Did David Whitmer walk back his testimony to John Murphy?

I’d read the report. Murphy attributes language about impressions to Whitmer and compares it to Quaker or Methodist experience. That’s relevant, and it’s Murphy’s later account of the exchange.

You acknowledge the difficult source and say whose account it is. Now compare it with Whitmer’s own words.

There’s no source for the impression story, so we can ignore it.

Murphy put his account in a newspaper letter. The source gives evidence of what he reported, with the limits of a reconstructed dialogue.

Whitmer reaffirms his published testimony. I’d use that to answer the claim that he walked it back. For what he meant by an impression, we have to compare other accounts.

You distinguish the fact of his reaffirmation from the exact nature of his reported experience.

Whitmer’s statement directly denies every word Murphy attributed to him.

The proclamation answers the charge of recantation and reaffirms the earlier testimony. It leaves the reported dialogue about the angel’s appearance without a direct answer.

It records Whitmer describing light, a table with plates, and a voice. That gives his testimony more detail and makes a simple “just a feeling” summary harder to defend.

You use the second report to add evidence about Whitmer’s account. The interviewer was recording a recollection of 1829.

That interview adds a new eyewitness who was there when the plates appeared.

The reporter interviewed Whitmer in 1881. The account gives a second reporting channel for Whitmer’s testimony.