SOT LitnerStandard of Truth listener companion
The Phebe Draper Palmer Brown Mailbag
S1E2 · Follow the Prophet Part 1
0:00 / 55:17
12 chapters
← All episodes
Standard of Truth · Season 1 · Episode 2 · 55:17

Follow the Prophet Part 1

If you think post-conference grumbling is a modern invention, the church was three months old the first time its second elder commanded the prophet to edit a revelation.

Press play above. The page follows along.
The question ·

We recently had a general conference. It seems like every general conference there are many people within the church that disagree with things said by the prophet or other apostles. How is this different to or similar to the early church?

Brady (listener)

A listener asks whether disagreement with prophets after general conference is new, and Gerrit starts with D&C 21, where the Lord tells the newly organized church to receive Joseph's words "in all patience and faith." He uses Brigham Young's struggle with D&C 76 to show the difference between not understanding a revelation and being sure it's wrong. Gerrit then walks through Oliver Cowdery's letter commanding Joseph to erase a line about baptism from D&C 20, why Calvinist converts leaning on the Book of Mormon found that line suspect, and how Christian Whitmer helped Joseph bring the Fayette members around. The episode ends with Hiram Page's seer stone revelations about the location of Zion and the Lord's answer in D&C 28.

Who comes upJoseph SmithOliver CowderyBrigham YoungChristian WhitmerPeter WhitmerHiram PageMartin LutherJohn CalvinRussell M. NelsonHenry B. EyringMichael the archangel
Now playing · 0:39

The Phebe Draper Palmer Brown Mailbag

The first listener email of the episode, read on air.

