David Whitmer, Valiant Witness

[Pahoran]

In another thread, in response to the worshipful gush of an apparent Whitmerite, I wrote the following:

And now to slaughter your sacred cow:

David Whitmer was clearly a conservative, low-church Protestant throughout his life. He enlarged his definition of "scripture" to include the Book of Mormon because he had to -- his undeniable supernatural experiences left him no choice. But he then carried on as if nothing much else had happened. Receiving no such supernatural experiences about the relevations (in contrast to others) he disregarded them as long as they disagreed with his interpretation of what he was willing to receive as scripture. Thus it is that his testimony of the supernatural events around the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is superlatively important, because it is clear that if those events had not happened, he would have refused to believe them; while his rather stupid opinions about Joseph Smith's prophetic calling, tainted as they clearly were by personal jealousy and animus, are rather worthless, since they merely reflect his own personal prejudices.

Note that this was in nowise intended to disparage Whitmer's character in any way. It was simply to put his views on various subjects into perspective.

My short summation provides what seems to me to be the most parsimonious explanation for Whitmer's actions, both in and out of the Church. As a conservative, low-church Protestant, David Whitmer embraced a view that included sola scriptura and a non-hierarchical ecclesiastical structure. Consider for a moment that such views are really incompatible with the LDS view of an open canon, continuing revelation and a hierarchical church.

When David Whitmer was excommunicated from the Church in 1838, he was in open and hot dispute with the leaders of the Church. He never returned, and subsequently published a number of what could be called apologia for his position. Two recurrent themes run through these apologia: (1) consistent and emphatic reaffirmation of his testimony of the Book of Mormon, and (2) his continuing gripes against the Church and its leaders, and why he was right to leave the Church.

Much is made, by critics, of the fact that he claimed to have received direct inspiration to the effect that he should leave the Church. The fact was that he had already been excommunicated; as a good ex-Mormon, he sent his name removal letter to the Disciplinary Council that was convened to hear his case about six weeks before the experience he described. Thus, his "resignation" came before his relevation, so it cannot have been the product thereof.

But I return to the fact that Whitmer published a number of apologia in which he continued to litigate his case against the Church of Jesus Christ. Apart from specific incidents of wrongdoing, such as Sampson Avard's Danite scheme, his main points of dispute were (1) the revelations received by Joseph Smith, and (2) the growing Church hierarchy.

As I mentioned above, these are two facets that a low-church conservative Protestant would have the hardest time with.

Now if we consider the possibility that David simply expanded his definition of "canon" to include another 15 books, we find that his position becomes perfectly consistent. He didn't change anything else in his world view, because he didn't see a need to do so. David would have been delighted if Joseph had ended up organising something just like the local Baptist Church, but using the Book of Mormon as well as the Bible in its teaching; but that's not how the Church turned out. David found himself in a position where he had to either abandon his Protestant Weltanschauung, or else he'd have to leave the Church. Which is, in the end, what he did.

But there is something else going on here. Why, I can hear some more perceptive readers asking, would someone like him accept the Book of Mormon? There's really only one answer: Because he had no choice. The angel appeared to him, showed him the plates and testified to the correctness of the translation. Thus, he becomes almost a reluctant witness.

And that is why I said that "his testimony of the supernatural events around the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is superlatively important, because it is clear that if those events had not happened, he would have refused to believe them." Put another way, the fact that he continued to believe in and proclaim those events, in light of his overall opposition to the Church, is the strongest possible evidence that those events actually happened.

Given his continued relitigation of his gripes over the years, it is not particularly hard to see him as a bitter man. But despite that bitterness, he continued to be valiant in maintaining his testimony. And that is what matters the most.

Regards,

Pahoran

[blackstrap]

It is interesting how people can compartimentalize their beliefs.

a. the BoM is a fraud

b. the BoM is true but Joseph was a fallen prophet

c. the BoM is true and Joseph was a true prophet,but Brigham usurped the presidency and misled the saints

d. the BoM is true and Joseph a true prophet and Brigham the true successor,but then current leadership is following a false path.

but,but,but,but,but,......an outboard motor.

[CASteinman]

Pahoran,

Is this very interesting scholarship original with you? I really like your analysis and approach. It also helps me understand Whitmer better.

[Libs]

Put another way, the fact that he continued to believe in and proclaim those events, in light of his overall opposition to the Church, is the strongest possible evidence that those events actually happened.

