Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

There are hundreds of Atlantian artifacts too, by the same measure.

This is a waste of time.

Edited March 6, 2018 by cdowis

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, JarMan said:

From Terryl Givens' "Wrestling the Angel: The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Cosmos, God, Humanity"

The atonement theory of the Book of Mormon did not originate with Joseph Smith. It originated in 17th Century Europe. I agree, though, that it makes no sense in a 4th Century work.

Thanks, I bought that book and its waiting on my shelf along with a bunch of other titles, but I'm looking forward to exploring it some more.  From what I've heard it is an interesting read.  

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, JarMan said:

There is very substantial evidence. You just haven't looked at it. Have you even read through champatsch's numerous papers on the EModE of the Book of Mormon? How much time have you spent reading through 17th Century religious, political, scientific and literary works? The evidence is there. On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence Joseph had the requisite knowledge or ability. He couldn't possibly have had the knowledge since it would take essentially a lifetime of study to acquire it. And he certainly didn't have the ability to spit out a literary masterpiece in a matter of a few months with very little revision. If it's evidence you want to base your theory on you're just way off here.

This is really only a secondary issue, but I think either of the options you presented or one of several other options is possible.

I've only read through bits and pieces of his work.  My whole premise in this OP is that this kind of analysis isn't a fruitful use of time because we know Joseph is the author of the book.  Should some scholars conduct a detailed linguistic analysis of the Quran to see if it was written in 7th century Arabic or if if the linguistic structure has elements that predate the 7th century that Muhammad couldn't possibly have known about. 

If I'm being honest, I'm baffled by the whole 17th century thesis.  If some smarter than me linguists with a more objective and critical eye, peer review the research and provide a summary of their observations and it turns out that there is actually some merit to this line of inquiry, then I'll reconsider.  

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, Meerkat said:

Matthew 16

"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
            16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
            17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
            18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock (the rock of revelation from Father in Heaven )  I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Personal revelation is the primary evidence for people like me, and others who build His Church.  Show me anything else, it doesn't matter.  My testimony was hard won, and it doesn't change.  It's locked in.  I could have been disturbed by the Church statement on priesthood, or other controversies.  The issue I have is how do I disregard all these fruits I enjoy living the Gospel?

Many years ago, Mark Hoffman sold the Salamander letter to the Church.  My uncle dropped by to tell my folks the leaders of the LDS Church were being proven cheats and liars.  My response was "Nonsense." Several months later, Hoffman was arrested for murder and forgery.  The Church has been proven true to me again and again and again.  Like a multiplication table.

Ok, thanks for clarifying.  We were talking about actual evidence that multiple people can evaluate.  A person's subjective experience about religion or the love you have for another human, these are real experiences, but as I'm sure you're aware they can't be evaluated in any objective way.  Its fine that you privilege your feelings over evidence that can be evaluated in the public sphere, many people do this on multiple subjects, and I've done this as well.  This is human nature. 

[hope_for_things]

8 hours ago, Meerkat said:

Hope for Things-- Surely I am confused about what you are saying to Papa Lee:

I must be mistaken here (please let me know that I am wrong,) but did you just deny Jesus Christ, God the Father, the Scriptures, sin, the fall and the Atonement of Jesus Christ?  You, who have served a mission teaching these things are now calling them "a fiction?"  It is one thing to lose a testimony, or have a faith crisis.  But when you, rather than say "I don't know," actually deny Jesus Christ and tell a great man of faith, Bill "Papa" Lee "you NEED to lose your faith in order to find yourself," you are going where angels fear to tread.  I understand Papa's sadness when he said "I am going to miss you," because he knows where he is going.  He knows what he is talking about.   I hope you do also, and change your course.  If you are trying to explain something, there has to be a better metaphor than the one you just used.  Please clarify.  Nice as you are, I don't believe that statement (on the face of it,) can be ignored in the Judgment, do you?  Your statement, if accurate, clarifies to me why you believe the Book of Mormon is just another book written by a talented young man.

You completely misunderstood my post.  This is not about rejection, its about loss and death and awakening.  These are the metaphors of religion.  You have to lose your certainty, your comfort in your beliefs, you have to experience the loss, why has God forsaken me, you have to go through this death to understand what I'm talking about with this process.  From your vantage point you can't really understand what I'm talking about and consequentially can't learn the lessons I'm talking about because you are still in Plato's cave and from your perspective, the reality you experience is the only reality.   

