Witnesses To The Book Of Mormon - John Whitmer

[Honorentheos]

John Whitmer, brother to David Whitmer, was one of the eight witnesses of whom it was said he handled the plates as well as saw them.

In our attempt to examine the witnesses as individuals rather than collectively, John Whitmer seems fitting as many of the questions regarding David's witness also apply to John. Like David, John was one of the dissenters in Missiouri who faced excommunication when the Kirkland saints arrived after being driven from Ohio. Like David, John followed the prophet faithfully to a point, but began to question Joseph's intentions as what they viewed to be the pure doctrine of Christ became corrupted with, in his own words, "their secret bands, in fornication, adultery or midnight machinations."

What makes John's witness unique is that he received a special calling in the church - to author it's history. Of this event, he said the following -

"I was appointed by the voice of the elders to keep the Church Record. Joseph Smith, Jr., said unto me you must also keep the Church history. I would rather not do it but observed that the will of the Lord be done, and if he desires it, I desire that he would manifest it through Joseph the Seer. And thus came the word of the Lord:

"(D&C 47)

1 Behold, it is expedient in me that my servant John should write and keep a regular ^ahistory, and assist you, my servant Joseph, in transcribing all things which shall be given you, until he is called to further duties.

2 Again, verily I say unto you that he can also ^alift up his voice in meetings, whenever it shall be expedient.

3 And again, I say unto you that it shall be appointed unto him to keep the church ^arecord and history continually; for Oliver Cowdery I have appointed to another office.

4 Wherefore, it shall be given him, inasmuch as he is faithful, by the ^aComforter, to write these things. Even so. Amen."

As noted by his own pen, he did not want this calling, and asked Joseph to verify it was the will of the Lord, thus the words we have as D&C 47.

Why does this matter? Because John Whitmer fulfilled his calling through the time period when he and the other dissenters in Missiouri were chased out of the church. Consider this from his history, recorded in 1837 -

In the fall of 1836, Joseph Smith, Jr., S. Rigdon and others of the leaders of the Church at Kirtland, Ohio, established a bank for the purpose of speculation, and the whole Church partook of the same spirit; they were lifted up in pride, and lusted after the forbidden things of God, such as covetousness, and in secret combinations, spiritual-wife doctrine, that is plurality of wives, and Gadianton bands, in which they were bound with oaths, etc., that brought division and mistrust among those who were pure in heart, and desired the upbuilding of the Kingdom of God.

Joseph Smith, Jr., S. Rigdon, and Hyrum Smith moved their families to this place, Far West, in the spring of 1838. As soon as they came here, they began to enforce their new organized plan, which caused dissensions and difficulties, threatenings and even murders. Smith called a council of the leaders together, in which council he stated that any person who said a word against the heads of the Church, should be driven over these prairies as a chased deer by a pack of hounds, having an illusion to the Gideonites, as they were termed, to justify themselves in their wicked designs. Thus on the 19th of June, 1838, they preached a sermon called the salt sermon, in which these Gideonites understood that they should drive the dissenters, as they termed those who believed not in their secret bands, in fornication, adultery or midnight machinations. Therefore they commenced suing at the law of the land by attachment for debts which they knew were paid, and justly paid, according to the laws of God and the land, and thus foreswore themselves in these things. Joseph Smith, Jr., S. Rigdon and Hyrum Smith were the instigators, and George W. Robinson, the prosecutor against David Whitmer, Lyman E. Johnson, Oliver Cowdery, F. G. Williams, W. W. Phelps and myself. They had threatened us, to kill us, if we did not make restitutions to them, by upholding them in their wicked purposes and designs. After they had instituted the foregoing suits Oliver Cowdery, D. Whitmer, L. E. Johnson and myself went to Clay County to obtain legal council, to prepare to overthrow these attachments which they had caused to be issued against us, which we were abundantly able to do by good and substantial witnesses.

But to our great astonishment, when we were on our way home from Liberty, Clay County, we met the families of Oliver Cowdery and L. E. Johnson, whom they had driven from their homes, and robbed them of all their goods, save clothing, bedding, etc.

While we were gone, Jo. and Rigdon and their band of Gadiantons kept up a guard, and watched our houses, and abused our families, and threatened them, if they were not gone by morning, they would be drove [driven] out, and threatened our lives, if they ever saw us in Far West.

