My Column in the "Mormon Times"

[_Daniel Peterson]

I liked it very much. Interesting case that John Whitmer.

I agree. I think he's exceptionally interesting.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Today's offering:

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/2112 ... ?s_cid=rss

[_Doctor Scratch]

You know, Dr. Peterson, I've noticed that a good deal of your actual apologetic writing these days focuses on the witnesses and the plates, etc. So it's interesting to me that you opted to attack Strang in this week's column.

That said, I can't help but wonder: is there a similar case involving witnesses, supernatural events, etc. that you find plausible in the same was as the Book of Mormon? Or is the Book of Mormon translation w/ witnesses the only case in the whole entire history of the universe where you're willing to say, "Okay, I believe this"? What about UFO witnesses, for example? Do you believe that extraterrestrials have visited Earth due to the alleged presence of supernatural activity, plus the fact that these witnesses stand by their stories throughout their lives?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I liked it very much. Interesting case that John Whitmer.

I agree. I think he's exceptionally interesting.

This reminds me of the testimony of David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses. Late in life (I think a year or so before his death), David Whitmer wrote something that appeared to qualify his earlier testimony of the Book of Mormon:

If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to "separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, should it be done unto them." In the spring of 1838, the heads of the church and many of the members had gone deep into error and blindness. I had been striving with them for a long time to show them the errors into which they were drifting, and for my labors I received only persecutions.

An Address to All Believers in Christ, p. 27 (1887) (emphasis added).

This, to me, seems to say that one can only believe Whitmer's long-cited testimony as one of the Three Witnesses if he/she can also believe Whitmer's testimony above that the Lord told him to leave the Church because its leaders (including Joseph Smith) "had gone deep into error and blindness." Of course, I don't know of any faithful LDS member who would agree to this, but Whitmer's above qualification remains (yet, is rarely (if ever) mentioned by Church leaders).

[_Aristotle Smith]

This, to me, seems to say that one can only believe Whitmer's long-cited testimony as one of the Three Witnesses if he/she can also believe Whitmer's testimony above that the Lord told him to leave the Church because its leaders (including Joseph Smith) "had gone deep into error and blindness." Of course, I don't know of any faithful LDS member who would agree to this, but Whitmer's above qualification remains (yet, is rarely (if ever) mentioned by Church leaders).

Herr Doktor Peterson did address this in a thread, but I cannot find it (translation: I'm too lazy to look). The basic response, if I recall, is that Whitmer's initial testimony is categorically different than the later testimony. The initial testimony, in the 3 Witnesses' Testimony, was a description of an empirical event. In other words, he saw and/or touched something. The later testimony is not a testimony of an empirical event, but an opinion. Thus one may admit the former, while excluding the latter. This is comparable to a witness giving a testimony in court, one may report witnessing empirical events, while opinions are usually excluded.

I think this creates more problems than it solves, but I believe that's about as good of a defense as you can make for David Whitmer's testimony.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The basic response, if I recall, is that Whitmer's initial testimony is categorically different than the later testimony. The initial testimony, in the 3 Witnesses' Testimony, was a description of an empirical event. In other words, he saw and/or touched something. The later testimony is not a testimony of an empirical event, but an opinion. Thus one may admit the former, while excluding the latter. This is comparable to a witness giving a testimony in court, one may report witnessing empirical events, while opinions are usually excluded.

I think this creates more problems than it solves, but I believe that's about as good of a defense as you can make for David Whitmer's testimony.

But, in the end, both "testimonies" were given by the same guy, so if anyone is entitled to qualify the first with the second, it is David Whitmer. The later qualification does cause all sorts of problems (from the point of view of promoting Whitmer's testimony as one of the Three Witnesses), which, I guess, is why it is never mentioned in official Church manuals, meetings, etc.

[_Aristotle Smith]

The basic response, if I recall, is that Whitmer's initial testimony is categorically different than the later testimony. The initial testimony, in the 3 Witnesses' Testimony, was a description of an empirical event. In other words, he saw and/or touched something. The later testimony is not a testimony of an empirical event, but an opinion. Thus one may admit the former, while excluding the latter. This is comparable to a witness giving a testimony in court, one may report witnessing empirical events, while opinions are usually excluded.

I think this creates more problems than it solves, but I believe that's about as good of a defense as you can make for David Whitmer's testimony.

But, in the end, both "testimonies" were given by the same guy, so if anyone is entitled to qualify the first with the second, it is David Whitmer. The later qualification does cause all sorts of problems (from the point of view of promoting Whitmer's testimony as one of the Three Witnesses), which, I guess, is why it is never mentioned in official Church manuals, meetings, etc.

Rollo,

I found the post where Herr Doktor gives the response:

viewtopic.php?p=424324#p424324

I think I gave a fair summary of what he said.

For me his whole defense is a complete non-starter for the church. He has to say that Whitmer's earlier testimony is an empirical testimony, while his later testimony is a theological one. One then has to make the further assumption that one should prefer his empirical testimony over his theological one.

The problem for the LDS church is that if this is generalizable, that one should prefer empirical testimony over theoloical testimony, then any Mormon's testimony should be revised or eliminated in favor of empirical testimony. Thus any Mormons theological testimony for the Book of Mormon, should be changed, altered, and/or eliminated by the mountains of empirical testimony that they book is a 19th century work.

Alternately, one can say the principle is not generalizable, that this rule applies in Whitmer's case but not necessarily to others. That starts to look suspiciously like special pleading.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

For me his whole defense is a complete non-starter for the church. He has to say that Whitmer's earlier testimony is an empirical testimony, while his later testimony is a theological one. One then has to make the further assumption that one should prefer his empirical testimony over his theological one.

The problem for the LDS church is that if this is generalizable, that one should prefer empirical testimony over theoloical testimony, then any Mormon's testimony should be revised or eliminated in favor of empirical testimony. Thus any Mormons theological testimony for the Book of Mormon, should be changed, altered, and/or eliminated by the mountains of empirical testimony that they book is a 19th century work.

Agreed.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Today's offering:

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/2120 ... ary-issues

[_Daniel Peterson]

And today's:

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/2128 ... histicated