Witnesses To The Book Of Mormon - David Whitmer

[Honorentheos]

In another thread the question was asked why someone such as myself feels the Book of Mormon witnesses are not particularly strong evidence for ancient authorship on the grounds they profited from the narrative.

When the statement is made that the witnesses maintained their testimonies of the Book of Mormon through-out their lives it seems much is being implied about the duress this must have caused them.

I would argue that, to the contrary, David Whitmer used the narrative of the BoM's origin to hold power within the LDS church and, once excommunicated, relied on this supposed authority for his own benefit to the end of his life.

Consider the following statement he made -

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, 1838, 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, 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. I had been striving with them for a long time to show them the errors into which they were drifting, and for my labors I received only persecutions.

I would argue that any appeal to David Whitmer's credibility as a witness to the BoM's authenticity requires more than a lack of denial on the grounds that he made use of his position as witness to manipulate others even after leaving the church.

But let's consider - if one believes he truly had some divine manifestation, then I think it's worth reading his An Address to All Believers in Christ (here) and honestly asking one's self - Is the LDS church of today closer to the church that Joseph Smith left behind on his death in 1844? the one that Brigham Young ruled in the Wasatch in the 1850's? or what David Whitmer describes being the true church in this first hand account of his own? I find it hard not to wonder that more Mormon's who rely so much on the 3 witnesses as the most sure evidence for the church's truthfulness don't see Whitmer as a real prophet calling the church into repentance from polygamy given where many, many people end up standing when they come to know the true nature of it. If they are the best evidence for the church, why isn't their almost life-long, unified opposition to polygamy not also worth considering?

I'd ask that we keep this thread to discussing David Whitmer and if we wish to discuss other witnesses that we give them the honor of having their own thread. Each is a unique person and I think much gets lost when we try to lump them together. Facts about one become assumptions about the other without any other justification than the structure of the discussion makes it so.

Thanks.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Honorentheos

[altersteve]

I would argue that, to the contrary, David Whitmer used the narrative of the BoM's origin to hold power within the LDS church and, once excommunicated, relied on this supposed authority for his own benefit to the end of his life.

And what did he benefit from by holding to the Book of Mormon's truthfulness even after he left the Church, especially when doing so brought him nothing but pain? Considering how honest and intelligent David was known to be (even by non-Mormons), to think that he would continue lying even after distancing himself from Joseph Smith and the Church "for his own benefit" is pretty absurd.

To me this entire argument seems to be based on an assumption.

Edited December 11, 2011 by altersteve

[CA Steve]

And what did he benefit from by holding to the Book of Mormon's truthfulness even after he left the Church, especially when doing so brought him nothing but pain? Considering how honest and intelligent David was known to be (even by non-Mormons), to think that he would continue lying even after distancing himself from Joseph Smith and the Church "for his own benefit" is pretty absurd.

To me this entire argument seems to be based on an assumption.

Are you aware that that throughout his life he continued to be affiliated with and help organize other churches that considered the Book Of Mormon as scripture such as this one http://en.wikipedia....28Whitmerite%29?

Edited December 11, 2011 by CA Steve

[altersteve]

Are you aware that that throughout his life he continued to be affiliated with and help organize other churches that considered the Book Of Mormon as scripture such as this one http://en.wikipedia....28Whitmerite%29?

Yes, I'm fully aware of that. I don't see what that has to do with anything, though.

[Honorentheos]

And what did he benefit from by holding to the Book of Mormon's truthfulness even after he left the Church, especially when doing so brought him nothing but pain? Considering how honest and intelligent David was known to be (even by non-Mormons), to think that he would continue lying even after distancing himself from Joseph Smith and the Church "for his own benefit" is pretty absurd.

To me this entire argument seems to be based on an assumption.

Hello Altersteve,

If you are aware of Mr. Whitmer's history then you know that as a member of the LDS faithful and the leadership in Far West, David Whitmer held claim to a fair amount of land - a claim that led to his ultimate excommunication from the LDS church.

