A Question About David Whitmore

[inquiringmind]

Though a BOM witness, David Whitmore opposed some of Joseph Smith's latter teachings.

He said he believed Joseph was a fallen prophet.

My question is whether it's possible that Whitmore really believed this?

I mean, could he have been sincerely wrong about something so important?

I think there were other BOM witnesses (and certainly other early latter day saints) who took a similar position (and even more who questioned Brigham Young's succession, after Joseph's death.)

Could God have allowed them to be honestly mistaken, or must they all have been deliberate liars who knew better?

And did David Whitmore and Emma Smith endure to the end (because they held on to their testimony concerning the BOM), or fall away (by failing in other areas)?

Edited March 18, 2012 by inquiringmind

[ERayR]

Though a BOM witness, David Whitmore opposed some of Joseph Smith's latter teachings.

He said he believed Joseph was a fallen prophet.

My question is whether it's possible that Whitmore really believed this?

I mean, could he have been sincerely wrong about something so important?

I think there were other BOM witnesses (and certainly other early latter day saints) who took a similar position (and even more who questioned Brigham Young's succession, after Joseph's death.)

Could God have allowed them to be honestly mistaken, or must they all have been deliberate liars who knew better?

And did David Whitmore and Emma Smith endure to the end (because they held on to their testimony concerning the BOM), or fall away (by failing in other areas)?

They did not deny the legitimacy of Joseph's calling as a prophet. Although the had some problems with some other things they maintained their testimony that he was a prophet and of the Book of Mormon.

[Pahoran]

Though a BOM witness, David Whitmore opposed some of Joseph Smith's latter teachings.

He said he believed Joseph was a fallen prophet.

My question is whether it's possible that Whitmore really believed this?

I mean, could he have been sincerely wrong about something so important?

Why not? Plenty of other people are.

Incidentally, his name was "Whitmer," not "Whitmore."

The Three Witnesses were witnesses to something quite specific, namely, the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. Each of them (and also the Eight) had either physically assisted in the work of translation, or had hosted Joseph for at least a portion of the time the work of translation was going on -- that is to say, the Book of Mormon was translated in their homes. They testified to the existence of the Nephite plates and the angelic vision attesting the truthfulness (not textual accuracy) of the translated work. They received no special visions or manifestations regarding anything else in the Restoration. The exception was Oliver Cowdery, and he received those manifestations precisely because he had other roles in addition to being one of the Witnesses.

But even Oliver was able to err in matters that had not been specifically revealed to him, which ought to be a cautionary tale for all of us.

And did David Whitmore and Emma Smith endure to the end (because they held on to their testimony concerning the BOM), or fall away (by failing in other areas)?

That's not really for us to say.

I hope this helps.

Regards,

Pahoran

[inquiringmind]

Incidentally, his name was "Whitmer," not "Whitmore."

Sorry.

Why not? Plenty of other people are.

But they're not all latter day saints.

Whitmer was.

If he had a right to personal revelation, how could he be sincerely wrong about anything of consequence?

But even Oliver was able to err in matters that had not been specifically revealed to him

But that's my question.

Did he "err," or did he "sin"?

Should he have known better?

Could he have been sincerely wrong?

(And can you, or me be?)

They testified to the existence of the Nephite plates and the angelic vision attesting the truthfulness (not textual accuracy) of the translated work.

What is the difference between truthfulness and textual accuracy?

(I was just reading 2 Nephi 1:22, and was surprised at Lehi warning his sons against the possible "eternal destruction of both soul and body."

My understanding is that every child of Adam will get an indestructible body at the resurrection, and no body will be eternally destroyed, so I find this somewhat confusing.)

Edited March 19, 2012 by inquiringmind

[altersteve]

But they're not all latter day saints.

Whitmer was.

If he had a right to personal revelation, how could he be sincerely wrong about anything of consequence?

Whitmer couldn't understand how a fallible person like Joseph Smith could be a prophet, and he let that take his testimony away from him. That's really the only thing that can be said.

The way your post comes across, by the way, makes it seem like you believe that only Latter-day Saints have "a right to personal revelation." This is false. The Church has always taught that everyone has a right to personal revelation. God speaks to all His children, whether they are members of His Church or not.

[inquiringmind]

Whitmer couldn't understand how a fallible person like Joseph Smith could be a prophet, and he let that take his testimony away from him. That's really the only thing that can be said.

The way your post comes across, by the way, makes it seem like you believe that only Latter-day Saints have "a right to personal revelation." This is false. The Church has always taught that everyone has a right to personal revelation. God speaks to all His children, whether they are members of His Church or not.

