Dismissing History

[ttribe]

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.

Are you going to attack all the other witnesses now, or is all your focus on David Whitmer?

[LDSMusic483]

Are you going to attack all the other witnesses now, or is all your focus on David Whitmer?

I was going to ask a similar thing. Just because you receive a testimony in one thing does not make you perfect in receiving revelation or infallible. Look at Jonas. He obviously was able to get revelation at one point. The fact of the matter is that you have 11 other witnesses. David never came back to the church. Oliver and Martin did. If David could claim Joseph to be a fallen prophet, then David could also have fallen from understaning where true revelation came from. But you have 11 others who coroborate his story of the Book of Mormon, whereas I haven't heard any other statements saying that they know by that "same revelation" that they should leave the church.

[MormonMason]

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.

I do not see his later indiscretions as a problem. Anyone can be misled. But, consider that Whitmer also recanted his views on those revelations later on in life and had nothing to do with the McLellin movement afterward, which fell apart. He did not recant the Book of Mormon and the visitation of Moroni--ever. There is a difference.

[JeffM]

Are you going to attack all the other witnesses now, or is all your focus on David Whitmer?

Is there any evidence the other witnesses are credulous individuals - i.e. showing a willingness to testify to things that later turn out to be untrue?

No one is saying a witness has to be a perfect person to be a witness. However, if a witness shows a tendency toward unreliable assessment when it comes to the very subject he's being asked to provide a witness for (e.g. confirming that a certain message came from God), that should raise some eyebrows.

[Jason]

Is there any evidence the other witnesses are credulous individuals - i.e. showing a willingness to testify to things that later turn out to be untrue?

No one is saying a witness has to be a perfect person to be a witness. However, if a witness shows a tendency toward unreliable assessment when it comes to the very subject he's being asked to provide a witness for (e.g. confirming that a certain message came from God), that should raise some eyebrows.

Yeah, how can anyone trust Peter's word after he testified to others that he didn't know Jesus - three times?

[JeffM]

Yeah, how can anyone trust Peter's word after he testified to others that he didn't know Jesus - three times?

I'm not sure why you see these things as analogous. I think a better analogy would be if Peter spent some time testifying that Apollonius of Tyana ascended to the heavens and was a true prophet before resuming his witness of Jesus's resurrection. Even if Peter never denied his witness of Jesus, the fact that he once witnessed for Apollonius would make his credibility suspect - unless one was prepared to believe in both Apollonius and Jesus.

Of course there would be nothing to stop someone from believing Peter's witness of Jesus but not his witness of Apollonius -- but that would probably just mean the person was already predisposed to accept only the witness of Jesus regardless of what Peter said.

[JeffM]

The fact that it is easy to get credulous people to provide witness to extraordinary events has been known for centuries. Here is an interesting excerpt from "The Death of Peregrinus" written in the second century A.D. by Lucian of Samosata. Lucian tells of a philosopher named Peregrinus (also called "Proteus") who wanted to teach his followers that death was nothing to fear. To drive the point home, Proteus set an appointed time where he would publicly kill himself by jumping into a raging fire. Lucian attended the suicide, then described the aftermath as follows:

At this point I met a number of people coming out to assist at the spectacle, thinking to find Proteus still alive; for among the various rumors of the preceding day, one had been, that before entering the fire he was to greet the rising sun... Most of them turned back when I told them that all was over; all but those enthusiasts who could not rest without seeing the identical spot, and snatching some relic from the flames. After this, you may be sure, my work was cut out for me: I had to tell them all about it, and to undergo a minute cross-examination from everybody. If it was someone I liked the look of, I confined myself to plain prose, as in the present narrative: but for the benefit of curious simpletons, I put in a few dramatic touches of my own. I informed them that no sooner had Proteus thrown himself upon the kindled pyre, than there was a tremendous earthquake; the ground rumbled beneath us; and a vulture flew out from the midst of the flames, and away into the sky, exclaiming in human words

'I rise from Earth, I seek Olympus.'

They listened with amazement and shuddering reverence. "Did the vulture fly East or West?" they wanted to know. I answered whatever came to mind at the moment.

On getting back to Olympia, I stopped to listen to an old man who was giving an account of these proceedings; seemingly a credible witness, to judge by his long beard and dignified appearance in general. He told us, among other things, that only a short time before, just after the cremation, Proteus had appeared to him in white raiment; and that he had now left him walking with serene countenance in the Colonnade of Echoes, crowned with olive; and on the top of all this he mentioned the vulture, solemnly swore that he had seen it himself flying away from the pyre,â??my own vulture, which I had let fly just a short time ago, as a satire on crass stupidity!

