David Whitmer was instrumental in helping Joseph Smith during the translation and publication of the Book of Mormon and in the establishment of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Today he is primarily remembered as one of the three witnesses of the Book of Mormon plates (The Testimony of the Three Witnesses).
In spite of many powerfully motivating and inspiring spiritual experiences, including hearing the voice of God and seeing an angel, David sometimes struggled with being overly distracted by other obligations such as caring for the family farm. In a revelation given to the prophet Joseph Smith, the Lord chastised David, saying, “your mind has been on the things of the earth more than on the things of me, your Maker, and the ministry whereunto you have been called” (Doctrine and Covenants 30:2). This divine chastisement is one that is probably applicable to every modern man and woman as we struggle to find balance between our ordinary obligations and the demands of devoted discipleship.
If this were the only area of concern for brother Whitmer, it would hardly make him different from any one else. However, the Lord continued his chastisement, adding, “and you have not given heed unto my Spirit, and to those who were set over you, but have been persuaded by those whom I have not commanded” (D&C 30:2).
Here the Lord identifies three areas of concern: 1) not giving heed to the Spirit, 2) not giving heed to authorized leadership, and 3) being persuaded by those who are not authorized by the Lord. David’s problem was that he was listening to voices not authorized by God and that he was persuaded by them more than by what God was telling him through the Spirit and through his authorized priesthood leaders.
Elder Dallin H. Oaks skillfully addressed this same issue in his October 2010 General Conference talk entitled “Two Lines of Communication.” Elder Oaks taught that there are two sources whereby we can receive divine communication which he called “the personal line” and “the priesthood line.” These two lines of divine communication correspond to the two in the Lord’s chastisement of David Whitmer: “my Spirit” and “those who [are] set over you” (D&C 30:2). Simply put, God can guide individuals through “[his] Spirit” (“the personal line”) and through “those who [are] set over [us]” (“the priesthood line”).
David Whitmer was guilty of minimizing the role of these two lines of divine direction while simultaneously being persuaded by “those whom [God had] not commanded” (D&C 30:2). In time, David Whitmer lost his membership in the church in part because he had lost confidence in the prophet Joseph Smith’s ongoing revelation (“the priesthood line”). He later recounted receiving a personal revelation in Missouri commanding him to separate himself from the body of church.
Like David Whitmer, we may be tempted at times to pit these two lines of divine communication against one another. We may feel that our personal revelation conflicts with the counsel of our authorized leaders. Elder Oaks warned,
[W]e cannot communicate reliably through the direct, personal line if we are disobedient to or out of harmony with the priesthood line…. Unfortunately, it is common for persons who are violating God’s commandments or disobedient to the counsel of their priesthood leaders to declare that God has revealed to them that they are excused from obeying some commandment or from following some counsel. Such persons may be receiving revelation or inspiration, but it is not from the source they suppose. The devil is the father of lies, and he is ever anxious to frustrate the work of God by his clever imitations.
–Dallin H. Oaks, Two Lines of Communication.
Although individuals sometimes feel they are receiving personal revelation that is contrary to the direction given by “those who [are] set over [us],” a much more pervasive problem is being “persuaded by those whom [God] has not commanded” (D&C 30:2). Because of the democratization of information sharing, we have instantaneous access to more viewpoints and ideas than ever before. Unfortunately, much of the information available is unreliable or dishonest. This has become a significant concern leading to a recent addition by “the priesthood line” to the Church’s General Handbook:
In today’s world, information is easy to access and share. This can be a great blessing for those seeking to be educated and informed. However, many sources of information are unreliable and do not edify. Some sources seek to promote anger, contention, fear, or baseless conspiracy theories (see 3 Nephi 11:30; Mosiah 2:32). Therefore, it is important that Church members be wise as they seek truth.
Members of the Church should seek out and share only credible, reliable, and factual sources of information. They should avoid sources that are speculative or founded on rumor.
–General Handbook 38.8.40
Of course, “there is no new thing under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Although unreliable and dishonest sources of information are more widely accessible and more widely shared than ever before, Satan’s tactic of deception by “persuad[ing us] by those whom [God] has not commanded” is not new (D&C 30:2). For example, just prior to Christ’s birth, the Nephites did “imagine up in their hearts” many “foolish and vain” ideas, “and they were much disturbed, for Satan did stir them up…continually; yea, he did go about spreading rumors and contention upon all the face of the land.” His objective was to “harden the hearts of the people against that which was good,” and he “did get great hold upon the hearts of the people” (Helaman 16:22-23). There could be no more apt description of the world today.
