It has already been explained in this thread that D&C 132 contradicts the Book of Mormon. Section 132 says how David and Solomon were justified in having many wives and concubines. Jacob says they were not justified in doing so.

Section 132 also introduces the idea of polygamy being tied to becoming a god, ideas that are nowhere in the Book of Mormon.

And you are still relying on the Correlation Committee interpretation of the Book of Mormon instead of treating David Whitmer as if you seriously consider him to be a credible witness. Once again: given that you believe David Whitmer's statements about God telling him the Book of Mormon is true, do you also believe his statement that God called him and gave him authority to start a new church because Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet?

You're right. I am only using the term "new church" because from a modern, believing Latter-day Saint's point of view, Whitmer was starting another "church" separate from the purported priesthood aegis of Joseph Smith.

Darth you must be a heck of a good lawyer, you hit the nail on the head time and again with few words. You get right to the heart of the matter.

Which goes to show what I already stated, that Whitmer was in a state of apostasy.

Severe bumpage...

But how could David Whitmer have been in a state of apostasy, when the voice of God told him to leave the Latter-day Saints and gave him authority to preach? You've made a very convincing case that David Whitmer is credible when he testifies to that which God has told him.

The same way Balaam went into apostasy after he heard the voice of God many times.

But David Whitmer says that if you believe his testimony about the Book of Mormon, then you should likewise believe him when he says God told him to separate himself from the Latter-day Saints to start his own church ("own church" from the LDS/RLDS point of view).

Some people are getting the idea that you are relying entirely on confirmation bias. It goes something like this:

1. The Church is true!!!
2. David Whitmer is credible when he says things that are consistent with what the Correlation Committee says about the Book of Mormon, because the Church is true!!!
3. David Whitmer is not credible when he says things that are not consistent with the modern LDS Church being true, because the Church is true!!!

Do you agree with the above, or are you able to articulate a way to evaluate David Whitmer's credibility on some basis other than the foregone conclusion that the modern LDS Church is the true church?

It appears that you have misquoted the actual statement now. That is not the quote I read.

I am waiting for his reference for the exact quote.

This is the third time it has been at least partially provided in this thread (once by yourself), and the second time it has been provided in context:

Then let no man judge hastily as to my authority, lest he judge wrongly and continue in error; but go to God in prayer and fasting, and find out the truth, for the Holy Ghost will guide you into all truth. If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses 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. In June, 1838, at Far West, Mo., a secret organization was formed, Doctor Avard being put in as the leader of the band; a certain oath was to be administered to all the brethern to bind them to support the heads of the church in everything they should teach. All who refused to take this oath were considered dissenters from the church, and certain things were to be done concerning these dissenters, by Dr. Avard's secret band. I make no farther statements now; but suffice it to say that my persecutions, for trying to show them their errors, became of such a nature that I had to leave the Latter Day Saints; and, as I rode on horseback out of Far West, in June, 1838, the voice of God from heaven spake to me as I have stated above. I was called out to hold the authority which God gave to me.

Also, you never explained why at first you were perfectly content to allow that maybe the Lord really did say this to David Whitmer, but then you changed to calling it an "alleged" experience.

Darth, if you notice, he states that God told him to separate from the saints, and this may be true since many saints were wrong for persecuting him too much only for being deceived. I think the Lord wanted him to be preserved as an important witness of the Book of Mormon. However, he goes on to state a lot of his personal beliefs after that quote, and those are the beliefs which got him into trouble with some overzealous saints in the first place.

Again, gdemetz, HE ALREADY PHYSICALLY LEFT THEM before God told him to "separate himself." He tells the RLDS that he cannot join with them because of this separation. If you read what David Whitmer actually wrote, instead of the FAIR wiki's out-of-context characterization about what he wrote, it is abundantly clear that the separation of which Whitmer spoke was theological, not geographical location.

And he had authority to preach given to him from God. His "personal beliefs" were based on what the Holy Ghost made known to him, as Chapter 2 of An Address to All Believers in Christ makes clear.

You're still not explaining why we should believe his testimony related to the Book of Mormon, but not believe his testimony about being called and given authority by God. How about if you just concede that you have no criterion for evaluating David Whitmer's credibility other than whether what he said is consistent with your preexisting beliefs?

Yes, he was separated, and he told them that God told him to separate. Yes, FAIR is fair about this, and they are correct. I believe that you are reading too much into his statements, especially considering that he was an apostate. What if Judas said; believe me just as I am telling you that Christ did miracles and healed people, I am also telling you that He is not the messiah and he never freed us from the Roman yoke? What if Judas said; God revealed to me that Jesus was his son, however, He was not the messiah. I can tell you what I would believe. I would believe (just as in this situation) that maybe God did reveal to Judas that Christ was his son, but I would also believe that Judas, being an apostate, added the part that Christ was not the messiah based on his own belief and apostasy! Again, what about the other apostles, and again, what about the other witnesses? I wonder why God didn't tell them to leave the church!

First, FAIR is not being fair. Contrary to the idea proposed by the FAIR wiki, the physical separation from the Saints happened BEFORE David Whitmer said God spoke to him. This has been explained to you several times in this thread.

Second, you are begging the question. To establish that David Whitmer was apostate, you need to articulate why we should not take him at his word that God gave him authority. You have not done so.

That does not make sense! He stated that God told him to separate from them, so if he were completely separated in every way, then why would God need to tell him to separate. Maybe you should read FAIR's answer more carefully.

I'm the one who recognized your answer and linked to the FAIR wiki. That suggests I'm pretty familiar with FAIR's ad hoc explanation.

I did not claim that David Whitmer was completely separated in "every way" while he was riding away on his horse. That was the physical separation. God telling him to separate himself in the context of giving him authority to preach was the theological separation. God would need to tell him at that point so that David Whitmer knew it was more than just getting beaten up by the Danites that he needed to get away from.

Again, I will summarize:

1. The Church is true!!!
2. David Whitmer is a credible witness as long as he says things that are consistent with the Church is true!!!
3. David Whitmer is NOT a credible witness when he says things that are inconsistent with the Church is true!!!

Tell me any other criterion you have for evaluating his credibility. "He was apostate" is just a paraphrase of the above, unless you can explain why we should not believe him when he says God gave him authority. (I mean explain why in terms other than to the effect that, "Because he left the Church, and the Church is true!!!")

The simple fact is that his quote from God was only to separate. Also, he never denied the truthfulness of his witness to the Book of Mormon as also the other faithfull witnesses did not.

Nope. God is also quoted as promising to pay back the LDS for the way he was being persecuted. God said this to him:



And what (according to God) the LDS "sought to do unto" him sounds pretty serious:

"As they ought to do to me," sound like FAIR is correct. It sounds like he was concerned about physically separating for safety. Anyhow, I do not have great faith in anything an apostate says. However, he could have received great power and fame by stating that the whole witness thing was a fraud, but he didn't! Consider that! Also, consider all the other witnesses!

Darth, I noticed that you didn't bring up any seeming Biblical contradictions. That tells me something. Anyway, concerning the seeming contradiction you mentioned, D&C correctly states that David and Solomon did not sin in taking so many wives since they had the authority to do so. However, it was the overuse of that authority which was an abomination to God.