SOT LitnerStandard of Truth listener companion
Questions at Standard of Truth
S2E3 · White Horse Prophecy Part 1
0:00 / 54:34
13 chapters
← All episodes
Standard of Truth · Season 2 · Episode 3 · 54:34

White Horse Prophecy Part 1

The famous White Horse Prophecy, with the Constitution hanging by a thread, first shows up about half a century after Joseph supposedly said it, and Church leaders have rejected it more than once.

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

Was the White Horse Prophecy embraced by Church leadership, and where does the expression that the Constitution would hang by a thread come from?

Sue (listener)

Richard brings listener questions from Sue and Tricia about the White Horse Prophecy and where the idea of the Constitution hanging by a thread comes from. Before answering, Gerrit teaches how to judge a source, tracing a popular quote about the telestial kingdom back to a secondhand journal entry and warning against proof texting. He then reads parts of the White Horse Prophecy, explains its weak provenance through Edwin Rushton, and shows why people share it anyway: it tells them what they want to hear. The episode closes with Joseph F. Smith's 1918 rejection of it in general conference and Gerrit's counsel to look to living prophets instead of hearsay.

Who comes upJoseph SmithEdwin RushtonWilford WoodruffCharles Lowell WalkerJoseph F. SmithJohn TaylorBrigham YoungPorter Rockwell
Now playing · 0:38

Questions at Standard of Truth

Richard introduces the new questions email, and both admit they've done a poor job answering.

