Talk:David Whitmer

Neutrality of Excommunication section

The "excommunicated" section of David Whitmer portrays Whitmer and the LDS Church as bitter enemies. However, the paragraph is written with several inconsistencies and with a lack of complete details (i.e. he was excommunicated prior to the stated vision of sorts). Also, the first paragraph mentions that the presidency of the Church was excommunicated, then that the presidency of the Church called for the expulsion of dissenters (when in fact it was Sidney Rigdon alone, who later was also excommunicated). The number of people that formed the group of "Danites" is unknown, but it's here implied to be a large group whereas in the number listed in the main Danites section is much smaller.

As a rebuttal to the citation at the end of the section (which is out of context and unexplained yet accurate), see also here. I hope to clean this article up, but it'd be nice to note the non-neutrality of this section. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 16:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you believe the problem to be (that may be my fault), but I'll be happy to work with you if there's something that's not supported by Bushman, the major source for this section.--John Foxe (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Denial of seeing the BofM

An Anon had originally added the following to the article; I can't find a reference for a denial of this magnitude.

"He denied ever seeing the plates in a physical manner as we would understand the word today."

If it can be referenced, it should be added back. Storm Rider 04:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

This sentence near the end says the same thing:

Whenever David was asked if he physically saw the plates, he would say that he saw them in a vision or with his "spiritual eyes."

Is there any documentation for this? Seeing as how no one seems to have responded to StormRider, and has had 6 months to do so if they could, I will go ahead and delete this sentence as well. Novel-Technology 08:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

See the following link for the quote. It available in other sources too: http://www.bible.ca/mor-witness-book.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Zion's Camp participant

I've removed the uncited claim that Whitmer joined Zion's Camp. According to History of the Church vol 2. pp. 183-85, he was not a member. Martin Harris was, and perhaps an editor confused the event in the lives of these two? -SESmith 10:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

out of place

this sentence is out of place:

"Whitmer later said that Smith had also incorrectly prophesied that the copyright to the Book of Mormon would be sold in Toronto, Canada.[3]"

the word 'also' implies a previous incorrect prophesy which is not yet discussed. and the topic of the sentence does not flow from the paragraph...

just my 2 cents. 24.10.251.71 (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)blake

Thank you for your comment. I removed the entire statement. The reference states that Smith enquired of the Lord as to why the brethren failed. Smith, after further enquiry of the Lord, stated there are three places from which a prophecy derives, Devil, man, or God. The statement is a synthesis of information and not supported by the reference. We do not lead readers to a conclusion. --^StormRider 18:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll spell it out.--John Foxe (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

BOMC edits

BOMC has recently made a number of edits without citing WP:RS to back the changes. He has also refused to discuss the edits on this talk page.--John Foxe (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can make accusations. Give examples. I am willing to help this page and my edits are with citation. Please do not undo my properly documented edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BOMC (talk • contribs) 03:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:RS. I'd be happy to answer your questions about the nature of "reliable sources" at Wikipedia.--John Foxe (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted John Foxe's revert, restoring the work that BOMC has done on the article. Here are my reasons:

• BOMC has removed very little information from the article as far as I can see.
• BOMC has added a lot of useful information to the article.
• The citations BOMC has provided for the information are not inconsistent with the citations elsewhere in the article. Though there are some citations to primary sources, he has supported many of these with citations to secondary sources. He's added lots of citations from Vogel (EMD), as well as citations from Bushman, Richardson, Cook, and many others.
• BOMC has been working on improving his citations for the past couple of days. He's continually adding more, and there's been a lot of improvement. Disruptive reverts aren't helping the process.
• BOMC has added an amazing table listing the interviews of David Whitmer, and linking them to the works in which they can be found. There is no reason to remove this table.
• BOMC and ARTIST4ECHO have made a large number of improvements to the infobox of the article, and you're reverting that.
• You are also reverting a fair amount of work by 32Dino and myself.

