Newly found revelation of Joseph Smith

[Hemidakota]

By Michael De Groote

Mormon Times

Friday, Oct. 16, 2009

ARTICLE EXCERPT: According to Whitmer, Joseph used his seer stone "and received a revelation that some of the brethren should go to Toronto, Canada, and that they would sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon."

Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Knight, Hiram Page and Josiah Stowell were selected for the task to go to Canada.

The brethren, however, failed to sell the copyright.

Whitmer wrote that he remembered when Page and Cowdery returned: "Well, we were all in great trouble; and we asked Joseph how it was that he had received a revelation from the Lord for some brethren to go to Toronto and sell the copy-right, and the brethren had utterly failed in their undertaking."

Whitmer said Joseph "enquired of the Lord about it" and received a revelation that said, "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil."

"David Whitmer puts those words into Joseph Smith's mouth," Harper said. "That's exactly what I expect out of David Whitmer."

ARTICLE LINK: MormonTimes - Newly found revelation of Joseph Smith

Edited October 16, 2009 by Hemidakota

[BOMC]

"David Whitmer puts those words into Joseph Smith's mouth," Harper said. "That's exactly what I expect out of David Whitmer."

This is the actual context of what David said:

When the Book of Mormon was in the hands of the printer, more money was needed to finish the printing of it. We were waiting on Martin Harris who was doing his best to sell a part of his farm, in order to raise the necessary funds. After a time Hyrum Smith and others began to get impatient, thinking that Martin was too slow and under transgression for not selling his land at once, even if at a great sacrifice.

Brother Hyrum thought they should not wait any longer on Martin Harris, and that the money should be raised in some other way. [page 31] Brother Hyrum was vexed with Brother Martin, and thought they should get the money by some means outside of him, and not let him have anything to do with the publication of the Book, or receiving any of the profits thereof if any profits should accrue.

He was wrong in thus judging Brother Martin, because he was doing all he could toward selling his land. Brother Hyrum said it had been suggested to him that some of the brethren might go to Toronto, Canada, and sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon for considerable money: and he persuaded Joseph to inquire of the Lord about it.

Joseph concluded to do so. He had not yet given up the stone. Joseph looked into the hat in which he placed the stone, and received a revelation that some of the brethren should go to Toronto, Canada, and that they would sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon.

Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery went to Toronto on this mission, but they failed entirely to sell the copyright, returning without any money. Joseph was at my father's house when they returned. I was there also, and am an eye witness to these facts. Jacob Whitmer and John Whitmer were also present when Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery returned from Canada.

Well, we were all in great trouble; and we asked Joseph how it was that he had received a revelation from the Lord for some brethren to go to Toronto and sell the copyright, and the brethren had utterly failed in their undertaking.

Joseph did not know how it was, so he inquired of the Lord about it, and behold the following revelation came through the stone:

Some revelations are of God; some revelations are of men; and some revelations are of the devil.

So we see that the revelation to go to Toronto and sell the copyright was not of God, but was of the devil or of the heart of man. (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1887, pp. 30-31)

Harper conveniently left out the detail of how Hyrum Smith misjudged Martin Harris. According to David Whitmer, that was the whole problem.

Seeking to disparage David Whitmer Harper refers to him as being "excommunicated" and one who "erroneously remembered" which city they went to.

The fact's are:

• David Whitmer was never excommunicated.
• Kingston was crossed out of the revelation.

The issue of Hyrum coercing Joseph to get a revelation in a scheme that would leave Martin Harris out of the profits was alarming to Martin who did in fact find this out. To fix the problem:

"Joseph guaranteed him in writing that he would share in any profits made from the subsequent sales of the book." (Marvin S. Hill, Quest for Refuge, 1989, p. 20)

Thus, the facts of David's "160 year" "side of the story" are far from "erroneous." In fact, they give insights of a dynamic between Hyrum and Joseph most Historians have overlooked.

[FlyingPurpleMonkey]

I read the supposed revelation over at Deseret News... not very impressive. I'm not buying it as authentic revelation.

