SOT LitnerStandard of Truth listener companion
The Phebe Draper Palmer Brown Mailbag
S2E27 · Is This Safe For Sunday School
0:00 / 1:02:06
14 chapters
← All episodes
Standard of Truth · Season 2 · Episode 27 · 1:02:06

Is This Safe For Sunday School

The vision of the Savior at the School of the Prophets was written into the minutes the very day it happened, while the famous Mary Whitmer story was told decades later.

Press play above. The page follows along.
The question ·
How can I know whether to accept a religious account as historical fact?
Daniel (listener)

Richard reads a stack of listener emails, including John, who thanks the hosts for answering questions he didn't know he had, and Jill, who loved the old pioneer cemetery in Nauvoo. The main question comes from Daniel in Cincinnati: how can he know whether to accept a religious account as historical fact? Gerrit explains that historians can only say what most likely happened, so miracles always rest on faith, and then compares a late David Whitmer retelling of Moroni showing Mary Whitmer the plates with the same-day minutes of the 1833 School of the Prophets vision. He closes by returning to the suicide and telestial kingdom quote, showing how far removed it is and why the Church's teaching is the safer guide.

Who comes upJoseph SmithJesus ChristMary WhitmerDavid WhitmerMoroniZebedee ColtrinFrederick G. WilliamsWilford WoodruffCharles Lowell WalkerM. Russell BallardLazarus
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

