Witnesses To The Book Of Mormon - David Whitmer

[altersteve]

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

Did I say that? No. I said "the same witness," as in, a witness from God. The Three Witnesses simply had the privilege of having their revelation something much more personal, if you will (okay, that's not the right word, but you know what I'm trying to say). That doesn't make mine less real. I can assure you that my experience was very, very real; just as real as what the Three and Eight Witnesses experienced.

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.

And this means the Church was in apostasy?

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.

I'll find something for you if I can, but I'm not in a hurry. Because it shouldn't matter. The fact that he was persecuted during his time with the Saints and still didn't deny his testimony is just as amazing. It seems to me that the fact that Whitmer never denied his testimony -- through the persecution, and even though he cut himself off from the Church and from Joseph Smith -- cuts some holes in your theory. If the Book of Mormon was a fraud, as I've said before, then he should have had no reason to continue deceiving people. He was out of the Church. Joseph Smith was no longer a friend of his. But he still claimed to believe in the Book of Mormon that he helped fabricate, even though he clearly didn't want to have anything to do with Joseph anymore? How does that make any sense at all? He had no reason to do that.

That's what I said before, Honorentheos. You present an argument, but you don't paint a complete picture. You didn't provide a good reason for any of the witnesses to maintain their testimonies. The only good reason that they would do this -- that is consistent with 1) the historical record, 2) their own written and spoken statements, 3) the things other people said about them, and 4) logic -- is that they were telling the truth, or at least sincerely believed they were.

Once again, trying to discredit the witnesses to lend support to your view that the Book of Mormon is a fraud doesn't work. They clearly believed their own words about the Book of Mormon's truthfulness. If they didn't, then it stands to reason that they would admit that they lied. But they didn't. There's only one reasonable explanation here: they truly, honestly believed that the Book of Mormon was exactly what Joseph claimed it was. And if that wasn't problematic for you enough, remember that they were all honest, intelligent, responsible, and well-respected men testifying of golden plates and angels and voices from heaven. So what's the real issue here? It's not whether not they were lying, because they clearly weren't. That much is obvious.

I know it might not seem obvious to you, but see, the funny thing about receiving a personal revelation about the Book of Mormon is that it makes the history so much clearer. Without it, it's muddied, incomplete, and contradictory. But then you learn, like David Whitmer did, from God, just where the Book of Mormon came from and, click. It becomes beautiful, coherent, and rather simple. I think that in itself says more than the critics think it does.

Edited December 12, 2011 by altersteve

[Honorentheos]

I know it might not seem obvious to you, but see, the funny thing about receiving a personal revelation about the Book of Mormon is that it makes the history so much clearer. Without it, it's muddied, incomplete, and contradictory. But then you learn, like David Whitmer did, from God, just where the Book of Mormon came from and, click. It becomes beautiful, coherent, and rather simple. I think that in itself says more than the critics think it does.

Altersteve,

I appreciate the significance the BoM holds for you, and the role the witnesses play in supporting the underlying narrative. To the contrary, I fully appreciate the view you express above if for different reasons. Suffice it to say I have not presented the facts as I see them to try and persuade you or those who think as you do.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Honorentheos

[altersteve]

Altersteve,

I appreciate the significance the BoM holds for you, and the role the witnesses play in supporting the underlying narrative. To the contrary, I fully appreciate the view you express above if for different reasons. Suffice it to say I have not presented the facts as I see them to try and persuade you or those who think as you do.

Thank you.

I'm sorry if I came across a lil harsh.

[Pahoran]

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?

What evidence do you have that he did? Or can we take your attempt to reverse the burden of proof as an indication that you have none?

Regards,

Pahoran

[DWhitmer]

This response is for future readers, the OP is not worthy imo of a dialogue.

Whitmer had other divine manifestations that contributed to an overwhelming confirmation of the Book of Mormon. On the www.whitmercollege.com site you'll find the links to those.