After they had driven us and our families, they commenced a difficulty in Daviess County, adjoining this county, in which they began to rob and burn houses, etc. etc., took honey which they, (the Mormons) called sweet oil, and hogs which they called bear, and cattle which they called buffalo. Thus they would justify themselves by saying, "We are the people of God, and all things are God's; therefore, they are ours." The old inhabitants were not slack in paying them in their own coin. Thus war and bloodshed commenced and the result was the Church was driven from this land, the pure in heart and innocent, as well as the more wicked, save a few dissenters who were left here to fulfill some of the former commandments.

As with David, we see that John Whitmer's witness contains a two-edged sword. In a sense, it appears the Lord gave John a commandment and responsibility to record events that, if his brother David is correct about, appear to show that the church was moving away from it's pure roots and becoming corrupted by Joseph Smith's own ambitions, in particular the accusations of adultery which appear to refer to Joseph's polygamy.

As with David, it seems that on his own, John Whitmer requires careful consideration. Is his testimony false when he was fulfilling his commandment to record the history of the church? Or is he following-through perhaps even being guided by the hand of the divine, to record acts of the church leadership that are not particularly favorable and even indicate misconduct on the part of the leadership of the church when they chased the Missouri church leadership out.

To do the light lifting for some of you who only need some form of plausible explanation, it's true that the current version of D&C 47 appears to offer reasons for why this could be so. Language such as, "So far as he is faithful" suggest he may have stopped being worthy of this gift.

But what did the original revelation say? There are three versions of the revelation: the Kirkland Revelations Book, the Book of Commandments, and the Doctrine and Covenants.

The KRB had the original revelation as follows -

Behold it is expedient in me that my servant John Whitmor should write and keep a regular history and assist my servant Joseph in translating all things which shall be given him and again verily I say unto you that ye can also lift up his voice in meetings when ever it shall be expedient and again I say unto you that it shall be appointed unto you to keep the church record and history continualy for Oliver I have appointed to an other office wherefore it shall be given thee by the Comforter to write these things even so Amen.

None of the material is present that suggests John must be faithful to have this calling. Nor does it say he has this calling until another is given him. But even more interesting - it suggests that John was to be a translator and to record those things given HIM, not Joseph. Interesting.

The Book of Commandments reads -

Behold it is expedient in me that my servant John should write and keep a regular history and assist you my servant Joseph in transcribing all things which shall be given you. Again verily I say unto you that he can also lift up his voice in meetings when ever it shall be expedient. Again I say unto you that it shall be appointed unto him to keep the church record and history continualy for Oliver I have appointed to an other wherefore it shall be given him inasmuch as he is faithful, by the Comforter to write these things even so Amen.

In 1835 this read much closer to today's version -

[1] Behold it is expedient in me that my servant John should write and keep a regular history and assist you my servant Joseph in transcribing all things which shall be given you, until he is called to further duties.

[2]Again verily I say unto you that he can also lift up his voice in meetings when ever it shall be expedient.

[3]Again I say unto you that it shall be appointed unto him to keep the church record and history continualy for Oliver Cowdery I have appointed to an other

[4]wherefore it shall be given him inasmuch as he is faithful, by the Comforter to write these things even so Amen.

So, while we can speculate as to why the revelation needed revising over time, the facts are not as cut and dry as they first appear.

So my question - why should we accept John as a true witness of the existence of the Golden Plates while rejecting his history that he was commanded to write, even being told he would be guided by the spirit in doing so when this history speaks about the church deviating from the true gospel of Christ due to polygamy and other over-reaching by the prophet Joseph Smith?

[KevinG]

A couple of quick and dirty thoughts...

All blessings are predicated upon faith. That being added to the revelation does not change the essential meaning and conditions of the promised blessings.

He said he said dueling revelations mean nothing even if they come from a prophet. What means something is revelations that are confirmed in counsel among priesthood quorums and families.

What is the purpose of your analysis? When the History Channel did a special on the Mountain Meadows Massacre they accompanied each statement that it "appears that" Brigham encouraged something they used spooky music in the background. That might add some oomph to your presentation.

[why me]

So my question - why should we accept John as a true witness of the existence of the Golden Plates while rejecting his history that he was commanded to write, even being told he would be guided by the spirit in doing so when this history speaks about the church deviating from the true gospel of Christ due to polygamy and other over-reaching by the prophet Joseph Smith?