154 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 your host, Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat, and I'm joined by my friend, Professor Richard LeDuc.
Richard Hello, Gerrit. In this week's podcast, we want to talk about, actually, several different things, but we'll start with an email. This comes to us from John. Brethren, as one of your dozen podcast downloaders with Dr. Dirkmaat.
Gerrit One of your dozen?
Richard It's, you're overstating it.
Gerrit You know what, John, why are you shooting so high? Let's just get a half dozen to start with. Rachel's mom, my mom, you know what's crazy? Richard's mom, no. No, no, she couldn't figure out the app.
Richard No, she's making a willful choice.
Gerrit Someone like my mom who can't figure out how to play it, yours knows what it is and just doesn't want anything to do with it.
Richard 100%.
Gerrit Okay, that's good to know.
Richard As one of your dozen podcast downloaders with Dr. Dirkmaat's mom, thank you for putting together a fantastic podcast dedicated to church and American history. You use a lot of self-deprecating humor, but I hope you know the information you both provide. I think it's very important that you mentions both of us here. It's very important.
Gerrit I'm glad you included.
Richard That's very nice. Provide is faith building, enlightening and fascinating. Talk of a tour directed by Dr. Dirkmaat piqued my interest and would be something I would give considerable thought to. You've answered a lot of questions I didn't know I had. Now, when we read that the first time, we laughed, both of us laughed quite a bit.
Gerrit Right.
Richard And I don't even know, John, I don't know if you're kidding or not, but that tickled us.
Gerrit Yeah, because that's what we were trying to do. We like the military, we want to break you down to nothing and then build you back up. But in our case, it's if we have time.
Richard We're not going to be able to get back to it.
Gerrit We spent the first half hour, 40 minutes creating questions that caused people to doubt their faith without them realizing that those were even questions.
Richard They didn't have any of those questions before.
Gerrit Now they doubt everything before.
Richard And then join us next week. Yeah.
Gerrit I mean, for the people who are listening in the previous podcast, they're like, well, I never really had a concern about the way the United States treated the Mormons when it came to 4th of July, but now I kind of do. And do you have an answer for that? We'll see you next week on the Standard of Truth Podcast.
Richard So we are seriously considering making that the main tagline, Standard of Truth Podcast, answering questions you didn't know you had.
Gerrit Providing, we provide people a service that they don't know that they need and certainly don't want and still don't need. That's what we're trying to do most.
Richard Anyway, I don't know if you were joking with that, John. You very well may not have been, but we thought that was very good. So you've answered a lot of questions I didn't know I had and increased my understanding, knowledge of and testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith. I really hope you get to season 18 and may God continue to bless your efforts.
Gerrit I think season 18 so that we can, is that, because that's when we do polygamy?
Richard That's polygamy. Polygamy season 18.
Gerrit Let me tell you something, John, there as just for you, no one else can listen to this, just you.
Richard No one else is.
Gerrit Mom, I need you to stop listening for a minute. And Rachel's mom, I need you to stop. We have a podcast that at least brushes the subject of plural marriage coming up.
Richard It's coming in a couple of weeks.
Gerrit So, yeah, and it won't, well, first of all, it'll probably cause you to have questions that you never had before.
Richard Yeah, that's exactly right.
Gerrit Then it won't answer those questions and then we'll say, maybe we'll get to this, but as you know, we won't.
Richard Hey John, so did you have any questions about a letter that Brigham Young received in 1861 from WW.
Gerrit Phelps?
Richard No, you didn't have any questions about it?
Gerrit Well, you're about to, and then you'll also get an unsatisfactory answer. I like the way that John signed his email, though, given it showed that he was listening to our-
Richard Yeah, a fanatic, a fanatic John.
Gerrit We've just talked about how the Mormons kept being accused of being fanatics because it was a pejorative and I like that John worked that in there.
Richard He did. And also the mention of the tour. So we mentioned that last week about the idea of doing a tour, Dr. Dirkmaat as he now goes by since he has a PhD. He-
Gerrit I went by it even before this.
Richard This is true.
Gerrit I went by it when I was still an undergraduate, like, well, I'm going to be this. So-
Richard This is true. It is funny. I say that as a joke, but when we were at Utah State together, it was Gerrit Dirkmaat. And then when he was getting his PhD, it was Gerrit Dirkmaat. And I said, oh, that's very nice.
Gerrit Yeah. Well, you had to change it for the-
Richard That's correct.
Gerrit The optics of it. No, it's because my brother went back to the original Dutch pronunciation of our name and-
Richard You get it pronounced, people who are closer to spelling it right or pronouncing it right when you say it out.
Gerrit They at least know that they don't know how to spell it. And that's better than them guessing.
Richard Yeah. So that's right. Think about a podcast here hosted by Dirkmaat and then his friend LeDuc. No one's ever getting our names right ever for any reason.
Gerrit No, in all of the emails everyone sends in, all three of them, all of the names are always spelled it out.
Richard Well, so the idea of leading a tour was something that John mentioned too. And so I just wanted to say, we mentioned that in the last episode and we got actually quite a bit of response that was very positive and very good. And so we're going to put a link on the website, the website that you, many of you didn't know existed. So-
Gerrit Frankly, I just found out.
Richard Yeah, that's right. standardoftruth.com is the website. And thanks to some very kind friends of ours that have put it together and have kept it up to date.
Gerrit Even secured the website.
Richard I mean, it's just like sincerely, just the nicest, most wonderful people in the world.
Gerrit Which I asked multiple times if I could give them a shout out.
Richard They said, most assuredly not.
Gerrit Yeah, they said, I don't want to be associated with you. I bought you this domain name so that you wouldn't mention me at all. That's right. It was basically hush money.
Richard Anyway, it was just so, so very, very, very kind. And so standardoftruth.com, and we'll have a link up at the top. And so if you are interested and enough listeners want to go, then we'll look to put one together. And if not, then we'll-
Gerrit Yeah, we just thought it might be something fun to do. I mean, where you go on a Church History site and it'll be with people who already are familiar with our, I don't know what to say, our humor, but our inability, that those people, they will have, if they want to, I mean, I think that'd be fun to do. And if we have enough people that do it, we'll try to put it together.
Richard Yeah, it'll be great. And so that actually brings up another email that we got that talked a little bit about some of the sites from Jill. She brought up some of her favorite places in Nauvoo.
Gerrit Yeah, she brought up, especially, you know, she went to a lot of places. So she wasn't on a big tour. She was just with like four people, I think she said. But she asked about going to the old Pioneer Cemetery in Nauvoo. And yes, that's a site that I've gone to. It's the cemetery. It's actually pretty, well, not pretty far, but it's a little ways outside of town now. It seems like it's a lot further outside of town now than it would have been, because there were about 20 times the number of people living in Nauvoo by the time the saints were driven out as there were today. In fact, today we found out that Nauvoo has officially dropped, Nauvoo, the city today has officially dropped below the 1,000 population mark. And that's actually a really big deal for the people living there because at least as far as it goes in Illinois, once you get below 1,000, you're no longer, you no longer qualify for a whole bunch of different funding things because you're too small to be considered a city basically.
