Talk:Martin Harris (Latter Day Saints)

Neutrality

I'm not going to contest the neutrality of this article just yet, but according to Richard Abanes' book "One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church," (pg. 146) Martin Harris eventually became dissatisfied with the Mormon Church due to the splintering, and later converted to Shakerism. Something about that needs to be mentioned in this article, which seems to have a substantial Mormon bias.--ICXCNIKA 23:01 GMT

I cannot say that the article has "substantial Mormon bias" but I will say that it was definitely written primarily by a Mormon. The author was not mindful enough to use terminology that would easily be understood by non-Mormons. Even if the article is not factually bias it has a bias tone or point-of-view. Jebix 02:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It is clear from Rhett James and other authors that Martin served a mission with the strangites but was never joined. In fact he was kicked off the mission because he refused to preach strangite religion. Perhaps Richard Abanes confused this religion with the strangites.--Jumpinbean (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

An article has appeared in a widely-read e-magazine indicating the article has some issues. Here is th article. http://ldsmag.com/article/1/12100/1/page-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.88.164 (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, if Meridian Magazine finds the article to be problematic, I would regard that as a good thing, since Meridian Magazine itself has quite a robust POV itself. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Alleged recantation

Why was the quote I introduced stating that he never denied seeing the plates removed? gdavies 21:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I left a note but obviously didn't save it. There's a problem with the quotation because Harris died in 1875 and so couldn't have given testimony to his vision in 1877.--John Foxe 21:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, the first citation I had was something published in 1877 (and then compiled in the last 30 years or so) but the quote was from a letter written in 1871... I put a more direct quotation in... gdavies 00:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Strangites

I'm not sure what evidence we're relying on to judge Martin Harris' affiliations with other churches, but it seems that (from his statements) his primary purpose for going on a mission to England was to bear testimony of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. He was eventually sent back to Philadelphia because of this... While he did associate with these groups, it's obvious from his behavior that he was torn between his personal differences with Joseph Smith and his testimony of the Plates. It looks like the section needs to be worked on a little to reflect this ambiguity. gdavies 00:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Harris's later testimony is simply the sort of improved recollection that old men have a tendency to tell.--John Foxe 10:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you kindly supply some primary evidence from Harris (his journal or a letter or something) that proves he had a deep affiliation with the Strangites... your willy nilly disregard of his statements (which you assume were only made years later) is disheartening, and indicates a tendency to support your POV against the facts. Critics making statements about Harris' feelings towards other churches shouldn't get more weight than Harris' recollections and his actions. Harris was sent home from his Strangite mission because he was preaching for the Book of Mormon, rather than the Strangites. gdavies 17:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Harris told different stories about himself throughout his life, and there is no reason to trust his word. Plus, I have a special distrust for men who cheat on their wives. Harris served as a member of Strang's high council in Kirtland; he went on a mission for the Strangites in England. That sounds like serious involvement to me.--John Foxe 21:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

First Mr Foxe, would you ignore everything Bill Clinton, JFK, Roosevelt, or Alexender Hamilton, all of whom cheated on their wives, said regarding their lives or feelings? I seriously doubt it. Yet that is the standard you want to apply to Martin. Secondly, Martin married his second wife after his first wife died. The fact that you don't trust the man because he "cheated on his wife," which he didn't, might disqualify you from make objective judgements regarding his biography. --Jumpinbean (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

When Martin Luther King's plagiarism was first bruited abroad, a biographer of his expressed surprise. Even though he knew that King had cheated on his wife, he couldn't believe that he had cheated on his dissertation. Didn't surprise me.

Although Harris married his second wife after his first died, the first charged him with both beating her and paying undo attention to a neighbor's wife. What's ironic, of course, is that Harris was excommunicated after he accused Joseph Smith of adultery.--John Foxe (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Palmer

Palmer saying that Harris (or anyone else) had a "magical world view" proves that "Palmer thinks they had a magical world view," and nothing more than that. He's not an expert on "historical speculative psychology" (neither is anyone else) and is therefore not qualified to make such a statement. Please do not include these types of speculation as facts. POV's are welcome on the talk page, but not in the article. gdavies 17:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not relying on Palmer here even though he makes a convenient citation. The remainder of this paragraph demonstrates that Harris had a magical world view. Additional examples might be given of Harris's superstition and gullibility.--John Foxe 21:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that it demonstrates that then there should be no reason for you to spoon feed (or force feed) your POV to the reader. Let them come to their own conclusion based on the facts, since surely your conclusion is not a "fact" or even that accepted by the majority....