See this quote from Senate Document 189 from the trial of Joseph Smith Jr. for example -

Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Lyman E. Johnson, united with a gang of counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and blacklegs of the deepest dye, to deceive, cheat, and defraud the saints out of their property, by every art and stratagem which wickedness could invent, using the influence of the vilest persecutions to bring vexatious law suits, villainous prosecutions, and even stealing not excepted. In the midst of this career, for fear the saints would seek redress at their hands, they breathed out threatenings of mobs, and actually made attempts with their gang to bring mobs upon them. Oliver Cowdery and his gang (such of them as belonged to the church) were called to an account by the church for their iniquity. They confessed repentance, and were again restored to the church; but the very first opportunity they were again practising their former course. While this wickedness was going on in Kirtland, Cowdery and his company were writing letters to Far West, in order to destroy the character of every person that they thought was standing in their way; and John Whitmer and William W. Phelps were assisting to prepare the way to throw confusion among the saints of Far West. During the full career of Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer's bogus money business, it got abroad into the world that they were engaged in it, and several gentlemen were preparing to commence a prosecution against Cowdery; he, finding it out, took with him Lyman E. Johnson, and fled to Far West with their families; Cowdery stealing property, and bringing it with him, which has been, within a few weeks past, obtained by the owner, by means of a search-warrant; and he was saved from the penitentiary by the influence of two influential men of the place. He also brought notes with him, upon which he had received pay, and made an attempt to sell them to Mr. Arthur, of Clay county.

(my emphasis added)

The above is an excerpt from a long letter drafted by Sidney Rigdon and signed by a large number of the saints faithful to Joseph Smith Jr. For those interested, a copy is available to read here.

As noted above, he went on to start his own churches claiming leadership roles and rights.

I'm curious, what do you suppose was David Whitmer's source of income through the majority of his life following his excommunication, Altersteve?

[BCSpace]

I would argue that any appeal to David Whitmer's credibility as a witness to the BoM's authenticity requires more than a lack of denial on the grounds that he made use of his position as witness to manipulate others even after leaving the church.

One could take this further in that if one does not believe that DW is a credible witness to the BoM, then one cannot also credibly argue the yellow journalistic "head in hat" criticism because that also comes (second hand iirc) from DW.

[Honorentheos]

One could take this further in that if one does not believe that DW is a credible witness to the BoM, then one cannot also credibly argue the yellow journalistic "head in hat" criticism because that also comes (second hand iirc) from DW.

Perhaps so, BC. But if David Whitmer isn't a credible witness yet his and the other two's testimonies are in the BoM I think the credibilty of the book as well as the Prophet have much bigger problems to deal with than concern over the specific method of "translation".

[why me]

It seems that this link explains much about the entire Whitmers:

http://lds.org/ensign/1979/08/the-whitmers-a-family-that-nourished-the-church?lang=eng&query=whitmers

The point is that we are not just dealing with David but with the entire Whitmenr clan including the mother. To have all the Whitmers hold fast to their spiritual experience is quite an event. It would give that at least one would claim that it was all a joke. But to their deathbeds they went with the experience of the plates on their lips.

[why me]

Perhaps so, BC. But if David Whitmer isn't a credible witness yet his and the other two's testimonies are in the BoM I think the credibilty of the book as well as the Prophet have much bigger problems to deal with than concern over the specific method of "translation".

And what about John when he was riding with antimormons? He still claimed what he saw and felt with his hands: the plates were true. And at that point in his life, he had no need. He would have been famous if he said that it was all a joke. And in fact, he would have been a hero for many.

[why me]

Are you aware that that throughout his life he continued to be affiliated with and help organize other churches that considered the Book Of Mormon as scripture such as this one http://en.wikipedia....28Whitmerite%29?

David's problem was not with the book of mormon but with Joseph Smith. Of course, he would still be connected to other churches that considered the book of mormon because he believed that the book of mormon came from god. I do believe that he considered JS a fallen prophet.

[Honorentheos]

It seems that this link explains much about the entire Whitmers:

http://lds.org/ensig...&query=whitmers

The point is that we are not just dealing with David but with the entire Whitmenr clan including the mother. To have all the Whitmers hold fast to their spiritual experience is quite an event. It would give that at least one would claim that it was all a joke. But to their deathbeds they went with the experience of the plates on their lips.

I don't think your point is correct, Why Me. There is no reason to conflate any of the 8 witnesses testimonies with those of David Whitmer who claimed a more extraordinary vison. As requested in the OP, please keep this thread about David and if you wish to discuss the Whitmer family in sum then please feel free to start another thread when doing so.

In the end, David Whitmer had no reason to recant his claims and would have suffered had he done so. He'd have lost his congregation, his good name, and everything of worth in his life, though his descriptions of what he claimed to have seen varied in time from the signed account at the beginning of every BoM.

I'm curious though - based on his account that in 1838 God spoke to him again and told him to leave the saints, perhaps you would be able to explain why you see his witness here being untrustworthy? I'd suggest that the evidence may even be more in his favor than the Salt Lake church's claim that he was the apostate. I've never really seen a good explanation for that. Especially in light of the fact he seems to have gained some credibility regarding polygamy given the practice will get you excommunicated today.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Honorentheos

[BCSpace]

One could take this further in that if one does not believe that DW is a credible witness to the BoM, then one cannot also credibly argue the yellow journalistic "head in hat" criticism because that also comes (second hand iirc) from DW.

