still remaining true, as they did, to their testimony. The temptation to injure the Church by recanting, must, at a certain period in the life of each, have been very strong; yet the conviction that they had actually seen and handled the plates remained stronger still."-N. L. Nelson (The Mormon Point of View, pp. 189–190.)

Although, as alleged by one of the multitudinous "affidavits " that seem to be the proper accompaniments of Mormon history somewhat as "blackfish" accompany a whale that Oliver Cowdery, after his withdrawal from the Mormon Church in 1838, united with the Methodist Protestant denomination, making a public recantation, in which he "admitted his error and implored forgiveness," it is certain, nevertheless, that he returned to the Mormons in 1848, and a short time before his death publicly affirmed his belief that the Book of Mormon is true, and that "it contains the everlasting Gospel."

Martin Harris also returned to the Church, after years of separation, and died in Utah. According to accounts, he repeatedly reaffirmed the truth of his original story, describing the scene minutely. David Whitmer never reunited with the Church, but, until the day of his death, continued firm in his belief that the vision of the angel was a true one. In an interview with the noted Apostles, Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith, at Richmond, Missouri, Sept. 7, 1878, he stated that he saw the plates and the angel at this time, and added:

"The fact is, it was just as though Joseph, Oliver, and I were sitting just here on a log, when we were overshadowed by a light. It was not like the light of the sun nor like that of a fire, but more glorious and beautiful. It extended away around us, I cannot tell how far, but in the midst of this light about as far off as he sits [pointing to John C. Whitmer, sitting a few feet from him], there appeared, as it were, a table with many records or plates upon it, besides the plates of the Book of Mormon, also the sword of Laban, the directors, i.e., the ball which Lehi had, and the interpreters. I saw them just as plain as I saw this bed [striking the bed beside him with his hand], and I heard the voice of the Lord, as distinctly as I ever heard anything in my life, declaring that the records of the plates of the Book of Mormon were translated by the gift and power of God. . . . Our testimony as recorded in the Book of Mormon is strictly and absolutely true, just as it was written." - Millennial Star, Vol. XL, Nos. 49, 50.

In his discussion of the " three witnesses," Mr. Riley quotes a letter from Whitmer's grandson, George W. Schweich (Sept. 22, 1899), which reads, as follows:

so

"I have begged him (Whitmer) to unfold the fraud in the case and he had all to gain and nothing to lose but speak the word if he thought but he has described the scene to me many times, of his vision about noon time in an open pasture-there is only one explanation barring an actual miracle and that is this—if that vision was not real it was hypnotism, it was real to grandfather in fact."-Founder of Mormonism, pp. 219-220, note,

Mr. Schweich is also quoted as stating that Mr. Whitmer required that there be inscribed on his tombstone the epitaph, “The Record of the Jews and the Record of the Nephites are one. Truth is eternal." In addition to these testimonies of Whitmer's unfailing faith in the reality of his vision, we find his published statement, in 1887, one year before his death:

"It is recorded in the American Cyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica, that I, David Whitmer, have denied by testimony as one of the Three Witnesses to the divinity of the Book of Mormon; and that the other two Witnesses, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, denied their testimony to that book. I will say once more to all mankind, that I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof. I also testify to the world, that neither Oliver Cowdery nor Martin Harris ever at any time denied their testimony. They both died reaffirming the truth of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon."- David Whitmer (Address to all Believers in Christ, p. 8).

Commenting on the fact that the three witnesses maintained a consistent adherence to their original testimony, B. H. Roberts, writes, as follows:

"The trying circumstances under which the Witnesses persisted in maintaining the truth of that testimony is also known. Neither separation from Joseph Smith as a companion and associate, nor excommunication from the body religious, brought into existence as a sequence, one may say, of the coming forth of the Nephite Record, affected them as Witnesses. In the Church and while out of it they steadfastly maintained what they first published to the world respecting the Book of Mormon. They never attempted to resolve the appearance of the angel, the exhibition of the plates, or hearing the voice of the Lord into hallucination of the mind; nor did they ever attempt to refer this really great event to some jugglery on the part of Joseph Smith. They never allowed even the possibility of their being mistaken in the matter. They saw; they heard; the splendor of God shone upon them; they felt his presence. They were not deluded. The several incidents making up this great revelation were too palpable to the strongest senses of the mind to admit of any doubt as to their reality. The great revelation was not given in a dream or vision of the night. There was no mysticism about it. Nothing unseemly or occult. It was a simple, straightforward, open fact that had taken place before their eyes. The visitation of the angel as in the broad light of day."- History of the Mormon Church (Americana Magazine, Nov. 1909, pp. 911-912).