Gerrit But that just recently was something we found out. Anyway, the Nauvoo Pioneer Cemetery, Jill mentioned as being a place of real solemnity and that she thought it was even more special than some of the other places she'd been. And I think everybody has different experiences with different sites. The Pioneer Cemetery, the biggest thing that it has there is it has, this is where Edward Partridge was buried, the first bishop of the church. Remember, we talked about him and his conversion when he went to go visit Joseph and saw that his, saw that his corn fields were, you know, well, those are nice furrows. This gospel must be true. Before I didn't believe, I wish our missionary work was that easy, you know, where someone's like, I'm not gonna listen to one thing you Mormons have to say. Well, is that a, is that an Armani bag? Well, okay, come on in, let's have a, you know, I don't know, anyway, but there's, there are all kinds of cool sites like that, that people have spiritual experiences with that, you know, they don't expect to.
Gerrit And I find that they're, I have different emotions, different sites that I'm at. So thanks, Jill, for sharing that. Hopefully you had a good experience touring. Don't we have some other emails?
Richard So this one comes to us from Daniel from Cincinnati. And so this is actually, we're gonna use this to kind of talk a little bit about some of the things that he brings up here.
Gerrit We really have a listener in Cincinnati.
Richard We have one now. We'll see how it goes after we...
Gerrit We'll probably not now, but I mean, so we have one in Vermont. We have one in Cincinnati, and my mom.
Richard And Rachel's mom.
Gerrit Yeah, yeah, there you go, four.
Richard Hi, Gerrit. Thank you so much for all of the effort you and your team make in providing this podcast. To put it simply, the Standard of Truth podcast has been as influential for me personally as I have heard many claim, come follow me to be for them. That is high praise, by the way, that is a great podcast. My question, how can I know whether to accept a religious account as historical fact? For example, as a believer, I accept the appearance of God the Father and his son to the 14 year old Joseph Smith as historical fact. There are numerous firsthand and countless second and third hand accounts of it. I know the church to do the same. What though of lesser sighted events? For instance, how is the appearance of God the Father and the son to the school of the prophets in 1833 to be treated? Or what of the appearance of Moroni in disguise to Mary Whitmer, in which he showed her the gold plates? I don't believe either religious account to be canonized, so can I treat them as historical facts, at least in a church setting?
Richard Or would that be questioned even by believers, not to mention my non-member fact-checking friends? Daniel.
Gerrit Well, thank you, Daniel. That's a really good question, actually. And the question of how can I know whether or not I take a source as a good source? That's a question that historians ask all the time. One thing that I was actually just speaking to a youth group the other day, which I'm not very good at. I'm not designed to speak to youth groups, but I think people, they're like, well, you're- You're free. Yeah, you're free. I mean, are you free this weekend? And I mean, are you available? And also no money. But it reminds me of a comedian who said that people are always trying to get me to write scripts because I'm a comedian. They're always like, oh, that's great. Could you write a script? Because they want me to write a comedy. And he said, that's just weird to me. That's like going up to a chef and saying, wow, you're an amazing chef. Can you farm?
Gerrit I realized they're kind of related, but they're not really that related, right? But anyway, I was speaking to him, and that was one of the questions we were talking about is, well, how do you know what is a good source and what isn't? We talked about this very early on in the podcast, before we had microphones that functioned, or anyone listening, or I don't know.
Richard Yeah, no, that's it. Those two things.
Gerrit Those two things. Or electricity, did we have? I think we were functioning on battery power, actually. Maybe that was then. But that question is kind of a broader question than maybe you even realize, and that is the things that historians take for historical value is obviously different than what religionists take for religious value. For instance, that Jesus Christ lived is something that's almost universally accepted by the historical community. There are occasionally people who try to claim that Jesus never even existed, but even agnostic and atheistic historians that are respected will acknowledge, yes, of course, Jesus lived. I mean, he was an actual person who actually lived, who was an actual teacher, and then they put in parentheses, but he wasn't the son of God, that kind of thing, right? But that he existed at all is very much accepted almost universally by historians.
Gerrit So that Jesus existed is, again, are you going to find a few people, generally irreligious people, claiming they didn't even exist at all? Yeah. But what is the general consensus among historians? That Jesus was a real person, who really taught things, who was, you know, really believed that he had a mission from God, that kind of thing. It's the accounts surrounding what Jesus did miraculously, including his own resurrection, that go beyond the realm of historical inquiry alone and have to go to the realm of faith. And this is something I've talked about before on the podcast, that the goal of every historian is to present to your audience through sources, not just through conjecture. So you're not just running a TikTok here. I mean actual sources. You present to your audience what most likely happened in the past.
Gerrit It's part of the reason why people with these, with conspiracy theories of all kinds of, you know, Willard Richards having, you know, seven guns in Carthage Jail or something like that. Why they're so frustrating? Because they're not actually using the majority of sources. They take a single source and they say, well, that single source, no matter how good it is, is right. And this single source, no matter how good it is, is also right. Well, then therefore all of this other stuff is true. For a historian, they're going to say what is most likely that happened in the past. And what's most likely the case is never something miraculous. So you can see that history and religion are really at odds with one another on that point. Because is it most likely that Jesus walked on water?
Gerrit No. In fact, if it was most likely, we wouldn't consider it a miracle. I mean, none of us would be standing up in church bearing our testimonies about reading the parable of the guy who walked slowly home and made it there safely. I mean, people are like, oh, what an incredible miracle that has been wrought this day. You know, I mean, the reason why miracles are miracles is because they can't happen without the inner position of God. And so that means the essential aspect to religious truth claims is the miraculous, no matter how much we want to try to prove what it is that we believe. And look, I understand where that urge comes from. I mean, you're talking to someone who has a PhD in history. Of course, I would love any type of evidence that helps prove what it is that I believe religiously.
Gerrit But fundamentally, however far down the rabbit hole of let me find evidence to prove X to you, you go. You are going to get to a place where there isn't what you would call historical evidence to prove what it is that you're saying. Or you'd go beyond the consensus of historians to do it. I mean, this is why I've always found it so odd that believing Christians attack the Joseph Smith story with such ferocity. They're just so certain that Joseph Smith is so wrong and on and on and on and on. Well, why? Oh, because he's claiming an angel appeared to him. Yeah, because the Bible doesn't have angels appear to anyone ever, right? You know, I mean, it's a good thing no one's ever been in prison when prison walls miraculously came down, and there was never any feeding of the 5,000, and there wasn't any walking on water, and there wasn't any raising Lazarus from the dead.
Gerrit I mean, all those things happened. So, it's not that you can't believe that an angel appeared to Joseph Smith. It's that you don't want to believe that an angel appeared to Joseph Smith. But you're not operating on some kind of, you know, higher realm of evidence because you decide not to believe it. You don't want to believe it, right? Fundamentally, every Christian, every Christian, believes the most fantastical thing in the history of this world. Every single believer, every Christian, whether they are a Presbyterian or a snake handler from West Virginia, or whether they're a Congregationalist Baptist, it doesn't matter. Every Christian believes the most impossible thing in the history of the world. They believe that a carpenter's son who lived 2,000 years ago was murdered by the Romans and then came back to life three days later.