Perhaps so, BC. But if David Whitmer isn't a credible witness yet his and the other two's testimonies are in the BoM I think the credibilty of the book as well as the Prophet have much bigger problems to deal with than concern over the specific method of "translation".

Sure. But I think it useful to point out this little hypocrisy on the way.

[altersteve]

I'm curious, what do you suppose was David Whitmer's source of income through the majority of his life following his excommunication, Altersteve?

Not from the Book of Mormon. That's the issue here.

Sorry, but none of your arguments are convincing. You don't seem to be painting a complete picture here.

[Honorentheos]

Altersteve,

The question before us is how David Whitmer's testimony of the Book of Mormon affected his life, and in particular after he was excommunicated from the LDS church.

You've suggested at times that he suffered for his testimony which is a charge I believe to be false. If we were talking about Oliver Cowdery I'd agree that Oliver's life was much more negatively impacted by his association with the Saints. But we're not.

David Whitmer took advantage of his high office in the church for his own personal gain. Once he left the church he continued to use his testimony of the BoM as a means of gaining authority in subsequent Mormon-based movements including his own.

Personally, I think David Whitmer is a complex man - as complex as any. And to call him an outright fraudster would be missing something about his character. In a sense I feel you want him painted in either this manner or completely as saint. He was neither. Yet his testimony of the BoM was a tool he used, and generally for his benefit not to his detriment.

Anyway, Altersteve, his later testimony remains a very problematic issue for you as a believer that I haven't seen you yet attempt to explain. If he saw the plates in June 1829, then what's to say he didn't hear God in 1838 telling him the saints were wrong and that polygamy was a sign of corruption in the church? The evidence of what happened to the church as well as where it is today seems to bear him out. If he is to be believed in the first instance, why not the second?

[CA Steve]

Not from the Book of Mormon. That's the issue here.

Sorry, but none of your arguments are convincing. You don't seem to be painting a complete picture here.

What evidence do you have that David Whitmer did not use the Book of Mormon as a source of income after he left the Church?

[Honorentheos]

My main point in asking Altersteve where David Whitmer made his living following his excommunication was to determine how much of his position was based on research and how much on supposition. Given the response I think it's fair to say it's primarily based on supposition.

David Whitmer was first asked to claim right to the leadership of a reorganized Church in 1847 which he accepted but then never occupied. That, in and of itself, is an odd occurance and one which could be interpreted in a number of ways. Either way, though, if one believes the Utah Saints were the authorized branch of the restoration then one has to acknowledge that David at least flirted with the idea of leading a church based on his previous rights as witness and ordination under Joseph's hand even if he later thought better of it. He later followed through on this, reorganizing the Church of Christ, generally given the designation 'Whitmerite' to differentiate it from others of that name.

As to the topic of this thread, the first issue of the "The Return", the reorganized Church of Christ's publication, leads out with this statement -

"Realizing there has been a departure from the plain and pure doctrine of Christ, as set forth in the New Testament Scriptures and Book of Mormon, in which is the fullness of the gospel, the undersigned proposes to commence the publication, at Davis City, Decatur county, Iowa, of a monthly periodical, to be called THE RETURN, in which we propose to set forth our understanding of the doctrine of Christ, as we find it presented in these sacred records, together with the order of church organization and government." (available in it's context here)

David Whitmer's professional life was not tied directly to the BoM, but his own relationship with the people of Richmond, Missouri, would not have benefited from his exposing the fraud if it were such, while his religious life relied on the reality of this claim to his death. While many faithful to the Salt Lake branch of the church see in this his faithfulness to the BoM, they do so at the peril of failing to justify why his testimony in one case is supportive of their own views while it fails to undermine their views later on despite evidence that David Whitmer seems to have more accurately assessed the problems with Polygamy and the movement of the church to greater isolation and power-grabbing on the part of BY and the Utah leadership.

As noted before, David Whitmer is complex. I see in at least some people's reactions to this discussion a need to have the results be binary; like an electric circuit it appears there is a switch that is closed (i.e. - David Whitmer's testimony supports the Saints) until sufficent evidence can be amassed to cause the switch to become fully open (David Whitmer is unquestioningly a fraud and it is impossible to deny that he lied). To insist the evidence fully supports either position is flawed, IMO. In the end, though, I think it's important to realize that David Whitmer was not a martyr for the Book of Mormon. He may have lived his life in it's shadow, but it's a shadow that served him well for the most part.