Chapters

Tap a chapter to jump there

Transcript

66 moments · tap a time to play from there
Intro Welcome to the Standard of Truth Podcast, hosted by historian Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat, where we explore the early days of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and gain rare historical insights into how a young farm boy was able to establish a new church and grow it by way of visions, manifestations and miracles.
Gerrit Hi, welcome to another episode of the Standard of Truth podcast. I'm Gerrit Dirkmaat, and I'm joined by my friend Richard LeDuc.
Richard Let's go ahead and start off with the question that we've received. This comes from Brady. We recently had a general conference. It seems like every general conference there are many people within the church that disagree with things said by the prophet or other apostles. How is this different to or similar to the early church?
Gerrit That's a great question, Brady. I get the same thing. Every general conference, your Twitter and Facebook and Instagram feed explodes, often with people saying wonderful and kind things, but also with people of all kinds of political stripes. The reality is the current positions that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds would not fit neatly inside a box of any of the American political parties. There are beliefs that the Church holds that are far more representative of one party, and beliefs they hold that are far more representative of another. And yet, because we live in this kind of binary political world, oftentimes people see general conference addresses as either things that further their own personal political beliefs, or put them behind.
Gerrit And so, you can always see someone hop on Facebook and either praise the heck out of one of the talks that's exactly what they already believe while not mentioning anything else. Or you'll see people doing the exact opposite. And I think you'll also see people kind of picking and choosing. Like, well, I really like the part of what Elder So-and-So said about this, but I was not okay with this. And so, that's a pretty standard thing. And so, I understand the question. And it makes you wonder, well, we have so many Latter-day Saints today who seem to question so many of the things that are taught by prophets and apostles. Surely, that could not have been the case when it was Joseph Smith. I mean, this is the man. This is the guy with the gold plates. This is the guy with revelations from heaven, and he's talking to Jesus face to face. There's no way that that kind of dissension occurred early on.
Gerrit Well, I think that's actually a great jumping off point for what I want to discuss today by way of answering Brady's question. Let's go back to the founding of the church, and that April 6th in 1830, when the Church of Christ was organized. Now, that's the name of the church when it's first organized. It will eventually go from being the Church of Christ to the Church of the Latter-day Saints, and then it will become the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by Revelation in 1838. But when it's first organized as the Church of Christ, at that organizational meeting in 1830, Joseph is going to receive a revelation, and that revelation is in your Doctrine and Covenants now as D&C 21. Well, Doctrine and Covenants section 21 expressly talks about Joseph Smith's role in the church. And of course, for our day, by extension, the prophets who fill that same role, are called the prophet, the head of the church.
Gerrit First of all, Joseph is told that thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church, for the will of God the Father, and the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. And then also verse 2, being inspired by the Holy Ghost to lay the foundation thereof and to build it up under the most holy faith. And then verse 4 describes what his member's responsibility is. So again, this is the organizational meeting of the church. This is when, before this, there wasn't a church. Now God is saying, now that you have a church, Joseph is going to be the seer, translator, prophet. What's the responsibility of members of that church? Verse 4, Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments, which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me. For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth. And very interestingly, the Lord adds, in all patience and faith.
Gerrit I feel like it's that last part of verse 5 that we really struggle with. Because we already think we know what is right. I mean, that's kind of a tautology, right? I mean, no one believes something that they know is wrong. I mean, because if you knew what was wrong, at least you hope you change what it is you believe. I mean, unless you're a politician, you don't believe something that you know is wrong. You believe it because you think it's right. But the reality of believing in continuing revelations means that there will be things that prophets and apostles teach and general leaders of the church that you don't already believe. That's what continuing revelation means. If God is going to reveal something, then by definition, it will be something that you don't know yet, because it hasn't been revealed, right? And so, what do we do when that information is revealed?
Gerrit Because I think the way that most of us respond to revelation is our first response to it is to say, is that something I already agree with? And if the answer is yes, then we say, okay, I'm all in. I mean, so for instance, you know, if the prophet receives, you know, the direction that we shouldn't have the scouting program anymore, you know, this failed scouter is all in on that. Oh, what an amazing revelation the church has received that scouting is no longer to be. But what happens when it's something that is, you know, that is opposite of what it is you want to believe, something that you want it to be the other way around. As many people as have loved, you know, the move to a two-hour church, I've actually talked to a considerable number of people who it's a little bit of a struggle for. And it's primarily, and again, this is a total generalization, but primarily the people who have expressed a concern to me have been people who have been older people.
Gerrit Because for them, they loved the three-hour block. They loved that this was when they got their interaction with other people. They don't want to have Sunday school once every other week. And, you know, home church sounds, you know, studying at home sounds great when you're in a family, but it sounds a little less great when you're a widow whose husband died ten years ago. I mean, it can be pretty lonely. So you can see how that affects people differently. And so, you know, I'm not saying that any of these people I talked to were like, the prophet's not the prophet because I want to go to three hours. But, I mean, not everyone has the same perception of how things happen. I mean, for me, you know, I'm actually quite embarrassed at how excited I was. But for anything that's revealed, any new direction or even policy that the church has taken, I think it's very difficult for people to see what is taught with patience and faith.
Gerrit The very fact that God tells the foundation of the church in the very first meeting, you're going to have to have patience when Joseph speaks to you. It seems like that is God saying, listen, I realize that what he's about to say to you is going to be very, very hard. And there's going to be things he's going to say that you're going to say, no way. If that was true, my parents would have taught me that. No, that can't be true, because if that's true, then that means everyone else in the world is wrong. And in fact, that's what many of Joseph's revelations are going to teach.
Richard So, Gerrit, I've heard you mention before, and I'm sure there will probably be just an entire podcast just on this by itself, but Brigham Young's reaction to Section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants in terms of receiving inpatients in faith.