Gerrit And not just that that happened, that when he was murdered, he took upon him somehow in a way that you can't explain, in a way that you can't replicate. He took upon him all of our sins, all of our weaknesses, all of our sicknesses, and made it so that we could have our sins taken from us. But even if you don't understand or believe in sin, beyond that, all of us would live again. And not just live again in this, you know, an amorphous spiritual realm, the idea of living again. But all of us would have our bodies again and live in a very real sense again. The fundamental belief of Christianity is that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world and was resurrected three days later.
Gerrit Now, if you were trying to prove that, how could you do it? The Bible already demonstrates the plan that was in place, right? The fear of the leaders of the people. The reason why the rock was rolled in front of the tomb was they were afraid that Jesus' followers would secretly steal Jesus' body and then go around and tell everybody that he had been resurrected. So it shows already how they were preparing to respond to the idea of Jesus' resurrection. Oh, yeah, well, obviously, he wasn't really resurrected. Because honestly, what's more likely? Is it more likely that someone who was dead for three days had an angel come and roll away that stone and came back to life and now lives forever as a god? Or that someone wasn't ever divine at all and his followers stole the body and hid it and then told everyone, oh, he came back to life and he appeared to me?
Gerrit Well, it's actually more likely the second one, in part because we don't have any other evidence of anyone else ever being resurrected three days later, right? We certainly don't have any current evidence of all of us being resurrected or proof that all of our sins have been taken from us. Now, this is the terrorist down part, right? And you stop listening right now. Thank you very much. The Standard of Truth podcast. No, we have to now build it back up. But we don't believe in Jesus' resurrection because we can prove it. Now, don't misunderstand me. Of course, there's all kinds of testimonies to it. There's all kinds of people who offer their witness that they saw Jesus as proof. But we don't believe it because we can prove it. We believe it because it's true. That's very different. And so, you know, however logical you might think you are as a, you know, as someone, you know, academically examining Christianity, well, I'm only going to believe the things that I can absolutely prove.
Gerrit Fundamentally, if you are a Christian, you have already bid a lasting and fond farewell from having a logical, historical answer to everything it is that you believe. Are there things that you can do that are pretty cool? Yep. But fundamentally, most fundamentally as a Christian, the thing that matters most to you, that Jesus died and was resurrected, is absolutely beyond the realms of logical proof. That doesn't mean it's not true. It is true. It just means that it is the evidence of things not seen, right? It is something that you have to believe on the basis of the Holy Spirit. Now, I know that wasn't strictly speaking your question.
Gerrit When it comes to these other, I would say, anecdotal stories that we hear, you know, what about this? And you gave some great ones, right? I think you have to take them on an almost case by case basis. The Church certainly talks about the angel appearing to Mary Whitmer and her having that experience seeing the plates. In fact, if you go to Fayette on a Church History tour, one of the things that will be discussed is the fact that she there saw those plates. But where does that account come from? Well, it comes from David Whitmer. David Whitmer is telling that story many, many, many years later in life. So if the question is, how do I know whether or not an angel actually appeared to Mary Whitmer? From a historical perspective, the answer is, well, you don't actually.
Gerrit You don't know historically whether or not. What do you know as a historian? Because as a historian, you have to just assume we're all atheists.
Richard But I almost wonder if the question is, is that even a good enough source to consider it from a faith standpoint?
Gerrit Well, so that's what I mean. I want to start with the historical. From a historical point, I can't answer the question of whether or not an angel appeared to anyone ever, because there's no way to demonstrate that an angel appeared to someone. That's not replicatable. It's not provable in a historical sense. What can you do as a historian? You can prove or at least demonstrate that people said that an angel appeared to them. So it is absolutely a historically true statement to say, David Whitmer said the angel appeared to his mother and showed her the plates. That's actually an unimpeachable historical statement. Now, sometimes you're a little bit further afield than that, right? Because what if this source was, you know, it's not, but what if the source was someone said that they had a conversation with someone who had talked to David Whitmer and David Whitmer said, right?
Gerrit Now you can start to see, I'm even moving away from the historical fact of David Whitmer having said it.
Richard How far after did David Whitmer say?
Gerrit Four or five decades. Yeah, long time.
Richard So you've talked about this before where usually when as things are much further down.
Gerrit Now, so yeah, I mean the Historian's Prize contemporary documents. We want things that happened at the time because that demonstrates what someone was actually thinking at the time. Now that doesn't mean that someone remembering something later that proves it didn't really happen. That's not the case. But those are the kinds of things you prize. At the same time, you also have to have a little bit of historical humility and realize that just because you don't have a source that talks about it earlier is not the same thing as that thing not having happened. I think about in my life, I was a part of a very miraculous thing that happened. And I never wrote it down. I didn't write it down because I'm a terrible journal keeper, because nothing makes you a worse journal keeper than reading everyone else's journals all of your life. Because you're like, I don't want anyone to know this. And then you just don't write anything down, right?
Gerrit In all seriousness, though, I didn't write it down. But I know that that experience happened. I was there for it. Now, what if 20 years from now, I finally decide to start telling people about that experience? Someone might say, wow, that didn't really happen. I mean, he didn't even tell anyone about it for 30 years. Well, again, that's what a cynic would say. But just because someone is telling it later is not in and of itself proof that the event didn't happen. In this case, where we're talking about an angel appearing, we're already beyond the realm of provability because an angel is involved. So whether it happened last week or whether it happened, you know, 40 years from now that the person said it, the fact that you're talking about an angel already places it in a different realm than traditional historical thought.
Gerrit Now, on the religious side of things, and I think that's really what your question was about, what primarily, do I believe these things, right? Should I take it as the gospel's truth that the angel appeared to Mary? And I think that's where you kind of, I mean, some of that is really based upon your own determination and faith. I would say that in a church setting, I've not only heard that shared, I've been in places where it's being shared, and it's certainly something that's shared in church magazines and manuals, right? I don't think you're in any danger of saying, and if you want to soften it, you can, you can say, you know, David Whitmer said that his mother had the angel Moroni appear to her and show her the plates. Now, that's a true statement. It's a true statement, and you explaining where that source comes from doesn't in any way make it not true. It's at least allowing people to know that it's not Mary Whitmer, you know, in 1829 writing in her journal, saw the angel today, also made buttermilk or something like that.
Gerrit It's not in her journal.
Richard Buttermilk came after the angel. Was making buttermilk and also.