ETA: I would be interested, given the claim earlier, to see someone paint a picture of the problems David's witness caused him in his life following his excommunication. I've made what I feel is a reasonable attempt to show that it didn't and to the contrary benefited him but I'm sure there is more to the story as they say.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Honorentheos

[Jaybear]

The question before us is how David Whitmer's testimony of the Book of Mormon affected his life, and in particular after he was excommunicated from the LDS church.

David Whitmer took advantage of his high office in the church for his own personal gain. Once he left the church he continued to use his testimony of the BoM as a means of gaining authority in subsequent Mormon-based movements including his own.

In the present context, the term testimony is ambiguous.

Lets not forget that David Whitmer was purportedly a believer well before claiming to see the plates/angles. Thus his "testimony" of the BOM (in the Mormon sense) did not arise from his published testimony. At best, that event reaffirmed/justified his prexisting belief that the plates were real, and Smith a prophet.

If you are trying to assess whether you think Whitmer was a true believer or conspirator, you need to go back to when and how he purportedly acquired his belief.

As noted before, David Whitmer is complex. I see in at least some people's reactions to this discussion a need to have the results be binary; like an electric circuit it appears there is a switch that is closed (i.e. - David Whitmer's testimony supports the Saints) until sufficent evidence can be amassed to cause the switch to become fully open (David Whitmer is unquestioningly a fraud and it is impossible to deny that he lied). To insist the evidence supports either position is flawed, IMO.

I don't see this complexity. Consistently Whitmer claimed to have been witness to supernatural events, which predictably confirm that he is on the right path or that he is telling the truth.

Those who agree with Whitmer accept the truth of those supernatural events which bolster their own preexisting beliefs, and reject/ignore those that don't.

It only complex if you believe in the supernatural, and have to sort out which events are real and which are imagined.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Jaybear

[DWhitmer]

David Whitmer used the narrative of the BoM's origin to hold power within the LDS church and, once excommunicated, relied on this supposed authority for his own benefit to the end of his life.

Thank you for regurgitating the misinformation on David Whitmer so it might be clarified.

1. Mormonism is based on power.

2. David was not "excommunicated."

3. David claimed no special authority.

4. David sought for no position, but was humble, that's why his "church(es)" never turned mega-church.

5. Polygamy was post David, though he did chime in later like William Smith and Emma Smith did.

I would argue that any appeal to David Whitmer's credibility as a witness to the BoM's authenticity requires more than a lack of denial on the grounds that he made use of his position as witness to manipulate others even after leaving the church...I think it's worth reading his An Address to All Believers in Christ

You should use the advice, no offense. Had you read his treatise I would not have to defend David. Your choice of words exceeds your viewpoint, whether you are attempting to exercise this new found ability or are blatantly being controlled by the father of lies, it's not amusing, no offense.

The question before us ...David Whitmer took advantage of his high office in the church for his own personal gain. Once he left the church he continued to use his testimony of the BoM as a means of gaining authority in subsequent Mormon-based movements including his own.

Not worthy of a comment.

Personally, I think David Whitmer is a complex man

Huh?

Yet his testimony of the BoM was a tool he used, and generally for his benefit not to his detriment.

What? Are you confusing him with Martin Harris?

[Honorentheos]

Hello Dwhitmer,

I take it from your screenname and the link in your signature line that you must have some special interest in the subject of this thread. It's unfortunate that you didn't share some of your knowledge to all of our benefit rather than just suggesting I was "controled by the Father of Lies". Interesting.

I'm not sure what you meant in your point 1 - that "Mormonism is based on power" so perhaps you could expland on this point?

As to #2 regarding whether or not David Whitmer was excommunicated, let's consider this quote from David Whitmer himself where he makes the same claim you do -

"You can see...I had already left the Latter Day Saints, when they were brought up against me. Also that I had already left them when they gave me a trial and cut me off."

Perhaps it is being nit-picky to question whether or not David's claim that "You can't fire me, because I quit" matters to the broader point. That being - he wasn't formally a member of the Church still led by Joseph Smith from 1838 onwards. I suppose it's a matter of perspective. From the view of the church, David was excommunicated. If from David's view his leaving first preserved some sense of authority from God or other relationship then I am fine with this claim as well. In a way this makes it even more likely that David held to his claims originating in the LDS church for his later authority and to deny the vision of the plates would have been more damaging than helpful to him post-1838.

As an aside, I think you have valuable information to share judging from your website's content but it will only be valuable if you choose to share a point along with back-up information. Your first post above is lacking a certain desireable substance in favor of posturing. I say this because I think you are more than capable of better.