Gerrit Yeah, that's actually one of the great examples, right? That we will spend some time on Doctrine and Covenants, Section 76, at some point, but it is a very radical revelation. And what you see all along the early Church is, back to Brady's question, there were people who were just fine with the fact that there was a Book of Mormon. They could accept that the Book of Mormon, I mean the Book of Mormon is very similar to the Bible, and the Book of Mormon seems like it's just an extension of the Bible. And they were okay with that, and then the Church announced the Consecration of Properties, and Joseph must stop being a prophet, right? So you actually have people all along the way who will come to a point where what's being asked is a little bit too much. And Brigham Young talks about his experience with the Doctrine and Covenants, section 76, where this is that great vision. This is where Joseph sees the celestial and the terrestrial and the terrestrial kingdom and outer darkness. And I would guess that for your average Church member in the United States today, D&C 76 is probably one of your favorite revelations.
Gerrit You have probably never even considered that someone has a hard time with it. In fact, you probably didn't understand why someone would. It's so natural to you that, I mean, I can walk into any classroom in the Church. Well, that's not sunbeams. I mean, if I walk into any classroom of young adults or adults in the Church and I draw a single circle on the board, one circle, no labels, no coloring, just circle, and say, what are we going to talk about today? And the plan of salvation. Everyone would say plan of salvation, right? That's what they would say. So that's how ingrained it is in us. That's how, I mean, it's great that it is. But now think about the world before that's ingrained, before it's even been revealed. It's not that Brigham Young has a really hard time coming to terms with the fact that there might be three different degrees of glory. What he has a really hard time with is the idea that there is no eternal hell.
Gerrit Because all Christianity is taught that there's hell and that hell exists and that you're going to cook and you better bring the marshmallows when you get there. I mean, it's a giant bonfire after this life, and almost everyone's going to hell. If you don't have faith in Jesus, when you die, you go to hell, and there's no if, ands or buts. And then Joseph Smith receives D&C 76 that says that even the wicked people, after they suffer, will eventually go to the telestial Kingdom. And that it's a kingdom that's so great and so glorious that you can't comprehend it. Well, Brigham can't, he can't come to terms with that at first. And he even writes about it saying, if that's true, then everything, every pastor's ever taught me is wrong. Everything my parents believed is wrong about heaven and hell. And what he said is very interesting. He said, I could not understand it. I didn't reject it, but I could not understand it.
Gerrit And he seems to have spent years of his early church life praying to help understand and gain a testimony of it. So I think that's part of that patience and faith. That's why that's such a great example you bring up, because it takes both patience and faith to listen to a prophet when a prophet teaches you something that isn't what you already believe or what you want to believe. As crazy it is to a 21st century Latter-day Saint, who loves the idea of this kind of universal salvation that everyone will eventually go to a kingdom of glory. In the 19th century, that's just not what Christianity was. Christians believed that they were a very, very small minority of God's chosen people, that everyone deserved to go to hell, and only a very few people wouldn't go. And now Joseph Smith is saying, actually, hell doesn't even exist. So it goes from being the most prominent part of Christian theology to being a non-existent part of Christian theology, and that was really hard to accept.
Gerrit And so it took patience and faith. Brigham did not receive that and then say, that's it, I'm out, I don't believe any of this anymore. He received it, acknowledged that he couldn't understand it, struggled with it, but what did he do? He continued to believe that Joseph was a prophet because of his other experiences, and he continued to pray and have patience until eventually God did reveal it to him. And I think that's what God expects of all of us, is he doesn't expect us to fully understand everything that he reveals. He's never expected that. But there's a difference between not understanding something and being certain that you know that it's wrong. They aren't even similar reactions. One is one of wanting and desiring to know because it's what a prophet teaches. The other is one out of anger and malice because you're certain that the prophet doesn't know. And for people who say, well, what if Joseph's wrong though?
Gerrit I mean, I don't want to start believing something and then I'll find out I was believing wrong. God also includes verse 6 of D&C 21 and says, For by doing these things, the gates of hell shall not prevail against you. Yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you and cause the heavens to shake for your good and his name's glory. Essentially, God is letting believers know if you are truly following the teachings of Joseph and then other modern prophets, then if God at some point makes a correction or change to what is being taught, you are still in the right with God. Because your part is to, in patience and faith, try to gain a testimony of what it is that prophets are teaching. God's part and the prophet's part is to receive that revelation as it comes. And I think sometimes people confuse those things.
Gerrit They say, well, if the prophets ever taught one thing and now teach something else, that shows that they were wrong before. Well, there's a lot more nuance to it than that. But let me give you another example of this in the early church, especially to Brady's question because he's talking about the early church. Well, so after that meeting, that early foundation of the church meeting, at that meeting, in fact, they presented the articles, well, not at that meeting, shortly after that. They presented the articles and covenants of the church to the church. The articles and covenants is what we would call D&C 20 today. It's the 20th section of the Doctrine and Covenants. That's the one that gives a little bit of a history of the founding of the church and Joseph meeting with angels and translating the Book of Mormon. And then some basic beliefs in the church, our basic beliefs about salvation. And then probably what most Latter-day Saints know it for is the list of offices, what the particular duties of those offices are, and how the baptismal prayers are done and performed, and how the sacrament is prayed for and performed.
Gerrit So those are the... This D&C 20 kind of acted like this early founding document. There was no priesthood handbook of instructions, obviously, at this point. There's nothing except for just the Book of Mormon and the Bible and the few revelations Joseph has received. And D&C 20 really outlines all of these other things that really acts like an early handbook. Here are the offices. Here are the basic beliefs. Here's how you perform a baptism. Here's how you perform the sacrament. Well, the Church votes on it, and it's unanimously approved as the revelation that's essentially the guiding revelation of the Church doctrine, Covenant Section 20. Joseph goes back home to Harmony, and very shortly thereafter, I mean, look, it was unanimous, so it seems like things are fine. And you can almost imagine that Joseph, who's had a decade of just a rough go of things from the time that he's had the First Vision, especially in the last three years when he's finally gotten the plates, had to scramble to keep them hidden, had to flee where he was living, chastised multiple times by an angel, lost the page.
