The Book of Mormon Witnesses Part Two — David Whitmer
This is Part Two of my Book of Mormon Witnesses Series of posts. This week, I will write about the next of the three witnesses listed in their testimony — David Whitmer, or, as my current Church History professor Brother Rick Bennett calls him, "The Abundant Witness."
Recently I read a pamphlet written by David Whitmer in 1887 near the end of his life. An Address to All Believers in Christ was written as a last testimony of sorts for the divine authenticity of The Book of Mormon, but David Whitmer also uses it to defend his actions that led to his excommunication from The Church of Jesus Christ in 1838 and staunchly advocates that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet, or rather, that he became a fallen prophet sometime after the Church was organized and the mandate to gather to Zion was received from the Lord. (Even during the late 1830s and early 1840s, David Whitmer had started his own church claiming to be the true prophet for the latter-day saints now that Joseph had 'fallen').
That inevitably raises the question — is it possible, then, for Latter-day Saints to use his testimony of The Book of Mormon in good conscience when he publicly taught against Joseph Smith?
My answer is an unequivocal YES!
Before we think about some of the more troubling aspects of David Whitmer's post-excommunication life, there are some things we need to consider about how he felt justified in his actions and what really constitutes a testimony. From conversations I have had with some Latter-day Saints who are against David Whitmer, calling him an "unfaithful witness" and accusing him of changing his testimony multiple times (which, by the way, he didn't), I feel like the two biggest stumbling blocks people have over his testimony are 1.) that he started his own church for a time and 2.) he publicly denounced Joseph as a fallen prophet. But if we were to understand why he did those two things, maybe then people won't be so quick to shy away from his testimony.
First off, what gave David Whitmer the right, in his mind, to start a church and make the claim to be a prophet? This was not the first time the prospect had been brought up — in the Kirtland apostasies, the motion was made by dissenters to depose Joseph Smith as prophet and set David Whitmer at the head of the Church.
Chances are, they actually got it from Joseph Smith himself. The Prophet saw David Whitmer as a potential successor early in his ministry before he gained a more complete knowledge of the Priesthood keys he and Oliver held. In a blessing given July 1834, Joseph Smith blessed David Whitmer to be his successor should he die with nobody else to confer the kingdom upon. This was given in conjunction with the appointment to be "President of the Church in Zion," the same calling that David Whitmer would mismanage sacred resources in. Now of course Joseph didn't die and that blessing was null and void upon his survival, the appointment of Oliver Cowdery to be Assistant President, the calling of the Twelve and Seventy, and David's excommunication, but the dissenters who supported Whitmer likely didn't just come up with that idea out of the blue.
Those in charge of the Joseph Smith Papers project wrote that "Later accounts of the circa 7 July meeting indicate that JS may have also appointed David Whitmer as his successor in leading the church—something that is not mentioned in the minutes. At a 15 March 1838 meeting in Far West, Missouri, JS gave participants 'a history of the ordination of David Whitmer, which took place in July 1834, to be a leader, or a prophet to this Church, which (ordination) was on conditions that he (J. Smith jr) did not live to God himself.'" (found at https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minutes-and-discourse-circa-7-july-1834/1#historical-intro, spelling in context).
Just to give you an idea of the timeline of all those points made,one scholar wrote that "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, p. 195).
David Whitmer left the church angry and embittered at those who had excommunicated him. Unlike Oliver Cowdery, he held especial anger towards the Prophet Joseph Smith and saw the blessing he had been given to be in effect. By claiming Joseph was a fallen prophet, he could strengthen his case that he was the true prophet. Most of his family joined him in his cause, though other of the witnesses (and his sister Elizabeth, wife of Oliver) did not join him. Ultimately, his church died out, and the closest church I know of that relates closest to his views is The Church of Christ (Temple Lot) headquartered in Independence, Missouri, although the actual Whitmerite Church was reorganized in 1876 and lasted until the 1960s. (As a side thought, The Church of Christ (Temple Lot) is also filled with great, wonderful people, based off a brief conversation I had with one of their members online.)
