This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
David Whitmer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
"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. [1] -- Diligentdave ( talk) 23:39, 12 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)
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)
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)
References
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
David Whitmer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
"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. [1] -- Diligentdave ( talk) 23:39, 12 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)
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)
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)
References
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)