Chapters

Tap a chapter to jump there

Transcript

74 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, Gerrit Dirkmaat, and I'm joined by my friend, Richard LeDuc.
Richard Well, Gerrit, in today's podcast, we actually wanted to get into some of the questions that we've received over the past couple of months. So I mentioned this in a previous couple of podcasts where we really appreciate the emails that we receive, the responses that we get. And we try to incorporate a lot of those questions that we receive into larger discussions and topics. But sometimes we get questions that are a full topic themselves.
Gerrit Most of the questions, yeah. I mean, a lot of the questions would take, I mean, sometimes there's questions that there just aren't really good answers for, which shows that we're getting really good questions. I mean, if you're asking questions for which there aren't any answers, then that's the sign that you've thought deeply about the topic and there aren't any answers. So you have to get used to disappointment, but there are others that we could at least try to provide some answers to and hopefully it's interesting to other people too.
Richard So now we have an email that we put in the summary of the podcast and it goes out in social media and things. We tried to get an email that would be simple, really easy to remember, easy to type in.
Gerrit So it's super long and annoying and impossible.
Richard So it's questions at standardoftruthpodcast.com.
Gerrit I wanted to be Truth Bomb, but it didn't go. So it's already taken by others, I think.
Richard And we have done a very poor job in responding in email form.
Gerrit And really the podcast in general.
Richard In all aspects. We've done a really poor job.
Gerrit We've done a really poor job and that's the end of the podcast.
Richard So we're going to, we're efforting to do better in the responses, but we want you to know that we read them, really appreciate them. And in this particular podcast, this will kind of shape out what we're going to be talking about today. Cause hopefully we are able to answer some of the questions. And when I say we, I mean, I'm just going to sit here and listen to what Gerrit has to say, but.
Gerrit I'm just copying everything that Richard told me before we pushed the record.
Richard That's right. But that we'll be able to answer a couple of specific questions. Hopefully, and then have a broader discussion about a couple of things from that question. So Sue B had a question about the White Horse Prophecy and wondered if it was embraced by the church leadership and the genesis of the expression that the Constitution would hang by a thread. And Tricia F had a similar question about the White Horse Prophecy and also wanted to know about the vision John Taylor had in 1877 about the last days.
Gerrit Right, and we're trying to, for all we know, you don't want anyone to know that you asked this question, so we're not using your last names. If you do want us to actually state your last name, maybe you want to call out and say, hey, look, my friends, I'm on a podcast here. You can let us know that when you said the question, but yes, both Sue and Tricia have similar questions. And like most people who aren't very good at answering questions, I'm going to answer this question by answering a different question. One of the problems, and we've talked about this when it comes to sources, one of the problems when it comes to kind of the Mormon folklorish things you've always heard or that your high councilman said 20 years ago in sacrament meeting, those kinds of things, they're actually relatively difficult to track down the original source of them. And when you track them down, often you find that the source is either not a very good source or the source that's being quoted varies greatly from the actual source.
Gerrit And this just goes all the way back to our first podcast with the description of the fact that all sources are not equal, they just aren't. And it's one of the things that you're taught in graduate school is that there is a gigantic difference between someone 50 years later saying that they remember that they heard someone say something and someone writing in their journal at the moment, oh, I heard him say this. Now that's not to say that the reminiscence, that the much later account is one that is wrong or false. I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that that account is one that is less reliable. Already when we're talking about this person said this and this person said this, you're at the mercy of whatever someone wrote down. Let's just do a thought experiment here for you.
Gerrit I want you to word for word, write down what the primary speaker said in sacrament meeting on Sunday, the last Sunday you attended. Hopefully that was last Sunday or at least some Sunday that you can remember. At some point in your life, you went to church and if not, may I encourage you at some point to go to church, but pull out a piece of paper right now and write down what they said, but try to do it word for word. Now, my guess is many of you remember what the topic is and you could write down, oh, I remember brother so-and-so talked about this or sister so-and-so talked about that. And I remember they quoted from Alma Five when they did that, right? Maybe at the holiday times of years, it's very easy. It was like, it was Christmas. It was all about Christmas. But you wouldn't be able to remember exactly what they said. And that's only a few days removed from being in that sacrament meeting. You'd remember the general idea.
Gerrit Now, I want you to imagine if you were trying to remember that sacrament meeting 50 years from now. It might be a very profound thing to you, but you're trying to remember that sacrament meeting 50 years from now. Maybe it was the greatest talk you ever heard. I happened to have an audio recording of one of the last times my dad talked in sacrament meeting. And it was a great talk before he really got sick and then passed away. And having heard it several times, I could probably, if someone asked me, what was it about? I could tell you some of the scriptures he quoted. I could write some of it out. But when I go back and listen to it, I find that my memory of what I thought he said is actually slightly different than what he actually said. And sometimes subtle differences make really big differences in what the meaning and the topic is, especially when we're talking about a sermon or a prophecy from a church leader.
Gerrit All of that is to say, before we get upset, before we have our testimonies tied in knots, before we're in arguments with our friends in which someone inevitably lobs a salad fork at the other person because they don't agree on what is doctrine, the first place we should start is what even is the source of the thing that we are discussing and that we're caring about? And so let me give you an example that's unrelated to the questions, like I said, because I'm a bad teacher. You have probably heard people say things like, Joseph Smith said that the telestial Kingdom was so great that if you knew how great it was, you'd commit suicide to get into the telestial Kingdom. Have you ever heard that, Richard?
Richard I have.
Gerrit But not from me.
Richard Not from you.
Gerrit Yet.
Richard I'm about to.