I just had a discussion with an anti-Mormon who was claiming that any "spiritual testimony" that does not line up with the Bible (his version of the Bible) had to have come from "deceiving spirits".

(I don't believe that, but that's another "out" for people who don't want to believe, I suppose)

Edited May 14, 2012 by Libs

[CASteinman]

I just had a discussion with an anti-Mormon who was claiming that any "spiritual testimony" that does not line up with the Bible (his version of the Bible) had to have come from "deceiving spirits".

(I don't believe that, but that's another "out" for people who don't want to believe, I suppose)

According to the Bible, sometimes God is a deceiving spirit. How does your anti-Mormon deal with that one?

[Libs]

I have no idea.

Where is that, in the Bible, CA?

[Libs]

Nevermind. I looked that up.

1 Kings 22:23

Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.

2 Chronicles 18:22

Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.

Jeremiah 4:10

Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.

Jeremiah 20:7

O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.

Ezekiel 14:9

And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.

2 Thessalonians 2:11

For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

Interesting. Of course, they probably need some context.

[CASteinman]

Interesting. Of course, they probably need some context.

I guess my thinking is that there does not appear to be a correlation: The Bible contains accounts of God deceiving people -- if so how can "the God of the Bible" be trusted. How do we know he is not deceiving us? Because he -- the deceiving god -- says so?

I understand if someone wants to take the Bible as Perfect by Faith -- even if I do not agree with it.. But to accept that, on Faith, contrary to evidence, is a weak basis to insist that others must agree with that view. That weakness turns right to rottenness when not only do you insist that others must believe, but you use that stance to attack others.

Its bogus.

If the Bible contradicts itself, then it should be no crime for a new prophet to contradict the Bible in some reasonable ways.

[Libs]

I agree.

I am not, at all, a believer in Biblical inerrancy.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

Is this very interesting scholarship original with you? I really like your analysis and approach. It also helps me understand Whitmer better.

Thank you for your kind words, CA. While I cannot recall reading anything similar elsewhere, I wouldn't be surprised if others had reached the same conclusions.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Thank you for your kind words, CA. While I cannot recall reading anything similar elsewhere, I wouldn't be surprised if others had reached the same conclusions.

Regards,

Pahoran

I echo CASteinman. Whitmer is less of an enigma for me now that I've considered your analysis.

[theplains]

Given his continued relitigation of his gripes over the years, it is not particularly hard to see him as a bitter man.

Joseph Fielding Smith taught that "Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer all deserted Joseph Smith while

he was living. For a time they manifested a spirit of opposition, if not of bitterness, towards him" (Doctrines of Salvation,

chapter 13, page 214). "All the days of their lives they were true to their testimony, though they became bitter toward

the Prophet Joseph Smith personally. All three got over that bitterness before they died, but there was a time when they

were very, very bitter in their feelings toward him" (ibid, page 223).

The book does not explain it, but I was wondering why these other 2 were also very, very bitter towards the prophet?

Thanks,

Jim

[Scott Lloyd]

Joseph Fielding Smith taught that "Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer all deserted Joseph Smith while

he was living. For a time they manifested a spirit of opposition, if not of bitterness, towards him" (Doctrines of Salvation,

chapter 13, page 214). "All the days of their lives they were true to their testimony, though they became bitter toward

the Prophet Joseph Smith personally. All three got over that bitterness before they died, but there was a time when they

were very, very bitter in their feelings toward him" (ibid, page 223).

The book does not explain it, but I was wondering why these other 2 were also very, very bitter towards the prophet?

Thanks,

Jim

Cowdery was tried in abstentia by a Church court. He felt (not entirely without reason) that he had been wronged, and he was expecting some sort of vindication. With time and added perspective, he rejoined the Church while it was in transit to the Great Basin. He then went to Richmond, Mo., and stayed with his in-laws, the Whitmers. I'm confident he would have come to Utah with the Saints had he not died of illness.

The definitive work on this subject is Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses by Richard Lloyd Anderson.

[altersteve]

Great post, Pahoran.

Also, was David Whitmer the one who was known for changing his religious affiliation frequently? Or was that Martin Harris? If it was Whitmer, could that have been the result of his Protestant background?

[Pahoran]

Great post, Pahoran.

