Witnesses To The Book Of Mormon - David Whitmer

[why me]

f 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.

I think that most people accepted that John Whitmer was a good businessman who had a good business acumen. This would have nothing to do with mormonism. This business sense would have been there anyway. I think that most outsiders knew that John had an experience and believed that he believed in that experience. But I don't see him being an active missionary when he left the church. I think that people could separate the two: him having the experience and being a good member of the community.

Now if john when his reputation was high would have said that he has doubts now about his experience and at the time he actually believed it but now as he has become older, is having doubts, his reputation would certainly be intact. There is always wiggle room for a fraudster to come clean...and since he wouldn't be looked upon as a fraudster but as someone who was duped by Joseph, he would have done just fine, if not better.

[why me]

I think that most people accepted that John Whitmer was a good businessman who had a good business acumen. This would have nothing to do with mormonism. This business sense would have been there anyway. I think that most outsiders knew that John had an experience and believed that he believed in that experience. But I don't see him being an active missionary when he left the church. I think that people could separate the two: him having the experience and being a good member of the community.

Now if john when his reputation was high would have said that he has doubts now about his experience and at the time he actually believed it but now as he has become older, is having doubts, his reputation would certainly be intact. There is always wiggle room for a fraudster to come clean...and since he wouldn't be looked upon as a fraudster but as someone who was duped by Joseph, he would have done just fine, if not better. We see on the internet many people who believed who now have doubts and their reputation has not suffered at all, even if they did bring in new members when they were missionaries. People change.

Edited December 14, 2011 by why me

[Calm]

Actually I was talking about David, not John, but it works for both.

And I don't see either of them remaining unscathed if they started expressing doubts or admitted to being part of a fraud. It is impossible to predict what might have happened to them. We don't know the communities they lived in, don't know if any there viewed themselves or their families as injured by lds, etc. Close knit communities can be both forgiving and very unforgiving of those they view as having done wrong and injured others.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The mob killed the messenger, now (for 182 years) they have sought to destroy the witnesses of the messenger (this is a common tactic). These witnesses died long after Joseph died. Some are all were excommunicated; two return after the death of Joseph, I believe they are buried in SLC.

BTW their are amny who saw the plated other than the 14 listed in the BoM. Emma was actually waiting at the bottom of the hill when Joseph went to get the plates...before he returned to take final possession. His family saw them wrapped and lying on a table in the house.

[Honorentheos]

None of the witnesses are buried in Salt Lake City. Only Martin Harris actually came to Utah, and his gravestone is located in Clarkston, Utah, in Cache Valley. It's the site of the Martin Harris Pageant.

[Pahoran]

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.

I think it is well substantiated that DW never backed away from his testimony of the Book of Mormon. I also note that, instead of any evidence to the contrary being brought forth, we have been subjected to rather nasty, unsupported speculation about why this might be so; speculation that starts from the assumption that his testimony was false, but makes not the slightest attempt to support that assumption.

In fact, the real reason why nobody is "bringing up" the fact that DW never backed away from his testimony of the Book of Mormon is that it is entirely indisputable; as such, there is nothing on that point to discuss. Instead, some attempt to obscure it with smoke-and-mirror games.

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.

That's false, as you obviously know and fully intend. The reality is that you are the one running the distraction tactics. Whitmer's testimony stands unimpeached and unsullied; your attempt to besmirch him has failed.

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.

I'll accept your attempt to change the subject as the admission of failure it is.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Honorentheos]

I'll accept your attempt to change the subject as the admission of failure it is.

Regards,

Pahoran

To the contrary, the absence of actual evidence to dispute David Whitmer's testimony that the church had fallen into error seems to indicate there is no reason to believe further progress would be forthcoming. Your post above did nothing to change this assessment.

The point earlier was that David Whitmer's adherence to his testimony is not self-sufficient reason to say it's true given that his maintaining this testimony throughout his life is equally easy to explain on grounds it was self-serving to do so.

[why me]

To the contrary, the absence of actual evidence to dispute David Whitmer's testimony that the church had fallen into error seems to indicate there is no reason to believe further progress would be forthcoming. Your post above did nothing to change this assessment.