Gerrit Here we are. And here you can record this down. But I'm guessing that at least a lot of people listening have heard that. So where does that come from? Now you can find that quote various places on the internet, but just finding it somewhere on the internet does not actually verify who said it. When they said it, I'd love to know when Joseph Smith said this. Did he say it right after he received Doctrine and Covenants Section 76? Did he say it when he was near the end of his life? When did Joseph Smith say this? Well, I can give you the answer, and the answer is, I have no idea. Which is, for many of the questions we received, that's actually the answer.
Richard Yeah, let's go ahead and answer all the questions we received.
Gerrit All the questions we received, especially the ones on polygamy, I don't know. But the reality is, sometimes there aren't answers, not historical answers, for the questions that people have, at least not ones that can be verified. You'll notice when we talked about Port O Rockwell, I was skating around the center of the pond quite a bit, because I didn't want the ice to break, because the reality is there are so many apocryphal stories. And that term apocryphal, meaning, it's a story that's in circulation. But when you trace it back to its original source, what do you find? It's someone saying that they heard that someone said that, or something that would stand up in any friendship fight, he said, she said.
Richard None of these things would be admissible in court.
Gerrit Yes, frankly, none of it would be. And so it's an example of this. Well, where do we trace this quote of Joseph Smith? Well, we actually can trace it partially through Wilford Woodruff now. Wilford Woodruff, I think we can all agree is a stand-up guy, and an amazing prophet who loved Joseph and kept an amazing journal. But it's not in Wilford Woodruff's journal, this quote, this citation. Instead, it is from another person's journal, and it's actually coming in an entry that is in the journal of Charles Lowell Walker, who also keeps an amazing journal. You can get it online if you want to read just more of an average Latter-day Saints daily journal in the early Utah period. It's pretty incredible. I'm going to read you the journal entry where this comes from.
Gerrit August, Sunday, 19th, 1877. Warm and windy. One of the things you'll notice about nearly all 19th century journals is they care far more about the weather than they do about people. Essentially, the weather is like their insta feed. They care about the weather constantly, and that's because they're using their journals as a kind of their own farmer's almanac, right? So they're always commenting on the weather because the weather affects everything that they're doing, not only their travel, but especially their crop growing, things like that. But you'll notice it's always in there, the weather. Attended Sunday School. Acting as superintendent during the absence of Brother H. Pickett. PM went to meeting. 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 settlement 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 and as saviors on Mount Zion.
Gerrit Now that's a pretty cool quote about temple work that we get this nice tidbit here. And here he's recording it apparently very shortly after the time that Wilford Woodruff says it, right? But then it goes on. 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 it's actually in parentheses, like this, meaning this is his 19th century attempt to kind of caveat this. It's something like this that he said, 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 implemented the fear of death in every person that they might cling to life and thus accomplish the designs of their creator. Now, you'll notice a few things here. First of all, this is someone writing in their journal in August 19th of 1877. Not about something that Joseph Smith said August 19th of 1877. For those of you doing math at home, Joseph has long since been murdered. Three and a half decades almost earlier, Joseph was murdered. So this is a reminiscence of something Joseph at best said 33, well, 33 and a half years earlier. That's at best. Also, there's another separation. The other separation is this actually was something that Wilford Woodruff apparently said the previous Friday.
Gerrit So it's not even the same day, and Wilford Woodruff is apparently remembering something that Joseph said to him. You'll notice also the difference in some of the details, and you know, the devil is in the details, right? Because the quote we often hear is, the telestial Kingdom is so great that you would kill yourself to go there. You'll notice the word telestial Kingdom wasn't in the quote that I read. It's not there. What is there? If people knew what was behind the veil, they would try by every means to commit suicide that they might get there. That sounds much more about the afterlife generally, or maybe perhaps still referring to, because you really do have a veil covering you until after the resurrection. In any case, it's not actually a direct reference to the telestial Kingdom.
Richard It could be the telestial Kingdom, it could be paradise, it could be anything.
Gerrit Only our Catholic sensibilities makes us believe that if we committed suicide, we were going to hell. Remember, we're Latter-day Saints, we don't actually believe that eternal hell exists. And we also have doctrine that says that someone who commits suicide is not in their right frame of mind. And we don't believe that they automatically are condemned. So it's an example of there's a lot of things going on there. So first of all, we have the separation of time. I don't know exactly what Joseph said to Wilford Woodruff. That conversation is not recorded in Wilford Woodruff's journal. So we have the first level of separation, 33 years, at least between when Joseph said it and when Wilford Woodruff is now saying the same thing. Did he hear Joseph right? Did he remember exactly what Joseph said? Now you might say, well, but Wilford Woodruff is an apostle, so he probably has better...
Gerrit Sure, maybe there's all kinds of that. But as a historian, there is still a pretty big level of separation here. Wilford Woodruff is trying to recall by memory something that Joseph Smith said three and a half decades at least earlier, might have been even earlier than that. I mean, the fact that his discussion about the telestial Kingdom might mean it's far earlier, 1835 for all I know. So that's our first level of, well, be careful that this source might not be exactly word for word. It's certainly not word for word. The second level is, I have no idea what Charles Walker actually heard. He is writing in his journal, and with a caveat of like this, what he thinks he heard. As someone who often speaks to people in various fireside formats and things like that, I'm stunned by the amount of things that I apparently said that I am certain that I never said.
Gerrit Because what happens when you're a really active listener and you care a lot about the topic, is you sometimes start to put thoughts and words inside your speaker's mouth. And you're thinking, oh yes, this has to be about X. The speaker never actually says that, but when you relate it to someone else, oh yeah, he was talking all about vaccine mandates. The speaker might not ever have said that, but that's what was on your mind. And so you kind of projected that into what they said. I don't have a transcript of Wilford Woodruff's talk, so I don't know what he actually said. I know that several days later, Charles Walker wrote down some things that he said Wilford Woodruff said, but caveated them by saying it was something like this. And what he wrote down doesn't even mention the telestial Kingdom.
