Witnesses To The Book Of Mormon - David Whitmer

[CV75]

It stands legitimate on what grounds?

I tried to convey that his witness stands legitimate on the basis that it was genuine at the time and place he put his name to it, and nothing changes that no matter how much he may be said to have changed (also that it wasn't about ancient authorship in the first place, so I'm not really sure how much value can be found in discussing the OP anyway).

[why me]

I don't think your point is correct, Why Me. There is 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.

I have no idea if god spoke to him to leave the saints. Maybe it was a feeling that he understood that god spoke to him. However, this has nothing to do with what he said he saw when it came to the book of mormon. Also, we still cannot separate david from the rest of the whitmers. They are all united together in what they experienced as the linked has shown. I believe that we human beings experience much when we are alive. And david is not exception. He was religious and as a religious person he would have personal religious experiences. But in terms of the book of mormon, it is not a question of an experience of one but one of 11. And that makes all the difference.

[why me]

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.

If it were an experience of one, you may have a point. But this experience with seeing the plates was not an experience of one but an experience of one of a 11. And that is not self-contradicting.

[altersteve]

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.

No nose warming here. My interpretation is not just "my interpretation," it's how any Latter-day Saint would probably look at this situation. To my understanding, it's probably what the Church would say as well, since I remember reading something like that on LDS.org. Anyway, you said that Whitmer said God told him that the Church was in apostasy. This is not true, and since it's not true, what I have explained makes the most sense (to me at least).

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.

Whitmer being one of the Three Witnesses brought persecution to him and his family, as he said himself on several occasions.

And this "investment" you speak of is, in fact, a testimony that the Book of Mormon is true. If he "was invested in the claim the Book of Mormon was divinely produced," then he had a testimony that it was translated by the power of God. He claimed to see the plates, see an angel, and hear the voice of God confirming that the book was true, and he held onto that for the rest of his life. Why would he do that? He left the Church, claimed that God told him to separate himself from the Latter-day Saints, believed Joseph Smith to be a fallen prophet, and was at odds with Joseph for the rest of the time that they were both still alive. And yet, he took his "investment" to his deathbed. That's pretty amazing and tells me one thing: he was never "in" on the fraud at all, and he truly believed that the book was from God. I see no other reason why he still claim to believe in the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the literalness of his experiences with the plates and the angel. To anyone who accused him of being deceived or a fraud, he always firmly and immediately responded; people would say that he, along with the other witnesses, spoke with intense power when he spoke of his testimony of the Book of Mormon. He defended this testimony, as did all the others involved in the Restoration. In fact, I believe he went out of his way once to dispel rumors that he had denied his testimony (though I might be thinking of Martin Harris).

Clearly, Whitmer (and the others) strongly believed in what they were testifying of. There is no other explanation for why any of them would continue to maintain their testimonies and experiences.

Therefore, because of my own knowledge of the Book of Mormon, and because of what I understand about Whitmer, his character and integrity, the things he said (and didn't say), and the actions he took (and didn't take), his testimony only strengthens my own. This is why I believe that what you learn about the witnesses and their testimonies will be interpreted according to what you already believe. In other words, if the Book of Mormon is a sham, then you won't find their testimonies reliable. But if it's the Word of God, then their testimonies offer strong support for the book's divinity. It is thus the Book of Mormon itself that should be studied and examined to learn of its truthfulness, not the testimonies of others, even of those involved with production and publication. Latter-day Saints believe in the witness they receive from God, not the witnesses that other human beings have written.

[why me]

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.

Well, if it were a fraud, the pain would be obvious: spending one's life as a liar would cause immense pain, especially if one was religious. Unless he was a sociopath which is what he would need to be if he were a fraudster. How could he sit back and watch the persecution of so many people if he weren't a sociopath? What was his investment in the book of mormon that was different from the other whitmers?

Edited December 11, 2011 by why me

[Honorentheos]

I tried to convey that his witness stands legitimate on the basis that it was genuine at the time and place he put his name to it, and nothing changes that no matter how much he may be said to have changed (also that it wasn't about ancient authorship in the first place, so I'm not really sure how much value can be found in discussing the OP anyway).

If one presupposes that the original witness is legitimate on the basis it was genuine then I suppose there WOULD be nothing to discuss. However, saying that the witness is legitimate because it was genuine is a tautology.

[altersteve]

If one presupposes that the original witness is legitimate on the basis it was genuine then I suppose there WOULD be nothing to discuss. However, saying that the witness is legitimate because it was genuine is a tautology.

Saying that the witness is legitimate because we have received the same witness is clearly something that you can't accept or understand, so there is nothing to discuss at all.