Because he remained faithful to the end:

There are two notable times that John Whitmer defended his testimony of seeing the plates, after leaving the church. The first was on April 5, 1835, when he was accompanying 8 of a group of 50 men who had sworn to not eat or drink until they had murdered “Joe” Smith. In other words, he was with a bunch of guys slightly hostile to the church. The 8 of them approached Theodore Turley, an elder in the church. They handed Elder Turley a revelation of Joseph Smith’s that they were convinced would never happen. They taunted him claiming this was proof that Joseph was a false prophet and demanded that he denounce the church once the revelation had passed without fulfillment. Turley scoffed at them defending the revelation then turned to John Whitmer and said,

“There are many things published that they say are true, and again turn around and say they are false?" Whitmer, asked, "Do you hint at me?" Elder Turley said, "If the cap fits you, wear it; all I know is that you have published to the world that an angel did present those plates to Joseph Smith." John replied: "I now say, I handled those plates; there were fine engravings on both sides. I handled them." Then he described in the presence of these bitter enemies how the plates were fastened and he said, "They were shown to me by a supernatural power."

.............................................

The 2nd account came from what was probably John Whitmer’s final interview before his death. It’s funny how all these witnesses who leave the church keep reaffirming their testimonies on their deathbed. What does that tell you? Anyway, this Q&A was published a few weeks after John’s death.

Q - I am aware that your name is affixed to the testimony in the Book of Mormon that you saw the plates?

A - It is so, and that testimony is true.

Q - Did you handle the plates with your hands?

A - I did so!

Q - Then they were a material substance?

A - Yes, as material as anything can be.

Q - Were they heavy to lift?

A - Yes, and as you know gold is a heavy metal: they were very heavy.

Q - How big were the leaves?

A - So far as I recollect, 8 by 6 or seven inches.

Q - Were the leaves thick?

A - Yes, just so thick, that characters could be engraven on both sides.

Q - How were the leaves joined together?

A - In three rings, each one in the shape of a D with the straight line towards the center.

Q - In what place did you see the plates?

A - In Joseph Smith’s house; he had them there.

Q - Did you see them covered with a cloth?

A - No. He handed them uncovered into our hands, and we turned the leaves sufficient to satisfy us.

http://www.moroni10.com/witnesses/John_Whitmer.html

How unfortunate that John did not remain faithful to his testimony. But he never contradicted his testimony.

[why me]

I cannot help but wonder just what the history of the whitmer family would have been if they would have remained faithful to the church. The OP in a thread on david whitmer declared that the whitmers gained much by being at one time linked to the church. Did they? I don't think so. But by remaining faithful they would now be a family much revered in lds history and they certainly would have accomplished much as faithful members. Members today would be reading about their great deeds in Utah and in Missiouri and Nauvoo.

And whatever they did gain as being linked to the church would have been nothing compared to what they would have gained as faithful members.

Edited December 15, 2011 by why me

[why me]

And here is an interesting read by Daniel Peterson:

http://www.deseretne...ny-endures.html

And, not long thereafter, he was back to declaring, rather often and sometimes very emotionally, his conviction that the Book of Mormon was true and that it had been translated by the supernatural gift and power of God. (Records still survive of such declarations from up to at least six months prior to his death in 1878.)

In 1861, Jacob Gates spent roughly four hours talking with him, and, afterward, indicated in a journal entry that, while the witness didn't like polygamy and hadn't rejoined the church, John Whitmer "still testified that the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of the Lord. He also said that he believed that … Brigham Young was carrying out the doctrine and system which Joseph Smith taught."

But before this it is said that one reason why John was riding with the critics of the church was because:

Then why was he now allied with critics of the church? Because, he said, he couldn't actually confirm the translation of that strange writing. "I cannot read it, and I do not know whether it is true or not."

http://www.deseretne...dures.html?pg=1

John was a human being and like many people who leave the church John had a simple problem at one time: Although he handled the plates, turned the leaves over, he could not actually say if the plates were true. But like Daniel said, he immediately after making this statement, began to reconfirm his testimony.

Or as Daniel wrote:

In this context, it's vital to remember that while the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon saw an angel and heard the voice of God confirming the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon to them ("we … know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true"), the Eight Witnesses did not. They went out into a clearing in the woods where they saw and "handled" the plates. That's all. Their experience was relatively mundane, much more limited in character.