We also need to remember the times that david lived in. He was not alone in this opinion. But this did not affect his testimony at all. He continued with his testimony. It matters little if he left the church because he thought that JS was a fallen prophet. He still held fast to his testimony. Here is the point: david was human and he went with his heart. People do it all the time. Now it would have been different if he retracted his testimony do to his opinion of JS. But he didn't. He made sure that he gave his testimony when it was needed. And we can say he was faithful to it.

[why me]

The point earlier was that David Whitmer's adherence to his testimony is not self-sufficient reason to say it's true given that his maintaining this testimony throughout his life is equally easy to explain on grounds it was self-serving to do so.

Try holding on to a testimony for 50 years when you no longer believe in it and just do it for personal gain and see what it does to your mind and soul. And we must remember that david was asked for his testimony countless times. I am afraid you are barking up the wrong tree with your stance.

[Pahoran]

To the contrary, the absence of actual evidence to dispute David Whitmer's testimony that the church had fallen into error seems to indicate there is no reason to believe further progress would be forthcoming. Your post above did nothing to change this assessment.

And around and around and around we go.

David Whitmer's testimony of his experience with the Plates and the Angel is entirely independent of his opinion that the Church had fallen into error. Not only that, but his opinion that the Church had fallen into error is entirely independent of his testimony of his experience with the Plates and the Angel.

And I rather suspect you realise this.

David Whitmer's opinion about the Church falling into error rests upon his theological and/or ecclesiastical competence. His testimony regarding the Book of Mormon rests upon neither of those things, but only upon him personally experiencing a unique event. Your paltry attempt to discredit his testimony as a witness by appealing to his subsequent opinions is an instance of the ad hominem fallacy.

The point earlier was that David Whitmer's adherence to his testimony is not self-sufficient reason to say it's true given that his maintaining this testimony throughout his life is equally easy to explain on grounds it was self-serving to do so.

Since I have never heard anyone claim "that David Whitmer's adherence to his testimony is self-sufficient reason to say it's true," you appear to have shifted over to the straw man fallacy. But your failed attempt to smear his testimony on the evidence-free assertion that he maintained it for "self-serving" reasons is in no sense a "given."

Furthermore, while no-one argues that Whitmer's testimony is sufficient evidence to compel belief, the fact remains that anyone who wants to claim that the plates never existed must explain the testimony of the witnesses, including, but not limited to, David Whitmer. Your smug smear having failed, his testimony stands unexplained, unrefuted and as strong as ever.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Honorentheos]

David Whitmer's opinion about the Church falling into error rests upon his theological and/or ecclesiastical competence. His testimony regarding the Book of Mormon rests upon neither of those things, but only upon him personally experiencing a unique event.

Not so. Both rely on his reliability as a witness, period. In the case of the plates, there is really no external evidence that what he claims occurred actually did occur. So even a believer has to point to other causes for proping up the witness. I.e. - that he never denied it even though he left, that there are more witnesses than him, that he would have been better off having denied his witness but feared God's punishment, etc.

This thread has been an examination of these "props". I think reasonable doubt has been cast on every one presented. Your statement above is a collapse of the props back onto the witness itself. Again, without external evidence for the plates it's meaningless.

On the other hand, we can point to a few external items of evidence that may serve to support David Whitmer's claim that God spoke to him telling him to remove himself from the church and that it would be done unto them as they did to him. They certain were chased out of Missiouri in a manner not so unlike the manner the Danites chased the dissenters out of Far West. And his claim that Joseph's establishment of polygamy was a perversion of the pure gospel of Christ is interesting given the current position of the LDS faith in regards to this practice. I'd say his later claim finds itself in a better position in regards to external evidence than his BoM claims.

[Pahoran]

Not so.

And I suppose you think Denial is just a river in Africa, too?

Both rely on his reliability as a witness, period.

That's false. You are intentionally collapsing meaningful distinctions.

In the case of the plates, there is really no external evidence that what he claims occurred actually did occur. So even a believer has to point to other causes for proping up the witness. I.e. - that he never denied it even though he left, that there are more witnesses than him, that he would have been better off having denied his witness but feared God's punishment, etc.

You are contradicting yourself. The testimony of other witnesses is exactly "external evidence" that supports his claims.

This thread has been an examination of these "props". I think reasonable doubt has been cast on every one presented.