Gerrit I mean, he's just, he has had a rough three, three and a half years. You almost wonder if coming out of that early first conference meeting, if they didn't just, Joseph didn't just have this almost sigh of relief that we find the church is established. We've got dozens of members. Everyone's on the right track. And then as he gets back home to Harmony and he starts farming, he receives a letter from Oliver Cowdery. Oliver Cowdery is the only other ranking officer in the church, if you want to call it that. The church, when it's first established, isn't established with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, isn't established with the Seventies. There aren't even bishops for another year. The two presiding authorities in the church are first elder, Joseph Smith, and second elder, Oliver Cowdery. And so Oliver Cowdery is the second elder, the second highest ranking member of this brand new church, sends Joseph a letter that really threatens a rift in the entire church. It's only three months old, and it might fall apart.
Gerrit Why? Well, Joseph says that I received a letter from Oliver Cowdery, the contents of which gave me both sorrow and uneasiness. He wrote to inform me that he discovered an error in one of the commandments, and the one he's talking about is Doctrine and Coven, Section 20. The portion of it that says, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ and the remission of their sins. It's talking about who should be baptized. How do you baptize someone? Well, D&C 20 says they have to truly manifest by their works that they have received the Spirit of Christ under the remission of their sins. Well, Cowdery goes on to tell Joseph, the above quotation he said was erroneous, and added, I command you in the name of God to erase those words that no priestcraft be among us. It's a fairly bold stance to take. You know, he didn't just say, hey, could you look at this again? Or do you want to pull out a seer stone and see if this is what's really coming through?
Gerrit Instead, Cowdery is certain that Joseph's wrong. Certain to the point where he's going to say, I command you in the name of God to erase it. Now, of course, Joseph is going to respond. I immediately wrote to him in reply and asked him by what authority he took upon him to command me to alter or erase or to add or diminish to or from a revelation or commandment from Almighty God. I mean, Joseph seems to be trying to say, Oliver, I don't think you understand. I didn't just sit down one day and piece together what I thought would be great for baptism. I received a revelation from God telling me about baptism, and we wrote it down. So it's not a matter of what would work best. It's the reality of what the revelation says. But even after Joseph sends that letter back to him, Joseph feels incredibly uneasy. And he makes the trip up to Fayette, where many of the church members live. Fayette is, though very rural itself, is where all of the Whitmer family lives.
Gerrit And the Whitmer family and extended family make up a good core of this early church membership. Even people like Hiram Page, who you would think, well, he's not a member of the Whitmer family. Well, he's actually married to one of Peter Whitmer's daughters, and so he actually is living in the Fayette area and married into the Whitmer family. When Joseph gets up there, and it's a long journey, it's 100 miles or so, so he probably didn't just do it on a day trip, what he finds is that it's far worse than just Oliver Cowdery. Because it's not just Oliver Cowdery that thinks Joseph Smith made an error when he got there. In fact, it's everybody. Every member of the church in Fayette believes that Joseph made an error in D&C 20, that portion that talks about bringing forth fruits, meat, so why was there such a focus on that?
Richard Why did they think that that was the error?
Gerrit I have a couple of theories about that, but I think that the most important is what their background is coming forward. Almost every early member of the church, and there are a couple of exceptions, so again, if you're listening at home and you're thinking that your great-great-grandfather is one of the exceptions, you're right, that there are exceptions. The reason why I said almost, whoever is listening right now, whose great-great-great-great-grandmother just so happened to be a Catholic and joined the church in 1830, that's wonderful, I understand, but the vast majority, with very few exceptions outside of whoever you are as grandmother, the vast majority were Protestants, and not just Protestants, they were Calvinist Protestants, meaning that they believe that the only saving thing in this world was having faith in Jesus, period.
Gerrit Of course baptism was important, and baptism was important because Jesus commanded you to get baptized. But baptism wasn't what a Latter-day Saint would call a saving ordinance. In point of fact, there is no saving ordinance in Protestantism, because the entire point of Martin Luther's Reformation and all those who sprung forth, and certainly reunified with John Calvin, is that only faith saves. And in Calvin's worldview, the faith you have that saves you actually comes from God. God gives you faith. You don't gain faith. You don't study and come to have faith. No, faith is a gift from God. God gave it to you, and that's the reason why you even have the ability to have faith, because God gave you that gift. It's literally nothing of yourself. So, baptism seems totally normal to every Latter-day Saint today. And the idea that your sins are washed away, and that you would have to actually demonstrate that you are going to live your life differently, not just say that you're going to live it differently, but demonstrate that you're going to live it differently, is something that every Latter-day Saint who's ever served a mission, or had a friend they've tried to share the gospel with, and, you know, it's not enough for your friend who's living with his girlfriend to say, yeah, yeah, yeah, we plan to like totally follow the law of chastity at some point.
Gerrit Well, that's great, first of all. I'm glad they're thinking about it. But they're not going to be able to be baptized until they actually are living it, right? We can't be perfect before we're baptized. There's no way. But there are certain fundamentals of the gospel that you have to believe and be living in order to be baptized. It's not simply a confession of faith. I would guess that a lot of people listening to this had the very difficult experience of having someone really, really, really believe the church was true, but just not be able to stop smoking. And they can't just be baptized anyway, right? They have to actually stop smoking. Now, sometimes you're like, we're going to stop smoking for a day, and we're getting them in the water. But regardless, there actually has to be an action that demonstrates the willingness to live that covenant before that happened. So I'm guessing that that plays a large part of it.
Gerrit Joseph's already asking church members to believe something that is entirely outside of the culture. That baptism isn't just a symbol. The baptism isn't just a sign, but the baptism is essential, and how it's done is essential. And the other aspect of that is that Oliver Cowdery had been, in 1829, he had been tasked with kind of drafting what was called the Articles of the Church. There isn't even a church yet, right? The church isn't founded until 1830, but in 1829, Oliver creates this document that lists off how the baptismal prayers are supposed to be done, how the sacrament is supposed to be administered, and what he's using the Book of Mormon solely as his guide. Essentially, Cowdery has gone through the Book of Mormon and everywhere that talks about baptism, that talks about the sacrament, that he's pulling the prayers out of there, he's pulling the actions out of there.
Gerrit And so that document, Articles of the Church, this is how it talks about baptism. Now, therefore, whoso repenteth and humbleth himself before me and desireth to be in my name, shall ye baptize them. That is pretty straightforward. It requires repentance, humility, a desire to take upon them the name, and then they can be baptized. What does the Articles and Covenants say about baptism? It says, again, by way of commandment of the Church, concerning the manner of baptism. The old whosoever humbleth himself before God and desire to be baptized, so far we're fine, because it's humble and desire, we got that. I don't even know why we have to put desire in there. I mean, we're back in the Middle Ages here, we just grab someone and throw them in water, like, you're baptized! But obviously desire, someone has to want to be baptized. And comes forth with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and witness unto the Church that they truly repent of all their sins. So that broken heart and contrite spirit is not in the Articles of the Church, Oliver's Articles in 1829.