Thus, when John Whitmer, at his own darkest point, declared that he could not personally verify the translation but that he had, in fact, held and examined the plates, he was sticking to, and reaffirming, his experience as one of the Eight Witnesses.

http://www.deseretne...dures.html?pg=1

Edited December 15, 2011 by why me

[altersteve]

None of the material is present that suggests John must be faithful to have this calling.

This only assumes that the Lord did not originally tell John that he must be faithful to have this calling. Just because it wasn't originally recorded doesn't mean it didn't happen.

So my question - why should we accept John as a true witness of the existence of the Golden Plates while rejecting his history that he was commanded to write, even being told he would be guided by the spirit in doing so when this history speaks about the church deviating from the true gospel of Christ due to polygamy and other over-reaching by the prophet Joseph Smith?

For the same reason that we should accept all the others as true witnesses of the existence of the golden plates. There is no reason to reject his testimony of the golden plates simply because he failed to live up to his calling. They are two completely different issues. Besides, if John Whitmer is claiming that the Church is deviating away from the true gospel, then he's not faithful, and the Spirit isn't going to guide him in his calling if he's not faithful. And the revelation in question, as you pointed out yourself, has been edited in order to clarify that the Lord did in fact tell John that he must be faithful (the condition that all others must agree to if they choose to do as the Lord commands them), and Latter-day Saints have no trouble accepting that this change was an inspired clarification.

Your entire post is thus based on a total argument from silence and can therefore be simply dismissed.

[altersteve]

double post

Edited December 15, 2011 by altersteve

[Honorentheos]

Why Me questioned the assertion that John Whitmer benefited from his involvement in the church. In the David Whitmer thread I shared a link from a faithful LDS source that affirmed John Whitmer was one of the 10 largest land owners in Caldwell County in Missiouri while a member, and once the saints left he continued to buy up land. Add to this that he was tied to his brother David's religious movements that relied on David's authority as one of the witnesses as well as an ordination from Joseph Smith and it seems there should be no question that the Whitmers fortunes were tied to the faith even after they left.

As to the rest, I really have to wonder at the lack of material that comes forward in defense of the counter arguments. "Spooky music"? Being the counter Twain because the Whitmers just have to be dependable witnesses when their testimony favors one's own view but not in the other instance.

John's description of the events in Far West appear to be accurate. I'd say a good place to begin, if one can, is to refute that he had his history accurate. Otherwise, it seems the spirit just may have been guiding him to write things others might not have been willing to write after all. God moves in mysterious ways, as they say.

[why me]

Why Me questioned the assertion that John Whitmer benefited from his involvement in the church. In the David Whitmer thread I shared a link from a faithful LDS source that affirmed John Whitmer was one of the 10 largest land owners in Caldwell County in Missiouri while a member, and once the saints left he continued to buy up land. Add to this that he was tied to his brother David's religious movements that relied on David's authority as one of the witnesses as well as an ordination from Joseph Smith and it seems there should be no question that the Whitmers fortunes were tied to the faith even after they left.

.

In the other thread I believe that I mentioned that John was the most successful but this was largely do to his business acumen. Now did he benefit through land purchases. Yes. Was it a smart move on his part? Yes. However, we need to remember that John was also riding with antimormons of the worst sort when questioned by Turley. This would not be the way to seek influence among the saints.

John like all of the whitmers found themselves in a bind. They could not deny their testimonies and yet, they could not be active in the lds church. Thus, it is my opinon that they kept to their testimony because they knew that if they denied what they saw or felt with their hands, it may not go well in the afterlife for them. Thus, David wanted his testimony on his tombstone and the whitmers as they approached death, gave their final testimonies.

Putting myself in their place, I would do the same.

And I can speak for myself in all this: I also am not active in the lds church but I could never deny the witness that I had at 18 years old when I prayed about the book of mormon. It was too strong to deny. Thus, in some sort of way, I can understand the whitmers.

Edited December 15, 2011 by why me

[Honorentheos]

Why Me -

An alternative explaination, as I put forward in the David Whitmer thread, is that John could not deny the accuracy of the statement he had signed and maintain his good name. He and his brother were involved in a small number of other Book of Mormon-derived religious movements as well following leaving the LDS church, most often as leaders not as followers with the exception of the Strangites.

