Witnesses To The Book Of Mormon - David Whitmer

[Honorentheos]

Ok, he was simple if it pleases you to consider him as such.

[Honorentheos]

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

This has been answered through-out the thread, DWhitmer. Perhaps you wouldn't mind seeing your own devotion to him as the most recent exhibit. Or if he had recanted, would you still be here giving us the pleasure of your company?

Edited December 12, 2011 by Honorentheos

[DWhitmer]

This has been answered through-out the thread, DWhitmer. Perhaps you wouldn't mind seeing your own devotion to him as the most recent exhibit. Or if he had recanted, would you still be here giving us the pleasure of your company?

Lol

[Skylla]

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

Take some time to review the board guidelines.

Skylla

[Calm]

And here I thought you guys would be asleep already so I went and gathered this tidbit from the guidelines:

Do not use offensive terms for things we hold sacred.

Do not post temple content or links to temple content.

Do not use nicknames for LDS leaders. Example: Calling Joseph Smith "Joe" is not acceptable

Do not post anything else you know is meant to do nothing more than push others' buttons.

Libel is not tolerated and you may be held legally accountable. 

_______

pretty obvious the people who just click away on the I accept these terms without reading. I would suggest attaching something like "I'll give you my firstborn if I can't guess a mod's name in three tries.

Sorry for following the thread jack your Honor, I will cease and desist.

[Calm]

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.

so what becomes important to me would be to look at the costs associated with being associated with the Mormons in the minds of his new community after the Saints as a group leave the area and then at the benefit of having a reputation of keeping his word etc when engaging in sales or development of his newly acquired land. If he achieved a reputation for being honest and loyal, his refusal to not kick the Saints when they are down makes him look good . The Saints had moved a good distance away, fear and bigotry can be put back in the trash heap and tolerance and humour taken off the fine china shelf. If BrothervWhitmer was accepted as an upstanding man of this community, if he were to admit to it being a fraud in one sense he would be a hero, in another people would have doubts about his honesty, loyalty, money being more important to him or whatever. In this specific case at that specific time when there were no real hardships in his life due to his association and some positive celebrity status, there could be a backlash for coming clean.

[why me]

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.

David Whitmer and other Church leaders were taken by the mob and told to bid farewell to their families since they would never see them alive again. At the point of the bayonet, the mob drove the prisoners to the public square in Independence, where they humiliated them by stripping them of their clothing and tarring and feathering them. John P. Greene recounted what happened:

“The commanding officer then called twelve of his men, and ordering them to **** their guns and present them at the prisoners’ breasts, and to be ready to fire when he gave the word,—he addressed the prisoners, threatening them with instant death, unless they denied the book of Mormon and confessed it to be a fraud; at the same time adding, that if they did so, they might enjoy the privileges of citizens. David Whitmer, hereupon, lifted up his hands and bore witness that the Book of Mormon was the Word of God. The mob then let them go.” ¹⁶

^{.............}

After the Church was driven from Missouri, most of the Whitmer family settled in Richmond, Missouri. There they lived out their days as respected citizens of the community, though spiritually adrift on a sea of doubt.

.....

David Whitmer began a successful livery stable business, which he ran until his death in 1888. His powerful testimony of the Book of Mormon was heard and read by thousands, with over fifty interviews being recorded. David stated that sometimes he gave between fifteen and twenty interviews a day. One of the strongest of these testimonies was given just shortly before his death in a letter he penned to his local newspaper, the Richmond Conservator:

“It having been represented by one John Murphy, of Polo, Caldwell County, Mo., that I, in a conversation with him last summer, denied my testimony as one of the three witnesses to the ‘Book of Mormon.’

“To the end, therefore, that he may understand me now, if he did not then; and that the world may know the truth, I wish now, standing as it were, in the very sunset of life, and in the fear of God, once for all to make this public statement:

“That I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof, which has so long since been published with that Book, as one of the three witnesses. Those who know me best, well know that I have always adhered to that testimony. And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do again affirm the truth of all my statements, as then made and published.

