| 21 not true. Was his testimony of that character that he could be deceived regarding it? When his sincerity is admitted (and surely Mr. Smucker gives good reasons why we should admit it), is it not virtually admitting the truth of his testimony?
It appears that Professor Anthon has written two letters concerning this matter, and his connection therewith. One was written to E. D. Howe, of Painesville, Ohio February 17, 1834, a copy of which is found on pages 37-39 of Smucker's work; the other was written in 1841 to an Episcopal minister, of New Rochelle, New York, extracts of which are found in O. Pratt's writings, where reference is made to a periodical called "The Church Record, vol. 1, No. 22."
In both of these letters he admits that a man whom he describes as "a plain, apparently simple hearted farmer," "a plain looking countryman," etc., called on him with a copy of characters, which he requested him to decipher.
In the letter of 1834 the Professor says-
"The whole story about my pronouncing the Mormonite inscription to be 'Reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics,' is perfectly false."
The reader will observe that Martin Harris does not represent the Professor as pronouncing them "Reformed Egyptian," etc. This is doubtless the language of Howe to Professor Anthon, and is a misrepresentation the claim made by Martin Harris, hence the denial has no force.
In the letter of 1834 the Professor describes the paper as follows:-
"This paper, in question, was in fact a singular scroll. It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters, disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets, Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses, and flourishes; Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged and placed in perpendicular columns; and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle, divided into various compartments,
(page 21) |