Gerrit But you've heard the quote so often that every time someone talks about it, you've heard it probably, you'll probably hear it again in your life. Oh yes, the telestial Kingdom is so great. Now I'm not disputing the doctrine. I'm not saying that, oh yeah, that's not true. Because Joseph Smith certainly talks about the telestial Kingdom, as we talked about in our D&C 76, if you want to go back to season one, Joseph Smith talks about the telestial Kingdom as being this amazingly glorious place. That it's so great and so glorious that you can't possibly comprehend it unless God opens the heavens to you and shows it to you.
Richard And I think that might be part of it, where people take this one quote that we know that's scriptural almost, right, or something from the Doctrine and Covenants, and then they have something that's a little bit looser over here and then are able to maybe just make the connection to the two.
Gerrit Well, I think that especially happens when people are trying to find answers to current questions via the statements or reported statements of previous prophets and apostles. So with COVID, there was a huge upsurge in people claiming that it was the last days. In fact, I'm guessing that Trisha's question, because she said she was having a conversation with her friend, I'm guessing that their question originated in, oh my goodness, do you see how bad it is outside? I mean, this is terrible. And I'm not even just talking about the road construction in Utah. I mean, the COVID is so terrible and it's altering lives. Do you think that this is the end? For the last two years, we've had quite a few people saying, this looks like it's the end. And so when people are having conversations like that, what happens? They begin to try to find things that prove the point they want to make.
Gerrit Now, as a historian, this is already a big red flag. You are trying to find a source that proves the point that you believe no matter what the source actually says. So instead of saying, what did Joseph Smith think about the government, we say, well, Joseph Smith said X about the government because it proves the point we want to make. So all good historians and people who want to be good students of history, they are not attempting to prove a point that they already have. They're attempting to demonstrate what it is someone in the past believed, independent of what someone today believes, which is often very different than the way that people use both the scriptures and statements of prophets. Often in the field, this is called proof texting.
Gerrit This is when someone uses a scriptural verse to try to make a point that the author of that scriptural verse was never intending to make. So it sounds scriptural and it sounds authoritative, but it's also a point that's taken completely out of the context of what was said. There are multiple examples of this where people are attempting to prove the point by taking a scripture reference out of context. For instance, this is an often one that's thrown at missionaries. The Book of Mormon must not be true because Nephi was commanded to kill Laban, and God said, Thou shalt not kill. Aha, I've got it, I proved it, all the Mormons are liars and wrong. Now, that person who's apparently familiar with the Bible, but clearly isn't that familiar with the Bible, is quoting a passage in the Bible.
Gerrit Thou shalt not kill. As if that passage is a standalone meaning that anyone who has ever killed ever is a sinner in the eyes of God. But then that same Bible, including the same book, will go on to command those same Israelites to kill all sorts of people. So, if I take the commandment, thou shalt not kill, and I try to make it say something that the author of the book never intended it to say, meaning that there will never be any killing of any kind, even in war, even to defend yourself, well then I'm proof texting. I'm trying to prove a point by taking a scripture out of context in order to prove a wider point, and the reality is it's almost always a present day point. You'll occasionally hear people say things like, well where does it say that in the Book of Mormon?
Gerrit Well, I've got news for you. Almost nothing that we believe is said in the Book of Mormon. Look, we believe in Jesus, that's in the Book of Mormon. We believe that he came to the Americas, that's in the Book of Mormon. We believe in resurrection. We believe in doing what's right. We believe we're saved by grace. But that's really just the beginning point of what we believe. The Book of Mormon doesn't say anything about eternal marriage, but we still believe that, right? The Book of Mormon doesn't say anything about premortal existence, but we believe that. And so often this idea of proof texting comes when someone is trying to prove a political or social point, a personal point of view that they hold deeply, and then they're scouring the, usually the internet, hopefully the scriptures, for something that supports the position that they've already taken. And that creates a kind of false understanding of what was said.
Gerrit When we talk about things surrounding the end times, there obviously are a lot of things that prophets and apostles have said. I mean, even if you're just reading the Bible, I mean, there's a lot in there. Go read Revelation and Zechariah and Matthew 25 and you'll say, oh, there's a lot that's in there. But those who attempt to try to place specific instances with, aha, this is the end time, that's usually where you start to run into some problems. And that's certainly where people ran into problems over this last year. You had many people really believing that Jesus was coming again in April of 2021. I'm sorry to report that we're well beyond April 2021 and either he's not here or I don't recognize him. I mean, it didn't happen. So, back to the White Horse Prophecy.
Gerrit This is one of the more controversial prophecies that actually has some kind of mainstream play. And that's because it makes a huge reference to the impending destruction of the nation and these various colored horses factor prominently in it. Let me read part of it to you. I'm not going to read the whole thing to you because you've got better things to do and I have better things to do. But I'm going to read part of it so you get a flavor of what kinds of things are in it and so you can understand the reason why people cite to it or the reason why it gets so much press that it does. So I'm going to talk about the sourcing for this in a minute. And, you know, spoiler alert, it's terrible. Okay, so when we talk about various sources, this is as close as you get to a source that doesn't even actually exist as you get to a historical document.
Gerrit But on about the 6th of May, 1843, a grand review of the Nauvoo Legion was held in Nauvoo. The Prophet Joseph Smith complimented them for their good discipline and evolutions performed. The weather being hot, he called for a glass of water. With a glass of water in hand, he said, I will drink a toast to the overthrow of the mobocrats, which he did in the following language. And then he goes on to say some different things. You know, just to start off, I mean, since I won't circle back around to this, we don't even know if there was a review of the Nauvoo Legion on May 6, 1843. So, right, so the historical context in which this is being placed is something for which Joseph's journal doesn't say, today I reviewed the Nauvoo Legion, right? So you kind of get this idea. So I'm going to skip a bunch of this. Joseph gets involved in this conversation, and he says, while this conversation was going on, this is what the White Horse Prophecy document says, while this conversation was going on, we stood by his south wicket gate in a triangle.
