Dismissing History

[Mudcat]

My emotional witness trumps your emotional witness. Suck on that home slice.

I'm gankin' this line. Yo.

Why?

Cause that's how I roll, G.

edited to smooth my flow

[LDSMusic483]

I'm gankin' this line. Yo.

Why? (rhetorical)

Cause that's how I roll, G.

Putting in the word rhetorical just messes with your flow

[Mudcat]

Putting in the word rhetorical just messes with your flow

Turn off the lights and I'll glow

To the extreme I rock a mic like a vandal

Light up a stage and wax a chump like a candle

-ganked off the Nilla man, Yo.... like whats he gonna do bout it anyway.

[saemo]

Obtain and read for starters Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses. There is a fraction of the available firsthand accounts contained in that work. It also contains a bibliography making reference to many other sources you can consult for additional firsthand and other testimonies of all the witnesses of the Book of Mormon.

No one in the world has ever put their individual accounts online? I googled, only found what you would call "anti" material, which, though fun and informative, does not contain, full, first person, individual accounts.

I also don't want commentary, from someone named Anderson or any one else. Just the statements. That's all.

[Scottie]

I can give no opinion on others spiritual experiences because I do not know much about them. I haven't heard of "many" which included testimonies of their churches. I know plenty say they saw this vision or that vision, but not including testimonies of their religions. Many probably did happen, but how many were told to give their vision or experience as a testimony to the world? There's too much I don't know concerning them for me to "discredit" them.

Seems like a cop out to me.

If witness testimonies have as much value to truth claims as the 8 and the 11 have, it would seem as though you would want to research other claims.

Perhaps it might help to see where we are coming from. It seems as though apologists want us to accept the witness testimonies as some kind of convincing evidence. The sad fact is that we have hundreds, if not thousands of other witness claims, many of which are similar to the LDS witnesses. In my mind, it is very possible for people to think they saw angels or plates or any number of otherworldly manifestations. Were they all deluded? Tricked? Conned? Probably all of the above. The point being, there is no reason to believe that the 8 and 11 are special when you put them against these other thousands of witnesses. They are just another small subset of the larger group who claim to have seen and/or heard angels. Does that make sense?

[MormonMason]

No one in the world has ever put their individual accounts online? I googled, only found what you would call "anti" material, which, though fun and informative, does not contain, full, first person, individual accounts.

I also don't want commentary, from someone named Anderson or any one else. Just the statements. That's all.

Just get the book. It is not that expensive. The book leads to the statements themselves and tells you where to find them. You won't find a whole lot of the statements online. It would be quite a feat to place them all there, for there are many--many of them quite lengthy published interviews that can be found in both LDS and non-LDS sources, including several recorded deathbed testimonies.

[LDSMusic483]

Seems like a cop out to me.

If witness testimonies have as much value to truth claims as the 8 and the 11 have, it would seem as though you would want to research other claims.

Perhaps it might help to see where we are coming from. It seems as though apologists want us to accept the witness testimonies as some kind of convincing evidence. The sad fact is that we have hundreds, if not thousands of other witness claims, many of which are similar to the LDS witnesses. In my mind, it is very possible for people to think they saw angels or plates or any number of otherworldly manifestations. Were they all deluded? Tricked? Conned? Probably all of the above. The point being, there is no reason to believe that the 8 and 11 are special when you put them against these other thousands of witnesses. They are just another small subset of the larger group who claim to have seen and/or heard angels. Does that make sense?

What I am saying is that I haven't heard of any visions of people where someone told them "this church is true or not true" outside of ours. I know of the virgen guadalupe from serving my mission in Mexico, but that wasn't a testimony of te church, it was a "build my church" and I've heard plenty of things regarding this, but don't find it compelling for various reasons. As for the other 100's or 1000's of accounts that you claim, I can't say anything about because I didn't know they existed.

[jwhitlock]

Again, my question still stands. How do you discredit the multitudes of others in other religions who have claimed to have a vision or voice or whatever that testifies that their religion is true without discrediting the LDS witnesses?

It's really quite simple.

First, make sure you properly define the scope of what that person is "witnessing" to.