Gerrit And also, yeah, you know, hot today, weather very warm, angel appeared, saw plates. Laundry tomorrow. I mean, yeah, you know, if you ever read 19th century journals, that's kind of how they read. But but every one of those instances is different because they the type of source is different. The audience is different. And so I wish I could give you, you know, the oh, this is the proof when it comes to someone attributing something to Joseph Smith. I think you can take the Joseph Smith Papers as your guide. In fact, we're going to be doing a podcast shortly where we deal with one of these questions very up close, where it's here's someone claiming that Joseph Smith received a certain revelation, but they're not claiming it until many years after the fact. Did do we do we treat that as a Joseph Smith revelation? And like I said, we'll approach that in a in a later podcast. But, you know, your other your other question, so I love the way that obviously you've thought a lot about this.
Gerrit But I love the fact you provided two different types of examples here. The first example you provided was. The Mary Whitmer story, and then you provided the other example of God and Jesus appearing in the school of the prophets. Now, this is something we referenced when we were talking about the the Word of Wisdom. And again, if you're wondering, is it accepted in church yet? Not only is it accepted in church when you go to Kirtland. One of the things that the missionaries there will read to you is you're in the in the upper room of the the the Newel K Whitney store. They'll read to you the account of Zebedee Coltrane where he talks about Jesus passing through the room and the father passing through the room. Now, in that case, even though that is incredibly, I mean, I mean, they're seeing collectively Jesus and the father.
Gerrit That's a that's a pretty big deal. But he's also giving that account many years later in a School of the Prophets meeting in Utah. So someone could say, well, maybe he's misremembering that, and you want to be a little careful of the details he's providing because it is so many years later. But he's not the only one who gives an account of that. John Murdoch also gives a later, it's also later, but gives a later account of that experience. But I feel like I'm a car salesman, you know, like I'm doing an infomercial, but wait, that's not all. If you order now, we'll also throw in the minutes from the 1833 meeting March. Actually, the experience you're talking about is one of the coolest ones in Church History. Because while you do have these later accounts where people are describing what they saw, if you go to the minutes of that, the actual minutes of that meeting, let me take you there.
Gerrit It's March 18, 1833. So 18 March, 1833. They're all there, met in the School of the Prophets room. And it's a pretty big deal because Joseph is calling men to the presidency of the high priesthood. And that's a big deal. He's giving keys and things like that. And then as the meeting goes on, let me read the minutes from the Minute Book. After which several exertions were made given to faithfulness and obedience to the commandments of God, and much useful instruction given for the benefit of the saints with a promise that the pure in heart that were present would see a heavenly vision. And after remaining for a short time in secret prayer, the promise was verified to many present, having the eyes of their understanding opened, so as to behold many things, after which bread and wine was distributed by Brother Joseph, so after that they had the sacrament, after which many of the brethren saw a heavenly vision of the Savior and concourses of angels.
Gerrit And that's Frederick G. Williams writing that March 18th of 1833. Again, this isn't going to prove to any of your non-Latter-day Saint friends that obviously Jesus appeared in the School of the Prophets. What this does do, however, is it demonstrates that Zebedee Coltrane and John Murdock aren't just later in life making up the idea that Jesus could have appeared to them in the School of the Prophets. This document is from 1833. Does it prove that Jesus appeared to them? Of course it doesn't, because someone could obviously say on the other side, well, they just wrote that in there, and maybe they were taking the magic mushrooms that we talked about earlier, and that they just thought that they saw him. Of course it doesn't prove that Jesus appeared to them. But it certainly provides some contemporary evidence that at the very least, these men believe that they have seen Jesus.
Gerrit I can't prove whether or not they have, but they are not just 30 years later talking about it. They're talking about it right there, and Frigidy Williams keeping the minutes of this meeting is a, this is a contemporary shared visionary event. This isn't just Joseph saw God in the Grove. This is a dozen plus men in that meeting room are all collectively seeing Jesus. And that's a lot bigger deal than it's a lot. It's very different than the Mary Whitmer account. The Mary Whitmer account was not even recorded by her, but clearly something that she told to her family and her son later told it to other people. Again, that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. It is just very different to have a secondhand later witness rather than a contemporary minutes of a meeting saying that a bunch of people here saw Jesus, that you can see that they're not quite the same thing.
Gerrit In either case, both of those events are accepted in faith by Latter Day Saints. And so I think you're fine in a church setting saying those things. You can always be a little hesitant with some of them. You can always say, David Whitmer said that his mother saw the plates. And that's a true statement. And if someone's like, well, I don't like that, well, then that's fine. But that's still a true statement. David Whitmer did say his mother saw the plates. Let me give you an example of where this becomes much more problematic. It's more problematic the more removed from the original source you become. Many of you have probably heard, let me just ask you, have you ever heard that Joseph Smith taught that the telestial Kingdom is so great and glorious that people would kill themselves to go there if they knew how great it was?
Richard Yes, I've heard that.
Gerrit From your seminary teacher?
Intro From me?
Gerrit Was I the one who said that?
Intro Yeah, it was you.
Richard It's always been you. I've heard it from multiple people.
Gerrit Right, so it's kind of like, it's something you hear people say in the church. Suicide is a pretty difficult topic, so I don't think it usually comes up on the topic of suicide, but I think it comes up more on the topic of our Father's mercy and how great the Kingdoms are, right? Where they're so great and glorious that you would die to get in them, essentially. Well, I've searched through Joseph Smith's papers and he doesn't say that anywhere. And as someone who's written on and loves to research the various kingdoms, because it's like the coolest part of what we believe that we don't realize that we believe, that we don't actually believe in a Protestant hell, but we believe in a type of universal salvation of all mankind, which is a pretty cool thing, you know, I would love to know what that source is, right? Well, where does it come from? If Joseph didn't ever say it, then where did it come from? Well, it comes from a later account through Wilford Woodruff.
Gerrit Now, Wilford Woodruff is a pretty good source, but we're talking much later. So Joseph dies in 1844. This source comes to us from 1877. So at least 33 years later, okay? And if it was just Wilford Woodruff saying, Joseph said to me, you'd kill yourself to get into the traditional kingdom, you know, go Red Sox. If that was what it was saying, that would be different, but that's actually not how we get that source. We get it from a great journal keeper, unlike myself, a guy by the name of Charles, sorry, Charles Lowell Walker. Walker keeps a pretty good journal. And in his journal, August 19th of 1877, he goes to Sunday School. Remember, Sunday School back then wasn't held in the middle of church. It was a later thing. So he goes to the later Sunday School.
Gerrit And this is what he writes. Some of the young brethren spoke, after which Brother Woodruff spoke on the influence the temple had had upon the people of St. George and throughout the settlements of the saints, and that those holy men and women who officiated in the house of the Lord for their kindred dead would have it to meet in the spirit world and would be looked upon with joy as saviors on Mount Zion. And on Friday last while speaking at the funeral of Matilda Moody, he said, We should improve the present time and do all we could for our dead, ere death called us away. He referred to a saying of Joseph Smith, which he heard him utter, and then he has in parentheses, like this, that if the people knew what was behind the veil, they would try by every means to commit suicide that they might get there.
