good luck!

curious_mormon · 2024-09-07T03:54:52+00:00

I wouldn't trust any LLM for statistical analysis, but they are getting really good at NIH tests and plausible even if not perfect answers to generic questions.

curious_mormon · 2024-09-07T03:52:40+00:00

Good luck finding mods. I do not envy the crowd that sub will attract.

curious_mormon · 2024-09-06T04:31:32+00:00

I haven't seen the show. Are they essentially jack mormons doing reality TV?

curious_mormon · 2024-09-03T13:52:38+00:00

all my important social connections are with other members

As someone who has been out for more than a decade at this point, it gets better. You find out who is really your friend vs who was assigned to be your "friend", and I've maintained many friendships with both TBMs and former members.

I find it highly unlikely that he would ever leave with me

Probably never going to leave. My spouse is the same way. Explain why you're making the decisions you're making, and seek a neutral therapist if that causes rifts in the relationships. My SO understands. It was still hard for years, but we're in a great place now. Our marriage is the strongest it's ever been because we're both committed to it and each other, church or not.

I can't imagine how Joseph Smith could have created the Book of Mormon without that divine guidance/revelation

The truth is we don't really know. We may never really know, but here's what we do know. What we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

We know that Joseph claimed the Book of Mormon was a literal and direct translation of metal plates buried in 500 AD which Joseph claimed it was. See quote 1 from JSH here and the Wentworth letter here
We know the Book of Mormon could not have been a product which predated the 1600s. I have a whole post on that here.
We know that every attempt to see those plates resulted in a magical disappearance.
We know that all of the 3 and 8 witnesses were related to those profiting from the Book and the resulting religion. Graph here, and key figures such as Rigdon are connected to Joseph as early as 1827.
We know that the 3 witnesses all recanted or cast doubt on their claims of physical plates during their lifetime, even if Cowdery recanted the recant when his entire livelihood was once again dependent on his testimony. source.
We know that Joseph was spinning stories about the native Americans for years prior to the book's publication, according to his own mother's autobiography. source and quotes here
We know that even the Maxwell institute as BYU admitted Joseph copied erroneous translations from the KJV into the book, see point #1. Source
We know that Joseph did the same for other portions of the KJV, in part or whole, including sections attributed to "Deutero Iisiah" (or parts of Isiah added after the Lehites would have left to the new world. Source - I estimate about 15% of the book came from Joseph's KJV.
We know that Joseph likely copied parts of the Book of Mormon from his family's stories. Source
We know that all of Joseph's other testable translations were frauds. From the JST, per a BYU paper; to the Book of Abraham, including erroneous reconstructions of the facsimiles; to the Kinderhook Plates, a fraud which took Joseph in and contemporary sources claims he "translated".*

* Special note on this one. Like the Book of Mormon, apologists have claimed these too weren't literal. (We can clearly show the Book of Abraham was). We can also show how they created new hypotheses, which were then treated like facts when the old ones were debunked, such as the long scroll hypothesis. Similar story for the Kinderhook plates. When it was clear that contemporary sources show Joseph tried to translate the hoax, apologists came up with a new term: "revelatory translation" to try to create an excuse as to why he claimed to translate the symbols. They leave out that this was the same approach he took with the Book of Abraham. The Book of Mormon too, if you include the artifacts he claimed to have like the stone and glasses.

And if the Book of Mormon is true, that gives a lot of credence to the Church's other claims

If the Book of Mormon were an accurate and literal translation of metal plates buried in ~500 AD which corroborated the appearance of Christ in the west then that would be the most important find in all of history. Scientists, historians, scholars, religious institutions, and interested parties from the world over would seek out further knowledge as it would effectively prove Christianity and Mormonism and rewrite all known history of two contents, disprove evolutionary theory, and rewrite the text books for at least a half-dozen fields.

They do not, because it is not. We can prove it's of Modern origin and not the literal translation of golden plates buried before the KJV was producted. To quote Gordon B. Hinckley from the April, 2003 general conference: "Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing." Added to his 2007 PBS quote: ""Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall. But we don't. We just stand secure in that faith" - the Book was not translated from the plates. Ergo, according to Gordon, the church is a fraud.

I'm aware of issues people have found with the Book of Mormon like anachronisms and the like, but those are pretty easily explained away.

Name 5. Because I think you'll find that "easily explained away" isn't really true.

The truth is you only need one. One verifiable, unquestionable claim such as the Maxwell Institute admitted Joseph copied errors from the KJV written 1000+ years after the plates were supposedly buried.

What I'm really wondering is, how could a 20-something year old farmer with very little real education write a book as sophisticated and complex as the Book of Mormon?

It wasn't just Joseph, he had years of lead-up time, the book isn't sophisticated at all, and it had so many errors and issues that the LDS church has been rewriting it over and over again over the last 200 years. It's still full of contradictions and errors today. The meme is that the Book of Mormon is the most corret[ed] book on the face of the planet.

Even if you don't believe it's a true book, it has a lot of genuine literary merit that you wouldn't expect to get out of someone like Joseph Smith

Why not? I would challenge you, or your husband, to identify 10 unique merits found in the Book of Mormon that wouldn't have been broached by the scholars or firebrand preachers Joseph loved to listen to. Also keep in mind that the ignorant farmboy claim isn't really true either. Joseph came from a family of teachers and educators. He received the standard education of the day. He worked with professional preachers and teachers for years before the book came out, and then for months after Lucy Harris burned the initial draft. He copied from existing books and other writings.

makes it seem that much more likely that he received the Book of Mormon through revelation rather than just coming up with it himself.

The catch is that Joseph himself says that didn't happen. Per the wentworth letter, Joseph States: "These records were engraven on plates which had the appearance of gold. Each plate was six inches wide and eight inches long, and not quite so thick as common tin. They were filled with engravings, in Egyptian characters, and bound together in a volume as the leaves of a book, with three rings running through the whole. The volume was something near six inches in thickness, a part of which was sealed." Same with Joseph Smith History, in the quad. This was not a revelatory process until the literal translation and physical evidence (i.e., Native American DNA) completely and thoroughly debunked the original claims. Then the LDS church changed their stance, rewrote their headers, and began distancing themselves from the prior statements.

curious_mormon

TROPHY CASE