So does that mean that no one is ever really "sincerely" wrong about anything (because all of us should know the truth at all times)?

Was everyone who believed (or said they believed) that Joseph was a false prophet, or a fallen prophet (or said that Brigham invented polygamy, or that he wasn't Joseph's rightful successor) guilty of rejecting Christ?

If "God speaks to all His children, whether they are members of His Church or not," wouldn't that mean that anyone who didn't recognize Joseph as a prophet wasn't listening?

Dosen't that put Emma Smith and David Whitmer (and those who didn't follow Brigham to Utah) in hell?

Edited March 19, 2012 by inquiringmind

[KevinG]

Inquiring Mind - we can be sincerely wrong and forgiven. That is the beauty of the Atonement.

[Pahoran]

So does that mean that no one is ever really "sincerely" wrong about anything (because all of us should know the truth at all times)?

Was everyone who believed (or said they believed) that Joseph was a false prophet, or a fallen prophet (or said that Brigham invented polygamy, or that he wasn't Joseph's rightful successor) guilty of rejecting Christ?

If "God speaks to all His children, whether they are members of His Church or not," wouldn't that mean that anyone who didn't recognize Joseph as a prophet wasn't listening?

Dosen't that put Emma Smith and David Whitmer (and those who didn't follow Brigham to Utah) in hell?

People can be sincerely wrong about a lot of things. Where are you going with this?

And as to your last question: we are not EV's or JW's. We don't presume to judge anyone's ultimate reward; we know that Jesus, who knows all hearts, will be the sole judge of fact and intent, and the sole dispenser of justice and mercy. I don't know why you keep bringing this question up. Again, where are you going with this?

Regards,

Pahoran

[inquiringmind]

People can be sincerely wrong about a lot of things. Where are you going with this?

And as to your last question: we are not EV's or JW's. We don't presume to judge anyone's ultimate reward; we know that Jesus, who knows all hearts, will be the sole judge of fact and intent, and the sole dispenser of justice and mercy. I don't know why you keep bringing this question up. Again, where are you going with this?

Regards,

Pahoran

I don't know about JW's, but most traditional Christian Theologians (like C.S. Lewis) recognize a concept called "invincible ignorance."

It goes something like this:

If you were born in Egypt, you've been taught to believe that Jesus was just a prophet like Mohammad all your life, everyone you know believes this, and you've always believed it would be a horrible sin to even consider converting to another religion, you might not be able to really see the truth of the Gospel in this life (and the God who judges the intents of the heart won't condemn you for something you really couldn't see.)

The problem is that I don't see any room for this concept of "invincible ignorance" in Mormon Theology.

The Mormon view seems to be that God is personally talking to everyone all the time--and anyone, at any time (and particularly a latter day saint), can know exactly what God wants of them.

You seem to want to extend the benefit of the doubt to David and Emma, but I don't see where Mormon Theology leaves room for any doubt that David and Emma should have known better?

If God was speaking to them all the time, shouldn't Whimer have known that he was bearing false witness against Joseph when he accused him of being a fallen prophet, and shouldn't Emma have known that she was falsely accusing Brigham Young of misleading the Church?

Is there any possibility of anything like "invincible ignorance" in Mormon Theology?

Is there any room for it?

Is it possible that anyone in 19th century America really couldn't believe that God would re-institute the practice of polygamy, and just couldn't believe that Joseph was a prophet (or were all who used that "excuse"--including David Whitmer-- merely liars)?

Edited March 19, 2012 by inquiringmind

[KevinG]

We know that:

D&C 131:6 It is impossible for a man to be ^asaved in ^bignorance.

...but

Mosiah 3:11 For behold, and also [Jesus Christ's] ^ablood ^batoneth for the sins of those who have ^cfallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the ^dwill of God concerning them, or who have ^eignorantly sinned.

so...

The plan of Salvation includes people learning of God's plan and receiving proxy work now or during the Millenium so that all may be freed of ignorance in this life or the next then saved through the atonement of Christ.

---

Regarding Brother Whitmer and Emma Smith- In my opinion, they having dedicated their lives to the Gospel an error in following Joseph or Brigham is certainly something to be repented of but hardly cause for eternal damnation.

Edited March 19, 2012 by KevinG

[altersteve]

So does that mean that no one is ever really "sincerely" wrong about anything (because all of us should know the truth at all times)?

No. People are certainly sincerely wrong about many things all the time. I'm not sure where you're going with this question.