“‘He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear’; it was no delusion! What is written is written, and he that readeth let him understand.” ³⁷

...........

Jacob Whitmer was a shoemaker by trade, and with his shoemaking in the winter and farming in the summer, he was able to sustain himself financially until his death in 1856. When Andrew Jenson visited the son of Jacob Whitmer, John C. Whitmer, in 1888, John said, “My father … was always faithful to his testimony in regard to the Book of Mormon, and confirmed it on his death-bed.” ³⁸

^........

Hiram Page became a farmer and died in 1852, faithful to his witness of the Book of Mormon. His son, Philander Page, told Andrew Jenson: “I knew my father to be true and faithful to his testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon until the very last. Whenever he had an opportunity to bear his testimony to this effect, he would always do so, and seemed to rejoice exceedingly in having been privileged to see the plates and thus become one of the Eight Witnesses.” ³⁹

^............

John Whitmer’s great desire for property in Far West continued, and after the Saints were driven out, he purchased 625 acres at Far West, including the temple lot. He resided there the rest of his life, a highly respected and law-abiding citizen. He lived longer than any of the other eight witnesses, and was visited by many people and asked about his testimony. Jacob Gates visited him in 1861 and recorded: “[He] still testified that the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of the Lord. He also said that he believed that … Brigham Young was carrying out the doctrine and system which Joseph Smith taught but he (Whitmer) did not believe in a man’s having more than one wife.” ⁴⁰

It is uncertain how much the disaffection with the Church bothered the Whitmers. They always recalled the early days of Church activity with great fondness. One telling incident occurred in an interview between William Lewis and an elderly John Whitmer. Lewis wrote that the Book of Mormon witness wept openly about his inactivity: “At last he did say, wiping the tears off, that the day would come when we would all see eye to eye.” ⁴¹

I can't say that they benefited by being former church members who witnessed the plates. But I do think like any human being some of the whitmers faired better than other whitmers when it came to business. John was the most successful. Such is life. But in the end, they were all sincere in what they saw and felt with their hands. If you were an apostate or inactive mormon, would you endure with the fraud to the end, even if you benefited from it? I doubt it. To live decades with a fraud behind you... always stating the truthfulness of a fraudalent experience....just may lead any person to a human hell.

[why me]

The above information was taken from this site:

http://lds.org/ensign/1989/02/true-to-the-book-of-mormon-the-whitmers?lang=eng

[why me]

And then we have mary whitmer the mother:

This account is given by her grandson, John C. Whitmer in 1878:

"I have heard my grandmother (Mary Musselman Whitmer) say on several occasions that she was shown the plates of the Book of Mormon by a holy angel, whom she always called Brother Nephi. (She undoubtedly refers to Moroni, the angel who had the plates in charge.)

"It was at the time, she said, when the translation was going on at the house of the elder Peter Whitmer, her husband. Joseph Smith with his wife and Oliver Cowdery, whom David Whitmer a short time previous had brought up from Harmony, Pennsylvania, were all boarding with the Whitmers, and my grandmother in having so many extra persons to care for, besides her own large household, was often overloaded with work to such an extent that she felt it to be quite a burden.

"One evening, when (after having done her usual day's work in the house) she went to the barn to milk the cows, she met a stranger carrying something on his back that looked like a knapsack. At first she was a little afraid of him, but when he spoke to her in a kind, friendly tone and began to explain to her the nature of the work which was going on in her house, she was filled with inexpressible joy and satisfaction. He then untied his knapsack and showed her a bundle of plates, which in size and appearance corresponded with the description subsequently given by the witnesses to the Book of Mormon. This strange person turned the leaves of the book of plates over, leaf after leaf, and also showed her the engravings upon them; after which he told her to be patient and faithful in bearing her burden a little longer, promising that if she would do so, she should be blessed; and her reward would be sure, if she proved faithful to the end. The personage then suddenly vanished with the plates, and where he went, she could not tell.