I think you're missing the point here, we absolutely cannot state something like this as a fact. It's completely impossible to prove. I didn't think it would be necessary to be nit picky on this point... from Wikipedia:Verifiability:

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources."

"In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight."

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources, if the source is considered "scholarly": "Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion can always be considered reliable. However they may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense there are alternative scholarly explanations...." "The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals." Certainly we can't consider Palmer a "scholarly source" in this sense, but it goes on to say, "In articles on religions and religious practices, religious scholars (recognized authorities on the religion [Palmer is by no means a "recognized authority"]) are considered reliable sources for the religion's practices and beliefs, and traditional religious and academic views of religious practices should generally both be cited and attributed as such when they differ." Although this isn't an article specifically about a religion or religious practice, the guidelines should be followed.

More importantly (and I think more relevant) is the guideline on claims of consensus, "Just as underlying facts must be sourced, claims of consensus [and I add, "explicit or implicit"] must be sourced in the presence of differences of opinion. Claims that "most" or "all" scientists, scholars, ministers (or rabbis or imams etc.) of a religious denomination, voters, etc. hold a view require sourcing, particularly on matters that are subject to dispute. In the absence of a reliable source of consensus or majority view, opinions should be identified as those of the sources."

Saying "Martin Harris had a magical worldview" implies that there is some kind of consensus on this "fact". Statements such as "so and so had a magical worldview" or "so and so didn't really have things going on great upstairs" or "this guy sure was smart" or "he really had his head on straight," these aren't encyclopedic statements, they're completely inappropriate and completely unprovable because they're based on subjective value judgments of character. We're discussing this issue in several articles, and frankly I'm disheartened that you're so unwilling to compromise. gdavies 08:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hope the small change in wording I've made meets these objections.--John Foxe 14:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that that's a step in the right direction. A lot less POV, and a little more quantified... however, I still think that the statement "he was very superstitious, even for the time period" looks like a value statement. Maybe "[so and so] has said that Martin seems..." or "some have said" etc. Then it's an indisputable fact. I appreciate your willingness to compromise on this one. gdavies 07:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your compromise. Yeah, I can live with it as written, although if I was writing it I'd probably say "to some" of his neighbors as a further qualification (we can prove that, but we can't really prove that all of his neighbors thought he was superstitious), but what we have is alright. Thanks! gdavies 06:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Differing stories

I think "unexplained deletion" was too harsh a comment, but Harris's testimonies are very different from one another, and if I have to lay all the evidence for that, I will.--John Foxe 14:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that we can show the evidence without interpreting it, since it's been interpreted several ways. Rather than imply contradiction, we should just show what he said. We don't know how many times he allegedly saw the plates, under what circumstances, how good his memory was, etc. Casting doubt like this by implying contradiction where it's not necessarily apparent is spoon-feeding/POV. What is your aversion to my edit? gdavies 17:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That may work: just producing all the versions of what he said through the years. Something you didn't mention is, of course, the reliability of those who said they recorded Harris's words.--John Foxe 19:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... it looks like we're trying to turn this into a back cover for a Palmer or Vogel book. The text you just added (and thanks for looking that up by the way) even says "Several hostile and perhaps unreliable accounts told of visionary experiences..." Perhaps we should treat these accounts with equal care. Something along the lines of, "those who were critical of Harris reported several visionary experiences they say Harris had," or something to that effect (and much more clearly worded). The article currently (besides having too much information on this specific topic) seems to lean to far on believing these somewhat questionable and apt to be misrepresented accounts. gdavies 05:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason I chose to quote Walker is because he's a BYU faculty member and highly regarded in the LDS community. If even he doesn't attempt to deny the stories about Harris's superstitiousness, then they need to be taken seriously. Of course, I included the phrase "hostile and perhaps unreliable accounts" as my tip of the hat to you.--John Foxe 10:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I was as pained by the weakening of the prose as I was by the attempt to eliminate the conflict in Harris's stories.--John Foxe 10:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You could balance it by simply adding some additional text from the same source (Dialogue, Winter 1986 p.35, which you can view Here). Here's what the article says:

Several hostile and perhaps unreliable accounts told of visionary experiences with Satan and Christ, Harris once reporting that Christ had been poised on a roof beam. But such talk came easy. His exaggerated sense of the supernatural naturally produced caricature and tall and sometimes false tales.