Even after his church initially failed, David Whitmer refused to acknowledge his error and did not feel regret for how he had mismanaged funds or spoken of the prophet Joseph. He later came to argue that there should be no Prophet and President of the Church, only a Quorum of Twelve Apostles, and that the revelations received in the Doctrine and Covenants were not of God. Which, of course, leads us to the second point mentioned above — why did David attack the Prophet Joseph in the ways he did?
Before we get to that, however, during this time, his testimony of the Book of Mormon never faltered. In fact, it is safe to say he never had a real knowledge of how the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants were received. His basis for claiming the Doctrine and Covenants were false was a mis-remembered and misquoted example of Joseph Smith sending Oliver Cowdery and Hiram Page to sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon in Toronto in 1829. When the mission was unsuccessful, he quotes Joseph as saying some revelations are of men or of the devil. However, Joseph's revelation to go to Toronto was a conditional blessing, promising that they would be successful in selling the copyright IF the people of Toronto opened their hearts. Also, Hiram Page and Oliver never doubted the mandate they faithfully fulfilled and, for the most part, spoke highly of the journey. However, it is unfortunate that the most remembered experience of this journey that the anti-Latter-day Saint publishers love to use comes from someone who, even by his own admission, had little to do with the mission in the first place. (He mentions this story in An Address for anyone who is interested.)
David could not have had a testimony in the revelations because he did not understand them, whether by his own choice or by simple and unintended ignorance. Because he did not have that deep a testimony, it became easy to blame his problems on someone else, looking for a way to justify himself.
Reading all of that, some of you might think that I think poorly of David Whitmer. I do not. I want you all to know that he is an amazing, amazing man who did a lot of good for the Church and the Restoration. All I am doing is attempting to explain in any way I can potential reasons he made the decisions that he did and providing historical background for some of his claims.
Now, that brings us to 1878 and the publication of An Address to All Believers in Christ. Some Latter-day Saints believe adamantly that nothing in that pamphlet can be believed because he was not in the Church at the time and how he speaks of Joseph Smith in that pamphlet. Their big concern tends to be the use of seer stones in the translation of the Book of Mormon, which David Whitmer clearly teaches and testifies of in this pamphlet. My argument is the opposite. We can believe the testimony he gave because we can be able to separate hurt feelings from testimony. It is clear in the pamphlet when he switches between the two and when he is bearing his testimony versus speaking out as an offended man over hurt feelings he could never quite find the strength to overcome through Christ's grace. Why then disbelieve a testimony because of a man's weakness? If that were to be a just cause to disregard testimonies, don't we all have weaknesses others could find cause to disregard our own testimonies? How would you feel if that happened to you? My guess is (and my guess is David Whitmer would agree with me when I say this) that it probably wouldn't feel so good when people disregard your sincere and heartfelt testimony. As other men and women with our own weaknesses we still need to overcome, we cannot in good conscience ignore another's testimony for the same reasons.
Another interesting part of his testimony of the translation is just how much it can be corroborated through other testimonies. He was the most detailed about the use of seer stones, but certainly not the only one who taught that Joseph used his in the translation process. His sister, Elizabeth, Emma Smith, and Joseph Knight Sr. all taught the same. His testimony stands out because even fifty years after his departure from the Church, he never denied what he knew, not felt angry about or thought he heard.
It personally hurts me when I hear members disregard David Whitmer's testimony for what it was simply because they cannot make that judgement between what David had a testimony of versus what he knew to be true by the gift and power of God. Here was a great man, a man Joseph trusted to lead the Church should he be killed prematurely, and some Saints ridicule him and call him an unfaithful witness. That simply is not true! Plain and simple.