"From that moment my grandmother was enabled to perform her household duties with comparative ease, and she felt no more inclination to murmur because her lot was hard. I knew my grandmother to be a good, noble and truthful woman, and I have not the least doubt of her statement in regard to seeing the plates being strictly true. She was a strong believer in the Book of Mormon until the day of her death."

http://www.moroni10....ry_Whitmer.html

She also left the church but never denied her testimony of what she saw. She died in 1856. Now did she remain 'truthful' to her testimony for financial gain? I seriously doubt it.

Edited December 12, 2011 by why me

[altersteve]

This has been answered through-out the thread, DWhitmer. Perhaps you wouldn't mind seeing your own devotion to him as the most recent exhibit. Or if he had recanted, would you still be here giving us the pleasure of your company?

Where has it been answered that Whitmer benefited financially, as was claimed earlier in the thread, by maintaining his testimony?

[Honorentheos]

Altersteve,

I concede that it will be difficult to show that David Whitmer definitively benefited from his involvement in the LDS church, and then subsequently benefited monetarily by not denying his testimony of the BoM.

However, if we begin to examine the Whitmer family at the time they first were introduced to Joseph Smith via Oliver Cowdery (a link in the chain that, while indirect, becomes suspicious when we hold forth the theory that Cowdery, Smith, and D. Whitmer were the primary parties necessary to perpetrate the BoM as a fraud) we see them as a hard working but poor farming family. Over the course of their involvement with the church, the Whitmers, including David, became some of the largest land owners during the saints' expansion into the Missouri territory. In fact, the question of land ownership and rights was one of the primary contributing issues that defined the rift between the Far West "dissenters" who were the leaders of the church in Missiouri and the leadership of the Kirkland branch (i.e. - Joseph Smith, Rigdon, and Hyrum, etc.)

When this rift turned to outright animosity between the two parties and the dissenters left the church, their standing in the communities in Ray County and other locations was built as much on the idea "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" as any other issue. Yet, how would this have served David Whitmer to come out as someone willing to defraud others by lying about the BoM? Instead, he maintained his story that kept his outward integrity intact while stradling the line by saying Joseph was a fallen prophet. At other times in his life, he pointed to the role he held as witness of the BoM to show he had received authority from God (as quoted through-out his Address including the underlined portion I included a number of posts back) and this served to justify his taking the role of leader in a small number of religious movements based on the BoM being another witness to the New Testiment.

For example, consider this written endowsement of David Whitmer signed by a number of prominent citizens of Richmond -

"Elsewhere we publish a letter from David Whitmer, an old and well-known citizen of Ray, as well as an indorsement of his standing as a man, signed by a number of the leading citizens of this community, in reply to some unwarranted aspersions made upon him.

"There is no doubt that Mr. Whitmer, who was one of the three witnesses of authenticity of the gold plates, from which he asserts that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon (a fac simile of the characters he now has in his possession with the original records), is firmly convinced of its divine origin, and while he makes no effort to obtrude his views or beliefs, he simply wants the world to know that so far as he is concerned there is no 'variableness or shadow of turning.' Having resided here for near a half of a century, it is with no little pride that he points to his past record with the consciousness that he has done nothing derogatory to his character as a citizen and believer in the son of Mary, to warrant such an attack on him, come from what source it may, and now with the lilies of seventy-five winters crowning him like an aureole, and his pilgrimage on earth well nigh ended, he reiterates his former statements, and will leave futurity to solve the problem that he was but a passing witness to its fulfillment. His attacks on the vileness that has sprung up with the Utah Church, must have a salutary effect upon those bigamists who have made adultery the cornerstone in the edifice of their belief."

In short, his good name was a commodity that should not be under-valued and the interest paid him for holding to his witness while denying the saints is evidenced in the letter quoted above.

