David Whitmer, Valiant Witness

[Bob Crockett]

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.

A church is not required to provide "hearings" and an "opportunity to confront" accusers. It may set and retract conditions for membership at will. Summary excommunications were more common than you think.

And, they weren't the end of the world. After a summary excommunication, if the excommunicant approached church leadership and either repented or showed reason why the excommunication was flawed, he'd be reinstated just as easily.

Only enemies of the church, like William Law of John D. Lee, would take offense to exit procedures.

And David Whitmer wasn't tossed out for merely word of wisdom issues. You can see in his Address to All Believers etc. his grounds.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Jaybear]

A church is not required to provide "hearings" and an "opportunity to confront" accusers. It may set and retract conditions for membership at will.

Either the LDS Church had no rules in place setting the procedure required for excomunication, in which case Whitmer's objection is baseless

or the LDS Church has rules and procedures in place, which were breached, in which case Whitmer has point.

Summary excommunications were more common than you think.

If by summary excommunication you mean proceeding without notice, that would not surprise me.

And, they weren't the end of the world. After a summary excommunication, if the excommunicant approached church leadership and either repented or showed reason why the excommunication was flawed, he'd be reinstated just as easily.

You say that as if there were some rules and procedure in place, giving members rights. Earlier you said ... It may set and retract conditions for membership at will.

Only enemies of the church, like William Law of John D. Lee, would take offense to exit procedures.

Interesting perspective coming from a lawyer. Not a big fan of due process I see.

And David Whitmer wasn't tossed out for merely word of wisdom issues. You can see in his Address to All Believers etc. his grounds.

I was led to believe that he penned his Address out of spite, because he was excommunicated. Now you are telling me that the criticism in his Address, led to his excommunication.

[Bob Crockett]

Interesting perspective coming from a lawyer. Not a big fan of due process I see.

I was led to believe that he penned his Address out of spite, because he was excommunicated. Now you are telling me that the criticism in his Address, led to his excommunication.

My being a lawyer has nothing to do with my views of David Whitmer. I wish you'd leave my profession out of criticisms of me. "Due process" is not a religious term; it is a term that applies to governmental entitlements. If the church had it wrong with David Whitmer in terms of notice and its inchoate procedure, all he would have had to have done is go to the nearest stake president and seek and obtain reinstatement. It isn't like losing your driver's license where, once lost, it is a bear to try and get back.

I think you're misinterpreting what I have said about this Address. His issues with the Prophet were much deeper than Word of Wisdom.

Like I say, only people without standing gripe about the church's entrance and exit procedures. Kinda like a Jew bellyaching about the fact the Catholics don't excommunicate pedophiles. What the Church keeps in, or keeps out, is up to it.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

Either the LDS Church had no rules in place setting the procedure required for excomunication, in which case Whitmer's objection is baseless

or the LDS Church has rules and procedures in place, which were breached, in which case Whitmer has point.

False dichotomy. It ignores the possibility that there were rules and procedures and they were not breached.

[Jaybear]

My being a lawyer has nothing to do with my views of David Whitmer. I wish you'd leave my profession out of criticisms of me. "Due process" is not a religious term; it is a term that applies to governmental entitlements.

I was not asking about your views on David Whitmer. I was asking about the procedures in place, if any when he was excommunicated.

You claimed that Whitmer made a "legalistic" argument, which suggests he made an argument that that rules/procedures were violated. Yet you say there were no rules. Then you say he had a "right" to seek reinstatement. Your defense is very confusing.

To get this back on track, what was the basis for Whitmer's legalistic argument that he was entitled to notice?

I think you're misinterpreting what I have said about this Address. His issues with the Prophet were much deeper than Word of Wisdom.

No. I got it. My point is that when you point out that he was excommunicated because he had "issues with the prophet", you undermine Pahoran's assertion that Whitmer's issues with the prophet should not be accepted at face value, because they were driven and colored by bitterness because he had been excommunicated.

Like I say, only people without standing gripe about the church's entrance and exit procedures. Kinda like a Jew bellyaching about the fact the Catholics don't excommunicate pedophiles. What the Church keeps in, or keeps out, is up to it.

I wasn't griping. I was trying to understand the merits of David Whitmer's gripe.

As I said above, if there were no rules, Whitmer had no reason to gripe.

False dichotomy. It ignores the possibility that there were rules and procedures and they were not breached.

You are correct. My bad.

[Bob Crockett]

To get this back on track, what was the basis for Whitmer's legalistic argument that he was entitled to notice?

He thought principles of legal entitlement should apply to his membership in a religion.

I compare it to John D. Lee's excommunication, without notice. He complained bitterly about not having notice. Will Bagley ridicules the church for not providing notice in Blood of the Prophets. Yet, no one disputes that he shouldn't have been excommunicated, nor does anybody dispute that Whitmer should have been severed.

[ksfisher]

Would not the church at this time have been acting under the proceedures given in Section 102 of the Doctrine and Covenants?

Verse 18 allows both the accuser and the accused an opportunity to speak in the council.