Second, has that witness borne fruit, or is it obvious that what they were witnessing was a dead end?

Third, since we're talking about spiritual witnesses, have you obtained your own spiritual confirmation of the witness?

To elaborate:

On the first point, the scope of the BofM witness is quite clear. They saw plates, they saw angels, they are witnessing concerning the Book of Mormon itself, not the truth of the Church or other connected items. In the same manner, if a Catholic claims they have seen the Virgin Mary, the scope of their witness concerns only seeing her and does not necessarily impact the truth claims of Catholicism. Sometimes people extend the scope of the witness outside of the intent, and that causes problems.

Second, the Book of Mormon has borne fruit. It has affected the lives of millions of people, it has been widely studied, and so the results of what the witnesses talked about has been substantial. While not final evidence in and of itself for the truth of the witness, it is significant evidence that there is something behind the BofM and that further study is worthwhile. On the other hand, the witnesses of James Strang led to a dead end. There are no fruits at this day and we can see that his "kingdom" failed. That is significant evidence concerning the lack of credibility of those witnesses.

Third, any conclusion drawn concerning witnesses is going to ultimately be a personal conclusion. We believe that it is up to God to confirm the truth of claimed witnesses to the individual. I can consider the evidence the witnesses present and I can then go to the Lord and get my own confirmation. Of course, that confirmation convinces me, and is not evidence for anyone else. However, it is up to each individual to come to conclusions for themselves. The spiritual confirmation is simply the final tool available for determining truth, if the individual chooses to make use of it.

[jkfrost]

The angel declared it to them, and they believed. What's to preclude?

Hi - I am jkfrost, How are you?

Wanted to ask a few questions without picking on you if I may,

Some people have told me that the BOM was delivered by an angel of light, that is like Satan perhaps or one of his angels.

1 ) Do you believe that this was the case?

There are many who accept the Bible record because of "eye witnesses".

2 ) Is this one reason you might believe in the Bible?

3 ) How does one know in each of these cases if the eye witnesses were telling the truth?

4 ) How does one know what they saw really happened the way they think or say it happened?

[Jason]

I find it interesting that J's term for "accepting" a witness consists of believing they saw something but not believing any of their claims about what that something was.

[jkfrost]

I find it interesting that J's term for "accepting" a witness consists of believing they saw something but not believing any of their claims about what that something was.

Jason I just saw a special moment in time for your # of posts here.

you are at 999 ( that is 666 upside down BTW )

congrads on the thousand post mark when it comes!!!

[Jason]

Jason I just saw a special moment in time for your # of posts here.

you are at 999 ( that is 666 upside down BTW )

congrads on the thousand post mark when it comes!!!

Thanks.

Post #1001.

[JeffM]

The witnesses became estranged with Joseph Smith, and called him all sorts of things. But they NEVER denied their experience. Why is this if they were going along with it the whole time?

I saw where one of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, David Whitmer, later wrote:

If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1938, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the latter day saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them.' In the spring of 1838, the heads of the church and many of the members had gone deep into error and blindness (An Address to All Believers in Christ, by David Whitmer, 1887, p.27).

It appears this man did not deny his original vision concerning the Book of Mormon. But he attributes the same authority to the vision quoted here as to the earlier one ("God spake to me again by his own voice..."). Do Mormons accept that God told Whitmer to leave the church? What would be the justification for accepting Whitmer as a witness to the Book of Mormon vision but not as a witness to the vision he mentions here?

It is possible that Whitmer did not deny his witness of the Book of Mormon vision because he believed in it - in the same way he believed in this later one.

[Lightbearer]

On John W's blog, the following comment was made by a poster in regard to the eyewitnesses of the Book of Mormon plates.

"Eye-witnesses are notoriously unreliable."

John himself wrote:

"But I am reminded of the unreliable nature of eyewitness testimony."

That is very telling indeed, especially since our critics are so insistent on us producing "evidence" or "proof" of things that are spiritual in nature. I suppose that is why the Lord works by the law of witnesses and then He confirms those "eyewitnesses" by the power of the Holy Ghost.

[hagoth7]

Do Mormons accept that God told Whitmer to leave the church?