Was everyone who believed (or said they believed) that Joseph was a false prophet, or a fallen prophet (or said that Brigham invented polygamy, or that he wasn't Joseph's rightful successor) guilty of rejecting Christ?

No, I don't believe rejecting Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, or believing that Brigham Young invented polygamy, is the same thing as rejecting the Savior.

If "God speaks to all His children, whether they are members of His Church or not," wouldn't that mean that anyone who didn't recognize Joseph as a prophet wasn't listening?

No. God reveals portions of truth to His children as they are ready to receive them, suited to their language and understanding. God speaking to all His children is not the same thing as revealing all truth to everyone. God knows when we are ready, and He will reveal His word to us if and when that time comes.

Dosen't that put Emma Smith and David Whitmer (and those who didn't follow Brigham to Utah) in hell?

I, and most other Latter-day Saints, don't believe in hell in the traditional sense, so no.

[inquiringmind]

Regarding Brother Whitmer and Emma Smith- In my opinion, they having dedicated their lives to the Gospel an error in following Joseph or Brigham is certainly something to be repented of but hardly cause for eternal damnation.

But if God was speaking to them, and they were listening, how could they make such errors (in knowing whether or not to follow Joseph, or whether or not Brigham was his successor)?

No, I don't believe rejecting Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, or believing that Brigham Young invented polygamy, is the same thing as rejecting the Savior.

If they knew (or should have known) that Joseph and Brigham were appointed by God, wouldn't it amount to the same thing?

Didn't Jesus say "he who rejects you rejects me"?

No. God reveals portions of truth to His children as they are ready to receive them, suited to their language and understanding. God speaking to all His children is not the same thing as revealing all truth to everyone. God knows when we are ready, and He will reveal His word to us if and when that time comes.

Maybe that's the answer.

Not being ready (or able) to receive some portion of truth in this life is what traditional theologians mean by "invincible ignorance."

But I get the impression that Mormons believe that if someone isn't ready to receive some portion of truth, it's their own fault.

They're just not listening to God.

Is that true?

I, and most other Latter-day Saints, don't believe in hell in the traditional sense, so no.

But you do believe they're in a place of torment, where they'll suffer the buffetings of the devil until the day of redemption?

The plan of Salvation includes people learning of God's plan and receiving proxy work now or during the Millenium so that all may be freed of ignorance in this life or the next then saved through the atonement of Christ.

But David and Emma already knew of the restored Gospel.

Doesn't that mean they should have been able to recognize the truth of Joseph's new teachings, and Brigham's new leadership?

Edited March 19, 2012 by inquiringmind

[altersteve]

If they knew (or should have known) that Joseph and Brigham were appointed by God, wouldn't it amount to the same thing?

They had testimonies of the prophet calling of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, but they lost that testimony. That's something between them and the Lord.

But I get the impression that Mormons believe that if someone isn't ready to receive some portion of truth, it's their own fault.

They're just not listening to God.

I don't believe that.

But you do believe they're in a place of torment, where they'll suffer the buffetings of the devil until the day of redemption?

That's what will happen to everyone unless they repent. Whether that happened to Emma Smith or David Whitmer is not my place to say.

[inquiringmind]

They had testimonies of the prophet calling of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, but they lost that testimony.

If either David Whitmer or Emma Smith ever had a testimony of the Prophet calling of Brigham Young, they kept it to themselves.

They never said they had such a testimony, denied having it, and did everything they could to work against Young.

Do you say they had a testimony "and lost it" because of your own conviction that Brigham was a prophet (and that God must have communicated this to David and Emma in some way) ?

If so, aren't you saying that there really is no room for anything like "invincible ignorance" in Mormon Theology?

Aren't you saying that David and Emma weren't "sincerely wrong," but were in fact morally culpable for their errors?

And wouldn't it follow that no latter day saint today is ever "sincerely wrong" about anything, because they have God's guidance, and SHOULD know the truth of all things?

Edited March 19, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Pahoran]

I don't know about JW's, but most traditional Christian Theologians (like C.S. Lewis) recognize a concept called "invincible ignorance."

It goes something like this:

If you were born in Egypt, you've been taught to believe that Jesus was just a prophet like Mohammad all your life, everyone you know believes this, and you've always believed it would be a horrible sin to even consider converting to another religion, you might not be able to really see the truth of the Gospel in this life (and the God who judges the intents of the heart won't condemn you for something you really couldn't see.)

The problem is that I don't see any room for this concept of "invincible ignorance" in Mormon Theology.

The Mormon view seems to be that God is personally talking to everyone all the time--and anyone, at any time (and particularly a latter day saint), can know exactly what God wants of them.