Credulous people can be found everywhere. This is not to say every witness to an extraordinary event is necessarily a credulous person. But appeals to witnesses must take the presence of credulity into account. There were certainly plenty of credulous people in the early 19th Century, as is evident when one realizes that there were "witnesses" to many wonders quite apart from those claimed by Joseph Smith and his people.

[MormonMason]

...

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?

...

1. David Whitmer could not have had a revelaton to leave the Church because he was already "exed" months before his revelation to "separate himself from amongst the Latter-day Saints." And,, this notwithstanding David Whitmer's failing memory on some of the details of the circumstances.

2. His revelation was not a vision, unlike the appearance of the angel with the plates that was a vision.

For the record, I believe the revelation to get out of dodge was legitimate. His life was in danger at that time. I believe that he was granted that revelation in order to preserve him as a living witness for as long as was needed.

[JeffM]

1. David Whitmer could not have had a revelation to leave the Church because he was already "exed" months before his revelation to "separate himself from amongst the Latter-day Saints."...

A revelation for David to separate from the saints following his excommunication might just mean God approved of David's rift with them and wanted to prevent him from reconciling.

For the record, I believe the revelation to get out of dodge was legitimate. His life was in danger at that time. I believe that he was granted that revelation in order to preserve him as a living witness for as long as was needed.

This is fine as long as you ignor David's emphatic comment, "In the spring of 1838, the heads of the church and many of the members had gone deep into error and blindness." If this is not the reason David was told to get out, then he drastically misinterpreted the intent of the revelation. It would mean God's revelation was so unclear it allowed a command for David to be temporarily separated from his friends for David's own safety to be interpreted as a command to condemn those friends as transgressors. (Or, of course, it might just demonstrate the ease with which David attributed things to God that didn't come from God.)

2. His revelation was not a vision, unlike the appearance of the angel with the plates that was a vision.

Granting the distinction you want here, is this meant to imply that a man who shows himself unreliable when hearing revelations is to be considered automatically reliable when seeing visions?

[Jason]

(Or, of course, it might just demonstrate the ease with which David attributed things to God that didn't come from God.)

After he had cut himself off from the saints it would stand to reason that his ability to discern the spirit might be affected. "Ere he is aware, he is left unto himself."

Granting the distinction you want here, is this meant to imply that a man who shows himself unreliable when hearing revelations is to be considered automatically reliable when seeing visions?

I think the point being made is that a revelation involving the appearance of an angel is more difficult to misinterpret than other types.

[ttribe]

Granting the distinction you want here, is this meant to imply that a man who shows himself unreliable when hearing revelations is to be considered automatically reliable when seeing visions?

What about the fact that for the first revelation (regarding the plates) he had two corroborating witnesses, plus JS; but, for this latter one, he has no source of corroboration?

[JeffM]

I think the point being made is that a revelation involving the appearance of an angel is more difficult to misinterpret than other types.

What about the fact that for the first revelation (regarding the plates) he had two corroborating witnesses, plus JS; but, for this latter one, he has no source of corroboration?

The Shakers have a book entitled "A Holy, Sacred and Divine Roll and Book; From the Lord God of Heaven, to the Inhabitants of Earth". On page 304 of this book, you'll see the following:

We, the undersigned, hereby testify, that we saw the holy Angel standing upon the house-top, as mentioned in the foregoing declaration, holding the Roll and Book.

Betsey Boothe

Louisa Chamberlain

Caty De Witt

Laura Ann Jacobs

Sarah Maria Lewis

Sarah Ann Spencer

Lucinda McDoniels

Maria Hedrick

Here is a link. Go to page 304.

Are the existence of these witnesses sufficient to convince you that the Shaker Sacred Roll and Book, which testifies that "Christ has made his second appearance on earth, in a chosen female known by the name of Ann Lee", is a genuine revelation from God?

If not, (assuming you aren't prepared to convert to Shakerism), does this not show that "witnesses" to angels can be easily gathered from among credulous people for practically any cause? (Remember the old man who "witnessed" the Proteus vulture as I quoted earlier from Lucian?) Why do you think Whitmer and his companions were not just more of the same?

[ttribe]

The Shakers have a book entitled "A Holy, Sacred and Divine Roll and Book; From the Lord God of Heaven, to the Inhabitants of Earth". On page 304 of this book, you'll see the following:

We, the undersigned, hereby testify, that we saw the holy Angel standing upon the house-top, as mentioned in the foregoing declaration, holding the Roll and Book.

Betsey Boothe

Louisa Chamberlain

Caty De Witt

Laura Ann Jacobs

Sarah Maria Lewis

Sarah Ann Spencer

Lucinda McDoniels

Maria Hedrick

Here is a link. Go to page 304.