Gerrit But again, that's a Book of Mormon phrase. Whatever the reason, Cowdery doesn't seem to focus on that. Witness unto the Church that they truly repent of all their sins. I think that that's it, that whosoever repenteth, that was also in it. Are willing to take upon them the name of Christ. Again, they're going to take upon them the name. Having a determination to serve him to the end. Now that, that's also not in there. But it's not what Cowdery keys on. And truly manifest by their works, that they have received the gift of Christ under the remission of their sins. Then shall they be received unto baptism in the Church of Christ. And so that's saying that repentance and change is actually requisite for baptism. Or in other words, works, visible works, are necessary to be baptized. And that I think is what Cowdery feels like he has such a leg to stand on.
Gerrit Look, I'm quoting the Book of Mormon. Where does it say that truly manifest by their works that they have received the gift of Christ under the remission of their sins? That phrase isn't in the Book of Mormon. Remember that Protestants and Joseph Smith's time believed that the Bible was the only source of authority from God. That if you had a dispute about anything, you settle it by going to the Bible. And if it wasn't in the Bible, then it wasn't true. Or at least it wasn't a good argument. Many early members of the Church seemed to have adopted the Book of Mormon in much the same manner that they adopted the Bible. Meaning, what's in the Book of Mormon is what is true. And if something's taught that's not in the Book of Mormon, well, then the Book of Mormon wins, because that written word is still trumping in their culture, in their mind. And that seems to be the argument that Oliver Cowdery is making. If what you're saying about baptism, Joseph, in D&C 20, contradicts in any way what the Book of Mormon says about baptism, well, then you're wrong when the Book of Mormon's right.
Gerrit In much the same way, you know, Latter-day Saints even today, again, back to our posts about General Conference, I have no doubt that there are thousands of posts flying around in the aftermath of General Conference in which people will quote from scriptures to attack, demean or ridicule things that those apostles and prophets said. If they said something that disagreed with what they believed, and then they'll say, well, I don't know why you would say that about X, because, you know, Ecclesiastes says this. We live in a culture that believes that the written word, that the scriptural word, trumps revealed word, trumps continuing revelation. That's what the Protestant world all around us, if you live in America, says. So I think this is where this is an early clash, early in the church, where does the written word win, or does the continuing revelation from a prophet of God win?
Richard So it's interesting. So as it relates then to Oliver Cowdery, it might not necessarily be that, maybe it is that he's seeing the vision of what, that the church is being restored, but he is going back to that same approach as it relates to, if it's not in the Book of Mormon, then it's not.
Gerrit I think, I mean, again, surprisingly, one of the things that Oliver Cowdery doesn't spend a lot of time writing about in his life is about his challenge to Joseph Smith's authority. So that isn't one of the things that he spends a great deal of time on. But he never mentions it all. In fact, this is where we get at this from Joseph Smith.
Richard So because as I was listening to you talk, I was thinking that perhaps it's that he really wasn't understanding. He was thinking that this is kind of just the truest Protestant church rather than the restored church. But that's not necessarily it at all. It's the idea that if it's not coming from the Bible or the Book of Mormon, then where are we?
Gerrit At least that seems to be how he brings it up. I mean, the part that he has a problem with is the part of Doctrine and Covenants Section 20 that differs with his articles at the church. So, maybe there's some vanity in there too. Like, wait, I wrote this document last year. We don't know exactly what's driving it. But that is the culture surrounding them. And the culture surrounding them is, look, if you have an argument about infant baptism, well, everyone in that argument is going to be making arguments that come from the Bible. They'll quote the Old Testament, the New Testament. Sure, someone might give a logical argument about infants not being able to sin or something like that. But that logical argument is just train cars behind what the Bible says. That's what really matters. Again, for most Protestant Christians. Well, so Joseph confronts this.
Gerrit I mean, back to our story. Joseph gets a fit and no one, not only will they not believe that Joseph was right, they won't even talk calmly with Joseph about it. Again, back to D&C 21. In all patience and faith, there's no patience here at all. In fact, there's so little patience the way that Joseph describes it is, he says, it was not without both labor and perseverance that I could prevail with any of them. He's talking about the whole Whitmer family. That I could prevail with any of them to reason calmly on the subject. So apparently, as Joseph tries to bring it up to them, they're not only not agreeing with Joseph, they are instantly angry at Joseph. That he is wrong. That he has brought this false doctrine into the Church. There is a great deal of contention. And like I said, that shows how close the Church was to flying apart within the first three months.
Gerrit When you have half of the Three Witnesses, but of course there's four, right? Because of Joseph, when you have half of the Three Witnesses and half of the Eight Witnesses all ready to check out because Joseph is preaching a false doctrine, well that's not going to help you in a Church that only has several dozen members to begin with. But Joseph says, However, Christian Whitmer at Lank got convinced that it was reasonable and according to Scripture. And finally, with his assistance, I succeeded in bringing not only the Whitmer family, but also Oliver Cowdery to acknowledge that they had been in error and the sentence in dispute was in accordance with the rest of the commandment. So Joseph finally, thankfully, lucky for all of us, that Joseph was able to convince Christian Whitmer. That Christian Whitmer had a soft enough heart that even though his entire family was so belligerent about it, they wouldn't even talk to Joseph about it, but Christian gets convinced and then he's able to get the others to actually listen to what he has to say.
Gerrit Joseph gives a little bit of commentary on this in his history. He says, And thus was this error, thus was this error rooted out. This is the part that I really want to focus on. Which having its rise in presumption and rash judgment was the more particularly calculated to teach each and all of us the necessity of humility and meekness before the Lord. Why were they so angry? Well, presumption and rash... So what's the presumption? The presumption is, I already know what's right. I already know what the answer to this is supposed to be. I already know what the church's policy on this is supposed to be. I already know what the church's position on this political idea is supposed to be. I know it because it's what I believe. And then not just presumption, because we presume things all the time. I presumed we would keep three-hour church. I was wrong. But it's not just presumption. It's what follows that presumption. It's rash judgment.