Also, was David Whitmer the one who was known for changing his religious affiliation frequently? Or was that Martin Harris? If it was Whitmer, could that have been the result of his Protestant background?

That was Martin Harris. During his period away from the Church, he joined a number of other groups. What's interesting is that he continued to preach the Book of Mormon throughout, even when he was with the Shakers!

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bob Crockett]

Given his continued relitigation of his gripes over the years, it is not particularly hard to see him as a bitter man. But despite that bitterness, he continued to be valiant in maintaining his testimony. And that is what matters the most.

Regards,

Pahoran

This is really an excellent post and I wish I could have stated it that way. I have always thought that Whitmer's problem was frustrated personal ambition, when being a stake president just wasn't enough for him. But I very much love the book I have of his various interviews over the years.

[DWhitmer]

It is interesting how people can compartimentalize their beliefs.

a. the BoM is a fraud

b. the BoM is true but Joseph was a fallen prophet

c. the BoM is true and Joseph was a true prophet,but Brigham usurped the presidency and misled the saints

d. the BoM is true and Joseph a true prophet and Brigham the true successor,but then current leadership is following a false path.

but,but,but,but,but,......an outboard motor.

Lucky for us, we know precisely which "compartment" (as you put) you should trust - the Bible and the book that would confirm it - the Holy Book of Mormon. If it's not in those two books, then it's not required for your salvation!

I have always thought that Whitmer's problem was frustrated personal ambition, when being a stake president just wasn't enough for him. But I very much love the book I have of his various interviews over the years.

R u for real? He was appointed "Presiden of Zion" and that meant he was higher in authority than Joe, since "Zion" was the center place.

After the camp dispersed at Fishing River, Smith and F. G. Williams came to Clay County together with many others who scattered in Clay country and elsewhere, Smith called a conference at the house of Lyman Wight, three miles west of Liberty, in which conference the most of the official members belonging to Zion were present, where Smith organized the High Council of Zion, as I said in a former chapter, in which

David Whitmer was ordained President of Zion, and John Whitmer and W. W, Phelps his counselors. Here at the same time, he ordained David Whitmer Prophet, Seer and Revelator and Translator.

( John Whitmer, The Book of John Whitmer Kept by Commandment, Being an History of the Church of Jesus Christ from 1831-1838)

By virtue of his position as President of the High Council in Zion, David Whitmer was sustained as

"the president of the church in Zion," not merely as a Stake President.

Since the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Quorum of the Seventy had not yet been organized, this meant that there was a short period of time—from July 3, 1834, until February 14, 1835—when the High Council in Zion

stood in an administrative position next to the First Presidency

. It also meant that from July 3, 1834, until December 5, 1834, at which time Oliver Cowdery was made the Associate President of the Church, David Whitmer, as President of the High Council in Zion, was the Prophet's rightful successor." (Hyrum L. Andrus,

Doctrines of the Kingdom

, Bookcraft, 1973, 195.)

...was in nowise intended to disparage Whitmer...It was simply to put his views on various subjects into [my biased] perspective. [my errors, I will restate were:]

David Whitmer embraced a view that included sola scriptura [David respected the only prophesied witness of the Bible] and a non-hierarchical ecclesiastical structure. [David respected the New Covenant church structure as given in the BoM and Bible] Consider for a moment that such views are really incompatible with the LDS view...[That's the point! Use the scriptures for your ruler, not a the verse that came from a condemned mind, see (D&C 84:54)]

When David Whitmer was excommunicated from the Church in 1838 [Wrong, he was never excommunicated.], he was in open and hot dispute with the leaders of the Church. [Correct, God told David Whitmer who was "PRESIDENT OF ZION," (which was not a stake president) to warn Joe and Sidney NOT to publish those revelations, that if they did so, the press would be destroyed and their peoplel ran out of town. Joe and Sidney "laughed at me" and yet history proves David was right. And he knew, their eyes were blinded and chose to continue with God and not the arm of the flesh. ] He never returned, and subsequently published a number of what could be called apologia for his position. [He published to a. Refute a lie, and b. To give the true account as "EYE WITNESS"] Two recurrent themes run through these apologia: (1) consistent and emphatic reaffirmation of his testimony of the Book of Mormon, and (2) his continuing gripes against the Church and its leaders, and why he was right to leave the Church.