[Just_A_Guy]

I read the supposed revelation over at Deseret News... not very impressive. I'm not buying it as authentic revelation.

It came out of the First Presidency vault. The provenance--at least back to Joseph Smith--seems pretty solid.

BOMC, all this seems beside the point. Whitmer paints the revelation as an unconditional promise that the copyright would be sold. The text of the revelation is conditional, thus materially differing from Whitmer's recollection. Emphasizing (Whitmer's allegations of) Hyrum's dirty laundry is interesting, but it really doesn't affect the thrust of the article.

[BOMC]

It came out of the First Presidency vault. The provenance--at least back to Joseph Smith--seems pretty solid.

BOMC, all this seems beside the point. Whitmer paints the revelation as an unconditional promise that the copyright would be sold. The text of the revelation is conditional, thus materially differing from Whitmer's recollection. Emphasizing (Whitmer's allegations of) Hyrum's dirty laundry is interesting, but it really doesn't affect the thrust of the article.

There could be a question here, but the revelation Joseph received identified exactly where the breakdown was - the Toronto revelation itself - sorry.

As David stated, it was a lesson he wished they had paid more attention to:

This was a lesson for our benefit and we should have profited by it in the future more than we did. (Ibid)

[Just_A_Guy]

There could be a question here, but the revelation Joseph received identified exactly where the breakdown was - the Toronto revelation itself - sorry.

Could you explain that a little better? I'm not sure where you're going there.

[BOMC]

Could you explain that a little better? I'm not sure where you're going there.

Here:

We asked Joseph how it was that he had received a revelation from the Lord for some brethren to go to Toronto and sell the copyright, and the brethren had utterly failed in their undertaking. Joseph did not know how it was, so he inquired of the Lord about it, and behold the following revelation came through the stone:

Some revelations are of God; some revelations are of men; and some revelations are of the devil.

[Maxel]

I'm not familiar with either Whitmer's account or the text of the recorded revelation, but from the outside looking in we seem to have the following situation:

-Two differeng accounts of the same event.

-One account is written according to one man's memory in a publication where he sought to discredit the man who produced the revelation.

-The other account is (I'm assuming) hand-written fairly close to the time it was given by one seeking to record it for the records of an organization, and possibly for publication.

Which would probably be more accurate?

[Just_A_Guy]

BMOC, I'm still not sure where you're going exactly. But it sounds like you're basically saying that Whitmer's account of Joseph Smith's words is reliable, even though that same account (written 50 years after the fact) differs from the revelation manuscript (written contemporaneously with, or at most two or three years after the fact) as to what city they were actually supposed to go to; and even though Whitmer had the added bonus of writing when all the other parties involved were dead.

Is that what you're saying?

[BOMC]

I'm not familiar with either Whitmer's account or the text of the recorded revelation

Both items were mentioned above.

BMOC, I'm still not sure where you're going exactly. But it sounds like you're basically saying that Whitmer's account of Joseph Smith's words is reliable, even though that same account (written 50 years after the fact) differs from the revelation manuscript (written contemporaneously with, or at most two or three years after the fact) as to what city they were actually supposed to go to; and even though Whitmer had the added bonus of writing when all the other parties involved were dead. Is that what you're saying?

We have an attempt by historians to re-state history in a way that makes it other than what it really was. No one is disputing the revelation, what is of interest however is the reply Joseph allegedly received from God for why they did not succeed in selling the copyright.

That revelation was not recorded, however David was present when it was received.

Edited October 17, 2009 by BOMC

[Just_A_Guy]

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a kernal of truth in Whitmer's story about the quotation.

But in that same account, the demonstrable fact is that Whitmer completely mischaracterized the conditional nature of the revelation.

So I wouldn't get too strident about who was really "re-stating history". Whitmer's account is problematic and, to be blunt, self-serving. Doesn't make it wrong in every particular. But it's certainly not historical gospel, either.

[BOMC]

...the demonstrable fact is that Whitmer completely mischaracterized the conditional nature of the revelation.