You show a remarkably slippery use of quasi-technical terminology. You don't use "reasonable doubt" to convict someone of lying; "reasonable doubt" can only be used to acquit.

On that basis, David Whitmer not only stands acquitted, there is not even "probable cause" to reasonably suspect him of lying. To the contrary, his character as an honest man remains far better established than that of any of his critics -- or even all of them together.

Your statement above is a collapse of the props back onto the witness itself. Again, without external evidence for the plates it's meaningless.

Your skill at rhetorical legerdemain is to be admired. You make scurrilous attacks upon the man's character, knowing that the correct response is to point to external evidence that supports him; so you then sneer about such support as mere "props," dishonestly portraying them as some kind of ad hoc rescue. Then, you use his opinions on other subjects to try to impeach his reliability as a witness, when you know perfectly well that those other opinions derive from other sources than the key experience to which he steadfastly testified, and which is after all the only thing that makes him of interest here; including (not to put too fine a point on it) to you.

On the other hand, we can point to a few external items of evidence that may serve to support David Whitmer's claim that God spoke to him telling him to remove himself from the church and that it would be done unto them as they did to him. They certain were chased out of Missiouri in a manner not so unlike the manner the Danites chased the dissenters out of Far West.

Yes, your schadenfreude on that point is probably your most attractive characteristic. But tell me: were the "dissenters" really chased out of Far West in the dead of winter, under an official order of extermination backed by the armed might of the state, and with their leaders arrested on trumped-up charges and held without trial?

Where can I read about this?

And his claim that Joseph's establishment of polygamy was a perversion of the pure gospel of Christ is interesting given the current position of the LDS faith in regards to this practice.

Not that you actually know anything at all about LDS life and teaching, but "the current position of the LDS faith in regards to this practice" is simply that we don't practice it. It in nowise resembles Whitmer's puritanical rantings.

I'd say his later claim finds itself in a better position in regards to external evidence than his BoM claims.

He sneered, smugly.

And as it turns out, falsely.

David Whitmer's experience with the Plates and the Angel was shared by two others. Several others saw and handled the Plates in an entirely natural setting. All of these witnesses, without exception, affirmed their testimony to the end of their lives. All of this is "external evidence," the existence of which you pertinaciously and counterfactually deny. And yet, while several of those men likewise fell out with Joseph Smith and left the Church, they did not go in a body, and nor did they attest to David Whitmer's "revelations." And that is despite the fact that he for a time had ambitions of leading the Church and was trying to persuade others to follow after him.

Whitmer's "voice" was an entirely separate experience to his seeing the Plates and the Angel years before. His accuracy or otherwise in understanding and reporting the later experience has absolutely no bearing upon his ability to report the earlier one.

Are you really not able to understand this simple and incontrovertible fact?

In any case, your smug smear has failed. Time to move on, I think.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bob Crockett]

Not so. Both rely on his reliability as a witness, period. In the case of the plates, there is really no external evidence that what he claims occurred actually did occur.

One of my favorite accounts is of John Whitmer's recantation of his testimony as one of the eight witnesses. He recanted his testimony on the ground that he couldn't read the characters on the plates. Now, that's evidence of the highest order in support of David Whitmer's experience, at least from a legal perspective.

[cdowis]

On the other hand, we can point to a few external items of evidence that may serve to support David Whitmer's claim that God spoke to him telling him to remove himself from the church and that it would be done unto them as they did to him. They certain were chased out of Missiouri in a manner not so unlike the manner the Danites chased the dissenters out of Far West. And his claim that Joseph's establishment of polygamy was a perversion of the pure gospel of Christ is interesting given the current position of the LDS faith in regards to this practice. I'd say his later claim finds itself in a better position in regards to external evidence than his BoM claims.

1. There are no independent witnesses to this voice, contrary to the experience of the Three Witnesses hearing a voice.

2. The practice of polygamy has changed, but there is no change in the doctrine. Polygamy is practiced in the temples in this very day where, for example, a widower is sealed to a second wife. The change in policy is based on the doctrine that it's practice is administered by those in priesthood authority.

3. The actions of the state government persecuting the church proves that the church was in apostasy? You are claiming that the Danites had authorization from the church authorities? Your ignorance of the facts is breath-taking.

Your argument collapses in a heap due to your ignorance of the facts.

Edited December 19, 2011 by cdowis