David Whitmer was the only of the three witnesses who was not rebaptized. But I do not think he is cast off forever. As Orson F. Whitney taught to parents of wayward children, "They have but strayed in ignorance from the Path of Right, and God is merciful to ignorance. Only the fulness of knowledge brings the fulness of accountability. Our Heavenly Father is far more merciful, infinitely more charitable, than even the best of his servants, and the Everlasting Gospel is mightier in power to save than our narrow finite minds can comprehend." And I believe that is especially true for David Whitmer, an abundant witness of God's love and the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
DAVID WHITMER:
AN ABUNDANT WITNESS TO THE BOOK OF MORMON
So how did David Whitmer get this moniker? He, like Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, was excommunicated from the Church. In David Whitmer's situation, he was excommunicated primarily over mismanagement of sacred resources during the Missouri persecutions in 1838. But of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, David Whitmer was perhaps the most publicly vocal testators to the divine message that sacred book contained throughout all of his life and much of what we know about the translation of The Book of Mormon comes from his many testimonies.Recently I read a pamphlet written by David Whitmer in 1887 near the end of his life. An Address to All Believers in Christ was written as a last testimony of sorts for the divine authenticity of The Book of Mormon, but David Whitmer also uses it to defend his actions that led to his excommunication from The Church of Jesus Christ in 1838 and staunchly advocates that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet, or rather, that he became a fallen prophet sometime after the Church was organized and the mandate to gather to Zion was received from the Lord. (Even during the late 1830s and early 1840s, David Whitmer had started his own church claiming to be the true prophet for the latter-day saints now that Joseph had 'fallen').
That inevitably raises the question — is it possible, then, for Latter-day Saints to use his testimony of The Book of Mormon in good conscience when he publicly taught against Joseph Smith?
My answer is an unequivocal YES!
Before we think about some of the more troubling aspects of David Whitmer's post-excommunication life, there are some things we need to consider about how he felt justified in his actions and what really constitutes a testimony. From conversations I have had with some Latter-day Saints who are against David Whitmer, calling him an "unfaithful witness" and accusing him of changing his testimony multiple times (which, by the way, he didn't), I feel like the two biggest stumbling blocks people have over his testimony are 1.) that he started his own church for a time and 2.) he publicly denounced Joseph as a fallen prophet. But if we were to understand why he did those two things, maybe then people won't be so quick to shy away from his testimony.
First off, what gave David Whitmer the right, in his mind, to start a church and make the claim to be a prophet? This was not the first time the prospect had been brought up — in the Kirtland apostasies, the motion was made by dissenters to depose Joseph Smith as prophet and set David Whitmer at the head of the Church.
Chances are, they actually got it from Joseph Smith himself. The Prophet saw David Whitmer as a potential successor early in his ministry before he gained a more complete knowledge of the Priesthood keys he and Oliver held. In a blessing given July 1834, Joseph Smith blessed David Whitmer to be his successor should he die with nobody else to confer the kingdom upon. This was given in conjunction with the appointment to be "President of the Church in Zion," the same calling that David Whitmer would mismanage sacred resources in. Now of course Joseph didn't die and that blessing was null and void upon his survival, the appointment of Oliver Cowdery to be Assistant President, the calling of the Twelve and Seventy, and David's excommunication, but the dissenters who supported Whitmer likely didn't just come up with that idea out of the blue.
Those in charge of the Joseph Smith Papers project wrote that "Later accounts of the circa 7 July meeting indicate that JS may have also appointed David Whitmer as his successor in leading the church—something that is not mentioned in the minutes. At a 15 March 1838 meeting in Far West, Missouri, JS gave participants 'a history of the ordination of David Whitmer, which took place in July 1834, to be a leader, or a prophet to this Church, which (ordination) was on conditions that he (J. Smith jr) did not live to God himself.'" (found at https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minutes-and-discourse-circa-7-july-1834/1#historical-intro, spelling in context).
Just to give you an idea of the timeline of all those points made,one scholar wrote that "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, p. 195).
David Whitmer left the church angry and embittered at those who had excommunicated him. Unlike Oliver Cowdery, he held especial anger towards the Prophet Joseph Smith and saw the blessing he had been given to be in effect. By claiming Joseph was a fallen prophet, he could strengthen his case that he was the true prophet. Most of his family joined him in his cause, though other of the witnesses (and his sister Elizabeth, wife of Oliver) did not join him. Ultimately, his church died out, and the closest church I know of that relates closest to his views is The Church of Christ (Temple Lot) headquartered in Independence, Missouri, although the actual Whitmerite Church was reorganized in 1876 and lasted until the 1960s. (As a side thought, The Church of Christ (Temple Lot) is also filled with great, wonderful people, based off a brief conversation I had with one of their members online.)