For the life of me I can't understand what condition it is you are certain David mischaracterized??

On the other hand, I think it is wonderful that David Whitmer is being vindicated on all sides including:

• That Joseph changed the revelations (Thank you Joseph Smith Papers Project).
• That Joseph "dictated" the Book of Mormon (Thank you Royal Skousen).
• That Joseph gave some false revelations.* (Historical fact.)

The days of disparaging David Whitmer, and calling him an "excommunicated apostate" are over.

*If anyone wants to know what some of those are just ask.

[Just_A_Guy]

Whitmer: Said they were to go to Toronto.

Revelation: Said they were to go to Kingston (later edited to remove any specific city).

Whitmer: Said the revelation said they "would sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon"; no mention of condition precedent; failure to sell copyright = false prophecy.

Revelation: Said the copyright would be sold "if the people harden not their hearts against the enticings of my spirit and my word"; failure to sell copyright possibly explained by hardened hearts = not a false prophecy.

How on earth do differences between Whitmer's version of the revelation and the text of the revelation itself vindicate Whitmer?

By the way, insisting that "Whitmer wasn't excommunicated" (while neglecting to mention that a hearing was held, Whitmer refused to show up, the hearing chose to excommunicate him, and Whitmer's main beef was that the council didn't hold authority over him) is misleading.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[deseretgov]

So was the revelation that "some revelations are from God, man, or the Devil," from the devil?

If anyone wants to know what some of those are just ask.

So what are they?

[BOMC]

Whitmer: Said they were to go to Toronto.

Revelation: Said they were to go to Kingston (later edited to remove any specific city).

Whitmer: Said the revelation said they "would sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon"; no mention of condition precedent; failure to sell copyright = false prophecy.

Revelation: Said the copyright would be sold "if the people harden not their hearts against the enticings of my spirit and my word"; failure to sell copyright possibly explained by hardened hearts = not a false prophecy.

If that were the case, other attempts would have been made - somewhere else among the "four" promised providences. However, the matter was promptly dropped, the reason being - it was a false revelation.

Apologists must deal with the letter to Martin after he found out what they tried to do behind his back. It think it would be wise if you dropped this matter altogether.

-----------------------

By the way, insisting that "Whitmer wasn't excommunicated" (while neglecting to mention that a hearing was held, Whitmer refused to show up, the hearing chose to excommunicate him, and Whitmer's main beef was that the council didn't hold authority over him) is misleading.

Of the four charges brought against David, one was for "separating himself from the church." As he explained in his Address to All Beleivers in Christ, that proves they had no jurisdiction over him as he had already separated from them.

So was the revelation that "some revelations are from God, man, or the Devil," from the devil?

I'm not sure what you meant.

So what are they?

There are a number of person's he cursed, yet he was destroyed, not them.

Edited October 17, 2009 by BOMC

[Just_A_Guy]

If that were the case, other attempts would have been made - somewhere else among the "four" promised providences. However, the matter was promptly dropped, the reason being - it was a false revelation.

Not if the revelation told them to go to a specific city--which it originally did. There was nothing special about those four provinces--when the Canadian Confederation was organized thirty years later, it only had four provinces.

Apologists must deal with the letter to Martin after he found out what they tried to do behind his back. It think it would be wise if you dropped this matter altogether.

Whitmer--knowing there were no first-hand witnesses left alive to contradict him--said that Martin had been doing everything possible to raise the funds. Historians who look at evidence beyond Whitmer's own statements say he was indeed dithering. At any rate, Martin himself got past the whole affair. Why don't the Whitmerites?

Of the four charges brought against David, one was for "separating himself from the church." As he explained in his Address to All Beleivers in Christ, that proves they had no jurisdiction over him as he had already separated from them.

Umm . . . you said "David Whitmer was never excommunicated."

Would you say "Jesus Christ was never put on trial", excusing yourself on the fact that His trial did not conform with Jewish law?

Just because Whitmer's supporters say the tribunal was illegal, doesn't mean it never happened or that the bulk of the Church didn't accept it.