In addition to his witness were the witnesses of 20 others to the dictation process. The fact that Joe only dictated the record and chose not to abide by its precepts is a tragedy. Joe cursed many people who separated from him and history reveals who lived the longest.

I will state an additional witness provided by David Whitmer that is of note - When he visited the Hill Cumorah he saw the stone box that the plates were in. Recall that Joe mentioned the box was made with cement.

In addition to those testimonies we have David's testimony that he heard the VOICE OF GOD. Now, if David did not lie and God is behind the Holy Book of Mormon, who other than the father of lies inspires the ridicule by the OP?

[Honorentheos]

Thank you.

I'm sorry if I came across a lil harsh.

No problem.

In the end, I think most of us who actively partisipate on the boards have fairly well developed views. Yet, for myself if I can't respect where another is coming from even if I disagree, then I don't think I can offer much opinion that would be of benefit to those who may not yet have formed their own opinions. I know I'm not always successful in being respectful but I suppose all we can ask of one another is to try and do our best. Of course, I am also being lead by the Father of Lies so take anything I say with an appropriate grain of salt.

[Pahoran]

This response is for future readers, the OP is not worthy imo of a dialogue.

Whitmer had other divine manifestations that contributed to an overwhelming confirmation of the Book of Mormon. On the www.whitmercollege.com site you'll find the links to those.

In addition to his witness were the witnesses of 20 others to the dictation process. The fact that Joe only dictated the record and chose not to abide by its precepts is a tragedy.

Just so you know, the gratuitous little "Joe" does not show you in the best possible light.

CFR that Joseph did not abide by the precepts of the Book of Mormon.

Joe cursed many people who separated from him and history reveals who lived the longest.

So what? Pilate, Caiaphas and Herod Antipas all outlived Jesus.

Joseph remained true to his calling and sealed his testimony with his blood. David Whitmer seems not to have been satisfied with the work the Lord called him to do, but wanted to be even more important that he was, which was sad.

I will state an additional witness provided by David Whitmer that is of note - When he visited the Hill Cumorah he saw the stone box that the plates were in. Recall that Joe mentioned the box was made with cement.

In addition to those testimonies we have David's testimony that he heard the VOICE OF GOD. Now, if David did not lie and God is behind the Holy Book of Mormon, who other than the father of lies inspires the ridicule by the OP?

I disagree with just about everything in the OP. But ranting about "the father of lies" in a venue where ideas are discussed is not conducive to any discussion and makes you look rather fanatical.

Regards,

Pahoran

[CV75]

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.

This is getting a bit screwy. The witness (the Testimony of Three Witnesses) is legitimate because there is no evidence that he was lying at the time and place it was given, no matter how many twists and turns his life took.

You propose that David Whitmer’s not recanting his testimony of the Book of Mormon is not strong evidence for ancient authorship because he was actually rewarded for this testimony, and suffered no duress in maintaining it.

But he did not testify of ancient authorship at all in signing off on the Testimony of Three Witnesses!

It is fine to speculate that he sought to parlay this witness in other endeavors, but then again perhaps this was only an attempt to recoup the losses he suffered for it earlier; in other words, he did not recant in either apostasy or fidelity, comfort or duress because he actually saw what he reported to have seen; he was always true to that.

The stronger evidence is that he suffered duress before apostatizing anyway. And there is strong reason to assert that kicking against the pricks is about as much duress as any apostate that still acknowledges his testimony can suffer--this kind sees themselves as martyrs, unjustly cast out of the society they loved.

In any case, his witness has to be taken as at much face value as any other such witness, as does that he never recanted it, as does that he didn’t recant it under duress, as does that he didn’t recant it for any purposes that might be tied to his interests outside his support of the Church.

[DWhitmer]

Just so you know, the gratuitous little "Joe" does not show you in the best possible light.

CFR that Joseph did not abide by the precepts of the Book of Mormon.