Gerrit But the Lord in his wisdom had implanted the fear of death in every person that they might cling to life and thus accomplish the designs of their Creator. Okay, so you probably already picked up a few of the issues here, right? Even the journal entry he's giving is not from Wilford Woodruff speaking at that moment, right? Sunday, they're having a discussion about the temple. And it's actually last Friday that Wilford Woodruff was speaking at a funeral. And Walker actually even is giving you the hint of folks, this isn't word for word. When he writes in parentheses in his journal, he referred to the saying of Joseph Smith, which he heard him utter, like this. Meaning what I'm about to say isn't word for word, but it's the gist of it, right? Now, I don't know if that's Wilford Woodruff saying, it's the gist of it.
Gerrit More likely it's Walker saying, this is the gist of what I remember Wilford Woodruff saying about that. But here's what's so very interesting when it comes to sources, Daniel. You've always heard it that if the telestial, if we saw the telestial kingdom, if we knew how great it was, if we know how glorious it was, we'd kill ourselves to go there. Notice what's missing from the actual source. Did I say the word telestial at all in reading that? He's just shaking his head at it.
Richard No, no.
Gerrit We're on an audio presentation format, Richard. Most of the time I'm in here, he's shaking his head. Our wives are behind us. They're giving thumbs down.
Richard Oh my goodness, they hate this podcast.
Gerrit Yeah, telling us how terrible this is, falling asleep. They give us constant feedback, and it's always negative.
Richard Yeah, we don't need to read any of their comments online.
Gerrit Wait, if they were to send us emails, they would all be negative. You'll notice what's going on here, and this is kind of an example of how sources get away from you. Well, if the source itself never says anything about the telestial kingdom being so great, you'd kill yourself to go there. How is it that it came down to us as if you knew how great the telestial kingdom was, you'd kill yourself to go there? Well, the answer is because of a false belief. Latter-day saints have falsely believed that if you commit suicide, that that's the same as committing murder, and murderers go to the telestial kingdom, ergo, anyone who commits suicide goes to the telestial kingdom. Now, the church repudiates that. In fact, the church has stated very clearly that that's not the case. In fact, Richard, do you have that?
Richard Yep, so the church has a Gospel Topics essay on that, if you look up suicide, on the churchofjesuschrist.org website. It will take you to that. So I just want to read just a portion of that. Although it is wrong to take one's own life, a person who does so may not be responsible for his or her actions. Only God can fully understand and judge the situation. Elder M. Russell Ballard said, and this was in 1987, Obviously, we do not know the full circumstances surrounding every suicide. Only the Lord knows all of the details. And He is it, or it is He who will judge our actions here on Earth. When He does judge us, I feel He will take all things into consideration. Our genetic and chemical makeup, our mental state, our intellectual capacity, the teachings we have received, the traditions of our fathers, our health, and so forth.
Richard So that was an enzyme article in October of 1987. And it's just an absolutely beautiful sentiment.
Gerrit Yeah. I mean, President Ballard's awesome with basically everything he talks about, but what are they trying to do? Well, so sometimes, here's a great example where we sometimes adopt the doctrines of other religions around us culturally. It is a much more serious issue when it comes to, say, Catholicism, to commit suicide. And so because we've tried to equate the telestial Kingdom with our hell because we are so desperate to have hell, and when Joseph said it doesn't really exist, we still said, no, but I really want it to. We started saying, well, the telestial Kingdom, that's like hell, even though Joseph said it's not. That's the reason why you've heard this quoted to you referencing the telestial Kingdom, because the person doing it was trying to equate the telestial Kingdom with where people who commit suicide go to, even though the quote doesn't say that at all.
Gerrit So it actually shows the dangers of these kinds of quotes because, let me just say, look how far removed we are. I don't know when Joseph actually said that. I'm assuming that he said it before he died. Okay, so before it, now Wilford Woodruff did have lots of visions, so maybe he said it later, okay? But there's nothing to indicate that in our source. So Joseph at the earliest said it 33 years before Wilford Woodruff related it in that meeting. Also, so that allows for, I don't know exactly what Joseph said when he said it, right? Secondly, we actually have another filter there. I'm not actually trying to figure out how Wilford Woodruff remembered what Joseph said 33 years later. With this source, I'm actually trying to figure out how it is that Charles Walker remembered Wilford Woodruff three days earlier remembering what Joseph had said 33 years earlier.
Gerrit And even Walker himself is putting in parentheses something like this, right? Now again, does that mean that Joseph never said anything of the kind? Of course not. It doesn't prove that Joseph didn't say it. But it does mean you would take a source like that, and you would be much more careful in how you use it. First and foremost, probably not good to not even use the source at all. Running around and saying, Joseph said that people would kill themselves just to get into the telestial Kingdom. That isn't part of anything in this source. And that interpretation only developed because of the wrong interpretation, that it's a certainty that if anyone kills themselves, they immediately go to the telestial Kingdom. As we've talked about on a previous podcast, when we talked about the vision, Doctrine and Covenants, Section 76, we don't even know the ultimate end of everyone in those kingdoms.
Gerrit Now again, I know there's a lot of people who think they do, but at least officially, that hasn't been revealed. And so, if we don't even know officially whether or not there's progression between the kingdoms, then it would be an odd thing to say, but for certainty, anyone who commits suicide, they're at the lowest level of the telestial Kingdom.
Richard So that was early on in Season 1, where we talked about the vision from Doctrine and Covenants, Section 76, and Gerrit read an official statement from the Church, I believe from the mid-1950s, about that the Church takes no official stance on the idea of progression from one kingdom to another. And that might come as news to a lot of people who have...
Gerrit You should go back and listen to those episodes where we talk about that, and we talk about those sources. Again, I'm not... When I say we don't know, that's what I actually mean. I'm not saying I don't know.
Richard Well, some people have very strong opinions one way or the other.
Gerrit And people feel very strongly about things, but there's a difference between feeling very strongly about something and the Church having an official position on it. I think that's the case with many issues that the Church deals with. There are people who feel like not having a ham radio in your house is akin to saying that you're not following the prophet because you're not ready for the inevitable disaster with your... You're not just, you know, I'm not just a one-year supply. I'm a 19-year supply because you know you got to be ready. There are people who legitimately see other people who don't have the ham radio set up and solar panels and 10 years of food storage. They see those people as lacking faith because they haven't followed that to that degree, right? And I mean, I know I'm using kind of a facetious example there, but it's, you know, it's also one that hopefully only offends those of you with your ham radio lessons. And the reality is going beyond what it is the Church officially states is actually not helpful.
Gerrit Now, as a historian, I'm more than willing to talk about the sources that exist on both sides of that discussion. But here, in this particular case, we have a source that essentially got corrupted over time because when people were thinking about it, when they read it and it talked about suicide, they immediately equated suicide with going to hell, and they equated hell with the telestial Kingdom. And so the source doesn't actually say that. For all you know, these people are trying to kill themselves to get into the Celestial Kingdom. You actually don't know what is being discussed, and that's if that source was contemporary and if it wasn't secondhand and if it wasn't a reminiscence, and it's actually all of those things. Again, I know you're probably thinking, Daniel, I feel like I shouldn't have even asked the question because I didn't really get an answer. We'll never hear from Daniel again, but we'll probably never even hear from Cincinnati again.