Even after his church initially failed, David Whitmer refused to acknowledge his error and did not feel regret for how he had mismanaged funds or spoken of the prophet Joseph. He later came to argue that there should be no Prophet and President of the Church, only a Quorum of Twelve Apostles, and that the revelations received in the Doctrine and Covenants were not of God. Which, of course, leads us to the second point mentioned above — why did David attack the Prophet Joseph in the ways he did?
Before we get to that, however, during this time, his testimony of the Book of Mormon never faltered. In fact, it is safe to say he never had a real knowledge of how the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants were received. His basis for claiming the Doctrine and Covenants were false was a mis-remembered and misquoted example of Joseph Smith sending Oliver Cowdery and Hiram Page to sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon in Toronto in 1829. When the mission was unsuccessful, he quotes Joseph as saying some revelations are of men or of the devil. However, Joseph's revelation to go to Toronto was a conditional blessing, promising that they would be successful in selling the copyright IF the people of Toronto opened their hearts. Also, Hiram Page and Oliver never doubted the mandate they faithfully fulfilled and, for the most part, spoke highly of the journey. However, it is unfortunate that the most remembered experience of this journey that the anti-Latter-day Saint publishers love to use comes from someone who, even by his own admission, had little to do with the mission in the first place. (He mentions this story in An Address for anyone who is interested.)
David could not have had a testimony in the revelations because he did not understand them, whether by his own choice or by simple and unintended ignorance. Because he did not have that deep a testimony, it became easy to blame his problems on someone else, looking for a way to justify himself.
Reading all of that, some of you might think that I think poorly of David Whitmer. I do not. I want you all to know that he is an amazing, amazing man who did a lot of good for the Church and the Restoration. All I am doing is attempting to explain in any way I can potential reasons he made the decisions that he did and providing historical background for some of his claims.
Now, that brings us to 1878 and the publication of An Address to All Believers in Christ. Some Latter-day Saints believe adamantly that nothing in that pamphlet can be believed because he was not in the Church at the time and how he speaks of Joseph Smith in that pamphlet. Their big concern tends to be the use of seer stones in the translation of the Book of Mormon, which David Whitmer clearly teaches and testifies of in this pamphlet. My argument is the opposite. We can believe the testimony he gave because we can be able to separate hurt feelings from testimony. It is clear in the pamphlet when he switches between the two and when he is bearing his testimony versus speaking out as an offended man over hurt feelings he could never quite find the strength to overcome through Christ's grace. Why then disbelieve a testimony because of a man's weakness? If that were to be a just cause to disregard testimonies, don't we all have weaknesses others could find cause to disregard our own testimonies? How would you feel if that happened to you? My guess is (and my guess is David Whitmer would agree with me when I say this) that it probably wouldn't feel so good when people disregard your sincere and heartfelt testimony. As other men and women with our own weaknesses we still need to overcome, we cannot in good conscience ignore another's testimony for the same reasons.
Another interesting part of his testimony of the translation is just how much it can be corroborated through other testimonies. He was the most detailed about the use of seer stones, but certainly not the only one who taught that Joseph used his in the translation process. His sister, Elizabeth, Emma Smith, and Joseph Knight Sr. all taught the same. His testimony stands out because even fifty years after his departure from the Church, he never denied what he knew, not felt angry about or thought he heard.
It personally hurts me when I hear members disregard David Whitmer's testimony for what it was simply because they cannot make that judgement between what David had a testimony of versus what he knew to be true by the gift and power of God. Here was a great man, a man Joseph trusted to lead the Church should he be killed prematurely, and some Saints ridicule him and call him an unfaithful witness. That simply is not true! Plain and simple.
David Whitmer was the only of the three witnesses who was not rebaptized. But I do not think he is cast off forever. As Orson F. Whitney taught to parents of wayward children, "They have but strayed in ignorance from the Path of Right, and God is merciful to ignorance. Only the fulness of knowledge brings the fulness of accountability. Our Heavenly Father is far more merciful, infinitely more charitable, than even the best of his servants, and the Everlasting Gospel is mightier in power to save than our narrow finite minds can comprehend." And I believe that is especially true for David Whitmer, an abundant witness of God's love and the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment
Thoughtful comments are welcome. All comments are moderated.