ETA: clarified that #2 refered to the claim that Whitmer was excommunicated.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Honorentheos

[Honorentheos]

I don't see this complexity. Consistently Whitmer claimed to have been witness to supernatural events, which predictably confirm that he is on the right path or that he is telling the truth.

...

It only complex if you believe in the supernatural, and have to sort out which events are real and which are imagined.

Hi Jaybear,

The reason I see Whitmer as a complex man is his standing in the community following his involvement with Joseph Smith, Jr. He was, by all accounts, well-respected and his business dealings would not have been possible had he been seen as untrustworthy. We can contrast David Whitmer with Oliver Cowdery who was dogged by his testimony of the Book of Mormon and see there is something different in Whitmer. To the believers, this is evidence he must have been truthful when he signed the testimony of the three witnesses. To the disbeliever, he has to have been a knowing member of the fraud in order to explain his testimony as well as his day-to-day observation of the writing of the Book of Mormon. Yet if one is a believer, then how to explain his later claims that the church had fallen into apostasy and that he had heard the voice of God telling him this?

I make no claims to the truthfulness of anything supernatural when I appeal to this complexity as a necessity in studying the man. The evidence requires it.

[altersteve]

Yet if one is a believer, then how to explain his later claims that the church had fallen into apostasy and that he had heard the voice of God telling him this?

Whether or not he believed that the Church had fallen into apostasy, he never claimed that God had told so. What God had told Whitmer, rather, was to separate himself from the Saints. When the Lord had told him this, he had already left the Church, but he was still living in Far West among Church members. I think leaving Far West was probably a good choice for him to make, since people like Sampson Avard were known to be very violent towards apostates. Therefore, to the believer, the Lord gave Whitmer a revelation to leave Far West for his own safety -- as it was important for the Three Witnesses to stay alive.

It is significant, in light of this, that he continued to have a very strong testimony about the reality of his experience with the golden plates. The fact that he never recanted this experience, even when he and Joseph Smith started butting heads, and even the fact that he never returned to the Church, in my opinion makes his testimony very reliable. Through all the persecution, he held fast to his belief that Joseph had translated the golden plates by the gift and power of God. He clearly had no doubt about it.

[altersteve]

What evidence do you have that David Whitmer did not use the Book of Mormon as a source of income after he left the Church?

I think you have it backwards. It's not that there is evidence that he did not use the Book of Mormon as a source of income, it's (to my understanding) that there is no evidence that he did.

[CV75]

In another thread the question was asked why someone such as myself feels the Book of Mormon witnesses are not particularly strong evidence for ancient authorship on the grounds they profited from the narrative.

I think we need to limit our expectations of the reliability of the man and his witness, including the purity of his motives behind it, to the time and place he put his name to the document that appears in the Book of Mormon. This first instance stands legitimate, regardless of what became of his reliability, motives or doctrinal positions since then.

I'm not sure if this witness was intended to provide evidence of ancient authorship so much as a testimony of the things they saw, and of the truth of the work, based on whatever served as "evidence" to him. I see it as an enticement for the reader to read the book. The witness says nothing about ancient authorship, although this can be implied I suppose from the reference to the Lehites and Jaredites. He only says that:

he has seen the plates;

it is a record of the people…;

they were translated by the gift and power of God (God’s voice so declared it);

he knows the work is true;

he saw the engravings by the power of God;

an angel of God showed him the plates;

and, the voice of the Lord commanded to bear record of it.

I guess we really don't know his motives for not recanting this witness, but it is significant that he didn't, and that when he put his name to it he didn't have all the subsequent history and baggage to detract from its legitimacy.

[Honorentheos]

Hi Altersteve,

I suppose that's one way to interpret his statement in his Address. Clearly he viewed the event as having more significance by the full statement that as they had done to him it would be done unto them. So I'm not sure your explaination isn't leaving your toes exposed in an attempt to warm your nose.

Beyond that, I think we can distill the point to this - David Whitmer was invested in the claim the Book of Mormon was divinely produced. This investment lasted through out his life. I don't think it can be shown that at any point it was costing him more than it gave him, justifying his denying the truthfulness of his witness. I believe it's this investment that you see as his strong testimony it was translated by the gift and power of God. If you would, I would still be interested in some evidence that his testimony caused him pain in his life as you stated earlier. It would go a long way from this ending as a discussion based on belief-only.

[Honorentheos]

I think we need to limit our expectations of the reliability of the man and his witness, including the purity of his motives behind it, to the time and place he put his name to the document that appears in the Book of Mormon. This first instance stands legitimate,...

It stands legitimate on what grounds? That he didn't deny it? Then we are expanding this beyond the "time and place he put his name to the document".

I think your point is self-contradicting.