 Please don't make this about personal judgments on me, that is not the point of this message board and is against the rules.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, champatsch said:

16 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I haven’t heard the term dynamic translation before, do you mean an Ostler like expansion, loose translation model or something else.

Simply that the Book of Mormon translation is a mixture of literal of non-literal.

Thanks, this is interesting, as I thought that you were a proponent of a tight translation.  So how would non-literal material work in the tight translation model?  

1 hour ago, champatsch said:

You mean to say that you rule out the possibility that the Lord was the source for the Book of Mormon English-language text?

Humans speak words and write books.  In this case I believe Joseph was the author because I see no compelling evidence otherwise.  I don't know of any method that could be used to evaluate that claim.  Are these words I just typed from God or from me.  My fingers are typing them on the screen, but maybe God is telling me these thoughts and I'm translating them into English and typing them up.  Or maybe God is just controlling my body like a puppet?  Or perhaps God is dictating a letter to me in English inside my brain and I'm just the secretary typing out the words that God dictates to me.  How could anyone possibly evaluate any of the above scenarios?   

1 hour ago, champatsch said:

If you wish to determine whether Joseph could have possibly been the author, then the contextual things, including the theological concepts, constitute non-primary evidence.  One must work from things that no author could successfully control over a long text of more than 250,000 words, which is the syntax and grammar.  As mentioned, these are mostly subconsciously produced, so the pseudo-archaism would reveal itself in the text, since Joseph was not a native speaker of earlier English, and didn't know many of the forms and structures, which happen to occur in the earliest text.

Thanks, that makes sense.  I'm not a linguist and really have no experience on that subject, but your description of that process makes sense.  I am interested in seeing critical analysis by more neutral parties, people not employed by the Church.  I personally am not interested in teasing out the syntax and grammar of the BoM or any other production to that level of detail, but I can see how experts in that field may have interest.  Do you know of any outside parties that are reviewing or are planning to do a review of the materials you've produced on this subject?  

[Physics Guy]

33 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I've only read through bits and pieces of his work.  My whole premise in this OP is that this kind of analysis isn't a fruitful use of time because we know Joseph is the author of the book.  Should some scholars conduct a detailed linguistic analysis of the Quran to see if it was written in 7th century Arabic or if if the linguistic structure has elements that predate the 7th century that Muhammad couldn't possibly have known about. 

If I'm being honest, I'm baffled by the whole 17th century thesis.  If some smarter than me linguists with a more objective and critical eye, peer review the research and provide a summary of their observations and it turns out that there is actually some merit to this line of inquiry, then I'll reconsider.  

How much feedback has there been from non-Mormon linguists, or any other linguists for that matter, on this theory of Early Modern English grammar in the Book of Mormon? I mean, the words in the text are the words in the text, whatever they are, and apparently they are weird, grammatically, for early 19th century New England. But what do experts other than Skousen and Carmack say about their theory that Joseph Smith could not possibly have composed the text that way? How sure should we be that the weird grammar of the Book isn't just an awkward attempt at sounding archaic?

Even among linguists who have no interest in Mormonism there are surely many who would be quite interested in a discovery of linguistic evidence that the composition date of the Mormon scriptures had to be shifted by centuries. Have any of them commented on this stuff?

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, champatsch said:

 

You mean to say that you rule out the possibility that the Lord was the source for the Book of Mormon English-language text?

 

I would suggest anything is possible...hey, it's even possible that satan is the source of the English-language text.  

It's possible God has inspired the most loved and influential novels of our time.  It's possible the most inspiring books or works are written by people trying to inspire others and has no God inspiration at all.  If a story influences so many to do good, is it God who is the source or he/she who claims authorship?  In the same vein is it God who is the source of the English words in the BoM because it has inspired people or is it inspiring to other people because God inspires them as they read along, pray, meditate, and think on God-things?  Or is God not really involved at all and different people choose to be inspired by different things?  How can we possibly say something was written or said by God unless we first assume God and next assume the words are from Him?  