Gerrit Turning to me, he said, now this is purportedly a man by the name of Edwin Rushton, is a part of this conversation. So he's the one who's saying, this is what Joseph said. That's why he's saying, he turned to me. He said, I want to tell you something for the future. I will speak in a parable likened to John the Revelator. You will go to the Rocky Mountains and you will be a great and mighty people established there, which I will call the White Horse of Peace and Safety. That's where it gets this name, the White Horse of Peace and Safety. When the Prophet said, you will see it, I said, where will you be at that time? He said, I shall never go there. Your enemies will continue to follow you with persecution and they will make obnoxious laws against you in Congress to destroy the White Horse. But you will have a friend or two to defend you and throw out the worst parts of the law so they will not hurt you so much. You must continue to petition Congress all the time, but they will treat you like strangers and aliens and they will not give you your rights, but will govern you as strangers and commissioners.
Gerrit You will see the Constitution of the United States almost destroyed. It will hang like a thread as a fine, as a silk fiber. At that time, the Prophet's countenance became sad because as he said, I love the Constitution. It was made by the inspiration of God and it will be preserved and saved by the efforts of the White Horse and by the Red Horse who will combine in its defense. The White Horse will find the mountains full of minerals and they will become rich. At this time, it must be remembered that the precious metals were not known to exist in either the Rocky Mountains or California. You get already a sense that this is clearly a reminiscence because the person is making a reference to the gold rush in California in 1849. So at best, you are half a decade removed from when this statement was made, but we'll keep going. You will see the silver piled up in the streets. You will see gold shoveled up like sand.
Gerrit Anyway, it's going to go on to say a lot of the things that are going to happen. And this is the reason why it becomes, you know, it becomes the kind of thing that someone who's looking for direction of the last days prophecy sees. Jumping forward here a little bit. The two popes, Greek and Catholic, will eventually come together in their decline and be united. The Protestant religions do not know how much they are indebted to Henry VIII for throwing off the Pope's bill and establishing the Protestant faith. He was the only monarch who could do so at the time, and he did it because the nation was at his back to sustain him, which is also entirely false, given the fact that multiple other monarchs in Europe rejected Catholicism and embraced Protestantism. This person is assuming that I guess Joseph doesn't know the multiple monarchs in what is today Germany that adopted Lutheranism, but especially Denmark and Sweden and Norway and all these other countries.
Gerrit I mean, there are other monarchs that did. So now I'm criticizing a false revelation, essentially like, well, this false revelation doesn't know very much about this. But one of the peculiar features in England is the established red coat, a uniform making so remarkable a target to shoot at. You can see this thing kind of rambles in multiple different directions. OK, were this an actual statement of Joseph Smith? This White Horse Prophecy so-called would be significantly longer than any other revelation or sermon or statement we have from Joseph Smith. And I mean by thousands and thousands of words. So first red flag that should arise. Well, first red flag that should arise. The person who's talking to you about it is talking to you about it because they think it proves their theory of the end of time.
Gerrit So they are by definition proof texting. How do you know that? Well, I'm going to guess that this person wasn't on their Saturdays reading every single journal in the church history archives and then suddenly came upon this journal entry from John Roberts who is quoting what Edwin Rushton said he heard Joseph Smith say a half a century earlier. Right? So if that's not how they came upon it, then almost by definition, they're proof texting. This happens a ton with the Journal of Discourses. I'm going to guess that very few of my listeners, I would guess very few, right, have read every single sermon in the dozens of volumes of the Journal of Discourses. Now, there's someone listening right now saying, I have, okay, I said most, right?
Gerrit You're the exception. Congratulations. Send us an email on it. And yet, when you hear people make antagonistic statements towards Brigham Young or things like that, they're often quoting a particular portion of the Journal of Discourses. The question first to be asked is, how did that person come about that information? Were they doing an exhaustive study of every sermon Brigham Young gave, and then, you know, ten years into that study, came to this one line in one of his sermons that bothered them, and that's the reason why they have a problem with it? Or, which is far more likely, someone told them, hey, in this source, there's this line that you should have a problem with. So they've set the table of what the problem is, then given a source saying, see, this proves the problem, and the person who receives it thinks that they are doing real research because they're using a source.
Gerrit But they're not doing real research because they probably can't even tell you when the sermon was given. They can't tell you the sermon that came before or after it. They can't tell you anything that's going on in Utah during the time. Frankly, they've actually done no research. What do they have? They have information without context. That's something that is the biggest warning flag when it comes to something like this. The person sharing it did not get this from the church archives and say, my goodness, look what I found. Someone shared it with them or they found it on someone's blog post where they're sharing it with other people. In either case, there wasn't actual research done to obtain the document. There was simply a parroting or a mimicry of something that they found somewhere else, but not in a scholarly way.
Gerrit This thing goes on and on and on. There's all kinds of stuff in here.
Richard You said that this is written half a century after?
Gerrit Look, the provenance of this is pretty tough. The claim is made that Edwin Rushton, who's a believer, I'm not saying he's some kind of anti-mormon, is that he is claiming that he had this conversation with Joseph in 1843. And that in 1854, he supposedly gave this information to people explaining it. So even by his estimation, it's 11 years later. But the reality is when you analyze the actual, the earliest source we have, the earliest source we have is someone copying it into their journal, which is the source that's usually used. But that is probably in the 1890s. So, A, I don't even know if Joseph Smith ever said any of these things. Frankly, I don't know if Edwin Rushton ever said any of these things. What do I know? That someone half a century removed from the events is writing them into their journal, taking them from what they say is a source that's coming from Edwin Rushton.