It's interesting to me that David Whitmer's views of Christianity seems to closely parallel the BoM's descriptions in it's most simple expression. If we do not write into the book modern LDS views then I think we can see why David Whitmer might be concerned that the gospel clarifying message of the BoM was perverted by Joseph Smith. If he was, as I believe, a member of the conspiracy to author the book and portray it as an expression of proper Christian religion, then I think it was with the mind to invent a vehicle by which he could demonstrate his honest views of Christianity while giving it more authority than had he penned the words with his own name signed at the bottom. Frankly, much of the New Testament that we have today was written in this same manner. When we view David Whitmer in this way, we see more clearly into the mind and heart of the man when we read quotes from him such as this:

The Book carries conviction with it. The wise men of this world could never write a book like it. Any one without prejudice, who is honestly seeking for truth, can see the finger of God in that book. It makes plain the doctrines which are so obscure in the New Testament, and over which the religious world is divided. For instance, the mode of baptism; the "signs" or spiritual gifts which Christ said in plain words should follow them that believe in Him. All who are not blinded to the understanding of the New Testament scriptures, will admit that the spiritual gifts should be with the believers in Christ to-day; that the reason why the spiritual gifts are not following the believers to-day, is because they have not that strong and living faith that the ancient church had — down to about 200 years after the death of the Apostles: the Book of Mormon explains this matter in full. Likewise many other questions of vital importance in the doctrine of Christ, which the Christian world has been contending and disputing about for ages, this Book comes forth from God to explain them.

[altersteve]

I concede that it will be difficult to show that David Whitmer definitively benefited from his involvement in the LDS church, and then subsequently benefited monetarily by not denying his testimony of the BoM.

So now you're changing your position, I see. Everything in your post is based on mere assumptions, and nothing in it is even slightly convincing that David Whitmer's testimony cannot be reliable. Yet wasn't that what you wanted to show earlier? You seem to have abandoned that whole track.

Edited December 12, 2011 by altersteve

[why me]

So now you're changing your position, I see. Everything in your post is based on mere assumptions, and nothing in it is even slightly convincing that David Whitmer's testimony cannot be reliable. Yet wasn't that what you wanted to show earlier? You seem to have abandoned that whole track.

I think that he would have to do this. I don't see david gaining much from his mormon experience unless one enjoys being bothered about telling his story over and over again throughout his life. John did quite well. But this had to do more with his business sense and not with his involvement with mormonism. I think that most of the whitmers just plodded along doing their best in life. The same for the mother mary before she died. The whitmers are a human experience of having testimonies, not being able to stay faithful and yet, having complex emotions about why they couldn't because they knew what they saw or felt with their hands.

[Pahoran]

I think that he would have to do this. I don't see david gaining much from his mormon experience unless one enjoys being bothered about telling his story over and over again throughout his life. John did quite well. But this had to do more with his business sense and not with his involvement with mormonism. I think that most of the whitmers just plodded along doing their best in life. The same for the mother mary before she died. The whitmers are a human experience of having testimonies, not being able to stay faithful and yet, having complex emotions about why they couldn't because they knew what they saw or felt with their hands.

But if you ask some people, they'll tell you that the fact that the Whitmers didn't stay faithful to the Church proves that they rejected its truth claims.

Casual assumptions are so useful sometimes.

Like the casual assumption that David was in it for the money.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Honorentheos]

Gentlemen, you overstep your bounds. When I say I concede it would be difficult to prove it was acknowledging the evidence isn't on the order of say a receipt signed and notorized showing David Whitmer had received payment for maintaining his testimony.

On the other hand, it isn't lost on me that most of the quotes and evidence taken directly from David Whitmer's pen have been provided by me in this thread. Yet, here we have accusations of supposition without support or casual assumptions.

Please, if you wish to elevate the discussion then by all means add evidence to your points. I've asked for evidence that Whitmer suffered for his testimony post-Mormonism. It has failed to appear. When asked for examples of why he wouldn't have denied his testimony post-Mormonism, I've added quotes from his neighbors and members of his community stating why his integrity was of value. The quote provided clearly shows that Whitmer benefited from not denying his testimony despite his position of being against the LDS church.