 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Meerkat said:

You do have some great and sincere comments pretty regularly, Hope for Things.  And there is precident for denying Christ by the Apostle Peter.  He came back to his faith in Christ to become the chief apostle.  There is probably precident in Alma the Younger and the Apostle Paul also.  And, as an example of how easy it can be to misunderstand things, you have Moroni and Pahoran.  And Captain Moroni was nearly a perfect man.  I hope you are able to rekindle your faith in Jesus Christ someday.  He is real.  He is alive.  He continues to transform my life.  I can't deny it.  I believe the day will come when you will also see and believe it.

The Plato's cave analogy really is appropriate here because we're both describing something from very different perspectives.  I don't see this in terms of "denial".  To deny means to refuse to admit the truth.  That's not at all what I'm talking about.  I discovered that the literal world that I thought was reality isn't real.  It was a loss for me, it was a death of my naive world view and it was devastating.  Yet, on the other side of that death, I'm finding new meaning in the truth of metaphors and symbols, and these are truths that many of the world's religions have had fragments of all along. 

There is a lot of baggage too, supernatural beliefs and bigotry and corporate interests in organized religions, there are plenty of problems that need to be fixed.  But we have the capacity to fix the problems and move forward in positive ways.  I'm an optimist by nature and I'm excited for the possibilities of the future, at the same time as being worried about so many things and grateful for so much that is good that I do participate in.  

Edited March 6, 2018 by hope_for_things

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

How much feedback has there been from non-Mormon linguists, or any other linguists for that matter, on this theory of Early Modern English grammar in the Book of Mormon? I mean, the words in the text are the words in the text, whatever they are, and apparently they are weird, grammatically, for early 19th century New England. But what do experts other than Skousen and Carmack say about their theory that Joseph Smith could not possibly have composed the text that way? How sure should we be that the weird grammar of the Book isn't just an awkward attempt at sounding archaic?

Even among linguists who have no interest in Mormonism there are surely many who would be quite interested in a discovery of linguistic evidence that the composition date of the Mormon scriptures had to be shifted by centuries. Have any of them commented on this stuff?

Yes, these are good questions along the same lines I'm wondering about.  No offense to the apologists, but those employed by the church haven't earned my trust.  Also, when I've listened to Skousen talk about the tight translation method, I have not been impressed with his reasoning.  Since even other church employed apologists don't agree with him on the translation model, this is a sign to me that I might disagree with him on the more complicated EmodE analysis as well.  

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I would suggest anything is possible...hey, it's even possible that satan is the source of the English-language text.  

It's possible God has inspired the most loved and influential novels of our time.  It's possible the most inspiring books or works are written by people trying to inspire others and has no God inspiration at all.  If a story influences so many to do good, is it God who is the source or he/she who claims authorship?  In the same vein is it God who is the source of the English words in the BoM because it has inspired people or is it inspiring to other people because God inspires them as they read along, pray, meditate, and think on God-things?  Or is God not really involved at all and different people choose to be inspired by different things?  How can we possibly say something was written or said by God unless we first assume God and next assume the words are from Him?  

These words are wise.  Come to think of it, your words are too wise for you to have written them.  I know you aren't educated enough to have produced this response.  Come clean stemelbow, tell us what more educated individual from another century you're copying from.  

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Humans speak words and write books.  In this case I believe Joseph was the author because I see no compelling evidence otherwise.  I don't know of any method that could be used to evaluate that claim.  Are these words I just typed from God or from me.  My fingers are typing them on the screen, but maybe God is telling me these thoughts and I'm translating them into English and typing them up.  Or maybe God is just controlling my body like a puppet?  Or perhaps God is dictating a letter to me in English inside my brain and I'm just the secretary typing out the words that God dictates to me.  How could anyone possibly evaluate any of the above scenarios?   

 

I don't understand how or why God would factor into champatsch's research on these grounds.  If the English words came from a time that predates Joseph to the point of making it near impossible the book came from Joseph it doesn't necessarily mean God did it.  He might be only showing that the English words that make up the book came from someone else predating Joseph.  Wasn't that the whole point of someone (I thought it was Skousen) theorizing a translator angel from an earlier English speaking period than Joseph, who then was the one who dictated the words into the hat that Joseph saw?