Gerrit So that's pretty terrible provenance. But because it says something that people want to hear, because it's provocative like we talked about with false revelation, why do people heed to false revelations? Because it tells people what they want to hear. It's not a surprise that several apostate groups in the church today will say things like, well, you know, Joseph Smith never actually practiced or taught plural marriage. Wow, what a popular position to take. Now, no historian takes that position because there are so many sources that demonstrate that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage. But what's the last thing that anyone in the United States anyway in the 21st century wants to deal with? None of them want to deal with the difficulties and the problems surrounding the fact that Latter-day Saints practiced plural marriage. So how can I believe what I want to believe, but not have to deal with the problems surrounding this very difficult topic?
Gerrit Well, I'll just say that he never taught it or practiced it. And now I don't have to deal with it. Now it's crazy Uncle Brigham who did it, which is the way that people sometimes try to push this stuff off. The point is, the person doing that is giving exactly what people want to hear. What's the most difficult part of your testimony? For some people it is, it's so hard for me to come to terms with the fact that church practiced plural marriage. Well, what if they didn't? Well, that sounds a lot better. Now suddenly that sounds like it's something I can get behind, right? And so that's another aspect of this that's a real problem. People who are sharing this are sharing it not because it has great provenance, not because it's coming from Joseph's Journal, not because it's been verified by scholars, not because it's endorsed by the church, but because it says what they want to hear, right? That the Constitution is going to dangle by a thread and the White Horse is going to step in and save it. Now, there's a couple of aspects of this.
Gerrit People say, well, this points to the church moving to the Rocky Mountains, and it's the earliest time that Joseph ever even talked about the Rocky Mountains. That argument is in and of itself not accurate. In fact, one of our earliest letters we have in the church is from Thomas Marsh writing to his family in 1830 trying to convince them that they should, well, it's actually 1831, early 1831, he's writing to his family trying to convince them that they should pick up everything in Massachusetts and move to New York and then move to Ohio. They're not members of the church, so imagine the kinds of arguments he's trying to make in there. But he, in that letter, reflects a reference to the Rocky Mountains. He says, we don't know where we'll eventually go. Maybe it'll be on the Grand Prairies of the Missouri, which he spells incredibly poorly.
Gerrit He spells it prerereres, which is how I'd like to pronounce it from now on. Or to the Shining Mountains, which are 2,000 miles distant. The Shining Mountains is what they called the Rocky Mountains in 1831. So you don't need this prophecy to have early Latter-day Saint reference to a possible move to the Rocky Mountains. You actually have one that's 12 years earlier from one of the earliest members of the church, who clearly must be discussing it. So there's that. I think the other part is the fact that they're going to step in and save the Constitution. Again, this idea that the Constitution is inspired by God, but is either itself corrupted or that the nation is corrupted because of the leaders of the nation, is not something you need the White Horse Prophecy to prove. If you go back and listen to our Council of 50 podcast or our podcast surrounding Joseph Smith's run for the presidency, Joseph Smith talks about the deficiencies in both the nation and in the Constitution all the time.
Gerrit You don't need this, you know, pseudepigraphic, possibly, you know, forged or fraudulent claim to a Joseph Smith revelation to get that argument. Joseph believes by the end of his life that the nation is so far corrupted that the Saints have to leave it, that they can't just move to another state. They need to go to Mexico or to the Republic of Texas. So this, this prophecy, I think people glam onto it because they don't know those things. They don't know that Joseph in multiple other places is saying, we got to get out of Dodge and this country is corrupt and evil. And so when they read it there for the first time, it strikes them because they say, oh, wow, I can't believe Joseph actually said that. Well, Joseph actually said a lot of other things. I mean, heavens, as we were quoting John Taylor to you and how he felt about the United States, we almost had to put an explicit lyrics, you know, a, you know, marker on the podcast because John Taylor says what he has to say.
Gerrit So I think it's also really important to say not only is this not in any way considered credible by any scholar of Joseph Smith, it actually has been rejected by the Church and on multiple occasions. It's actually something you can find on the Church's website. The Church's denunciation of this as an actual prophecy. But let me just share some of this. This is in General Conference. In October of 1918, Joseph Fielding Smith, okay, so who was still a boy when Joseph was murdered, this is Hyrum Smith's son, said, I've discovered that people have copies of a purported vision by the Prophet Joseph Smith given in Nauvoo, and some people are circulating this supposed vision or revelation or conversation which the Prophet is reported to have held with a number of individuals in the city of Nauvoo. I want to say to you, my brethren and sisters, that if you understand the Church articles and covenants, if you will read the Scriptures and become familiar with those things which were recorded in the revelations from the Lord, it will not be necessary for you to ask any further questions in regard to the authenticity or otherwise of any purported revelation, vision or manifestation that proceeds out of darkness, concocted in some corners surreptitiously presented and not coming through the proper channels of the Church.
Gerrit Let me add that when a revelation comes for the guidance of this people, you may be sure that it will not be presented in some mysterious manner, contrary to the order of the Church. It will go forth in such a form that the people will understand that it comes from those who are in authority, for it will be sent either to the presidents of the stakes and the bishops of the wards over their signatures of the presiding authorities, or it will be published in some regular papers or magazines under the control and direction of the Church, or it will be presented before such a gathering as this at general conference. It will not spring up in some distant part of the Church and be in the hands of some obscure individual without authority, and thus be circuited among the Latter-day Saints. Now you may remember this. Now, that was Joseph Fielding Smith, sorry, the apostle. This is actually the grandson of him. It was Joseph F. Smith who then gets up and says, the ridiculous story about the red horse and the black horse and the white horse and a lot of trash that's been circulated about.