So what

I disagree with just about everything in the OP

Pahoran

If you read the thread before chimming in your cfr would have been answered and "Joe" was how he was referred - get use to it.

[CA Steve]

What evidence do you have that he did? Or can we take your attempt to reverse the burden of proof as an indication that you have none?

Regards,

Pahoran

Or we can take your response and his as an attempt to assign an assertion to me I did not make.

[LeSellers]

If you read the thread before chimming in your cfr would have been answered and "Joe" was how he was referred - get use to it.

No one who respected him called him "Joe" (or "Jo"). Only his enemies did so. Even his mother and his wife, his brothers and his father called him "Joseph". I defy you or anyone else to demonstrate that anyone on "his side" ever called him "Joe/Jo".

The use of this name clearly identifies one as to which side of the argument the user falls.

Lehi

[Honorentheos]

Or we can take your response and his as an attempt to assign an assertion to me I did not make.

This is a fair point.

We should recall that Peter Whitmer's family was not wealthy despite being hard working on their farm in New York at the time the BoM came into being. Yet we read that John Whitmer was one of the largest land purchasers in the Far West area of Missiouri and after the saints were expelled from Caldwell County David's brother John was very successful in purchasing this land from the departing saints. What David's holdings were I'm not sure, but it's hard to believe he was worse off than before. See here for more on this from a friendly (LDS) author.

In the end, I think it's fairly certain the Whitmers were financially benefited through their involvement in the church. In some ways, their innate industriousness seems to have just needed the push of opportunity the church afforded through capital and investiment into colonizing the frontier to be able to prosper.

[Skylla]

DWhitmer: Tone it down and refrain from name calling.

Skylla

[Pahoran]

If you read the thread before chimming in your cfr would have been answered and "Joe" was how he was referred - get use to it.

People who refer to the Prophet Joseph as "Joe" tend not to last very long around here. You might want to keep that in mind in the future.

And I did read the thread before "chimming in," or even before chiming in. I see no evidence, led by you or anyone else, to the effect that Joseph failed (beyond the normal failings common to humanity) to live according to the precepts of the Book of Mormon.

Regards,

Pahoran

[DWhitmer]

No one who respected him called him "Joe" (or "Jo"). Only his enemies did so. Even his mother and his wife, his brothers and his father called him "Joseph". I defy you or anyone else to demonstrate that anyone on "his side" ever called him "Joe/Jo". Lehi

If it sounds like a duck...

...looks like a duck

then it's just a "duck" chuck.

You're sure "only his enemies"? What about his attorney? Was he Joe's enemy and every newspaper in the country, where they all enemies?

[DWhitmer]

I see no evidence, led by you or anyone else, to the effect that Joseph failed (beyond the normal failings common to humanity) to live according to the precepts of the Book of Mormon. Pahoran

This thread is about who? And what did this person write?

[Pahoran]

This thread is about who?

David Whitmer.

And what did this person write?

Inter alia, a self-serving justification for his apostasy.

But he also maintained his testimony of the Book of Mormon (specifically, of seeing the plates and the angel.) That's why he was important in the early history of this dispensation, not his petty grievances.

Regards,

Pahoran

[DWhitmer]

David Whitmer... not his petty grievances. Pahoran

Wow and wow :sorry: . Before you mar your persona further, pray tell, when did you read ANY of his personal writings. Please state: a. which b. when c. was it a full read through? Can't wait!

[LeSellers]

You're sure "only his enemies"? What about his attorney? Was he Joe's enemy and every newspaper in the country, where they all enemies?

I can't prove a negative. To quote Hermione Granger, "Do you expect me to examine every pebble in the world and demonstrate [there is no resurrection stone]?"

If you believe that Joseph's attorney, or anyone who respected him, called him "Joe", then show us. Not second-hand accounts, primary sources, by their own hands. Quotes from antagonistic editors in their personal rages of the day are second-hand accounts. So, as I said, I defy you to show that anyone who respected Joseph Smith called him "Joe" or "Jo". It did not happen.