Frankly, I feel that every assumption people have about the witnesses, including David Whitmer, are primarily founded on "casual assumptions" that support the view they somehow or other are good for the Salt Lake church. David Whitmer stands as a witness against said church, and if his testimony is to be taken as valid in one case, it must be dealt with in the other. God spoke to him or He didn't. If He did speak to Whitmer, how do you explain him appearing to be right that polygamy and other post-Kirkland changes to the church were falling away from the true, pure gospel of Christ?

The points of this thread are as simple as that. David Whitmer has no reason to deny his witness, and contrary to most LDS's beliefs would have suffered more had he done so. David Whitmer claims to have heard God tell him to leave the church and that "as (the church) had done to him, so it would be done to them". And specifically, Whitmer points to polygamy as a sign that the LDS faith was being led astray by Joseph Smith - a claim that appears to be reasonably supported by the current position of the church to polygamy. If you believe him in one instance, you have ot be able to fully account for his statement in the other. This means explaining the full statement he claims he heard from God, not just that he should remove himself from the saints.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Honorentheos

[Pahoran]

Gentlemen, you overstep your bounds.

Let's see.

You want to accuse David Whitmer of maintaining his testimony for venal reasons -- if not outright being a conscious participant in an intentional fraud -- and yet we are overstepping our bounds?

How does that work, exactly?

When I say I concede it would be difficult to prove it was acknowledging the evidence isn't on the order of say a receipt signed and notorized showing David Whitmer had received payment for maintaining his testimony.

Indeed, the "evidence" is really on the order of say, baseless gossip and airy speculation.

On the other hand, it isn't lost on me that most of the quotes and evidence taken directly from David Whitmer's pen have been provided by me in this thread. Yet, here we have accusations of supposition without support or casual assumptions.

That's because the evidence doesn't support your tendentious interpretations.

Please, if you wish to elevate the discussion then by all means add evidence to your points. I've asked for evidence that Whitmer suffered for his testimony post-Mormonism. It has failed to appear. When asked for examples of why he wouldn't have denied his testimony post-Mormonism, I've added quotes from his neighbors and members of his community stating why his integrity was of value. The quote provided clearly shows that Whitmer benefited from not denying his testimony despite his position of being against the LDS church.

On the contrary, announcing that he was the victim of some kind of deception would not only have upheld his reputation for integrity, it would have convinced his neighbours (living as he did in the most anti-Mormon state in the union) that he was an all-around splendid fellow.

Whitmer's personal integrity (whatever his other failings) was such that his Missourian neighbours were obliged to attest to it, after he had lived among them for so long, in spite of his funny ideas about the Book of Mormon, and not because of them.

Frankly, I feel that every assumption people have about the witnesses, including David Whitmer, are primarily founded on "casual assumptions" that support the view they somehow or other are good for the Salt Lake church. David Whitmer stands as a witness against said church, and if his testimony is to be taken as valid in one case, it must be dealt with in the other. God spoke to him or He didn't. If He did speak to Whitmer, how do you explain him appearing to be right that polygamy and other post-Kirkland changes to the church were falling away from the true, pure gospel of Christ?

He doesn't "appear to be right" on any of that. Sorry.

The simple fact, as I have noted elsewhere, is that David Whitmer was an old-fashioned fellow with conservative Protestant type views about Scripture who accepted the Book of Mormon because he had no other choice: an angel appeared to him, showed him the plates and told him it was true.

The points of this thread are as simple as that. David Whitmer has no reason to deny his witness, and contrary to most LDS's beliefs would have suffered more had he done so. David Whitmer claims to have heard God tell him to leave the church and that "as (the church) had done to him, so it would be done to them". And specifically, Whitmer points to polygamy as a sign that the LDS faith was being led astray by Joseph Smith - a claim that appears to be reasonably supported by the current position of the church to polygamy. If you believe him in one instance, you have ot be able to fully account for his statement in the other. This means explaining the full statement he claims he heard from God, not just that he should remove himself from the saints.