...Thus, his "resignation" came before his relevation, so it cannot have been the product thereof. [Not even close, he was being tried for having "already" left the saints and his letter condemned their trial. ]

...his main points of dispute were (1) the revelations received by Joseph Smith, and (2) the growing Church hierarchy. [Your suppositions, had you literally read what he said, are not even a close summation. Gain knowledge before trying to act wise. Joe was easily swayed by man, how did you miss that? Or, how about his beef when Joe and Sidney removed the name of "Christ" from the name of the church - contrary to the BoM? What about the CHANGING OF REVELATIONS AND GIVING FALSE REVELATIONS? Where is your honesty? That's only the tip of the mountain of errors that David identiied, but far enough for the pure in heart to be alarmed of. ]

...Why, I can hear some more perceptive readers asking, would someone like him accept the Book of Mormon? There's really only one answer: Because he had no choice. [This angle is like a mist, easily dispelled by the light. The New Covenant church of the Bible and BoM were precisely the type of "low church" that the Whitmers were attending before meeting Joe - HELLO?? And being "chosen" as one of the Three Special BoM Witnesses was an privilige you imbecile.]

...it is not particularly hard to see him as a bitter man. [Who did you read, LDS disparagers? He outlived the person who cursed him and lived a wonderfully happy, and fruitful life, always kind, and dearly loved and missed after he passed.]

Regards,

Pahoran

Also, was David Whitmer the one who was known for changing his religious affiliation frequently? Or was that Martin Harris? If it was Whitmer, could that have been the result of his Protestant background?

You miss the mark, Harris, Whitmer, and Cowdery did not associate their salvation with an ecclesiastical authority. If you recall, they were baptized before Joe started a church, thus, church attendance was not some salvatory issue for them, nor should it be. The "church" is the body of believers as stated in the D&C and BoM. Protestants had it right all along.

Cowdery...I'm confident he would have come to Utah with the Saints had he not died of illness...The definitive work on this subject is Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses by Richard Lloyd Anderson.

Your confidence is ill-founded. Cowdery had ample time to go before becoming sick; Whitmer stated that Cowdery realized the errors they went into and died believing "just as me." Anderson's book was good but David's words are better. Most attacks he settled while living. A true follower of Christ will read David's writings from its source, not down stream where the Mormon apologists like Anderson muddled the waters with errors.

Joseph Fielding Smith taught that "Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer all deserted Joseph Smith while

he was living. For a time they manifested a spirit of opposition, if not of bitterness, towards him" (Doctrines of Salvation,

chapter 13, page 214). "All the days of their lives they were true to their testimony, though they became bitter toward

the Prophet Joseph Smith personally. All three got over that bitterness before they died, but there was a time when they

were very, very bitter in their feelings toward him" (ibid, page 223).

The book does not explain it, but I was wondering why these other 2 were also very, very bitter towards the prophet?

Thanks,

Jim

"Bitter"? As if Joe was innocent and wrongly treated. Hello? You should know that a. Changing the revelations of God SHOULD UPSET SOMEONE. b. Having an affair will Fanny Allger - SHOULD UPSET SOMEONE? c. Filing for BANKRUPCY when members have been donating their goods and money to SHOULD UPSET SOMEONE.

You have been told how seriously we take using respectful names. Take a break.

[altersteve]

DWhitmer,

From the board guidelines:

Do not use nicknames for LDS leaders. Example: Calling Joseph Smith "Joe" is not acceptable

Not trying to "play mod," I'm just giving you a heads up.

[altersteve]

You miss the mark, Harris, Whitmer, and Cowdery did not associate their salvation with an ecclesiastical authority. If you recall, they were baptized before Joe started a church, thus, church attendance was not some salvatory issue for them, nor should it be. The "church" is the body of believers as stated in the D&C and BoM. Protestants had it right all along.

Since apparently I "missed the mark," then please, tell me which "mark" I was aiming for.

[Scott Lloyd]

Your confidence is ill-founded. Cowdery had ample time to go before becoming sick; Whitmer stated that Cowdery realized the errors they went into and died believing "just as me."

And we all know Whitmer had no axe to grind.

[Jaybear]

And we all know Whitmer had no axe to grind.

Because .... ???

Pahoran began his highly lauded dissertation by claiming that Whitmer had been excommunicated in 1838.

DWhitmer says that just flat wrong. If so, that a pretty huge mistake.