Can't speak for others. But I don't have a major problem seeing that as a concrete possibility. Is there some key reason I should?

[JeffM]

Can't speak for others. But I don't have a major problem seeing that as a concrete possibility. Is there some key reason I should?

Perhaps not -- if the reason for leaving does not matter to you:

"In the spring of 1838, the heads of the church and many of the members had gone deep into error and blindness."

[jkfrost]

I saw where one of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, David Whitmer, later wrote:

If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1938, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the latter day saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them.' In the spring of 1838, the heads of the church and many of the members had gone deep into error and blindness (An Address to All Believers in Christ, by David Whitmer, 1887, p.27).

It appears this man did not deny his original vision concerning the Book of Mormon. But he attributes the same authority to the vision quoted here as to the earlier one ("God spake to me again by his own voice..."). Do Mormons accept that God told Whitmer to leave the church? What would be the justification for accepting Whitmer as a witness to the Book of Mormon vision but not as a witness to the vision he mentions here?

It is possible that Whitmer did not deny his witness of the Book of Mormon vision because he believed in it - in the same way he believed in this later one.

Here is another quote to take into consideration:

â??In regards to my testimony to the visitation of the angel, who declared to us Three Witnesses that the Book of Mormon is true, I have this to say: Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time. Martin Harris, you say, called it â??being in vision.â?? We read in the Scriptures, Cornelius saw, in a vision, an angel of God. Daniel saw an angel in a vision, also in other places it states they saw an angel in the spirit. A bright light enveloped us where we were, that filled at noon day, and there in a vision, or in the spirit, we saw and heard just as it is stated in my testimony in the Book of Mormon. I am now passed eighty-two years old, and I have a brother, J. J. Snyder, to do my writing for me, at my dictation. [signed] David Whitmer.â? (Letter of David Whitmer to Anthony Metcalf, Mar. 1887, cit. Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years Before the Mast (Malad, Ida., 1888), p. 74; quoted in Anderson [1981], 86.)

"David Whitmer (who never rejoined the Church) continued to maintain his testimony despite possible embarrassment for doing soâ?? considering that he was constantly questioned and criticized for his testimony and was no longer a Mormon. David, like the other witnesses had been charged with being deluded into thinking he had seen an angel and the plates. One observer remembers when David was such accused, and said:"

â??How well and distinctly I remember the manner in which Elder Whitmer arose and drew himself up to his full height-- a little over six feet-- and said, in solemn and impressive tones: â??No sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes, and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!â??â?(, 88.)

I know an individual who with his family is related to David and has joined the LDS faith - He said it was prophesied that not until after

a certain amount of generations this would happen in his family. and so it is.

They also as a family claim that David never denied his testimony of what happened with the Gold plates.

These people live in MO near Liberty. He married my sister in law.

[LDSMusic483]

I saw where one of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, David Whitmer, later wrote:

If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1938, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the latter day saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them.' In the spring of 1838, the heads of the church and many of the members had gone deep into error and blindness (An Address to All Believers in Christ, by David Whitmer, 1887, p.27).

It appears this man did not deny his original vision concerning the Book of Mormon. But he attributes the same authority to the vision quoted here as to the earlier one ("God spake to me again by his own voice..."). Do Mormons accept that God told Whitmer to leave the church? What would be the justification for accepting Whitmer as a witness to the Book of Mormon vision but not as a witness to the vision he mentions here?

It is possible that Whitmer did not deny his witness of the Book of Mormon vision because he believed in it - in the same way he believed in this later one.

Well, let's put it into this light. David claims then that Joseph Smith once received revelation, but that the further revelation was not of God. This could be the same for David.

[JeffM]

Well, let's put it into this light. David claims then that Joseph Smith once received revelation, but that the further revelation was not of God. This could be the same for David.

Perhaps so. But if his latest revelation was not of God, then it is apparent that David could not tell the difference. One wonders how important the testimony of a man should be who cannot tell the difference between false revelation and true.