Because angels didn't keep appearing to him to confirm the veracity of all the subsequent revelations, Whitmer was free to respond to them according to his own wisdom or otherwise.

None of us can examine Whitmer's claimed experience; it was not shared by anyone else; and it has no normative value for anyone else. The notion that any Latter-day Saint is obliged to explain anyone else's claimed spiritual experience is a notorious anti-Mormon canard. It is false, and it has never, to my knowledge, been argued by any honest critic of the Church (if such there be) anywhere.

Regards,

Pahoran

[CV75]

If you believe him in one instance, you have ot be able to fully account for his statement in the other.

Not so—they are two separate instances with a lot of changes in the man going on between them;

And no—the first instance is in a preface in LDS canon while the second is not;

And no—erstwhile faithful apostates do what Brother Whitmer did all the time.

The question is another iteration about whose witness we accept and why; it is about the personal revelatory process, and who is prompting witnesses in the first place (see D&C 84:36-38 -- identify the servants with whom Brother Whitmer kept company and when, and that says a lot).

[Honorentheos]

If at any point in this discussion you gentlemen decide to share evidence that supports your views it will be welcome and I'll do my best to respond to it. By evidence, I expect you will be able to find and share quotes from David Whitmer or others that support your views.

Edited December 13, 2011 by Honorentheos

[Honorentheos]

None of us can examine Whitmer's claimed experience; it was not shared by anyone else; and it has no normative value for anyone else. The notion that any Latter-day Saint is obliged to explain anyone else's claimed spiritual experience is a notorious anti-Mormon canard. It is false, and it has never, to my knowledge, been argued by any honest critic of the Church (if such there be) anywhere.

Regards,

Pahoran

To the contrary, he appears to have been correct regarding polygamy. If one contrasts' David Whitmer's view of the "true, and pure church of Christ" with where the church was at that time, and more importantly where it's been heading over the last couple of decades, I think there is more than just an unsubstantiated claim here. Gordon B, Hinckley appears to have shared at least some of Whitmer's views.

Given that we have more evidence for his being correct in the later case while there is no evidence whatsoever that literal golden plates ever existed I'd say your post is bordering on being the canard here.

[Pahoran]

To the contrary, he appears to have been correct regarding polygamy.

"Correct" how, exactly?

If one contrasts' David Whitmer's view of the "true, and pure church of Christ" with where the church was at that time, and more importantly where it's been heading over the last couple of decades, I think there is more than just an unsubstantiated claim here. Gordon B, Hinckley appears to have shared at least some of Whitmer's views.

For example?

Given that we have more evidence for his being correct in the later case while there is no evidence whatsoever that literal golden plates ever existed

That's false. On both counts.

The only "evidence" you've produced that he was "correct in the later case" is a vague hand-wave at unspecified later developments, which is no evidence at all.

While in fact we have direct, unequivocal eyewitness testimony from twelve people who assert that they saw and handled literal golden plates; and they maintained that testimony to the end of their lives. This is evidence, H. The fact that you are prejudiced against it does not remove it from the category of evidence, and may indeed count in its favour.

So your assertion that "there is no evidence whatsoever that literal golden plates ever existed" is a demonstrable falsehood.

I'd say your post is bordering on being the canard here.

Not quite.

Regards,

Pahoran

[altersteve]

While in fact we have direct, unequivocal eyewitness testimony from twelve people who assert that they saw and handled literal golden plates; and they maintained that testimony to the end of their lives.

Thirteen, if you count Joseph Smith. Also, I think other members of Joseph's family touched the plates through a cloth.

It is quite obvious, Honorentheos, that Joseph had some kind of metal plates in his possession. This is actual history recorded by several people, which of course is a problem for your belief that Joseph Smith, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris were engaged in some "conspiracy" to write the Book of Mormon. To say that there is "no evidence whatsoever" for the plates' existence is a complete lie.