While to the general public the testimony of the three witnesses must be judged as a part of the total grand riddle of Joseph Smith, it must be held to embody evidence of some order of unusual influence upon their minds, if not, also, upon their senses. If we assume with Roberts that it recorded an actual divine manifestation, we may concur perfectly in his estimate. If, on the other hand, we seek some "rational" explanation, we have quite as much to explain and justify to the intelligence of the public. Thus on the theory of some writers, the whole affair mentioned in the "testimony" was set and staged" by

66

66

Smith to produce an impression on the minds of his too-confiding friends; but we must credit him with wonderful skill and success as a stage manager," and could be excused for doubting if any "properties" and "business" could be so arranged, under the conditions, as to deceive even "ignorant farmers." Another theory, as already mentioned, assumes the use of "hypnotism" in the production of this permanent effect upon the minds of the witnesses. This, as we have claimed, is also "supposing a great deal," even though suggested by Whitmer's grandson, as quoted by Riley.

As may be readily found on study of the subject, the hypnotism explanation is no more than an hypothesis, and a very indefinite one at that. To assert that it fits the facts is a plain presumption, even though we have no other explanation to advance in its stead. In the first place, there is no evidence before us that anything like the ordinary procedures of the hypnotist or mesmerist were attempted; and, even if this were the case, as is fairly evident to anyone at all familiar with literature on hypnotism, it is by no means an easy feat to control and suggest to two subjects at a time, unless previous separate hypnotic states have been induced, and definite suggestions for behavior on a given occasion made and acted upon. This supposition involves, of course, a whole array of things and events entirely unmentioned in any accounts we have read on the event. As to the theory that hallucination may be produced in the waking state by strong suggestion we may quote Prof. James, himself a careful investigator of the subject:

"Some subjects seem almost as obedient to suggestion in the waking state as in sleep, or even more so, according to certain observers. Not only muscular phenomena, but changes of personality and hallucinations are recorded as the result of simple affirmation on the operator's part, without the previous ceremony of magnetizing' or putting into the mesmeric sleep.' These are all trained subjects, however, so far as I know, and the affirmation must apparently be accompanied by the patient concentrating his attention and gazing, however briefly, into the eyes of the operator. It is probable therefore that an extremely rapidly induced condition of trance is a prerequisite for success in these experiments." The Principles of Psychology, Vol. II. p. 615. Although, as appears in the writings of several of the foremost investigators of hypnotic phenomena, the fact that sensory hallucinations and illusions may be produced by suggestion, as well as a more or less persistent conviction of their reality, there can be no doubt that such delusions, being unreal, or corresponding to no normal experience, cannot, even with the strongest suggestion or other form of hypnotic influence, if any be made to assume the permanent semblance of reality. The effects of the influence, whatever its nature, must eventually wear off,

and become less vivid, in precisely the same fashion that dreams lose their definite character in the memory, in the course of years. James and others record that the effects of trance suggestion have been manifested after periods more or less remote"months or even a year, in one case reported by M. Liegeois - there is no conclusive evidence, even to the present day, that such effects may be permanently registered on the brain, to be constantly referred to and believed in for over fifty years, as in the cases of two of Smith's witnesses. And some such evidence is positively essential to the theory. Whatever may be the truth of the matter, however, the hypnotic explanation involves many difficulties, and cannot be quoted as sufficient and demonstrable. At best, it strongly suggests the general tendency of presentday learning to assume the finality of our knowledge of even doubtful matters, and to label imperfectly reported "epilepsy," "hypnotism," etc., on the basis of a few symptoms, which, constituting the sum of our knowledge of the matter, as they do, are quite as compatible with several other explanations.

cases

as

CHAPTER V

JOSEPH SMITH AS THE FIRST PROPHET, SEER AND REVELATOR

ALTHOUGH the name of Joseph Smith figures largely in literature, and although the work inaugurated by him has been variously discussed, opposed and argued against, it is a curious fact that no systematic account of his career, and no estimate of his character and influence, has appeared, except from the pens of two classes of writers. The first of these, both in time and in the attention secured, are implacable enemies, whose spite and prejudice have blinded them to the fact that Smith is entitled to be considered as any other human being-on the basis of his doings, honestly examined and represented - and have led them into espousing the several silly hypothesis which will be discussed at a later place. The second class of writers is composed of the friends and adherents of the Prophet, whose reverence for his memory has moved them to attribute the highest character and the purest motives to him, and to argue confidently for all the claims made by and for him. Between these two extremes the intelligent mind is left to form its own conclusions, entirely unaided, unless it be by the expenditure of pains and effort involved in examining and studying the records and literature that remain to preserve a first-hand picture of this man and his doings.

There are many things recorded in the history of Smith's career that could scarcely be urged as the strongest and most convincing evidences of his claims, nor even the most probable occurrences. With such matters we are less concerned than with the estimate of his significance to the world. Thus, as the initiatory move in the foundation of his Church, as is recorded, Smith and Cowdery are baptized by order of John the Baptist, now a resurrected personage, and are ordained to the "priesthood of Aaron"; later, also, they are ordained to the higher priesthood," or, as it is called the "priesthood of Melchisedek," at the hands of the Apostles Peter, James and John, now also "angels," and are given full authority to teach and administer the ordinances of religion in the name of Christ. The first event is thus recorded in the words of Smith himself:

66