Yet despite these eccentricities, more than a dozen of Harris's Palmyra contemporaries left descriptions of the man that describe his honor, honesty, industry, peacefulness, and respectability, his hard-headed Yankee shrewdness and his wealth. Bochica 14:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Implying contradiction

Can we just state the facts? I've edited this section I think 3 or 4 times and each time it's been reverted by John Foxe:

"Sometimes he said that his vision of the plates was through "spiritual eyes" in an "open vision," sometimes that he saw them as plainly and "surely as the sun is shining on us" but that he handled them only through a cloth or when they were in a box."

I edited to remove the commentary that implied these accounts were contradictory (Removed "sometimes"' and "or"). Also, earlier on it says "but he changed his religion 5 times" or something to that effect. We have to avoid words like "but" "yet" "nevertheless" "however," etc. because they advance a POV. For instance, the wording of this particular phrase implies that he really wasn't all that nice of a guy (honest, respectful and prosperous) because he changed his religion several times. These elements aren't even related, so a "but" doesn't really make sense here. Anyone else agree? gdavies 16:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that denying that the accounts are contradictory is as much a point of view as asserting their contradiction. Let's keeping working on this.

I don't see the problem with the "five changes of religion" phrase. That statement doesn't reflect on Harris's honesty, integrity, or prosperity; it simply reflects the truth that in matters of religion, Harris was unstable—a trait he continued to exhibit throughout his life even after he became a Mormon.--John Foxe 20:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly my point, the two issues are unrelated, so attaching them with the conjunction "but" is misleading. "He was a good guy, but he changed his religion 5 times." See my point?

You're completely missing the point with the contradictory element though... can't you see that there's a point of view that these descriptions are not contradictory? This is like that whole golden plates nightmare a couple months ago. We just state what he said and let people interpret the statements. It's not like he said "they were black" and then "they weren't black, they were white." That would be pretty close to contradiction, but I'd still be hesitant to indicate that in an article (he could have been talking about two different things, different times, experiences, etc.). What is really at issue is whether you're willing to be neutral in this article and make it something other than "What John Foxe thinks of Martin Harris." If it's so obvious of a contradiction, why don't we just state what he said and let people come to their own conclusions? We don't need to be too nervous to do anything but spoon-feed readers for fear that they might possibly come to a different conclusion than we've arrived at. gdavies 23:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Harris's continual changes of religion speak to his character as much as do his honesty and diligence. Because the sentence covers character, it notes both strengths and weaknesses.

How would you feel about an appendix or list of some kind in which is summarized every recorded comment that Harris made about his experience? It would make for ugly reading as text, but I don't know why it couldn't be included if you think that would make the article more neutral in tone.--John Foxe 00:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you know that that's not what I've been suggesting, but just that we don't interpret the facts for the readers. You might think that Harris' change in religion speaks to his character (although you said earlier that it "doesn't reflect on Harris's honesty, integrity, or prosperity"), and that's your POV, but we don't need to force it on others. gdavies 01:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved the reference to Harris's changing religions to a later paragraph. If you're happy with that, it's fine with me.--John Foxe 13:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for working with me on this one, I'm going to copy the sentence here to make it easier for me to show why I have a problem with its wording:

"Until 1831, he lived in Palmyra, New York, where he was an honest, respected, and prosperous farmer but one who seemed unusually superstitious to many of his neighbors, even in a time and place noted for its interest in folk magic."