Edited December 13, 2011 by altersteve

[Cold Steel]

Rather than talk this to death, I think Daniel C. Peterson does a great job in his Evidences Of The Book of Mormon addresses. He rightly gives due credit to Richard L. Anderson, an old professor of mine who did perhaps the definitive work on the witnesses. David Whitmer experienced a shared religious vision which is one thing. But once one leaves the church and violates their covenants, they become vassals of the Adversary and subjugated to his power. That one is called of God and hears His voice does not mean that all subsequent experiences, regardless of how he lives his life, also are of God.

Witnesses are a common part of God's operations. In the days of Moses, there were numerous witnesses, including the formal calling of the seventy elders of Israel. In the New Testament, we have the transfiguration on the mount and the subsequent witnesses of the resurrection. In this dispensation there were many witnesses besides the three who testified of visions and healings. I'm satisfied with the witnesses and choose to believe them. If one wants to reject their testimonies, one will always be able to find reasons to do so. I don't really know what more the Lord could do under the circumstances. Perhaps He could yell it from the Heavens, but that would not be in keeping with the way He operates. At least so far. When the judgments John mentions come to pass, yes, one will hear the trumps and witness what comes to pass. But they will still not accept it, on that we are sure.

[Honorentheos]

Hello Pahoran,

I appreciate you providing a fitting summary of the current pro-witness argument. When we started this thread, the question before us was why David Whitmer had not backed away from his testimony of the Book of Mormon. It seems that this is no longer substantiated enough to be worthy of bringing up so I guess the consensus is it's not a valid point in favor of his witness.

If this were a court case, you point out that we have before us a number of witnesses to an event that otherwise is unsubstantiated. Since Brother Whitmer finds himself having to be propped up by the other witnesses, apparently unable to stand any longer on his own, then I feel its reasonable to read your post as evidence the argument has been backed into a corner and is left to snap and bite in attempt to distract from it's wounds.

Fair enough, given I hold Brother Whitmer no ill will. Let's let him be and heal. Perhaps we can turn our attention to one of these other witnesses in another thread and see how much support they really provide when placed apart and examined as one should do with witnesses in a case.

Edited December 14, 2011 by Honorentheos

[why me]

Hello Pahoran,

I appreciate you providing a fitting summary of the current pro-witness argument. When we started this thread, the question before us was why David Whitmer had not backed away from his testimony of the Book of Mormon. It seems that this is no longer substantiated enough to be worthy of bringing up so I guess the consensus is it's not a valid point in favor of his witness.

.

Actually, it seems that the question before us was whether or not david gained financially from his testimony and from repeating his testimony throughout his life. He seems not to gain at all from his mormon experience except some fame from constantly being asked to restate his testimony. That a man kept to his testimony for 50 years seems to have no impact on you at all. And the question would be why? And then why did he place his testimony on his tombstone?

Now let me give you my perspective: the whitmers including david knew what they saw and experienced was from god. However, they could not remain active in the church and yet, they could not deny what they saw and experienced. It was certainly a bad place to be in and yet, a very human one. So, throughtout their lives they proclaimed the book of mormon to be true and hold fast to their testimonies. But knowing full well that they were not in fellowship with the church. On their deathbeds, most of them reconfirmed their testimonies to the book of mormon knowing that god will be waiting for them on the other side, and knowing that they may have come up short with church things. And that would be a good human explanation as any as one is ready to face their maker.

And for david, he reconfirmed his testimony over and over again for 50 plus years.

[why me]

Fair enough, given I hold Brother Whitmer no ill will.

And why would you? Because he kept to his testimony for over 50 years? David was a respectable member of his community. Why hold him in ill will at all when most of the members of his community didn't?

Now if david knew that it was a fraud and never came clean with it, well, then, I can hold him ill will. He would be a liar and a blackguard. But there is no proof of this and the other witnesses seem to have reconfirmed their testimonies as well.