There are a number of person's he cursed, yet he was destroyed, not them.

You mean they lived into immortality, while Joseph Smith (and Joseph Smith alone) ultimately died?

Good grief, BMOC, you're really grasping at straws here.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[BOMC]

Not if the revelation told them to go to a specific city--which it originally did.

Very well, but the revelation speaks of "the people," so I say again, if they believed it to be a true revelation, they would have sent another party, believing as Harper wants us to believe, the revelation was not at fault, and the right people would yet be found.

...Whitmer--knowing there were no first-hand witnesses left alive to contradict him--

In the language of Harper, "that's exactly what I expect" a Josephite to say.

At any rate, Martin himself got past the whole affair. Why don't the Whitmerites?

By "affair" I'm sure you realize this was merely one example of many which cannot be disputed. It would not be wise to argue against Whitmer's point that Joseph was not infallible in his revelations.

...you said "David Whitmer was never excommunicated" Would you say "Jesus Christ was never put on trial", excusing yourself on the fact that His trial did not conform with Jewish law?

Jesus knew if he did not "pass by them" undetected, his accusers would secure his death. Likewise, God knew David's accusers were seeking his death (Danites inpart), thus He commanded David to leave.

Just because Whitmer's supporters say the tribunal was illegal, doesn't mean it never happened or that the bulk of the Church didn't accept it.

They acknowledged David's letter of separation - end of story.

Some church leaders speak of David's "separation" correctly but most assume he was "excommunicated," and use him as a poster child of "what happens when you apostatize."

You mean they lived into immortality, while Joseph Smith (and Joseph Smith alone) ultimately died?

They lived long fruitful lives; Joseph earned an early demise.

[pam]

Please explain your last comment BOMC.

[Just_A_Guy]

Very well, but the revelation speaks of "the people," so I say again, if they believed it to be a true revelation, they would have sent another party, believing as Harper wants us to believe, the revelation was not at fault, and the right people would yet be found.

Isn't it convenient that we have BMOC to interpret Joseph Smith's thoughts for us?

In the language of Harper, "that's exactly what I expect" a Josephite to say.

First, I'm not a Josephite.

Second, the statement is factually accurate unless you want me to think Whitmer didn't know by 1885 that Joseph, Hyrum, Harris, Cowdery, and Page were all dead.

By "affair" I'm sure you realize this was merely one example of many which cannot be disputed.

Yes; your mindset rules out "dispute" even when contemporary, documentary evidence disproves an allegation made in Whitmer's fifty-years-after-the-fact account.

It would not be wise to argue against Whitmer's point that Joseph was not infallible in his revelations.

Oh, I'm not arguing against that point; merely against the evidence you use to make it.

Jesus knew if he did not "pass by them" undetected, his accusers would secure his death. Likewise, God knew David's accusers were seeking his death (Danites inpart), thus He commanded David to leave.

They acknowledged David's letter of separation - end of story.

No; you said Whitmer was never excommunicated but conveniently omitted a) the fact that a hearing was held by the Far West High Council, b) the fact that Whitmer had an opportunity to be present and declined, and c) no LDS scripture to that point said you had to be present in order to be excommunicated. That is the end of the story.

They lived long fruitful lives; Joseph earned an early demise.

So, anyone who dies early is cursed. Anyone who lives to a ripe old age is righteous.

Got it.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[BOMC]

Please explain your last comment BOMC.

Which comment in the last?

[pam]

They lived long fruitful lives; Joseph earned an early demise.

This one.

[BOMC]

This one.

I don't understand the question.

[pam]

Please...why do you say Joseph earned an early demise.

[BOMC]

Please...why do you say Joseph earned an early demise.

See underlined:

6 And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.

7 For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—

8 Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble.

9 Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. (D&C 3)

Edited October 18, 2009 by BOMC

[pam]

This proves nothing. This was probably one of the first revelations Joseph Smith received and it was a harsh rebuke against him from the Lord. Basically he was being told to "Shape up and get your act together."

He was also told if he didn't he would have his Prophetic role stripped from him. Did that happen? No.