Gerrit How do you feel about it, Joseph F. Smith? Ed printed and sent around as a great revelation given by the Prophet Joseph is a matter that was gotten up. I understand some 10 years after the death of the Prophet Joseph by two of our brethren who put together some broken sentences from the Prophet that they may have heard from time to time and formulated this so-called revelation out of it. And it was never spoken by the Prophet in the manner in which they put it forth. It is simply false and that is all there is to it. So that's a pretty authoritative denunciation of it, both from a current Prophet and also an Apostle who would then become a Prophet. Well, that was in 1918 in general conference. Why is it still making the rounds now? Because it's very interesting. It seems to talk about the last days and it tells people what they want to hear.
Gerrit And that's the reason why. It's how it is for a lot of false revelation. But if we go forward, the reality is the Church will multiple times essentially say that this is not a credible revelation of Joseph. There are Latter-day Saints who believe that the Brethren, that the Church will have something to do with helping protect the Constitution. Well, that is something that is repeated multiple times. For instance, John Taylor is going to say something to the effect in 1879. He will say, the day is not too far distant when this nation will be shaken from Senator's circumference and now you may write it down, any of you, and I'll prophesy in the name of God, then we'll be fulfilled the prediction to be found in one of the revelations given through the Prophet Joseph.
Gerrit Those who will not take up the sword to fight against their neighbor must flee to Zion for safety. And they will come saying, we do not know anything of the principles of your religion, but we perceive that you are an honest community. You administer justice and righteousness, and we want to live with you and receive the protection of your laws. But as for your religion, we will talk about that some other time. Will we protect such people? Yes, all honorable men. When the people shall have torn to shreds the Constitution of the United States, the elders of Israel will be found holding it up to the nations of the earth and proclaiming liberty and equal rights to all men, and extending the hand of fellowship to the oppressed of all nations. So you find similar aspects of this, part of the reason why the whole Constitution dangle by the thread. There are certainly, and we could actually spend an entire podcast talking about the various comments that are made about this idea that in the last days, the church will be a means of order in an otherwise disorderly world.
Gerrit I mean, if you know anything about the Second Coming, you're well aware that things are going to be bad before it happens, right? Joseph Smith does give something fairly similar, at least as far as this constitutional thing, at least recorded by a much better source, which is James Burgess, he's a member of the church who's going to make this record. Joseph Smith made some remarks upon our condition as a people and upon our future prospects, contrasting our present condition with past trials and persecutions by the hands of our enemies. And upon the Constitution and government of the United States stating that the time would come when the Constitution would hang by a brittle thread and would be ready to fall into other hands, but this people, the Latter-day Saints, would step forth and save it. So you have another source that is much more provenance.
Gerrit Again, it's hearsay. This is someone saying that this is what they heard Joseph say. And it's also not recorded exactly at the time. But you have other sources that talk about this. Now, what does that even mean? I don't know that anyone knows that. When someone says, oh yes, that means that Utah is going to become the capital of the United States. I mean, I don't think anyone knows what that means and what balance that has. And so to try to paint into our present, the explanation of a prophetic statement from 170 years ago is highly problematic because the person making the statement was a prophet. The person interpreting the statement is not, unless you're having this conversation with President Nelson. And then whatever he has to say about it, I think you can go with. But for most of us, we're just having a conversation. You know, Richard and I are just, you know, hey, do you think this is the end?
Gerrit You know, the Omicron variant, is that it? I mean, well, so I don't have the keys to interpret the prophecy or revelations that Joseph Smith is giving or exactly how they are. I will say there are lots of other examples and when people thought it was the end, I mean, it's clear that Paul thought that the turmoil that happened during his lifetime was going to usher in the Second Coming of Christ. And it did not. When we talked about Doctrine and Covenant, section 87, when the Civil War broke out, Latter-day Saints in Utah, who had been persecuted like crazy, driven to the wilderness, prophets murdered, no one prosecuted, they really, many of them, really thought, this is it, this is probably the end. When the massive conflagrations of war, like World War I, where tens of millions of people are going to die, the Spanish flu, which is going to kill tens of millions of people all over the world, far, far, far more deadly than at least at this point COVID has been, which again is horrible.
Gerrit Millions of people died, but the Spanish flu was by many, many margins, far more deadly. Tens of millions of people are killed all over the world. People had said, this must be the end, this must be the discussion of the sicknesses. And then you have World War II, where 60 to 80 million people are killed in the space of roughly seven years. There are people who are saying, this is it, this must be what ushered in the end times. Part of the problem is we don't even know what Jesus means when he talks about the last days in Matthew. What time period is he assigning to this? Maybe in the grand scheme of the eternities, 200 years of turmoil is essentially one second. And so they're speaking of the wars and rumors of wars from 1850 to 2022 as if they're the same time period.
Gerrit That's part of the problem. So again, I've said this before, but it's always best to go back to what is your current prophet saying? If we're not willing to do what our current prophet is saying, it doesn't matter if we find, as Joseph Fielding Smith said, some obscure revelation somewhere that tells us something important about the last days. Because we have a modern living prophet that we already aren't listening to. So what difference would a dead prophet with a supposedly obscure statement mean? What difference would it make? Well, we want to continue to talk about and answer the second question about this reputed or reported vision of John Taylor from 1877. But we're going to have to push that to the next episode. We kind of run out of time, and it's going to take a lot longer to describe that than I have right now. So thank you very much for joining us. I look forward to talking about this more, and we'll talk about other ways that sometimes people are led, they are deceived either intentionally or unintentionally by sources that may not have the best provenance and certainly aren't coming from our current prophets and apostles.
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 it's super long and annoying and impossible.