You seem to want to cling to this idea that because they never recanted their original statements must be true yet even though John Whitmer is quoted by others in ways favorable to Joseph Smith post Far West, I think his own statements taken at face value show support for the Book of Mormon (from which his brother derived authority as witness) while describing Joseph as a fallen prophet. As with the David thread, the evidence here suggests the Whitmers were onto something as the modern church has distanced itself from many of the most significant issues of concern to the Whitmers.

[Honorentheos]

John like all of the whitmers found themselves in a bind. They could not deny their testimonies and yet, they could not be active in the lds church. Thus, it is my opinon that they kept to their testimony because they knew that if they denied what they saw or felt with their hands, it may not go well in the afterlife for them. Thus, David wanted his testimony on his tombstone and the whitmers as they approached death, gave their final testimonies.

This quote is an example of what I call the anti-Twain arguement - that the Whitmers as a body moved to one opinion. If the argument Twain used to counter the BoM witnesses is dismissed as personal musings, why accept this sort of argument?

[altersteve]

You seem to want to cling to this idea that because they never recanted their original statements must be true

That's not at all what any of us are saying. We already know their original statements are true, and because of entirely different reasons. The fact that the Whitmers described Joseph as a "fallen prophet" (which would still imply that he was a true prophet at one time) has no bearing on whether or not an angel showed the plates to them, nor do their personal views of the new doctrines and practices Joseph was introducing.

The issue here is, quite simply, their testimony of the Book of Mormon, which cannot be fairly examined by making fallacious arguments about things that really have nothing to do with the Book of Mormon whatsoever in an attempt to cast the witnesses in a negative light. And you making unfounded accusations that each witness only wanted to "maintain his good name" only allows you to do this even more effectively. But the problem is that none of us have any reason to believe that they only wanted to maintain their reputations, so your criticisms here are useless. You'll have to take a different route (though I don't think any other route is possible).

[why me]

But the problem is that none of us have any reason to believe that they only wanted to maintain their reputations, so your criticisms here are useless. You'll have to take a different route (though I don't think any other route is possible).

If you think about it, the whitmers were rather poor souls if the OP is correct. Here they are on their deathbeds, getting ready to meet their maker and they still have to 'lie' during their last breaths on earth. Quite sad really. If they were all fraudsters, this in itself would cancel out any gains that may have tried to perserve by maintaining the fraud. The fraud would have been a curse.

[Honorentheos]

We already know their original statements are true, and because of entirely different reasons.

This is an important point. It's one of the critical reasons that discussion per the name of the board is an elegant goal so rarely attained when it comes to critical examination of the history of the church. It's also why, as one who once thought I knew, I realize the effort is not really a matter of contending with you or others who "already know".

The issue here is, quite simply, their testimony of the Book of Mormon, which cannot be fairly examined by making fallacious arguments about things that really have nothing to do with the Book of Mormon whatsoever in an attempt to cast the witnesses in a negative light. And you making unfounded accusations that each witness only wanted to "maintain his good name" only allows you to do this even more effectively. But the problem is that none of us have any reason to believe that they only wanted to maintain their reputations, so your criticisms here are useless. You'll have to take a different route (though I don't think any other route is possible).

The challenge, friend, is that we don't know either way what their intentions or motivations may have been, but we should feel obligated to examine their testimonies in the context of the time and setting when they were given and what, exactly, they experienced to the best of our ability given the evidence. It's for this reason I feel obligated to base my OP's and addition responses on their own words when available, and on the words of those around them when their own words aren't available.

For this reason, I asked why a believer in the LDS faith, by which I mean the Salt Lake-based church, would choose to dismiss John Whitmer's account from his history when it clearly shows malicious abuse of power on the part of the Prophet Joseph Smith. My honest interpretation of the responses so far is there is no evidence for rejecting it other than a person is unwilling to believe Joseph Smith could act in such a manner. I ask, "On what grounds?" Because once you do so, you call John Whitmer's integrity into question. And as a witness to an incredible event for which we have not physical evidence and in fact a reasonable corpus of counter evidence by way of historical, biological, and theological issues with the BoM, I'd say the last thing one should be seeking for is a reason to call his integrity as a witness into question. That is, so long as a person wishes to point to him as a true witness. For this reason, I've already asked once if there is evidence to counter his description of what happened in Far West. I'm sincerely curious if you, or anyone else who supports your view, has looked into this and can show he has his history wrong so far as the entry for 1838 is concerned.

Edited December 16, 2011 by Honorentheos