There are many persuasive sources of “rumors” and “foolish and vain” ideas today. Some of us are most easily persuaded by politicians. For others, it may be cultural icons in music, entertainment, or literature. Others may be more vulnerable to the seductive voices of intellectuals. Although we seek out and admire all that is “virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy” (Article of Faith 13), we cannot afford to lose sight of the only two reliable sources of divine information mentioned by the Lord: “[his] Spirit” and “those who [are] set over [us]” by Him (D&C 30:2). In this we should especially pay close attention to the direction given through the Lord’s prophet. In 1970, President Harold B. Lee taught:
Now the only safety we have as members of this church is to do exactly what the Lord said to the Church on that day when the Church was organized. We must learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through his prophet, ‘As he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me… as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.’
There will be some things that take patience and faith. You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself, with patience and faith, the promise is that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory’ (D&C 21:6).
–Harold B. Lee, Improvement Era, December 1970, p. 126
In these turbulent times with so many conflicting voices and deceitful information, each of us is liable to be misled or confused. This poses a serious threat to our ability to endure in faith to the end. One of the ironies of human nature is our almost limitless capacity to quickly see and condemn the foibles of others while being completely blind to our own. But, perhaps the one major current issue facing our day, namely the COVID-19 pandemic, can help us reflect and determine how we are doing in our quest to understand and follow divine truth. Consider the following:
- Have I perceived the influence of the Spirit in my life during the pandemic? Is my “personal line” in harmony with the “priesthood line” of divine communication?
- Have I taken full advantage of additional time at home on Sundays to increase my own spiritual capacity to receive revelation and strengthen my “personal line,” or have I used the extra time to turn Sundays into a day of recreation?
- Do I accept and follow the apostolic teachings that “wearing a face covering is a sign of Christ-like love for our brothers and sisters,” to avoid “gathering in large groups”, and that “COVID-19 is serious?”
- How do I feel about the requirement delineated by the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 to wear a mask in the temple?
- Do I believe the Lord’s prophet when he wrote that the development of COVID vaccines was a “literal godsend” in response to prayer? Or, when it comes to vaccination, am I more “persuaded by those whom [God has] not commanded” (D&C 30:2) to accept or promote baseless conspiracy theories?
- Do I support the Church donating $20 million to fight COVID-19 through vaccination in what has been called the “biggest private sector donation to ‘largest immunization campaign in history?'”
- Am I obeying the First Presidency who “urges” us “to be good global citizens and help quell the pandemic by safeguarding [ourselves] and others through immunization”?
- How do I feel about the church’s requirement for missionaries to be COVID vaccinated to be considered eligible for a foreign mission?
- Do I accept President Nelson’s recent plea to “Do all you can to bring COVID numbers down in your area so that your temple opportunities can increase,” or do I believe his concerns about the pandemic are misguided?
We can learn a lot from the Lord’s brief chastisement of David Whitmer recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 30:2. It is my personal witness that the Lord’s warning to him is still applicable today. There is safety in “giv[ing] heed unto [God’s] Spirit, and to those who [are] set over [us]” and not being “persuaded by those whom [God has] not commanded.”
Andrew I. Miller is a FAIR volunteer from Crystal City, Missouri. He is a proud husband and father of four currently serving as a bishop. By profession he is a High School Spanish teacher.
Thank you! This embodies my feelings more eloquently than I could have done.
Thank you for your generous feedback!
The text of this article linking to David Whitmer’s separation from the church implies that this was an instance of contradictory lines of communication between personal and priesthood.
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/David_Whitmer#Question:_Did_God_tell_David_Whitmer_to_leave_the_Church_and_repudiate_Mormonism.3F
But the article isn’t speaking about his excommunication. E.g., “God did not tell Whitmer to repudiate Mormonism” and “Both Whitmer’s experience as a witness and his prompting to leave Far West can be inspired of God”
I think the distinction is that he was not commanded to “separate himself from the church” but that he was to separate himself physically from the body of saints who might cause him harm.
Can that part be clarified please? There might be previous instances in the lead up to his excommunication which might be better examples of listening to incorrect counsel, but I didn’t find the specific linked article as one of them.