Gerrit It will cease to exist as a city after how badly that was answered. But it really is the case that you have to treat everything on a case-by-case basis. I mean, I think of, you know, Denver Snuffers claims that Jesus has appeared to him. He makes a claim that Jesus has appeared to him. I happen to not believe that. Why? Because I'm pretty sure that if Jesus had a problem with our church today, he wouldn't be appearing to some lawyer from Salt Lake City. If he had a problem, he'd be appearing to the leaders of the church he established and the Quorum of the Twelve he established, and he'd be talking to them. And so for me, you know, inside of the church, when people make claims to miracles that contradict the established order thing, this goes all the way back to our very first two episodes. Essentially, we want you to go back.
Richard Yeah, that's all this is.
Gerrit This entire, I didn't intend it to be this.
Richard Season one, episode 13, amazing. You gotta check it out.
Gerrit I think it's actually our first two episodes. Where we, the first two. They're all great. The fall of, everything's good. They're all good. But the first two episodes, we talk, the fall of the prophet episodes, we actually had this discussion about the multiple times in the early history of the church that people tried to derail Joseph's authority by claiming that they had their own authority. And it, it obviously hugely problematic. And, and I think that that's what I am most concerned with when it comes to sources of spiritual experiences in the past, because, you know, frankly, I can't prove whether or not they happened. Um, but when someone says I had an angel appear to me and tell me that Joseph Smith is a fallen prophet, right, as, as happens in Joseph's time. Well, I'm going to reject that claim, not because I can historically prove that an angel didn't appear to them, because I can't, I can't historically prove a good or an evil angel, but because it's contrary to what God has already revealed.
Gerrit God has already said that truth and revelation for the church are going to come through the established authorities of the church. That doesn't mean y'all can't have great ideas. I still pray to God, even though I know that the revelation for the church can only come through the prophet, but I need personal revelation to help guide me in my life. But that personal revelation won't ever trump what it is that God's prophets have the keys to reveal. I don't have the keys to receive revelation. No matter how wonderfully smart I think I am, no matter how wonderfully righteous I try to be, no matter what I do, I actually don't have the authority to receive revelation for the entirety of the church. And that's how God set it up. If God wanted to change that setup, well, God would probably tell us I'm now changing that setup. It's not going to come from someone who found the fourth feather of Daniel's vision with the eight horns on a YouTube video.
Gerrit That's not how God gives revelation. And the fact that there are so many people claiming that in their particular special circumstance, God is giving it that way. That's just not how God gives it. And so we have another podcast that we're going to talk about on another fairly controversial subject in the church where the church has definitively stated what its position on it is. And yet there are people on both sides of that argument who just refuse to accept that that's what the definitive statement is, because it's not what they want to hear. When you're a part of the church, being a member of the church means believing that ultimately, regardless of what I personally believe, politically or socially or whatever, the church has the ability and has the right to declare what is and is not doctrine for its members. And I could fight against that.
Gerrit I can kick against it. I can say, well, I don't really think so. But that is to my own detriment, because joining the church, part of what I had to accept is that God has prophets and apostles on the earth today. And if God has prophets and apostles, then that is how truth for the whole church will be revealed. It's not going to be revealed because I was reading in some of the early apostolic fathers writings the other day. I'll find some really cool things in there, but it won't be revelation for the church. Revelation for the church can only come through his prophets and apostles, because God declared that that's how his revelation would come. So, I mean, honestly, Daniel, I wish I could give you a more definitive answer, but it really is on an almost case by case basis. I would say if you're worried about feeling comfortable using a source about a miraculous experience in the church in a class or in a teaching setting in church, then you might find a good guide by seeing if it happens to be in Joseph Smith's time period to see if it's referenced in the Joseph Smith Papers, which is easily done.
Gerrit Go to josephsmithpapers.org, and you can type in a search for it or whatever. Or is it on the church's website? Or is it in the church's manuals? Now, please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that everything that's ever been in a church manual is factually accurate. As more and more understanding comes out, and more and more historical understanding especially is developed, some things that we thought were the case, we find, well, they weren't. And like all historians, you move on and you start telling the story with the better sources that you have. So that I'm not saying if you found it ever in a church manual, that proves that it's true. But if you are concerned about what can I share this story about what happened in the in the school of the prophets room, I think you can feel more justified by finding that source, not only on the Joseph Smith Papers, but also all throughout Church of Jesus Christ dot org. And then you can feel more comfortable that it really is a source that's worth using back to the source in question right here.
Gerrit This what what would I do with this? Well, I certainly would not say Joseph Smith definitively taught that people would kill themselves to get into the celestial kingdom. And even if I was using the source exactly what it says, he referred to a saying of Joseph Smith, which he had heard him utter like this, that if the people knew what was behind the veil, they would try by every means to commit suicide that they might get there. Even if I was going to say it, I wouldn't say Joseph Smith taught. I would say Charles Walker recalled hearing Wilfred Woodruff teach that Joseph had once said something to the effect of, and then give the quote. Then I'm being accurate. Now as to whether or not that's true or not, with something like that, I would want to find another corroborating source that demonstrates that it's true.
Gerrit It is a pretty sticky wicket to try to figure out what sources are good or not, because just because someone says a thing doesn't make it so. As every Latter Day Saint knows, there's all kinds of people saying things that are false and blasphemous and lies about our church and its history. And at the same time, even those who are making positive religious claims, sometimes they themselves have been in error as well. So I try to be guided by the Holy Spirit, try to take each source for what it is. If you approach a source that says something that you're not quite sure about, see, is this corroborated somewhere else? Is this used in the church's manuals or in its teachings? How does the Joseph Smith Papers or the Church History Library deal with this source? And that will help you have a better understanding of how you might use that source. I don't know if that was that.
Gerrit Has this been more boring than rice tariffs and townships?
Richard No, not, no, not more than rice tariffs. More than township. The people cry out for township.
Gerrit We've actually had several people email asking for more information on townships.
Richard It's happening. There's a groundswell that's happening. Rice tariffs. We've had zero people.
Gerrit We have a write in third party candidacy.
Richard 780% on Japanese rice tariffs. How is no one interested in that?
Gerrit It's so high. Anyway, thanks for listening this week. And we are going to cover a specific example of this question about what do you do with the later source. We're going to cover a specific example of that next week. So thanks so much for joining us.
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