[Honorentheos]

I have no idea if god spoke to him to leave the saints. Maybe it was a feeling that he understood that god spoke to him. However, this has nothing to do with what he said he saw when it came to the book of mormon. Also, we still cannot separate david from the rest of the whitmers. They are all united together in what they experienced as the linked has shown. I believe that we human beings experience much when we are alive. And david is not exception. He was religious and as a religious person he would have personal religious experiences. But in terms of the book of mormon, it is not a question of an experience of one but one of 11. And that makes all the difference.

With all due respect, Why Me, the link did not convey much information that relates to why we should trust the Whitmer's accounts of what they experienced - which varied from one another as well as the other witnesses. John Whitmer, for examples, claims things about his experience that were not claimed by the other 7. Nor do the accounts of David, Oliver, and Harris overlap completely. If you wish to discuss this in more detail, please consider starting a thread on the consistency of the witness accounts. I'm sure it will make for a good discussion. If, on the otherhand, you wish to discuss David Whitmer's witness I would be happy to engage any points I can that you raise.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Honorentheos

[Honorentheos]

Saying that the witness is legitimate because we have received the same witness is clearly something that you can't accept or understand, so there is nothing to discuss at all.

You've had an angel appear to you with the plates?

[Honorentheos]

No nose warming here. My interpretation is not just "my interpretation," it's how any Latter-day Saint would probably look at this situation. To my understanding, it's probably what the Church would say as well, since I remember reading something like that on LDS.org. Anyway, you said that Whitmer said God told him that the Church was in apostasy. This is not true, and since it's not true, what I have explained makes the most sense (to me at least).

I think it's important to consider the entire quote from Whitmer. He was not only told to separate himself but that there was some form of divine retribution to come their way. As they did to him, so it would be done unto them. If your explaination is the best one available, I'd suggest it's incomplete, thus the comment about exposing one's toes to warm one's nose.

Whitmer being one of the Three Witnesses brought persecution to him and his family, as he said himself on several occasions.

I'll be more explict this time - CFR

ETA: I hope the references called for can be specific to the time after the Whitmer's left the saints. I do not question the troubles the Whitmer's faced while affiliated with them. Just to clarify so we don't waste time on that point.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Honorentheos

[why me]

If one presupposes that the original witness is legitimate on the basis it was genuine then I suppose there WOULD be nothing to discuss. However, saying that the witness is legitimate because it was genuine is a tautology.

If there is one original witness, you may have a point. However, a case is more genuine if there are more than one witness and this is what we have with the book of mormon. Now what or who is to say that these witnesses are not legitimate?

[Honorentheos]

If there is one original witness, you may have a point. However, a case is more genuine if there are more than one witness and this is what we have with the book of mormon. Now what or who is to say that these witnesses are not legitimate?

Why Me, I will ask politely one more time. Please start a new thread on the question of BoM Witness Consistency and we can discuss your point there. It's a distraction from this one and frankly wrong. When you have enough material to begin your own OP together and are not just making up a point, it might be worth engaging you on this matter. Right now, it's more supposition without substance.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Honorentheos

[why me]

If, on the otherhand, you wish to discuss David Whitmer's witness I would be happy to engage any points I can that you raise.

David Whitmer

While the Tanners have no evidence that David Whitmer ever doubted or denied his testimony of the Book of Mormon, they claim that his testimony cannot be relied upon because he later claimed to have had other revelations criticizing the Mormons. The Tanners note that David briefly followed the pretensions of William McLellin and once gave several revelations which "strongly condemned Mormonism."(57) They also claim that there is no evidence that he ever repudiated these revelations. (58) In fact, soon after this, the Whitmers and Hiram Page admitted that these activities were improper and "not in accordance with the order of the gospel church." (59) And later, David Whitmer alluded to these actions and revelations as "errors in doctrine, which the Lord has since shown me, and which errors I have confessed and repented of." (60) The Tanners also cite a statement made by David Whitmer two years before his death in 1887: "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, so it should be done unto them.' " (61) According to the Tanners, "Mormons cannot accept this testimony by their own witness without destroying faith in Joseph Smith." (62) Actually, the voice David described said nothing about Joseph Smith, his revelations, or the truthfulness of the Church, although by 1887 David had obviously drawn his own conclusions from the experience. (63) The Tanners incorrectly state that this voice told David Whitmer "that he should leave the Mormon Church," (64) since by this time David had already been excommunicated and was no longer a member. (65) David simply reports that he was told to "separate" himself from the Latter-day Saint community at Far West, which was probably a good idea under the circumstances.(66) Yet, significantly, for nearly fifty-one years after that separation, he continued to maintain that his testimony of the Book of Mormon was true.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/bom/Witnesses_Roper.htm

It seems that you were misinformed by the tanners. What do you think?