Gerrit So that when you're presented something that goes against your presumption, instead of saying, oh, I need to think and pray about that some more. It's an instant anger. It's as if Satan is the one leading the entire battle, because you go immediately to anger at that new thing that's being taught. Because it's not what you've always believed. It's not what you want to believe. It's not what you think should be taught. You're not praying in that moment to receive confirmation. You're absolutely certain you're right, because of presumption. And that presumption and that certainty leads to anger. And as Joseph said, the necessity of humility and meekness before the Lord. Why do we need meekness and humility? That He might teach us of His ways, that we might walk in His paths and live by every word which proceed forth out of His mouth. Unless we have humility, we will always feel like the prophets are saying things that are not in accordance with what we already believe because the prophets are revealing their things all the time.
Gerrit So Joseph, this is demonstrating that you can't just be certain that you're right. You have to be willing to believe that prophets can reveal more. Which is what DMZ 21 tells them, and that Oliver Cowdery doesn't really adopt, as is evident in this experience here. On the other hand, Joseph is able to convince them, and that ends that first real problematic challenge to authority. There's another challenge, the same here. So Joseph goes back home. Goes back home, things seem to be settled. He goes back to Fayette. So the last time he was in Fayette, it was pandemonium, dogs and cats were living together. It was a real challenge to the church's authority. But he goes back to Fayette for the conference in September. Back then, they had conference four times a year. I mean, we do now, but we have state conference twice a year and then general conference twice a year.
Gerrit But they had, well, there was like 20 of them. So they're meeting four times a year. And they had it quarterly. And Joseph goes up to Fayette for the conference. And when he gets there, sure enough, there is another problem and one that threatens to destroy the church again. And this time, it's related to Doctrine and Covenant, Section 28. 28 hasn't been revealed yet, but this is the context of D&C 28. What's going on? Well, Hiram Page, who is one of the Eight Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, married into the Whitmer family, living there in Fayette, as described in the history, Brother Hiram Page had gotten his possession as certain stone, by which he'd obtained to certain revelations, all of which were entirely at variance with the order of God's house, as laid down in the New Testament, as well as our other late revelations. Now, an early apostate from the Church, when he wrote about Hiram Page's experience, he explained it this way.
Gerrit He said. He found a smooth stone upon which there appeared to be writing, which when transcribed upon paper, disappeared from the stone, and another impression appeared in its place. This, when copied, vanished as the former had done. And so it continued alternately appearing and disappearing.
Richard Similar to the translation of the Book of Mormon?
Gerrit In fact, exactly the way that witnesses described the translation of the Book of Mormon, the words appear on the stone, that it's read off or written off, and then the words disappear and others appear. In the meanwhile, he continued to write until he'd written over a considerable paper. It bore the most striking marks of a Mormonite revelation, and it was received as an authentic document by most of the Mormonites. I don't know if you knew that that's what we were called, pejoratively early on. But once again, all of Fayette believes that these revelations, Hiram Page has received, are from God. And they contradict the revelations Joseph has received. And there are lots of reasons why people want to believe these false revelations. First and foremost, they appear to be received in a miraculous way. They are words appearing on a stone the same way Joseph Smith is himself receiving revelations or translating the Book of Mormon.
Gerrit Second, they also tell people what it is they want to hear. One of the features of false revelation that makes it so enticing is that it speaks to exactly what it is people want to hear. In our day and age, I've heard quite a bit of false revelation as it pertains to the Second Coming of Jesus, and when that's going to happen, and how that's going to happen, where that's going to happen. Why is that so powerful? Why does that confuse and entice so many otherwise faithful, good-believing members of the Church? Because they really want to know when Jesus is coming and how that's going to be and what steps they need to take. They really care about those things, and so that provides an opening for someone who says, Oh, you've got uncertainty about the Second Coming? Well, let me give you some certainty. And in that case, these deceived members, they trade truth for certainty.
Gerrit I'd rather be certainly wrong about something than be uncertain and not know, essentially. Now, of course, they don't think that what they're accepting is wrong. But what does Hiram Page's Revelation say? It reveals where the city of Zion is going to be, the New Jerusalem. In the early church, the idea of the New Jerusalem wasn't just a peripheral idea. I would guess if I asked your average member of the church, hey, list off the most important doctrines in the church, like somewhere after ham radios, but before year food storage, you would get, oh yeah, the New Jerusalem. I mean, to the point where in the classes I teach, I regularly have students who will say, we're not still going to build a New Jerusalem, are we? It's so not a part of their faith that they're actually surprised that that's still in the offing. Like, I thought we gave up on that, right? I mean, maybe they're just thinking like, the last time in Missouri it didn't work out so well for us.
Richard They don't have the articles of faith memorized anymore.
Gerrit Well, that's the problem. They're like, the design, the New Jerusalem will be built on this continent, or not, whatever. But to an early latter day saying, to members who joined, who started believing in 1829, who joined in 1830 and 1831, the idea of New Jerusalem wasn't just there somewhere lurking in the background of a seminary jeopardy quiz, right? It was the reason you joined the church. There are many people who joined the church on the idea of this place where there was no rich and no poor, and everyone loved God, and everyone served God. They haven't even read the Book of Mormon. But the idea that such a utopian place exists, where everyone just loves everyone, was so enticing. The people joined the church for that. That's why they believed. So of course, for those people who desperately want this New Jerusalem, what's the crack then in the wall?
Gerrit What's the chink in the armor? Well, it's that they want so badly to know where the New Jerusalem is, that when someone comes along and persuasively uses the language of Revelation and says, Oh, the Lord says that the New Jerusalem is going to be right here. Well, of course they want to believe that. Now, I don't know exactly where Hiram Page's Revelation said that the New Jerusalem is going to be. There's some anecdotal evidence that in fact the reason why they were so persuasive is that he was saying that the New Jerusalem is going to be right there in Fayette or in Palmyra or somewhere else in New York, meaning I'm not going to have to move 1400 miles away. You're here, you're in it. Yeah, I've got beachfront property in Zion. Right? I mean, you got to think about the resale value, right? I mean, I don't have to uproot everything I know. I don't have to sacrifice everything to go. So, the idea that I want more than anything, the New Jerusalem, I'm already there.
Gerrit Of course people want to believe that. And, so you have these revelations that seem to be being received miraculously. They seem to be using the language of revelation, and they're also telling people exactly what they want to hear.
Richard Is there an element too that people want to believe this idea that, okay, so these things have come through Joseph Smith. Now we have something coming through from just a lay member of the church, and perhaps I could also be receiving revelations like that, or am I just thinking that...