So we are seriously considering making that the main tagline, Standard of Truth Podcast, answering questions you didn't know you had.

RichardBanter

I mean, none of us would be standing up in church bearing our testimonies about reading the parable of the guy who walked slowly home and made it there safely.

GerritBanter

Every Christian believes the most impossible thing in the history of the world.

GerritInsight

But we don't believe it because we can prove it. We believe it because it's true.

GerritInsight

So it is absolutely a historically true statement to say, David Whitmer said the angel appeared to his mother and showed her the plates.

GerritInsight

I didn't write it down because I'm a terrible journal keeper, because nothing makes you a worse journal keeper than reading everyone else's journals all of your life.

GerritBanter

And also, yeah, you know, hot today, weather very warm, angel appeared, saw plates. Laundry tomorrow.

GerritBanter

And people feel very strongly about things, but there's a difference between feeling very strongly about something and the Church having an official position on it.

GerritInsight

We'll never hear from Daniel again, but we'll probably never even hear from Cincinnati again.

GerritBanter

I don't have the keys to receive revelation.

GerritInsight

More from this episode

Claim checkThings people say, and what the episode shows.

Claim check

What critics say, and what the episode found
Joseph Smith taught that the telestial kingdom is so glorious people would kill themselves to get there.
Anyone who dies by suicide automatically goes to the telestial kingdom.
A story told decades later must be made up.
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

Historians present what most likely happened, and a miracle is never the most likely thing; that is why it's a miracle. Christians believe in the resurrection not because we can prove it, but because it's true.

When sharing a miracle story, say where it came from: "David Whitmer said his mother saw the plates" is a true statement either way.

The 1833 School of the Prophets vision has contemporary minutes that say "many of the brethren saw a heavenly vision of the Savior and concourses of angels."

Before using a story in a lesson, check whether it's in the Joseph Smith Papers, on the church's website, or in its manuals, and whether another source backs it up.

Banter binThe funniest moments in this episode.

Banter bin

The running jokes, for people who skip ahead
The audience: Gerrit's mom (and Rachel's mom)One of a dozen downloaders, or half a dozen, while Richard's mom willfully refuses to listen (0:56, 3:49).
Answering questions you didn't know you hadBreak you down, build you back up, if there's time (2:12, 2:58).
Episodes promised, never madeSeason 18 is for polygamy, and there's a W. W. Phelps letter you'll get an unsatisfactory answer about (3:36, 4:19).
Fanatic JohnJohn's sign-off called back the previous episode's fanatics (4:38).
Doctor inflationDr. Dirkmaat went by Dr. as an undergraduate, and the pronunciation changed with the PhD (4:48, 5:02).
Hush moneyThe friends who bought standardoftruth.com refuse a shout-out (6:46).
We're huge in...Vermont, Cincinnati, and two moms make four (10:31).
Ham radiosThe 19-year food supply and the ham radio as a test of faith (50:11).
Japanese rice tariffsTownships now has a groundswell, but zero people want rice tariffs at 780 percent (60:55, 61:19).
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
Read the March 18, 1833 Kirtland minutes alongside Zebedee Coltrin's and John Murdock's later accounts (33:43).
Read the Gospel Topics essay on suicide and Elder Ballard's October 1987 Ensign article (44:27).
Go back to the Season 1 Follow the Prophet episodes on early challenges to Joseph's authority (53:26).
Search josephsmithpapers.org for a quote you've heard attributed to Joseph and see where it really comes from (57:46).
SOT Litner · S2E27.