Witnesses to fraud

[_Yoda]

The witnesses I thought why me was referring to as never having reniged on their witnessing were the original witnesses. And I'm wondering why they would renig, ever, if they genuinely thought what they were seeing and hearing was real. Just because they thought it was real doesn't make it real though. But I can see why they'd remain true to what they thought they saw though.

The burden of proof resides with whoever is positing the golden plates, not with the witnesses who may not have seen what they thought they saw. And since we have no golden plates, and we have no verification from uninterested parties that they ever existed... what we have is people who thought they saw something... and maybe they did see something. That doesn't make the something they saw what they said it was.

But, Harm....I thought your position was that you believed in the Book of Mormon. You didn't feel that Joseph became a fallen prophet until AFTER Fanny.....that the Book of Mormon was the ONE honest, prophetic work he accomplished.

If that is the case, why would the witnesses be lying?

And, if Joseph WAS scamming everyone about the Book of Mormon as well as everything else, then I suppose I do have to question why you have any conviction of the truthfulness of the LDS gospel at all? How can the Book of Mormon be a second testimony of Jesus Christ if it is completely false?

I'm not trying to put you on the spot here...I'm trying to understand your position. Frankly, I think your position makes a lot of sense. I have always had problems with D&C section 132.

[_Uncle Dale]

Casual dismissals of the testimony of the witnesses, in my experience, invariably come from merely casual acquaintance with the full range of the facts surrounding them.

Then again, David Whitmer said in 1886:

"I saw a great many of these things, which I know were not right, but I clung on, in patience, trusting
everything would eventually be put right. "
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/UT ... htm#101786

One of the things that Whitmer points out as "not right" were the flamboyant claims for spiritual
manifestations at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. As he says:

"I was in my seat on that occasion," says Mr. Whitmer, "and I know that the story sensationally
calculated, and which is now on the records of the Utah Mormons as an actual happening, was
nothing but a trumped-up yarn. "

Now maybe Whitmer's friends and neighbors testified that they DID see angels, etc. at that
time, and he felt that, regardless of what he witnessed, "everything would eventually be put right. "
He did not complain openly -- at least not until the spring of 1838.

From my own experiences among the Saints, I can recall numerous times when "I saw a great many...
things, which I know were not right, but I clung on, in patience, trusting everything would eventually
be put right. "

For one thing, I had a firm belief that the completion of the RLDS Temple in Independence would
bring on a new era of spirituality, in which old wrongs "would eventually be put right. " As things
turned out, the completion of that temple was merely the breaking point of a schism which has
evolved to the point of having the President of the High Priesthood thrown out of office.

Mormons, on the other hand, can simply tell one another that they may have a "casual acquaintance
with the full range of the facts surrounding them," and that "The Brethren know best."

I think I have a very good grasp of why the Whitmers, the Cowderys, Hiram Page, Martin Harris,
Thomas Marsh, and others "clung on, in patience, trusting" for so long --- and why several of that
lot wished re-admittance once Smith was gone.

It is not that they DID NOT witness faith-deflating events within the early church: it's more that they
had a faith which allowed for the possibility that those problems "would eventually be put right. "

UD

[_rcrocket]

One of the most remarkable recantings of a witness's testimony was that of John Whitmer. When asked in the presence of John's anti-Mormon friends as to why he doubted the Book of Mormon, Whitmer said:

"I handled the plates; there were fine engravings on both sides. [But], I cannot read it, and I do not known whether it is true or not." (Anderson, etc. 132.)

At least from the perspective of the art of cross-examination, this is one of the best nuggets of proof the Book of Mormon has. It comes from a virulent anti-Mormon, attesting to a critical fact in a way he thought was negative and would improve his case.

One of the things that [David] Whitmer points out as "not right" were the flamboyant claims for spiritual manifestations at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. As he says:

"I was in my seat on that occasion," says Mr. Whitmer, "and I know that the story sensationally calculated, and which is now on the records of the Utah Mormons as an actual happening, was nothing but a trumped-up yarn. "

By this time David was on his way out of the Church. As early as 1830 Whitmer was challenging Joesph Smith. David has an odd fixation with the seerstone Joseph used to translate the Book of Mormon, and believed that Joseph ceased to have revelations after Joseph discarded it. (Bushman, RSR 120.) David followed the Hiram Page faction for a while. The temple dedication had occurred in March 1836. (To be honest Stenhouse, p. 75.) In December 1836, Whitmer (who was not a general authority) rebuked the heads of the Church. (RSR, 334.) By early 1837, David was in all-out conflict with Joseph Smith over the bank failure. (RSR, p 337.) Whitmer was ex'd on April 6, 1838.

As we read in Matthew 28:17, despite the appearance of the resurrected Lord to many of Jesus' followers, "some doubted." The Expositor's Bible Commentary (vol. 1, p. 593) has an extensive summary of the extant literature, and actually reports the view that this phrase refers to the apostles, although rightly speculates that apostles couldn't be in the range of doubters. The author concludes that those who saw the resurrected Lord must have been mere followers.