GerritBanter

We've done a really poor job and that's the end of the podcast.

GerritBanter

And like most people who aren't very good at answering questions, I'm going to answer this question by answering a different question.

GerritBanter

the first place we should start is what even is the source of the thing that we are discussing and that we're caring about?

GerritInsight

None of these things would be admissible in court.

RichardBanter

Essentially, the weather is like their insta feed.

GerritBanter

What do they have? They have information without context.

GerritInsight

He spells it prerereres, which is how I'd like to pronounce it from now on.

GerritBanter

If we're not willing to do what our current prophet is saying, it doesn't matter if we find, as Joseph Fielding Smith said, some obscure revelation somewhere that tells us something important about the last days.

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 said the telestial kingdom is so great you'd commit suicide to get there.
The White Horse Prophecy is a genuine prophecy of Joseph Smith.
Only the White Horse Prophecy shows Joseph thought of the Rocky Mountains or of the Saints saving the Constitution.
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

Before arguing over a quote, ask where it comes from: a journal written that day is far more reliable than a memory recorded fifty years later.

Proof texting is starting with the point you want to make and hunting for a verse or quote to back it; good students of history try to learn what people in the past actually meant.

The White Horse Prophecy spreads because it tells people what they want to hear, not because of its sources, and Church leaders rejected it in general conference in 1918.

People have thought their own troubles were the end in Paul's day, the Civil War, the world wars and COVID; the safest guide is what the current prophet is teaching.

Banter binThe funniest moments in this episode.

Banter bin

The running jokes, for people who skip ahead
The absurdly long email addressThey wanted something short and easy, so it's questions@standardoftruthpodcast.com; Truth Bomb was taken (1:40).
A really poor jobRichard admits slow email replies, and Gerrit extends it to the podcast in general and ends the episode early (2:08).
Gerrit never answers the question (quickly)"I'm going to answer this question by answering a different question," because he's a bad teacher (3:20, callback 7:44).
Salad forks over doctrineArguments where someone inevitably lobs a salad fork because they can't agree on what is doctrine (7:44).
Weather is their insta feedEvery 19th-century journal cares more about the weather than people (11:18).
Road construction in UtahWorse than the signs of the times, or at least on par (19:41).
PrerereresThomas Marsh's spelling of prairies, which Gerrit plans to adopt (40:20).
Explicit lyrics labelJohn Taylor's views on the United States almost required a parental advisory sticker (41:32).
CliffhangersJohn Taylor's reported 1877 vision gets pushed to next episode (52:49).
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 more of Charles Lowell Walker's journal, which Gerrit recommends as a window into an average Latter-day Saint's life in early Utah (10:15).
Find the Church's own statements rejecting the White Horse Prophecy, which Gerrit says are on the Church's website (42:39).
Compare the James Burgess account of the Constitution hanging by a brittle thread with the White Horse Prophecy version (48:25).
Revisit the Council of Fifty and Joseph's presidential campaign episodes for what Joseph said about the nation and the Constitution (40:20).
SOT Litner · S2E3.