[hope_for_things]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't understand how or why God would factor into champatsch's research on these grounds.  If the English words came from a time that predates Joseph to the point of making it near impossible the book came from Joseph it doesn't necessarily mean God did it.  He might be only showing that the English words that make up the book came from someone else predating Joseph.  Wasn't that the whole point of someone (I thought it was Skousen) theorizing a translator angel from an earlier English speaking period than Joseph, who then was the one who dictated the words into the hat that Joseph saw?

That's a good point, I had forgotten about he angel translator controversy and I think you're right about that.  God shouldn't factor into this research at all if it wants to be seriously evaluated in the scholarly community.  But I still have yet to see any peer review and consideration by Mormon studies at large.  I have my suspicions why... 

[Meerkat]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

From your vantage point you can't really understand what I'm talking about and consequentially can't learn the lessons I'm talking about because you are still in Plato's cave and from your perspective, the reality you experience is the only reality.   

 Please don't make this about personal judgments on me, that is not the point of this message board and is against the rules.  

Fair enough.  Sorry about breaking the rules and not allowing you to have your own strongly held beliefs.  I didn't intend to be your judge, but see that I was.  I do have a high opinion of you, as I hope you know.

50 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yet, on the other side of that death, I'm finding new meaning in the truth of metaphors and symbols, and these are truths that many of the world's religions have had fragments of all along. 

I agree with you here.  Metaphor is also high on my list of evidence for my faith.  I look out my window and every leaf is a work of art and a metaphor of God's love.  I wonder if metaphor and metaphysical spring from the same root.  I can see how such things are foundational, and could even be primary evidence for a person's faith.

50 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm an optimist by nature and I'm excited for the possibilities of the future, at the same time as being worried about so many things and grateful for so much that is good that I do participate in. 

That comes across in all your posts.  As I responded to one of your posts on another thread, I believe the most important part of Christianity is the effect it has on the way we live.  That will be the primary criteria we will be judged by, imo.  Do we love God according to the light He gives us?  Do we love our fellow beings and demonstrate that love in how we associate and communicate with them?  All the commandments are tied up in those two things.  And I believe that includes faith in Christ, whether we realize we are expressing it or not.   I sincerely believe that if my anti-Mormon Baptist neighbor, whom I love like a brother, isn't in the Celestial Kingdom, I won't make it either.  

Edited March 6, 2018 by Meerkat

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

Fair enough.  Sorry about breaking the rules and not allowing you to have your own strongly held beliefs.  I didn't intend to be your judge, but see that I was.  I do have a high opinion of you, as I hope you know.

I agree with you here.  Metaphor is also high on my list of evidence for my faith.  I look out my window and every leaf is a work of art and a metaphor of God's love.  I wonder if metaphor and metaphysical spring from the same root.  I can see how such things are foundational, and could even be primary evidence for a person's faith.

That comes across in all your posts.  As I responded to one of your posts on another thread, I believe the most important part of Christianity is the effect it has on the way we live.  That will be the primary criteria we will be judged by, imo.  Do we love God according to the light He gives us?  Do we love our fellow beings and demonstrate that love in how we associate and communicate with them?  All the commandments are tied up in those two things.  And I believe that includes faith in Christ, whether we realize we are expressing it or not.   I sincerely believe that if my anti-Mormon Baptist neighbor, whom I love like a brother, isn't in the Celestial Kingdom, I won't make it either.  

Thanks Meerkat, I liked this and appreciate your response and agree with you.  There is much we have in common and can agree on, and I too agree there are amazing people all around us with differing beliefs from a religious perspective, and that we can and ought to strive to do our best in the way we communicate and associate.  I fall short often enough, thanks for your apology and for bridging some understanding, you strike me as a good egg.  

[Meerkat]

17 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The key point about modern ideas in the BoM is that we have no plausible explanation for how these ideas got there if you ascribe to a strictly ancient source for the content in the BoM.  How could King Benjamin or Nephi have possibly articulated complex theological ideas that didn’t exist when they purportedly lived.  

Revelation?

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Should some scholars conduct a detailed linguistic analysis of the Quran to see if it was written in 7th century Arabic or if if the linguistic structure has elements that predate the 7th century that Muhammad couldn't possibly have known about.