I otherwise thought the message in this post was great, thank you very much. We should all strive to align ourselves through the spirit.
I am a citizen of The United States of America. I will be a good citizen by upholding the Constitution of the United States. I will not uphold medical tyranny and the mandates that are made to keep us in bondage. They have nothing to do with health. God has told us how to keep healthy. His scriptures are His word. We are each responsible for our own health by obeying the laws of health that God gave us. The mandates that the governments have made are to take away our human connection and to take power over our lives. People have not done well with the isolation and other mandates. Many have died needlessly through these mandates. Vaccines have injured and killed countless numbers of children and adults. I personally know people who have been injured. This new injection has injured and killed many in a short time. There are decisions we need to make ourselves.
Christ is the only one who can save us and we should not be judging others for not going along with the world and what they are forcing us to do. We are good citizens by standing up for our God given freedoms. That will save so many more people than anything else.
The whole purpose of the war in heaven was to choose who we will serve. I choose to serve God and his plan of salvation. Free agency is our greatest gift.
I really needed to read this article. There have been so many people around me trying to convince me not to get this immunization
Christine,
I think you might find value in these teachings from Elder Dallin H. Oaks on the subject of free agency and freedom:
“The science of government is a consideration of the procedures by which and the extent to which the official representatives of one group of citizens can impose restrictions on the freedom of another group. Decisions on the extent to which government power should restrict the freedom of individuals are among the most difficult decisions we face in an organized society. How much should zoning laws restrict a person’s right to use his own property? How many taxes should we extract, and what compulsory functions should government perform with them? How much harm can society allow a person to do himself, such as by self-mutilation or drug use? These are all questions of freedom.
“We have to accept some government limitations on freedom if we who live in communities are to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A condition of uninhibited individual freedom would allow the strong to oppress the weak. It would allow the eccentric desires of one person to restrict the freedom of many.
“Interferences with our freedom do not deprive us of our free agency. When Pharaoh put Joseph in prison, he restricted Joseph’s freedom, but he did not take away his free agency. When Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple, he interfered with their freedom to engage in a particular activity at a particular time in a particular place, but he did not take away their free agency.
“During my nine years at BYU I read many letters to the editor in the Universe that protested various rules as infringements of free agency. I am glad I don’t see those funny arguments anymore, probably because I no longer have to read the letters to the editor in the Universe. The Lord has told us in modern revelation that he established the Constitution of the United States to assure “that every man may act . . . according to the moral agency which I have given unto him” (D&C 101:78). In other words, God established our Constitution to give us the vital political freedom necessary for us to act upon our personal choices in civil government. This revelation shows the distinction between agency (the power of choice), which is God-given, and freedom, the right to act upon our choices, which is protected by the Constitution and laws of the land.
“Freedom is obviously of great importance, but as these examples illustrate, freedom is always qualified in mortality. Consequently, when we oppose a government-imposed loss of freedom, it would be better if we did not conduct our debate in terms of a loss of our free agency, which is impossible under our doctrine. We ought to focus on the legality or the wisdom of the proposed restriction of our freedom.”
Dallin H. Oaks, Free Agency and Freedom
Christine,
If you feel the peaceful confirmation of the Spirit, continue down your path. It should be rare for the Spirit to contradict the prophet’s general counsel, but it did so with Nephi and Laban.
As far as safety, I ran numbers on every reported death tied to the vaccine (died within a week or so of vaccination). When you administer a drug to 50-ish percent of the population who are over 65 or have pre-existing health problems over the course of a few months, the statistical probability that some will die of other causes near the same time is extremely high. At the time, deaths were at 1,426 out of 70.2 million who had been vaccinated. That’s 1 in 50,000 of our oldest and unhealthiest people who died within a short time of vaccination. Definitely small enough to be a coincidence.
After crunching the numbers around deaths, I felt far more convinced that the vaccine was perfectly safe and got mine 10 days ago.
Interesting and fruitful bringing together of history, doctrine, and a modern-day issue. It encourages thought and careful self-evaluation: Am I making sure I’m not conflating my own thoughts and desires with messages from the Spirit through personal revelation? The big check on that impulse and/or confusion, that we all have to some degree, is the priesthood line of revelation.