Are the existence of these witnesses sufficient to convince you that the Shaker Sacred Roll and Book, which testifies that "Christ has made his second appearance on earth, in a chosen female known by the name of Ann Lee", is a genuine revelation from God?

If not, (assuming you aren't prepared to convert to Shakerism), does this not show that "witnesses" to angels can be easily gathered from among credulous people for practically any cause? (Remember the old man who "witnessed" the Proteus vulture as I quoted earlier from Lucian?) Why do you think Whitmer and his companions were not just more of the same?

Who said I based my testimony on the testimonies of the witnesses?

Additionally, it would be helpful if you made the reader aware regarding the later disposition of the "Shaker Witnesses" to the same degree you have been jumping all over this David Whitmer issue (so we could do a fair comparison).

[MormonMason]

A revelation for David to separate from the saints following his excommunication might just mean God approved of David's rift with them and wanted to prevent him from reconciling.

That is how Whitmer later interpreted what he heard. Revelations sometimes are subject to interpretation unless there is clarification.

This is fine as long as you ignor David's emphatic comment, "In the spring of 1838, the heads of the church and many of the members had gone deep into error and blindness." If this is not the reason David was told to get out, then he drastically misinterpreted the intent of the revelation. It would mean God's revelation was so unclear it allowed a command for David to be temporarily separated from his friends for David's own safety to be interpreted as a command to condemn those friends as transgressors. (Or, of course, it might just demonstrate the ease with which David attributed things to God that didn't come from God.)

David's comment was not part of the revelation. It was a later opinion. In fact, his later views contradict his earlier views as contained in his letter written to the High Council prior to his excommunication!

He at that time clearly stated that he believed in the Doctrine and Covenants and he tried to use one of the Sections as a justification of a particular view he had at that time. As you know, Whitmer later in life rejected the later Sections of the Doctrine and Covenants including the one he wrote earlier that he accepted.

His views on various matters regarding the Church changed over the years. Only two things never changed--his testimony of the visitation of the angel and that of the Book of Mormon.

Granting the distinction you want here, is this meant to imply that a man who shows himself unreliable when hearing revelations is to be considered automatically reliable when seeing visions?

No, what it shows is that an old man's memory might fail him at points later in life and that one can misunderstand the point of revelations granted years earlier. I can give an example in the Bible and in my own life.

Peter had a revelation and a vision regarding things unclean. He was not sure what to make of that vision until he saw subsequent happenstances.

In my own case, I was told that someone would be delivered into my hands but that if I spared him I would receive "and hundredfold, etc.," but that if I took his life I would be justified. At first, I was left to myself as to how I understood the revelation. I found out later that I had somewhat misunderstood part of its intent as I had been informed that a group of anti-Masonic hoodlums harassing my family, as well as other families, actually had among them the person referred to in the revelation.

The night it happened I had no idea he was among them and thought it applied to something else (I began to have issued of faith at that time and wanted to doubt all the revelations that had been given to me over all the years I have received them)--until events unfolded and revealed the true intent of the revelation. I found out later that he was among them from my Stake President of the time. Had I pulled the trigger, the man would have been killed. By not pulling the trigger I had spared his life. But, he indeed had been delivered into my hand that night.

So I have no doubt that the same things that applied to myself and to Peter also applied to Whitmer.

[shalamabobbi]

The Shakers have a book entitled "A Holy, Sacred and Divine Roll and Book; From the Lord God of Heaven, to the Inhabitants of Earth". On page 304 of this book, you'll see the following:

We, the undersigned, hereby testify, that we saw the holy Angel standing upon the house-top, as mentioned in the foregoing declaration, holding the Roll and Book.

Betsey Boothe

Louisa Chamberlain

Caty De Witt

Laura Ann Jacobs

Sarah Maria Lewis

Sarah Ann Spencer

Lucinda McDoniels

Maria Hedrick

Here is a link. Go to page 304.

Are the existence of these witnesses sufficient to convince you that the Shaker Sacred Roll and Book, which testifies that "Christ has made his second appearance on earth, in a chosen female known by the name of Ann Lee", is a genuine revelation from God?

If not, (assuming you aren't prepared to convert to Shakerism), does this not show that "witnesses" to angels can be easily gathered from among credulous people for practically any cause? (Remember the old man who "witnessed" the Proteus vulture as I quoted earlier from Lucian?) Why do you think Whitmer and his companions were not just more of the same?

I think it has been commented on sufficiently time and again. But to repeat (ad naseum) the point is to obtain your own testimony and personal witness. 1 Ne 15:8 Have ye enquired of the lord?

Unless JeffM is hounding the shaker community in a similar manner that he does the LDS community, I believe his fanatic zeal is an evidence in itself of the truthfulness of Mormonism..