He didn't sanction it, and publicly rebuked people for going past the familiarity that he would tolerate even from his Emma. Her last words were, "Joseph, Joseph."

Lehi

P.S.: In case you don't recognize it, this is a formal "Call for Reference". LS

[DWhitmer]

He didn't sanction it, and publicly rebuked people for going past the familiarity that he would tolerate even from his Emma. Her last words were, "Joseph, Joseph." Lehi P.S.: In case you don't recognize it, this is a formal "Call for Reference". LS

I asked, do you consider his attorney an enemy? I need to know what you'll respect first. Actually, you show me where Joe said it was derogatory, CFR. I don't believe it was and therefore the burden of proof is on the accuser. Please show me the money.

[LeSellers]

I asked, do you consider his attorney an enemy? I need to know what you'll respect first. Actually, you show me where Joe said it was derogatory, CFR. I don't believe it was and therefore the burden of proof is on the accuser. Please show me the money.

No, I don't consider his attorney (at least not the ones I'm familiar with) to have been his enemies.

So, I've answered your question, now you must answer mine (and must even had I not answered it, since mine came first). I am not under any obligation to respond to a CFR on a negative, since that is logically impossible. You were the one to imply that people who respected him called him "Joe".

As to his having publicly rebuked someone for calling him "Joe", I'm getting that reference right now. But, in essence an outside minster came, and at Joseph's invitation, addressed the Saints in Nauvoo (as I recall). The cur called him "Joe Smith", and Joseph got up, and said that, to be polite, given the situation, he (the minister) should have called him "Lieutenant General Joseph Smith.

Did You Say Joe Smith in a Sermon?

While the Prophet escorted his visitors about the city, the minister continued the contest on one issue after another. As they stopped in a beautiful grove, Joseph commented, pointing to a platform and a number of seats, "When the weather permits we hold our services in this place, but shall cease to do so when the Temple is finished."

The minister remarked with a note of sarcasm, "I suppose none but Mormon preachers are allowed in Nauvoo."

"On the contrary," replied the Prophet, "I shall be very happy to have you address my people next Sunday, and I will insure you a most attentive congregation."

"What! Do you mean that I may say anything I please and that you will make no reply?" inquired the minister.

To this the Mormon leader replied, "You may certainly say anything you please; but I must reserve the right of adding a word or two, if I judge best. I promise to speak of you in the most respectful manner."

As they rode on the dispute continued. "Come," said the Prophet as he slapped his antagonist on the knee to emphasize his production of a triumphant test, "if you can't argue better than that, you shall say all you want to say to my people and I will promise to hold my tongue. For there's not a Mormon among them who would need any assistance to answer you."

The minister later sought to even things up by referring to some point of doctrine which he considered erroneous. "Why, I told my congregation the other Sunday that they might as well believe Joe Smith as such theology as that," he declared.

"Did you say 'Joe Smith' in a sermon?" inquired the Mormon leader.

"Of course I did. Why not?" rejoined the minister.

The Prophet's reply was given with a quiet superiority that was overwhelming: "Considering only the day and place, it would have been more respectful to have said Lieutenant-general Joseph Smith."

I see I got a couple of minor details wrong, but, in essence, the story as I recalled it was correct. Joseph did not tolerate being called "Joe".

Now, you were going to show us that his supporters did call him "Joe", were you not?

Lehi

[DWhitmer]

No, I don't consider his attorney (at least not the ones I'm familiar with) to have been his enemies...I see I got a couple of minor details wrong...Now, you were going to show us that his supporters did call him "Joe", were you not? Lehi

Be honest, you can't back up the claim. Like I said, get use to it.