I recommend that if you see problems with BOMC's work, you fix them or point them out on the talk page. If he has removed any sourced material, I would invite you to re-insert it in the article. If he had mis-cited his sources, I'd invite you to let him know where. If he is citing unreliable sources, tell him specifically which ones. This article has undergone a lot of improvement, and reverting back to an old state is no longer the best option. If you want to improve it, please improve it. But please stop the disruptive editing. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll take another look. If the new material doesn't use primary sources to challenge secondary sources then I have no problem with the changes, though I still believe they should have been discussed beforehand.--John Foxe (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure there will be some problems, but they can easily be fixed. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I read through the article again. The prose style has been degraded, but the new POV edits seem motivated more by filiopietism than religion per se. Writing ugly prose violates no Wikipedia rule, so I can leave that matter to you folks in good conscience.--John Foxe (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

POV edits

Much of the information that has been added recently is cited to Mormon primary sources rather than WP:RS secondary sources. Reliable sources have also been eliminated. Please discuss major changes here first.--John Foxe (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not a professional historian. However, I do not see why a Mormon primary source, especially since it was referred to repeatedly in his various interviews (David Whitmer) is rather less reliable or less preferred than some secondary source? Please explain this to me.

Which 'reliable source' did I eliminate? I edited commentary, but I did not remove the source.

I find that every effort is made to water down David Whitmer's testimony of the BoM and discredit David Whitmer as a witness and/or Joseph Smith or the LDS Church. This hardly conveys any aura of neutrality--Diligentdave (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules are at WP:RS. In brief they say, "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper....Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars." These rules effectively eliminate most primary sources and secondary sources not peer-reviewed, i.e. LDS apologetics.--John Foxe (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS also states: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is not unduly self-serving;

the material does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);

the material does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and source of the material;

the article is not based primarily on such sources.

So while secondary sources are preferred, that is not a bright line to remove all primary sources. Primary sources may also appropriate as a source of information about themselves. 72Dino (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The primary material that you want to introduce is "unduly self-serving" in that it attempts to promote a view of the Three Witnesses approved by the LDS Church. Some articles about obscure or contemporary subjects may require the use of questionable primary sources; but there are plenty of peer-reviewed secondary sources about the Three Witnesses, and that makes quotation of primary sources in this article unnecessary and even perhaps deceptive.--John Foxe (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting to me that it appears that John Foxe, as I have observed with others on Wikipedia, seem to be less interested in getting an article that is fairly representative of what has happened, and would apparently prefer an article that biased, even much biased, against a representation of a story in an 'accurate' perspective, than to allow certain institutions or parties have any article appear to confirm their viewpoint.

'Self-serving' depends upon who is self-serving 'whom'. John Foxe, among many others, appear to have their viewpoints and their not always so hidden agendas. Even though they may not necessarily belong to any institution or entity of any size at all, this does not mean that what they push and what they prevent may not, for promoting their own point of view, which may only be contrarian to any certain party's point-of-view, institutional or otherwise, does not mean that only or mostly only allowing what they allow or preventing most or all of what they want to prevent is not being "self-serving".

Of course, we never read of anyone addressing what or what is not evidently so, per se. We mostly engage in word games and semantics over who may or may not do what according to some fabricated etiquette, which may or may not help anyone get closer to the "truth".