I know that adding several unnecessary qualifiers throughout an article can detract from it, but I think that we need to actually increase them in this situation. For instance, "he was an honest, respected, and prosperous farmer." Respected by whom? Surely he wasn't thought honest by all who deny his testimony of the plates. The issue can be resolved as "He was described by neighbors as honest, respected and prosperous." The last part of the sentence is also problematic. The issue arises with the word "but," as it did in the introductory paragraph. I think it'd be best to end the sentence there and restart with a new qualifier instead of implying that he really wasn't honest, respected, and prosperous because he was superstitious. See what I mean? The third problem is with "even" which seems to be a peacock type phrase. We could say "compared to others," or just leave it as "unusually superstitous". I would recommend:

"Until 1831, he lived in Palmyra, New York, where his neighbors described him as honest, respected, and prosperous. Some of these neighbors [for some reason I want something else here, perhaps a "may have" for flow] thought he was unusually superstitious, and one biographer said that his "imagination was excitable and fecund."

After that, there are some accounts of questionable occurences that are currently stated as fact, and we need to work on that too, but I guess we'll work on this part first. gdavies 19:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You say that some of those who denied his testimony of the plates did not think him honest. Sounds reasonable, but I think that's incorrect. The same folks who said Harris was honest also said he was superstitious. That's why I ended the paragraph with the wonderful sentence: "Martin was a man that would do just as he agreed with you. But, he was a great man for seeing spooks." For instance, Charles Anthon never suggests that Martin might be lying to him; but Anthon calls him a "countryman" and says that he believes the whole golden book business might have been a "scheme to cheat the farmer of his money." And why in your suggestion do all the neighbors believe Harris honest but only "some" believe him superstitious?--John Foxe 21:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we're getting into a lot of speculative type stuff here (with whether or not they thought he was honest, etc.) but if we edit for what we have above with the addition of "some of his neighbors" or the like (Can you think of a way to do the same thing but not make it redundant? I'm afraid that adding "some" to both might read funny...), would that edit be agreeable to you? The only reason I brought up the honesty thing is because it was originally an opinion stated as a fact, "he was an honest man," rather than a true fact which is (as you've corrected me) some of his neighbors thought he was honest. Perhaps better than "Some of his neighbors thought he was honest" (which implies that others did not) would be to just state who thought he was honest: "[so and so] said that Harris was an honest man." gdavies 22:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you've lost me here. Do we still have differing opinions about that sentence as it stands?--John Foxe 13:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You brought up that there was a qualifier for those who thought he was unusually superstitious but not for those who thought he was honest, and I was asking how you'd like to word it to take care of that disparity.

As it stands above or in the actual article? I have a couple problems with how it is in the actual article, is the version above alright with you? gdavies 19:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

How about this change? If we do away with the neighbors entirely, then the estimation of Harris's character is based simply on the references and the quotations that follow.--John Foxe 19:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That addresses the concern about "but" without addressing the whole issue of stating someone's opinion as fact. "Harris was honest" is absolutely not acceptable, provable, or encyclopdiac, and similar problems arise with the rest of the paragraph. gdavies 04:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If primary source references won't suffice, then we're at sea. There is no truth, only truthiness. In that case, we should abandon Wikipedia and go out for a pizza.--John Foxe 15:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a primary reference from Joseph Smith that states that God came to earth and through Joseph Smith restored the true church of Christ, that the windows of heaven are open again and personal revelation can be acquired by everyone. I have similar statements from hundreds of primary sources, so does that make it okay to state these "facts" as facts? Absolutely not. That's not what wikipedia is about. I'd recommend reading Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Verifiability if you honestly don't understand this concept. A pizza sounds nice though. gdavies 17:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your example is inapt. One person's revelations can not be verified by another. But if I tell you that I can send a pizza as an attachment to my e-mail, you and your friends can verify whether or not I have psychokenetic power by waiting at the other end until my message comes through. Their testimonies ("John Foxe is a fraud!") would be excellent primary sources. Likewise, three or four people who knew Harris telling us that that he was an honest but superstitious farmer are appropriate sources for any discussion of Harris.--John Foxe 17:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow... k, what I'm saying isn't that in depth: when a primary source makes a claim or says something, that is welcome in articles (if relevant) but shouldn't be rephrased as a fact. We don't know that (as we've discussed in the past) Martin Harris had a magical mindset. There's no way for anyone to go and "prove" that today. It's completely impossible. However, we do have statements from people in the time period that we can use to present one theory. "so and so said that..." that is an indisputable fact. We have primary sources that say something, and that's a fact. The fact that someone from the time period said "Martin Harris is very superstitious" doesn't make that a fact... Do you see what I'm saying? We've accumulated primary sources that provide character judgments for Harris, and taking it a step farther and condoning their individual assessments and presenting their beliefs as facts is not in the spirit of Wikipedia or neutrality. gdavies 23:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree about the use of primary sources generally and only disagree about their use in this particular instance.