Scholars do. There's quite a pointless debate about whether or not the Quran was written in Arabic or Syriac, and how much it pulls from preexisting Judeo-Christian texts and teachings. There's no way to know when it was 'written' as it  was supposedly dictated to Muhammad by the Angel Gabriel and memorized by scribes over a period of 20 some odd years. You can be sure scholars don't get bored of all the existing theories about Quranic origins and simply shrug their shoulders and say "Muhammad did it". ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[smac97]

23 hours ago, Gray said:

Is there a big enough pile of unknowns in Mesoamerica to hide Nephites?

Yes, I believe there is.  The "pile of unknowns" regarding Mesoamerica is huge.

It may well be that there are "Nephite" artifacts that have been discovered, but not recognized as "Nephite."  "Made in China" works well in 2018, but there was no corollary "Made in Zarahemla" designation 1,500-2,500 years ago.

Quote

Maybe, maybe not, but without the Book of Mormon, no one would feel the need to posit their existence based only on existing evidence.

I quite agree.  But for the Book of Mormon, my interest in Mesoamerica would be passing at best.

Quote

There isn't a "Nephite shaped hole" that Mesoamerican scholars are trying to fill.

Agreed.  We shouldn't be surprised, then, at the dearth of artifacts and locales being designated as "Nephite."  

Quote

Generally with theologically-driven research the attempt is to explain why the Nephites wouldn't have left any discernible evidence.

Again, the "pile of unknowns" is pretty massive, so "the Nephites wouldn't have left any discernible evidence" is manifestly plausible and reasonable.

That said, it's quite possible that "discernible" is the key word in the preceding sentence.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 7, 2018 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Meerkat said:

Revelation?

Is that really how Mormon revelation is supposed to work though?  The line upon line theology, precept on precept is an evolution of ideas incrementally, not something that is completely out of place with no foundation and development.  

[Rajah Manchou]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, but not the small plates of Nephi portion, those weren't abridged by Mormon, so those are supposedly dated in the 600 - 150 BCE time period, so how would you explain that? Can you give an example of a theological concept from these Rechabites that you can find parallel with the BoM?  Are you claiming that these people were isolated, without communication from the rest of the Israelites and that they  developed Christian ideas completely independently?  

Here's another way of looking at it.

In 600 BC God led a group of Israelites from Jerusalem to a land he had set aside for them on the far side of the ocean. They lived there for centuries isolated from the rest of the world where they kept records of their history on tablets and plates intending that one day their testimonies of He who provides for the salvation of mortals, born of a Holy Virgin, will be read by those they had left behind in Jerusalem. Their records were carried away by a desert monk named Zosimus in the 5th century AD, later deemed heretical, and largely forgotten.

Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon 50 years  before  that account was published in English.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[hope_for_things]

53 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Scholars do. There's quite a pointless debate about whether or not the Quran was written in Arabic or Syriac, and how much it pulls from preexisting Judeo-Christian texts and teachings. There's no way to know when it was 'written' as it  was supposedly dictated to Muhammad by the Angel Gabriel and memorized by scribes over a period of 20 some odd years. You can be sure scholars don't get bored of all the existing theories about Quranic origins and simply shrug their shoulders and say "Muhammad did it". ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Well, that scholarship around the Quran, which I am very unfamiliar with, sounds a lot like some of the tedious BoM scholarship that I'm talking about.  I think its low priority and largely a waste of time, but I guess different strokes for different folks.  

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Here's another way of looking at it.

In 600 BC God led a group of Israelites from Jerusalem to a land he had set aside for them on the far side of the ocean. They lived there for centuries isolated from the rest of the world where they kept records of their history on tablets and plates intending that one day their testimonies of He who provides for the salvation of mortals, born of a Holy Virgin, will be read by the brothers they had left behind in Jerusalem. 

Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon 50 years  before  that account was published in English.

I'm confused, are you saying this group of Israelites are the Rechabites and that they had a myth about a saving figure from a virgin birth?  You are aware of other virgin birth myths from various different cultures.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births

[Rajah Manchou]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm confused, are you saying this group of Israelites are the Rechabites and that they had a myth about a saving figure from a virgin birth?  You are aware of other virgin birth myths from various different cultures.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births

Yes, I'm aware. Thanks.

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I've only read through bits and pieces of his work.  My whole premise in this OP is that this kind of analysis isn't a fruitful use of time because we know Joseph is the author of the book.  Should some scholars conduct a detailed linguistic analysis of the Quran to see if it was written in 7th century Arabic or if if the linguistic structure has elements that predate the 7th century that Muhammad couldn't possibly have known about. 