That's "the Mormon view," is it?

I confess that it's not my Mormon view. I must be a highly unorthodox Mormon.

My "Mormon view" is that revelation is a dialogue. God gives us knowlege line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little, as we are ready to receive it; and part of the readiness is that it occurs to us to ask the question.

And if, for any reason, we are not spiritually ready to receive an answer, then, like a badly-tuned radio, we may misunderstand or not receive the signal. Note that it was Harold B. Lee, another presumably unorthodox Mormon, who first used that analogy.

And God judges us according to our deeds, but also according to our knowledge and intent. Therefore we don't judge dead people, unless God has seen fit to reveal their state to us, because we don't know what the one infallible Judge will know.

You seem to want to extend the benefit of the doubt to David and Emma, but I don't see where Mormon Theology leaves room for any doubt that David and Emma should have known better?

I do.

If God was speaking to them all the time,

And that's the key word: If. Faulty premises lead to faulty conclusions.

shouldn't Whimer have known that he was bearing false witness against Joseph when he accused him of being a fallen prophet, and shouldn't Emma have known that she was falsely accusing Brigham Young of misleading the Church?

Is there any possibility of anything like "invincible ignorance" in Mormon Theology?

Is there any room for it?

Is it possible that anyone in 19th century America really couldn't believe that God would re-institute the practice of polygamy, and just couldn't believe that Joseph was a prophet (or were all who used that "excuse"--including David Whitmer-- merely liars)?

That's not for us to judge.

Just like it's not for me to judge the intent of a poster I've never met who seems to be getting much too worked up about a historical issue that is of relevance to the salvation of no-one living.

Regards,

Pahoran

[inquiringmind]

That's "the Mormon view," is it?

I said it seemed like the Mormon view to me.

Faulty premises lead to faulty conclusions.

I know.

Part of the reason I ask questions is to test my premises.

And that's the key word: If.

So it's possible that God never told David Whitmer that Joseph wasn't a fallen prophet, and that He never told Emma that Brigham Young was her husband's rightful successor?

I do.

So you see room for doubt that David and Emma should have known better?

If you find room to doubt that, then perhaps there is room for a concept like "invincible ignorance" in Mormon Theology.

I didn't know there was (and that's really what I was interested in here.)

That's not for us to judge.

Just like it's not for me to judge the intent of a poster I've never met who seems to be getting much too worked up about a historical issue that is of relevance to the salvation of no-one living.

Whitmer and Emma are historical figures, but doesn't the BOM say that God is "the same yesterday, today, and forever"?

So it's possible that there are issues here that are of some "relevance" to the salvation some now living.

And if, for any reason, we are not spiritually ready to receive an answer, then, like a badly-tuned radio, we may misunderstand or not receive the signal. Note that it was Harold B. Lee, another presumably unorthodox Mormon, who first used that analogy

THANK YOU.

The radio analogy is helpful, I didn't know that any president and prophet of the LDS Church ever used such an analogy, and it really would be helpful if some Mormons here (with their much greater knowledge of what past presidents and general authorities have said) could answer the theological and philosophical questions of neophytes like myself without being overly defensive.

Edited March 20, 2012 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

P.S. Where can I find that quote by Harold B. Lee (I'd like to read it in context.)

[Pahoran]

P.S. Where can I find that quote by Harold B. Lee (I'd like to read it in context.)

You can read the entire talk here.

Regards,

Pahoran

[inquiringmind]

Thank you.

[why me]

Though a BOM witness, David Whitmore opposed some of Joseph Smith's latter teachings.

He said he believed Joseph was a fallen prophet.

My question is whether it's possible that Whitmore really believed this?

I mean, could he have been sincerely wrong about something so important?

I think there were other BOM witnesses (and certainly other early latter day saints) who took a similar position (and even more who questioned Brigham Young's succession, after Joseph's death.)

Could God have allowed them to be honestly mistaken, or must they all have been deliberate liars who knew better?

And did David Whitmore and Emma Smith endure to the end (because they held on to their testimony concerning the BOM), or fall away (by failing in other areas)?

David was a human being therefore he had his free agency. I think that all the witnesses who experienced what they experienced and could no longer believe that joseph was a prophet were between a rock and a hard place. The continued to believe in the book of mormon but could not follow Joseph Smith based on personal reasons. And yet, on their deathbeds, they confirmed their experience and they confirmed their testimony before family, friends and God.

And this is what makes their testimonies so powerful: regardless of their personal opinions about Joseph, they could not deny what they saw or felt with their hands.