In all cases the accuser and the accused shall have a privilege of speaking for themselves before the council, after the evidences are heard and the councilors who are appointed to speak on the case have finished their remarks. (Doctrine and Covenants, Doctrine and Covenants, Section 102)

Verse 27 given the process for appeal.

Should the parties or either of them be dissatisfied with the decision of said council, they may appeal to the high council of the seat of the First Presidency of the Church, and have a re-hearing, which case shall there be conducted, according to the former pattern written, as though no such decision had been made. (Doctrine and Covenants, Doctrine and Covenants, Section 102)

I'm not familiar enough with this particular history to comment on the how theses principles were applied in this particular case.

[Pahoran]

Would not the church at this time have been acting under the proceedures given in Section 102 of the Doctrine and Covenants?

Verse 18 allows both the accuser and the accused an opportunity to speak in the council.

In all cases the accuser and the accused shall have a privilege of speaking for themselves before the council, after the evidences are heard and the councilors who are appointed to speak on the case have finished their remarks. (Doctrine and Covenants, Doctrine and Covenants, Section 102)

Verse 27 given the process for appeal.

Should the parties or either of them be dissatisfied with the decision of said council, they may appeal to the high council of the seat of the First Presidency of the Church, and have a re-hearing, which case shall there be conducted, according to the former pattern written, as though no such decision had been made. (Doctrine and Covenants, Doctrine and Covenants, Section 102)

I'm not familiar enough with this particular history to comment on the how theses principles were applied in this particular case.

Thanks, KS.

Let's look again at David Whitmer's letter. He wrote:

"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."

Now I'm quite sure that there is more to this story, and I'm aware that, in the early days of the Church (it was then only eight years old, and the leading brethren were mostly young men themselves) the leaders made their share of errors. But notice what David himself says:

1. He received notice of the council, in writing, four days earlier.
   
2. He refused to attend because he rejected the council's jurisdiction.
   
3. He chose to "withdraw from your fellowship and communion," i.e. to leave the Church, rather than be subject to the council.
   

So whatever the problems may or may not have been around his excommunication, he clearly received notice; and his formal written reply, announcing that he was leaving the Church, was and is sufficient to accomplish his excommunication; nowadays, even without a disciplinary council.

Edited to add: even civil courts will try someone in absentia if they've been given sufficient notice and simply failed to appear.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited May 15, 2012 by Pahoran

[Pahoran]

DWhitmer is under some kind of suspension, so I wouldn't ordinarily reply to him when he can't respond. (Once I did that with another poster when I didn't know he had been thread banned, and he's now decided that that's my regular practice. It is not.)

However, I don't think that substantive assertions should go unanswered just because the person who made them isn't here to defend them. Are there any issues arising from DWhitmer's last post that anyone thinks need addressing?

Thanks,

Pahoran

[Vance]

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.

That is very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

[Jaybear]

Would not the church at this time have been acting under the proceedures given in Section 102 of the Doctrine and Covenants?

Verse 18 allows both the accuser and the accused an opportunity to speak in the council.

In all cases the accuser and the accused shall have a privilege of speaking for themselves before the council, after the evidences are heard and the councilors who are appointed to speak on the case have finished their remarks. (Doctrine and Covenants, Doctrine and Covenants, Section 102)

Verse 27 given the process for appeal.

Should the parties or either of them be dissatisfied with the decision of said council, they may appeal to the high council of the seat of the First Presidency of the Church, and have a re-hearing, which case shall there be conducted, according to the former pattern written, as though no such decision had been made. (Doctrine and Covenants, Doctrine and Covenants, Section 102)

I'm not familiar enough with this particular history to comment on the how theses principles were applied in this particular case.

Thanks. It appears that contrary to Bob's assertion, there were not only procedures in place, but those procedures were the result of divine revelation.

Thanks, KS.

Let's look again at David Whitmer's letter. He wrote:

Now I'm quite sure that there is more to this story, and I'm aware that, in the early days of the Church (it was then only eight years old, and the leading brethren were mostly young men themselves) the leaders made their share of errors. But notice what David himself says:

1. He received notice of the council, in writing, four days earlier.
   
2. He refused to attend because he rejected the council's jurisdiction.
   
3. He chose to "withdraw from your fellowship and communion," i.e. to leave the Church, rather than be subject to the council.
   

So whatever the problems may or may not have been around his excommunication, he clearly received notice; and his formal written reply, announcing that he was leaving the Church, was and is sufficient to accomplish his excommunication; nowadays, even without a disciplinary council.

Edited to add: even civil courts will try someone in absentia if they've been given sufficient notice and simply failed to appear.

Regards,

Pahoran

If someone is given proper notice, and they choose not to show up and defend themselves, the court can and will enter a default judgment.

However, a party who does not believe the court has jurisdiction, can refuse to participate and still preserve his argument of jurisdiction.

So assuming that Whitmer was given notice, what was his "legalistic" objection to the jurisdiction of this "high counsel".

Or put another where, on what basis did this high counsel purport to have authority to excommunicate Whitmer.