I don't agree with your premise. We don't know Joseph is the author of the book. We only know that he dictated it. Your "premise" that Joseph authored it is actually your conclusion. I think it's a good exercise to take a step back and look at what we actually know versus what we think we know (or what we just really want to believe). When it comes to the actual "translation" process I believe we know far less than we think we do. I think the original text is, by far, the best place to start when trying to solve whodunnit.

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

If I'm being honest, I'm baffled by the whole 17th century thesis.  If some smarter than me linguists with a more objective and critical eye, peer review the research and provide a summary of their observations and it turns out that there is actually some merit to this line of inquiry, then I'll reconsider.  

I don't know how else to describe this other than as a cop out. The research is being done. It's being presented. One of the researchers is on here constantly clarifying issues and answering questions. So go read the papers. Get clarifications where you don't understand. Some of it is quite technical and difficult to understand for a lay person, I admit. But the vast majority of it understandable to an intelligent person with a good understanding of English like yourself. And with some additional work by the lay person, even the more technical parts become easier to comprehend. I can only imagine champatsch's frustrations as people constantly dismiss the research without even engaging it.

[Meerkat]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

  In this case I believe Joseph was the author because I see no compelling evidence otherwise.  I don't know of any method that could be used to evaluate that claim

Discounting the eleven witnesses who saw and hefted the plates, the three of those who saw the angel and heard the voice of God, you may be right.  It may be difficult to prove to a skeptic.  But would you agree that it is a tight and large conspiracy that would hold together long after the primary conspirator had been killed and others of the witnesses left the Church?

It seems more reasonable that, as each witness aged and realized the were approaching death and possible judgment, they would, one by one, correct their fraud as they prepared to meet their Maker.  

Having had a falling out with Joseph Smith, leaving the Church never to return, David Whitmer would have had a high motivation to expose Joseph Smith, and the fraud of the Book of Mormon.  But to his dying breath, he vigorously defended his witness, knowing that he would one day be accountable before God, and his very salvation would be on the line.  It is that very fact that persuades me that David's witness was true BECAUSE he would one day be accountable before God.

Then there is that pesky little fact that is nearly universally ignored by skeptics, the witness of millions who testify that God spoke to them via the Holy Ghost, causing them to testify that they also know the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith truly was a prophet (rather than a bright young author, brilliant executive, city planner and builder, architecht, visionary and merely an inspiring leader of many thousands and now millions who left their homes and families to work for free to build an enterprise that is world renowned for it's great success to this day.)

Here are a few paragraphs from an article in Meridian Magazine or ldsmag.com about David Whitmer's testimony:

DAVID WHITMER'S TESTIMONY

Nearly two weeks before his passing, David declared that “if God ever uttered a truth, the testimony I now bear is true. I did see the angel of God, and I beheld the glory of the Lord, and he declared the record true.”^[19]

The Why

For a number of reasons, David Whitmer’s lifelong testimony is uniquely valuable. For one thing, he was the most interviewed of the Three Witnesses and often seemed to go out of his way to fulfill his duty to testify of the Book of Mormon.^[20] Whitmer’s consistent and persistent reaffirmations of his original testimony survive in more than seventy interviews and statements recorded in his own writings and by those who personally discussed the matter with him.^[21]

David was also known to correct those whom he felt had significantly misrepresented his views. Especially important is his clarification of the nature of the visionary experience shared by the Three Witnesses and Joseph Smith. Some individuals have tried to claim that because there was a spiritual component to the vision, that it was merely imagined or somehow less than real.^[22] To these concerns and misrepresentations, David explained, “Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time.”^[23]

Perhaps the most powerful aspect of David Whitmer’s testimony is that he remained so absolutely committed to his original statements, while at the same time being so completely separated from the Church. If David never had the vision he claimed, and if he felt slighted by Joseph Smith and other members of the church, then, in the words of his grandson, he would have “had all to gain and nothing to lose” by telling the truth of the matter.^[24] Instead, with his dying breaths, David affirmed the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon once and for all.^[25

The rest of the atticle can be found here:

https://ldsmag.com/why-is-david-whitmers-witness-of-the-book-of-mormon-so-compelling/

Edited March 6, 2018 by Meerkat