On the day of Pentecost, 3000 people were baptized. (Acts 2:41.) I read that verse to imply that all who were there did not accept the invitation, as Luke says: "They they that gladly receive his word were baptized . . . ."

So, the miracle of the Risen Lord and of Pentecost were not enough to convince all. Most likely, the same thing at Kirtland. Similarly, the dozens of eyewitness accounts of the transfiguration of Brigham Young differ wildly; some saw nothing; some heard Joseph's voice; some saw the personage of Joseph.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Pentecost... Most likely, the same thing at Kirtland.
...

"Most likely" may be strong enough evidence for many people, but I would prefer
something a bit more solid.

If the assembled masses at the several re-enactments of the dedication indeed
saw great armies of angels moving through the skies overhead, then I suppose
that David Whitmer would have been "blessed" with the same spiritual discernment.

If the witnesses at that time were mostly victims of doctored wine and overwrought
religious enthusiasm, then I can understand why David did not share their views.

Much the same can be said for Brigham Young assuming the visage of Smith, when
the "mantle of the prophet" fell upon him in front of thousands of witnesses -- or
the scenes in the MGM production of "Brigham Young" where the seagulls arrive.

At any rate, David kept his mouth shut for a long time. Only after Smith passed from
the scene did David speak of the attempt upon his life at Far West, and other problems.

He had faith that one day all would be made right. I wonder whose side he would take,
were he here today to read this message board?

My own ancestors were at one of the Kirtland Temple dedications. There is no family
tradition of any unusual manifestations ---- just a bewilderment that the "redemption of
Zion" was thereafter seldom spoken of; that our "eternal inheritances" in Jackson county
were rendered non-eternal; and the endowment of "power from on high" did not seem to
change things much at Kirtland -- so they moved to Far West.

UD

[_rcrocket]

"Most likely" may be strong enough evidence for many people, but I would prefer something a bit more solid.

It isn't that difficult. My theses and proof were really rather solid.

Thesis: David Whitmer's doubt at Kirtland does not conflict with the Christian historical paradigm that there are doubters who are eyewitnesses to miracles.

Fact: David Whitmer was a doubter at Kirtland.

Fact: David Whitmer was almost out of the Church at this time.

Precedent: There were doubters who witnessed the resurrected Lord. There were doubters at Pentecost.

It does not appear that you dispute either fact, or the cited precedent. You just dispute the thesis out of hand. By disputing the thesis out of hand, you imply the improbable observation that one doubter to a mass miracle must yield the conclusion that the miracle was false. Or, worse, you have the a priori view that there is no such thing as miracles and, as such, there can be no proof satisfactory to you, and Christian history is no precedent.

My own ancestors were at one of the Kirtland Temple dedications. There is no family tradition of any unusual manifestations

And, they didn't follow Brigham Young west. No doubt.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Fact: David Whitmer was a doubter at Kirtland.
...

Was that before or after Smith made him the head of the Church's War Department in 1835?

He's your Book of Mormon witness, not mine. So you get to inform us when we should trust his
testimony and when we should not, I suppose. But please don't try and set up the standard,
that when David supported Smith he was reliable, and when he did not support Smith he was a liar.

And, they didn't follow Brigham Young west. No doubt.

As far west as Kanesville. When he came back from "the Valley" to the Log Tabernacle, they and
their Cutlerite friends (including two daughters of Heber Kimball) were kept outside by Danite guards,
and not allowed to cast a dissenting vote. Brigham was thus made, and sustained, President of the
Church, by unanimous voice of the members ------ those members allowed into the meeting, that is.

UD

[_rcrocket]

Unwilling to meet any of my facts; or the precedent; or even the theses. You can't. You must distract with such irrelevancies as David's role in Missouri, which I didn't reference and which plays no role in the responding to the original thread.

As I seem to make good points, I imagine that you'll say: Yeah, but what about Langeudoc and the Albigensians? Divert.

But please don't try and set up the standard, that when David supported Smith he was reliable, and when he did not support Smith he was a liar.

Ah. But, from the tactics of cross-examination I know that the most reliable witnesses of all are those who grudgingly admit to the virtues of a fact to an organization they now despise. Whitmer couldn't have been a more effective witness. I believe him far more than any of the others.

[_Uncle Dale]

...David's role in Missouri
...

As I said, he kept quiet because he sincerely believed that the problems he saw in the Church
would eventually be resolved. Same reason Oliver Cowdery did not bring Smith to trial before
a bishop's court or high council, for his violation of the law of the Church with the Alger girl.

Whatever else you may say of them, David and Oliver considered themselves to be faithful
Latter Day Saints at the time of their deaths. But, as Whitmer testified, Smith was a fallen prophet.
I think that much the same conclusion could be extracted from the compiled utterances of Harris
and Cowdery.

But, if the basic question is, why did they not "renig" -- then the basic answer must be "faith."

UD

[_Daniel Peterson]

Nice try, Dale.

And this is, in my experience, about as good as it gets.

[_Uncle Dale]

Nice try, Dale.

And this is, in my experience, about as good as it gets.

Wish I had some of your "experience" at times.......

Ooops!
Can I take that back, before my friends happen to read it!

UD