Gerrit Well, I think that, I mean, that's certainly something that factors in. I mean, clearly Hiram Page doesn't seem to think that D&C 21, even though it says Joseph Smith is going to be the one who receives revelations, he doesn't seem to think that that's exclusive. And that's really one of the great questions that happens in the early church. For years, you, you know, Christianity has said there is no continuing revelation, continuing revelation doesn't exist. And then Joseph came along and said, actually it does. So knowing where that line between continuing revelation and, you know, who has the ability to receive it for everyone, that's a line that people still wrestle with today in the church. Today in the church, people still wrestle with the difference between them receiving revelation for themselves and their family, and them receiving revelation that President Eyring was wrong last week.
Richard So this is one of the core beliefs of the church. When President Nelson was made the president of the church, one of the very first Talks to Even General conferences, how we receive personal revelation and understand and gain these things for ourselves.
Gerrit Yeah, personal revelation is essential. You actually can't be a Christian without personal revelation. Because you have to believe that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected. And there's no scientific way to prove that. You have to believe it. Well, how are you going to believe it the same way that Peter believed it? Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. It is revelation that is going to demonstrate that to you. So personal revelation is essential. But how do we separate this personal revelation from the revelation of the church? Well, this is what the Lord tells Oliver Cowdery in D&C 28. First of all, it tells him in verse 6, Thou shalt not command him who is at thy head and at the head of the church. So that might be a little bit of a holdover from what was going on with D&C 20, right? Remember he said, I command you in the name of God.
Richard How far are these separated from each other?
Gerrit This would have been three months probably separated. It was probably July, August that the whole Cowdery incident happened and now it's September.
Richard Joseph just got so frustrated.
Gerrit Like I said, I mean, he goes back home. He's barely home for a few weeks, comes back up and the whole Fayette branch is still ready to shove off from the church again, right? The Lord says, for I have given unto him the keys of the mysteries and the revelations which are sealed. So again, now verse 7 is making it much more explicit in D&C 28. Joseph receives revelation for the church. You don't command Joseph what he's supposed to, because again, this is not just Hiram Page who received these revelations. Oliver Cowdery and every member of the church in Fayette believe they were true revelations, even though they totally contradicted what Joseph was teaching. So you have these two things set up in opposition to one another. He's told in verse 9, Now, behold, I say unto you, that it is not revealed, and no man knoweth where the city of Zion shall be built. So the Lord goes very directly at these false revelations of Hiram Page. Hiram Page has received revelations that say where Zion is going to be, and God's response is, Let me tell you how I know that he doesn't know where Zion is, because I haven't told anyone yet.
Gerrit So that's how I know that he doesn't have it from me. I once had the experience, I was giving a fireside, and afterwards I had someone come up to talk to me, and he was very belligerent. He wasn't really there to ask me any questions. He was more there to just tell me how wrong I was, because he had become a self-proclaimed expert in church history, and thought he'd share that with me. And as he began to state certain things about what had happened in the history of the church, he began to misstate some things. He said, you know, well, you know, this and this and this happened. And I said, well, I think you're not quite getting that accurately. That's not exactly how it happened. He said, no, no, that is how it happened. I know, I read that in the Joseph Smith Papers. And I said, well, no, you didn't read that in the Joseph Smith Papers. And he said, no, I did. I read it in the Joseph Smith Papers. And I was like, I know that you didn't read it in the Joseph Smith Papers, because the volume you're talking about is the one that I wrote.
Gerrit And so I'm pretty certain you didn't read it in the Joseph Smith Papers. And so then he was like, well, I'm sure I read it somewhere. And I'm like, I have no doubt that you read it somewhere. And that's kind of the problem that you've got here, that this feeling that Hiram Page has had something revealed to him that God hasn't revealed to anyone. So God's going to tell Oliver, who's going to be convinced by this revelation, that in verse 11, thou shalt take thy brother Hiram Page between him and thee alone, and tell him those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me, and Satan deceiveth him. For behold, these things have not been appointed unto him, neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church, contrary to the church covenants. So this kind of speaks to the fact that there's actually a couple different types of false revelation.
Gerrit There's two types. There's the false revelation where someone is simply just using the language of revelation. They're using language that they know religious people use. I feel, I know, I believe, I prayed about it, the Spirit told me, right? They're saying those words. But they're saying them for capital, for cultural capital. They know that by saying them, that that will make you believe them. Joseph has this experience multiple times in his life, too, where people say, oh yes, I had a vision. And Joseph will be like, you did never have a vision. But you're just telling people that you did, because you know that's how you get people to follow you. But the second type of false revelation is much more scary, because it's the type of false revelation that actually does involve a power from the unseen world. And that's the type of revelation we're talking about with Hiram Page. There really does appear to be words that are appearing on his stone. They sound like revelations. They speak like revelation, and they appear miraculously the way Joseph's revelations did.
Gerrit How could Hiram Page have known then? How could the members in Fayette have known that these revelations weren't actually from God? And that's what verse 12 gives them, right? These things have not been appointed unto him. Neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church, contrary to the covenants. How do you know if an angel who has appeared to you has delivered you a true message from God? Well, if the angel appears to you and says, let me tell you how Russ Nelson got it wrong last week, well, then you probably better be pretty careful with that angelic visitation. Because Satan will transform himself nine to an angel of light to try to convince people. And Joseph has the experience where Michael the archangel calls out Satan when he appears as an angel of light to Joseph. Satan is real and he really does try to deceive people.
Gerrit So how can I know if I'm being deceived? Well, God has set up an order and a pattern that absolutely you can have angels appear to you. You can have visions. You can have dreams that are revelations for you and your family. We believe in those things. We believe in the ministering of angels. We believe in personal revelation. We believe in all of those things. But that revelation, that angel when he comes, is going to give you revelation for you and not for the church. Because if it's revelation for the church, he's visiting a different house that night. He's going somewhere else that night because that's how God has set it up. I want to talk more about this idea of false revelation. So we're going to talk about these early challenges to the church and false revelation on our next podcast as well.
Intro Thank you for listening to the Standard of Truth podcast, hosted by historian Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat. If you know anybody that could benefit from the material in this episode, please share it with them. And for more resources, visit standardoftruth.com. Until next time.