You say that when a contemporary declares Martin Harris to have been very superstitious, that doesn't make it so. True. How about two people? Three? Four? How about if there are no reliable sources that contradict their testimony? The generalization that Harris was very superstitious remains a theory for sure, but a theory very much like the germ theory of disease. It has no competitors except in wishful thinking. Against such overwhelming evidence, a naysayer would have to attempt refutation through the use of additional primary sources.--John Foxe 14:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Contradict your testimony? Are you talking about contemporary or primary sources? I'm glad we're making headway here. What I'm saying is that primary sources don't necessarily always illustrate true facts (there's lots of contradictions out there) and often reflect the personal bias of those giving them. That doesn't reflect on their worth in articles like this, but just makes it necessary to use tact and qualification when expressing them. By the very nature of the statement we're attempting to source, it's difficult to impossible to use primary sources to "prove it." It's not very likely that a primary source from back in the day could say, "Martin Harris didn't have a magical mindset," even if that's they way they feel, eh? Besides, the burden of evidence is not on those who wish to contradict, but those who choose to include evidence (basic pillar of wikipedia).

The mindset of an obscure man who died over one hundred years ago compared to the germ theory of disease? Certainly you realize this is quite a stretch, and that the "overwhelming" evidence you believe supports this claim pails in comparison to the scientific and ongoing evidence supporting the germ theory. We're dealing with two entirely different animals, in breadth, scope and nature. gdavies 18:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not the mindset of an obscure man that we're concerned with here but the testimony of those who knew him. (In passing, neither the term "magical" nor "mindset" is used in this article, so fortunately we don't have to debate those words here.)--John Foxe 19:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

A fact that I'm very happy about, I was just using that as an example, and that's exactly my point. The testimony of those who knew him is not necessarily indicative of his mindset or anything else about him. The testimonies are useful, but their beliefs shouldn't be rephrased as facts. gdavies 19:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, if a rephrasing to return the responsibility for their sentiments to the Palmyra neighbors is the only matter at issue here, I'm happy to make that change. (Eliminating reference to Quinn is lagniappe.)--John Foxe 10:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Shakers

Recently added reference of Phineas Young letter was moved to the endnotes, which is fine, but the notion that Harris was only briefly interested in Shakerism is an understatement. The Young letter shows that he was willing to be quite emphatic about his belief, to the point of placing it over his deeper, more long term commitment to Book of Mormon.---Tsluke 17:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with emphasizing Harris's commitment to Shakerism more strongly if the evidence is there. Could you provide a source for the Young correspondence? Is there any additional evidence?--John Foxe 18:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Vogel

I am concerned about what appears to be an overuse of the primary sources from Vogel's Early Mormon Documents; currently 19 of the 35ish references given inline come from one of the volumes of that source. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Martin Harris (Latter Day Saints). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070201200003/http://martinharrispageant.org:80/ to http://www.martinharrispageant.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martin Harris (Latter Day Saints). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/JournalOfDiscourses3/image/100504_171240_ep029_Va_M230_J82_v06.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070809154550/http://www.lds.org/placestovisit/location/0%2C10634%2C1784-1-1-1%2C00.html to http://www.lds.org/placestovisit/location/0%2C10634%2C1784-1-1-1%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Martin Harris (Latter Day Saints). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140312012323/http://josephsmithpapers.org/person?name=Martin+Harris to http://josephsmithpapers.org/person?name=Martin+Harris
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdialogue%2C28798
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614022234/http://content.lib.utah.edu/u/?%2Fdialogue%2C16259 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdialogue%2C16259

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)