[Pahoran]

Because .... ???

Pahoran began his highly lauded dissertation by claiming that Whitmer had been excommunicated in 1838.

DWhitmer says that just flat wrong. If so, that a pretty huge mistake.

Yes, it is an article of Whitmerite faith that David was never excommunicated. But he was, on April 13, 1838. This is according to History of the Church, Volume 3, 18-19.

April 13.--The following charges were preferred against David Whitmer, before the High Council at Far West, in council assembled.

"First--For not observing the Word of Wisdom.

Second--For unchristian-like conduct in neglecting to attend meetings, in uniting with and possessing the same spirit as the

dissenters.

"Third--In writing letters to the dissenters in Kirtland unfavorable to the cause, and to the character of Joseph Smith, Jun.

"Fourth--In neglecting the duties of his calling, and separating himself from the Church, while he had a name among us.

"Fifth--For signing himself President of the Church of Christ in an insulting letter to the High Council after he had been cut off from the

Presidency."

After reading the above charges, together with a letter sent to the President of said Council, the Council held that the charges were sustained, and consequently considered David Whitmer no longer a member of the Church of Latter-day Saints.

The letter referred to in the last paragraph was this one:

"FAR WEST, MO., April 13, 1838.

"JOHN MURDOCK:

"Sir:--I received a line from you bearing date the 9th inst.,

requesting me as a High Priest to appear before the High Council and

answer to five several charges on this day at 12 o'clock.

"You, sir, with a majority of this Church have decided that certain

councils were legal by which it is said I have been deprived of my office

as one of the Presidents of this Church. I have thought, and still think,

they were not agreeable to the revelations of God, which I believe; and by

now attending this Council, and answering to charges, as a High Priest,

would be acknowledging the correctness and legality of those former

assumed councils, which I shall not do.

"Believing as I verily do, that you and the leaders of the councils

have a determination to pursue your unlawful course at all hazards, and

bring others to your standard in violation of the revelations, to spare

you any further trouble I hereby withdraw from your fellowship and

communion--choosing to seek a place among the meek and humble, where the

revelations of heaven will be observed and the rights of men regarded.

"DAVID WHITMER."

I agree that someone has made a "pretty huge mistake."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bob Crockett]

Because .... ???

Pahoran began his highly lauded dissertation by claiming that Whitmer had been excommunicated in 1838.

DWhitmer says that just flat wrong. If so, that a pretty huge mistake.

Well, David makes the legalistic argument that he didn't receive proper notice of his trial and thus couldn't have been properly excommunicated. But he acknowledges that he was told a trial had taken place in his absence.

So, today's Whitmerites argue that David was never really excommunicated.

I note that John D. Lee made the same argument. He never received notice and his trial occurred in abstentia.

The reality, of course, is that the church has the power to summarily cut somebody off without a trial. I've seen it done in my lifetime when a member gave false representations as to his readmission, was rebaptized, and then the baptism was simply rescinded without a hearing when facts became known.

[Jaybear]

Yes, it is an article of Whitmerite faith that David was never excommunicated. But he was, on April 13, 1838. This is according to History of the Church, Volume 3, 18-19.

The letter referred to in the last paragraph was this one:

I agree that someone has made a "pretty huge mistake."

Regards,

Pahoran

Very well done. DWhitmer, what say ye.

Though I have to say "violating the Word of Wisdom." "unchristianlike behavior in failing to attend meetings."

Sounds like a kangaroo court to me.

[Jaybear]

Well, David makes the legalistic argument that he didn't receive proper notice of his trial and thus couldn't have been properly excommunicated. But he acknowledges that he was told a trial had taken place in his absence.

So, today's Whitmerites argue that David was never really excommunicated.

I note that John D. Lee made the same argument. He never received notice and his trial occurred in abstentia.

The reality, of course, is that the church has the power to summarily cut somebody off without a trial. I've seen it done in my lifetime when a member gave false representations as to his readmission, was rebaptized, and then the baptism was simply rescinded without a hearing when facts became known.

A legalistic argument usually begins with an analysis of the text of the law in question. As a fellow attorney, I am surprised you would brush off as merely "legalistic," a claim that Whitmer was not given notice and opportunity to confront his accusers.

I seem to recall the LDS Church did the same thing to William Law. Held some sort of secret tribunal, depriving him of the right to confront his accusers.