Citation 1

James W. Woods was Joseph Smith's "principal lawyer" at the end. He went to Carthage with him, at Joseph's request went to Nauvoo the morning of the Martyrdom, and rode back to Carthage the next day to help recover the bodies. fn Later he gave detailed memories, copying "a receipt from Joe Smith's wife of the articles I found upon the person of Joe Smith." (The Mature Joseph Smith and Treasure Searching by Richard Lloyd Anderson Fn, BYU Studies, vol. 24 (1984), Number 4 - Fall 1984 .)

Citation 2

In the spring I went to Boston as a missionary, and on business. I proclaimed the gospel, as usual, while on this journey, on steamers on the lakes and rivers; in the cities of the Atlantic, and in whatever village or neighborhood I had opportunity. Visiting North Bridge, a short distance from Boston, and having a day's leisure, I wrote a dialogue entitled "Joe Smith and the Devil," which was afterwards published in the New York Herald, and in various papers in America and Europe. It was finally published and republished in pamphlet form, and had a wide circulation; few persons knowing or mistrusting who was the author. (Parley P. Pratt, Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, edited by his son, Parley P. Pratt [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1985], 290.)

Citation 3

M. L. Davis, a Washington correspondent for the New York Enquirer offered this description of Joseph Smith in a letter to his wife dated 6 February 1840: My dear Mary:--I went last evening to hear "Joe Smith." the celebrated Mormon, expound his doctrine. I, with several others, had a desire to understand his tenets as explained by himself. He is not an educated man; but he is a plain, sensible, strong minded man. Everything he says, is said in a manner to leave an impression that he is sincere. There is no levity, no fanaticism, no want of dignity in his deportment. . . .(Joseph Smith and Modern Mormonism: Orthodoxy, Neoorthodoxy, Tension, and Tradition by Robert L. Millet Fn, BYU Studies, vol. 29 (1989), Number 3 - Summer 1989 56-57.)

Citation 4

On March 22, 1842, the Advocate of Columbus, Ohio, published a Mason's estimate of Nauvoo and the Prophet. The correspondent, who signed himself simply "An Observer, Adams County," wrote, "I had supposed, from what I had previously heard, that I should witness an impoverished, ignorant and bigoted population, completely priest-ridden, and tyrannized over by Joseph Smith, the great prophet of these people. . . . On the contrary, I saw no idleness, no intemperance, no noise, no riot. . . . With the religion of these people I have nothing to do; if they can be satisfied with the doctrines of their new revelation, they have a right to be so. . . . I protest against the slanders." This observer attended the installation of the officers of Nauvoo's new Masonic lodge and commented, that "never in my life did I witness a better-dressed or a more orderly and well-behaved assemblage," which he estimated at over five thousand. He stayed three days and enjoyed the hospitality of "the celebrated Old Joe Smith," whom to his surprise he found "instead of the ignorant and tyrannical upstart, a sensible, intelligent, companionable and gentlemanly man. . . . He is a fine-looking man about thirty-six years of age, and has an interesting family." "The temple and Nauvoo House, now building," he wrote, "will probably in beauty of design, extent and durability, excel any public building in the state, and will both be [en]closed before winter" fn--again, temple and hostelry symbols of Nauvoo sacred and secular. (Nauvoo Observed by William Mulder Fn, BYU Studies, vol. 32 (1992), Num. 1 and 2 - Winter and Spring 1992 100.)

[Honorentheos]

Gentlemen,

Please take your discussion of the proper way to address Joseph Smith to it's own thread. It has no bearing on the OP.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Honorentheos

[DWhitmer]

Gentlemen,

Please take you discussion of the proper way to address Joseph Smith to it's own thread. It has no bearing on the OP.

Still there? CFR David was "complex," can't wait, no offense.

[DWhitmer]

Gentlemen,

Please take you discussion of the proper way to address Joseph Smith to it's own thread. It has no bearing on the OP.

And, how did he benefit by sticking to his BoM testimony after separating from Joe? Can't wait.