[why me]

Why Me, I will ask politely one more time. Please start a new thread on the question of BoM Witness Consistency and we can discuss your point there. It's a distraction from this one and frankly wrong. When you have enough material to begin your own OP together and are not just making up a point, it might be worth engaging you on this matter. Right now, it's more supposition without substance.

I just have shown you that the tanners were a little mistaken by posting a link in my last post. It would be best to read the entire link and not just the part about David. However, although it may be beneficial for you to separate david from the bunch, I still will claim that it is impossible to do so. Since all the witnesses are tied by their common experiences they must be looked at together. .

[Honorentheos]

David Whitmer

While the Tanners have no evidence that David Whitmer ever doubted or denied his testimony of the Book of Mormon, they claim that his testimony cannot be relied upon because he later claimed to have had other revelations criticizing the Mormons. The Tanners note that David briefly followed the pretensions of William McLellin and once gave several revelations which "strongly condemned Mormonism."(57) They also claim that there is no evidence that he ever repudiated these revelations. (58) In fact, soon after this, the Whitmers and Hiram Page admitted that these activities were improper and "not in accordance with the order of the gospel church." (59) And later, David Whitmer alluded to these actions and revelations as "errors in doctrine, which the Lord has since shown me, and which errors I have confessed and repented of." (60) The Tanners also cite a statement made by David Whitmer two years before his death in 1887: "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, so it should be done unto them.' " (61) According to the Tanners, "Mormons cannot accept this testimony by their own witness without destroying faith in Joseph Smith." (62) Actually, the voice David described said nothing about Joseph Smith, his revelations, or the truthfulness of the Church, although by 1887 David had obviously drawn his own conclusions from the experience. (63) The Tanners incorrectly state that this voice told David Whitmer "that he should leave the Mormon Church," (64) since by this time David had already been excommunicated and was no longer a member. (65) David simply reports that he was told to "separate" himself from the Latter-day Saint community at Far West, which was probably a good idea under the circumstances.(66) Yet, significantly, for nearly fifty-one years after that separation, he continued to maintain that his testimony of the Book of Mormon was true.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/bom/Witnesses_Roper.htm

It seems that you were misinformed by the tanners. What do you think?

I haven't read the Tanners. I can tell you in just a quick reading that your source is flawed. The comment about Whitmer saying something about ""errors in doctrine, which the Lord has since shown me, and which errors I have confessed and repented of." appears to be the same words he used to explain why, at that time, he was wrong to consider taking the office of prophet seer and revelator because, as the quote says, it wasn't consistent with the gospel church of Christ. All other information I've shared has come from the links I've provided including his "Address to All Believers" which is misrepresented in your post above. The quote about God speaking to him comes from that source.

[Honorentheos]

I just have shown you that the tanners were a little mistaken by posting a link in my last post. It would be best to read the entire link and not just the part about David. However, although it may be beneficial for you to separate david from the bunch, I still will claim that it is impossible to do so. Since all the witnesses are tied by their common experiences they must be looked at together. .

Again, I haven't read the Tanners and your source appears to be misusing quotes. Please do not copy and paste material without fact checking it, Why Me.

[why me]

I haven't read the Tanners. I can tell you in just a quick reading that your source is flawed. The comment about Whitmer saying something about ""errors in doctrine, which the Lord has since shown me, and which errors I have confessed and repented of." appears to be the same words he used to explain why, at that time, he was wrong to consider taking the office of prophet seer and revelator because, as the quote says, it wasn't consistent with the gospel church of Christ. All other information I've shared has come from the links I've provided including his "Address to All Believers" which is misrepresented in your post above. The quote about God speaking to him comes from that source.

Maybe you sources are flawed. Why do a quick reading? You will need to take it up with Roper. I don't think that Roper is flawed in his understanding. Of course, you would dismiss it as flawed since it challenges your assumptions. I think that you will need to get the timeline right. Also, david made that address in 1887. Quite a long time had already passed. When you look back on something years and years later, and you are old, lets see how well you will do. Also, I will bet a ruble that you got your interpretation of the address from a critic site. I think that david was 82 when he wrote the tract. Quite old for his own memory to remember the events.

Edited December 11, 2011 by why me

[why me]

Again, I haven't read the Tanners and your source appears to be misusing quotes. Please do not copy and paste material without fact checking it, Why Me.

I did. I see nothing wrong with it. First you asked for a cfr. I gave you one. Check your own facts. But here is a fact: david never gave up on his testimony. He had it written on this tombstone. And at the end of the day...that is important. And it is a fact. Now you can make light of him and his witness. But he held true to the end.