Quote board

Make a share card from any line

Because all Christianity is taught that there's hell and that hell exists and that you're going to cook and you better bring the marshmallows when you get there.

GerritBanter

I could not understand it. I didn't reject it, but I could not understand it.

GerritInsight

But there's a difference between not understanding something and being certain that you know that it's wrong.

GerritInsight

And in that case, these deceived members, they trade truth for certainty.

GerritInsight

They don't have the articles of faith memorized anymore.

RichardBanter

Yeah, I've got beachfront property in Zion. Right? I mean, you got to think about the resale value, right?

GerritBanter

I know that you didn't read it in the Joseph Smith Papers, because the volume you're talking about is the one that I wrote.

GerritBanter

Because if it's revelation for the church, he's visiting a different house that night.

GerritInsight

More from this episode

Claim checkThings people say, and what the episode shows.

Claim check

What critics say, and what the episode found
Early Saints had a prophet with gold plates and revelations, so nobody questioned him the way members do today.
If prophets ever taught one thing and now teach something else, that shows they were wrong before.
Take it to classReady to use in a lesson or a talk.

Take it to class

Ready to copy into a lesson or a text

At the church's very first meeting, D&C 21:5 asked members to receive Joseph's words "in all patience and faith," which suggests the Lord expected some revelations to be hard to accept.

Brigham Young's response to D&C 76, "I didn't reject it, but I could not understand it," shows the difference between not yet understanding a teaching and being sure it's wrong.

D&C 28 answered Hiram Page's miraculous stone with a simple test: personal revelation is real, but revelation for the whole church comes through the one God has appointed.

Banter binThe funniest moments in this episode.

Banter bin

The running jokes, for people who skip ahead
Unless you're a politicianNo one believes something they know is wrong, "unless you're a politician" (4:14).
The failed scouterGerrit calls himself a failed scouter who was all in when scouting ended, and admits he was embarrassingly excited about two-hour church (4:14).
Bring the marshmallowsNineteenth-century Christianity's hell as a giant bonfire after this life (9:29).
Your Catholic great-great-grandmotherGerrit preemptively concedes the exceptions to his claim that early converts were Calvinist Protestants (27:17).
Dogs and cats living togetherGerrit's description of the pandemonium in Fayette over D&C 20 (32:42).
Somewhere after ham radiosThe New Jerusalem ranks somewhere after ham radios but before food storage for today's members (41:35).
Beachfront property in ZionIf Zion is in New York, think of the resale value (44:41).
I wrote that volumeA fireside heckler insists he read something in the Joseph Smith Papers volume Gerrit wrote (48:27).
The Phebe Draper Palmer Brown MailbagSend Gerrit and Richard your question.

The Phebe Draper Palmer Brown Mailbag

Your question could be next week’s episode
Questions from Litners drive a lot of episodes. Send yours. If it makes the show, Richard reads it on air.
General ConferenceGeneral Conference talks that cite a scripture read in this episode.

In General Conference

Talks from the latest General Conference that cite a scripture this episode reads or names on air
October 2026 General Conference · cites D&C 76Come to the Lord in His Holy HouseElder Gerrit W. GongElder Gong lays out three doctrinal foundations for temple worship: eternal families, moral agency, and the Holy Spirit of Promise, which makes honored covenants binding.

Summaries, themes and lessons for every talk are on What Did They Say?

Go deeperWhere to read more.

Go deeper

Deep dives the episode points toward
Oliver Cowdery's 1829 Articles of the Church side by side with D&C 20, and what that comparison shows about how the revelation took shape (27:17).
Calvinism, baptism and faith alone in 1830 America, and why visible works before baptism felt foreign to the first converts (27:17).
What happened to Hiram Page's stone and its revelations, which the next episode picks up (41:35).
The church's name changes, from the Church of Christ in 1830 to the 1838 revelation naming it the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (4:14).
SOT Litner · S1E2.