[JeffM]

Here is another quote to take into consideration:

â??In regards to my testimony to the visitation of the angel, who declared to us Three Witnesses that the Book of Mormon is true, I have this to say: Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time. Martin Harris, you say, called it â??being in vision.â?? We read in the Scriptures, Cornelius saw, in a vision, an angel of God. Daniel saw an angel in a vision, also in other places it states they saw an angel in the spirit. A bright light enveloped us where we were, that filled at noon day, and there in a vision, or in the spirit, we saw and heard just as it is stated in my testimony in the Book of Mormon. I am now passed eighty-two years old, and I have a brother, J. J. Snyder, to do my writing for me, at my dictation. [signed] David Whitmer.â? (Letter of David Whitmer to Anthony Metcalf, Mar. 1887, cit. Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years Before the Mast (Malad, Ida., 1888), p. 74; quoted in Anderson [1981], 86.)

"David Whitmer (who never rejoined the Church) continued to maintain his testimony despite possible embarrassment for doing soâ?? considering that he was constantly questioned and criticized for his testimony and was no longer a Mormon. David, like the other witnesses had been charged with being deluded into thinking he had seen an angel and the plates. One observer remembers when David was such accused, and said:"

â??How well and distinctly I remember the manner in which Elder Whitmer arose and drew himself up to his full height-- a little over six feet-- and said, in solemn and impressive tones: â??No sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes, and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!â??â?(, 88.)

I know an individual who with his family is related to David and has joined the LDS faith - He said it was prophesied that not until after

a certain amount of generations this would happen in his family. and so it is.

They also as a family claim that David never denied his testimony of what happened with the Gold plates.

These people live in MO near Liberty. He married my sister in law.

The point is not what David said about the Book of Mormon vision or whether he remained faithful to it -- but what he said about other visions. These other visions help us to determine how capable this man was when it came to distinguishing genuine messages from God from messages derived from other sources.

[hagoth7]

Perhaps not -- if the reason for leaving does not matter to you:

"In the spring of 1838, the heads of the church and many of the members had gone deep into error and blindness."

His reason does matter to me.

If that's his reasoning, I respectfully disagree with him.

[jkfrost]

The point is not what David said about the Book of Mormon vision or whether he remained faithful to it -- but what he said about other visions. These other visions help us to determine how capable this man was when it came to distinguishing genuine messages from God from messages derived from other sources.

You make a good point - I do not know a good answer to this.

I will have to think on that a bit.

I have seen this amongst ourselves as differing religions - who is to say Mother Teresa is wrong in all that she did?

I would not want to go to a heaven that would not accept her.

God placed us here perhaps in part to see how we get along despite our differences.

Still there are absolute truths to be recond with.

There is a saying that goes like this:

Mar 9:38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name,

and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

Mar 9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name,

that can lightly speak evil of me.

Mar 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

Mar 9:41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name,

because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

Luk 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name;

and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

Luk 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid [him] not: for he that is not against us is for us.

[Jason]

David Whitmer was able to distinguish an angel when one appeared to him, but when he felt betrayed by the Church leadership he decided the other voice whispering in his ear that they had all gone astray was correct.

No angel appears in his account of his instruction to leave the Church, and he is recalling it fifty years down the road, when he has had plenty of time to convince himself that he was right to do so.

[MormonMason]

Perhaps not -- if the reason for leaving does not matter to you:

"In the spring of 1838, the heads of the church and many of the members had gone deep into error and blindness."

Thing is, he did not leave the Church. He was "exed." He then a couple months later received a revelation to separate himself from among the Latter-day Saints, in other words, to vacate the area in the summer of 1838. It was a good thing that he did for there were those who did not want to be driven out from their homes again as a result of those who might raise up mobs out of revenge.

A witness who never rejoined the Church is a very powerful witness, in my opinion. I truly believe that Whitmer's life was in danger at that time and that God wanted to save this witness so that he could continue testifying. That he in later life formed a different opinion than that which he originally held at the time that he was excommunicated is irrelevant, IMO. He still continued to witness to what he saw in presence of others.

[JeffM]

David Whitmer was able to distinguish an angel when one appeared to him...

I'm not so sure. It seems to me there are a lot of things in David Whitmer's life (e.g. time spent receiving revelations for William McClellin's splinter group) that seem to show him as a rather credulous individual. I think a cautious investigator would not accept his word on such things too readily.