[Honorentheos]

Here's the full quote in question so you can see just how dishonest your source actually is -

"After Brother Joseph was killed, many came to me and importuned me to come out and be their leader; but I refused. With these statements, so you will understand me, I will proceed to show you how the heads of the church went into one error after another. I followed them into many errors in doctrine, which the Lord has since shown me, and which errors I have confessed and repented of, and will speak of in this pamphlet."

[why me]

Again, I haven't read the Tanners and your source appears to be misusing quotes. Please do not copy and paste material without fact checking it, Why Me.

Your argument was the same as the tanners. You are in great company.

[Honorentheos]

Here's the full context of the "If you believe that God spake to we three witnesses" quote for consideration -

I want to say to the Latter Day Saints, that the elders of the Church of Christ, in coming to them, come to them as their brethren, in love and in meekness. God forbid that we should persecute you, who have likewise taken upon yourselves the "shame of Christ" in this age of the world — which shame, in the eyes of the world, is believing the Book of Mormon. No; we love you, and by the help of God we will labor, trusting that the day is not far distant when the honest in heart among you, and among all believers in the Book of Mormon, and the world, may all be one with us upon the doctrine of Christ, working by the power and gifts of God to prepare the way for the gospel to go to the House of Israel. God only knows how I have grieved and suffered and plead with him for you for the past forty-eight years, that you might repent and be enlightened by the Holy Ghost to see the errors in which you have been led. To God belongs the mystery of his dealings with his people; he is allwise, and his ways are not man's ways. Mormon stood alone for many years, when the whole church of Nephites and Lamanites had every one gone into error and transgression. He stood alone, holding the authority, and prayed to God continually that he might go to them and preach to them; but the Lord forbid him to preach to them. Then let no man judge hastily as to my authority, lest he judge wrongly and continue in error; but go to God in prayer and fasting, and find out the truth, for the Holy Ghost will guide you into all truth. 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. In June, 1838, at Far West, Mo., a secret organization was formed, Doctor Avard being put in as the leader of the band; a certain oath was to be administered to all the brethren to bind them to support the heads of the church in everything they should teach. All who refused to take this oath were considered dissenters from the church, and certain things were to be done concerning these dissenters, by Dr. Avard's secret band. I make no farther statements now; but suffice it to say that my persecutions, for trying to show them their errors, became of such a nature that I had

[p. 28]to leave the Latter Day Saints; and, as I rode on horseback out of Far West, in June, 1838, the voice of God from heaven spake to me as I have stated above. I was called out to hold the authority which God gave to me.

(my emphasis added to highlight a key point of this thread)

[Honorentheos]

Your argument was the same as the tanners. You are in great company.

I'm sorry you feel this way, Why Me. But your source misrepresented the facts. I haven't read the Tanners. All I have read are sources directly quoting David Whitmer, and most specifically the Address we are now discussing. David Whitmer assumed authority from God after he left the saints. This authority is tied to his witness of the Plates. That he never denied his witness is not particularly surprising given the facts. That's the whole point of this thread.

[why me]

Here's the full quote in question so you can see just how dishonest your source actually is -

"After Brother Joseph was killed, many came to me and importuned me to come out and be their leader; but I refused. With these statements, so you will understand me, I will proceed to show you how the heads of the church went into one error after another. I followed them into many errors in doctrine, which the Lord has since shown me, and which errors I have confessed and repented of, and will speak of in this pamphlet."

And who were the many? Here is what I think: David still believed in his experience with the book of mormon but he had disagreements with Joseph and other leaders of the church as time went on. And there is nothing strange in this. I have already said that his problem was with Joseph and not with the book of mormon. And he was a human being. But here is another fact: throughout the years, he testified about his testimony and did not waver. And he requested his testimony of the book of mormon be put on his tombstone. And so, what is your point?

[why me]

I'm sorry you feel this way, Why Me. But your source misrepresented the facts. I haven't read the Tanners. All I have read are sources directly quoting David Whitmer, and most specifically the Address we are now discussing. David Whitmer assumed authority from God after he left the saints. This authority is tied to his witness of the Plates. That he never denied his witness is not particularly surprising given the facts. That's the whole point of this thread.

Here is the fact: he had an experience with the plates. He never denied that experience. He had that experience with others who also never denied it. Now did david have a problem with JS? Yes, he did. Did he because of this have problem with the lds church? Yes, he did. Did he have his own rationales? Yes, he did.

As one of the witnesses he was directly tied to the early mormon church and he was asked to justify his testimony throughout his life. I would call it a curse in his life since he left the church and had to justify it.

Edited December 11, 2011 by why me

[Honorentheos]

Why Me,

David Whitmer is clearly saying that the errors he repented of were caused by following the leadership of the Church.

Mr. Roper was dishonest in how he presented the quote. Yet you began this entire tangent on the premise I was using poorly formed arguments that originated with the Tanners.

Please.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Honorentheos