BTW, one LDS scriptural definition of 'truth' is "...knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come..." (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 93:24). Despite that this definition may be cast aside as "self-serving" because it's source (a 'primary' one, BTW, of 'Mormonism') may deemed to be 'controversial' because of it's source, it is, nonetheless, a very concisely complete definition of that concept, nonetheless.--Diligentdave (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

While I am discussing the RS concept rather than this one particular edit, it is not self-serving for an organization to state its particular views and have it noted as such. If you disagree with this view and feel that only peer-reviewed sources can be used on Wikipedia, then I think the larger community needs to be involved with your interpretation through an RfC about this article or a similar approach. 72Dino (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course, you're right that if a sentence clearly indicates that a certain statement what a historical character said, that's fine; but if a peer-reviewed secondary source says something else, the difference should be indicated.--John Foxe (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Book of Mormon witness

"David Whitmer finally accepted the story..." sounds like he was reluctant to accept it and/or that he was brow beaten into accepting it, neither of which is anywhere near what he himself reported. "The Book of Mormon prophesied there would be three witnesses of it. David Whitmer, like his peers, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris, each and all requested to be those witnesses." is much preferred, since it is, as they each and all told it, how it happened. --Diligentdave (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I am going to shortly change the opening sentence in the above paragraph, indicating either a reluctance to "accept the story" or that he had to be pressed upon to believe it, to—

"David Whitmer became convinced that Joseph Smith's work was as he claimed, and help persuade his father's family to join Smith in Palmyra."

If you have objections to this, please give me your strong arguments as to why not.--Diligentdave (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

What does the selling the copyright issue have to do with David Whitmer as a witness to the divine source of The Book of Mormon? (It should be eliminated). --Diligentdave (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

For Wikipedia purposes, Whitmer's own testimony is not as reliable as a peer-reviewed secondary source.--John Foxe (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You are side-stepping, though, my question on the 'selling the copyright issue'. Why is this under the 'Book of Mormon Witness' section? It neither adds to or addresses the 'witness' issue in the least. It is not pertinent to David Whitmer's witness of the Book of Mormon. If you believe it is, give us your strong reason/s for believing so--Diligentdave (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

When you are talking about what Whitmer said and did, and to add his estrangement with the main body of the LDS Church, the fact that he stayed with his story, and that Harris and Cowdery did too, even and especially when they were each and all disaffected from the main body of the LDS Church, speaks volumes of his conviction to his testimony. Show me where anyone else in a similar matter has remained as steadfast to their story.

Furthermore, I am not advocating, per se, an 'LDS POV'. The evidence of what Whitmer said and did all those years after leaving 'Mormonism' in regards to the BoM says much. Yes, even when Whitmer alluded to his belief that Joseph Smith was a fallen (though not false) prophet!--Diligentdave (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be from a peer-reviewed secondary source per WP:RS. You may want to take up at WP:RSN. 72Dino (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

If there's an attempt to introduce LDS POV, I'll do just that.--John Foxe (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Second Paragraph & first line of that paragraph is very much contradicted by this excerpt found on page 52 from the same book—

I have heard the same from the mouth of Father (David) Whitmer, more than once; and every time I ever heard him tell the particulars of that glorious scene, he always told it just the same; and as far as I have ever heard, (u)from reliable witnesses(/u), he has always told the same story -- "straight as a nail."

I cannot find on page XXVI of what the misdirecting first sentence of paragraph 2 under "Book of Mormon Witness" comes from. That various records may vary of one man's testimony, over his lifetime is to be expected. But the way it is phrased, it conveys the suggestion that David Whitmer bore different testimony to different people, or was inconsistent in his testimony or story, which from the many, many accounts of his story appears to be inconsistent with the actual record!

That first line of the second paragraph in that section should be changed to,

"A review of the many written accounts of David Whitmer's testimony in regards to the Book of Mormon are rather consistent. There are a few exceptions, such as.... (contrary account given) ... but that was even categorically refuted by Whitmer in his lifetime... "

Above is the gist of what I mean to change the account to.

If any of you have objections, please give your specific reason/s for them here, and please, in as short a time as possible! Thanks! --Diligentdave (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Three Witnesses page? If so, it will be addressed shortly. Please confirm which page, thanks!BOMC (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Whitmer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120713184924/http://signaturebooks.com/2010/12/excerpt-early-mormon-documents-vol-5/ to http://signaturebooks.com/2010/12/excerpt-early-mormon-documents-vol-5/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)