I’m commenting however, because of a sleight issue of tone in word choice that could leads some (perhaps even the author!) to draw false conclusions or uncharitable implications from the otherwise well intentioned and well crafted article.
It’s either overstatement or heavy-handedness that calls apostolic counsel and encouragement that is NOT doctrinal, or couched in explicitly “thus saith the Lord” language as “apostolic teachings”. In one way of looking at it, the Church’s response to COVID is a purely administrative decision that we SHOULD follow if for no other reason than that the Brethren said so. Because they generally want us all to understand their approach and decisions, they shared the reasoning behind them and expressed attitudes we would be wise to take up in connection with them. Calling those explanation and attitudes by the same term we usually reserve for pronouncements of doctrine falsely invites an equation of the two very disparate things. Is it technically wrong in every sense to call them “apostolic teachings”? Maybe not. But it does seem like there’s a heavier than necessary push to conform, rather than to genuinely persuade by the merits of the argument at work when couched in language we use for the Word of Wisdom, or Paul’s injunction to put on the armor of God, for example.
Further, it is perfectly compatible with the spirit of Oaks’ actual apostolic teachings to obey, honor, and sustain the law for a faithful Saint to offer informed critique about the efficacy of masks as a public policy matter and still choose to wear them as a matter of personal practice. It is perfectly compatible with loving one’s neighbor to gather in large groups, or to doubt the “seriousness”, not of COVID itself, but of many jurisdictions’ responses to the pandemic. COVID is not the only, or even most important risk factor in the decision to love and serve and be one with our communities in many instances, and to suggest otherwise might turn out to be one of those “myopic” things our prophet asked us to consider. Just offering some food for thought.
Cary,
Thank you for your insightful and interesting comment. The use of the term “apostolic teachings” was not an oversight on my part, but was very intentional. That line/question refers to the teachings of Elder Renlund in a church produced and released video wherein he starts by saying,
“Today, I speak to you not as a former physician. I speak to you as an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
In other words, he was invoking apostolic authority for the statements that followed regarding COVID, the importance of mask wearing, etc. This also carries the additional weight of having been part of a series of videos released together with a First Presidency statement, implying the full backing of the council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. If this doesn’t qualify as “apostolic teaching,” I don’t think anything does.
Thank you so much for this article. It has been everything that has been going on in my mind and you articulated it for me. Even the story of Martin Harris was constantly coming to the forefront of my mind when trying to understand how so many are claiming they are receiving personal revelation for their families to not wear masks and get the vaccines. I have been studying it very hard this whole year. I feel strongly that it is best to follow the example and counsel of our Prophet and apostles. At least that is my answer to my prayers this year.
Great article. Thanks for this. Unfortunately in our area we have those in priesthood authority and leadership that have chosen to ignore and minimize the precautions as stated by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.
Great principles, true principles. My comment is intended only to add depth and color to the conversation, not to try and contradict or overturn. In my experience there are times when the priesthood line and the personal line of communication are in conflict. Several years ago I received an assignment from my priesthood leaders that required significant time and effort; time and energy that I didn’t have. I had received several promptings in recent weeks to focus my energies on my family and my work. I chose to follow those promptings. I was later gently rebuked by a bishop for not giving my church assignment the attention he felt it warranted. This frustrated me a great deal at the time. I prayed a lot about it. Why would I receive conflicting messages from the church leaders and from the Spirit?! Aren’t they supposed to be united? The answer I received was something like this: “Be patient, your good Bishop is still learning too.”
Stewart,
Thanks for sharing your personal experience! When there is conflict like you describe, patience is definitely warranted! Additionally, when the time is right, a heart-to-heart with the priesthood leader may be helpful, especially if approached with a prayerful spirit of humility by all parties involved.
Andrew,
Nothing in my comment could be reasonably construed to argue that apostles didn’t say or didn’t teach that mask wearing and social distancing measures were Church counsel. Elder Renlund was quite clear, as you state, in calling on faithful members to express their love for others and to emulate Christ by those specific measures, because that’s how the principle of love expresses itself as it relates to the pandemic. And he was equally clear that this counsel was not merely an expression of medical expertise, which he also has, but from a key-holding line of authority. You and I both respect that for exactly what it is.
However, the issue wasn’t whether or not the teaching was apostolic so much as it was about whether your own framing of the implications of opposition to mask-wearing, social distancing measures, and large-group gathering were somehow ANTI-apostolic, or heretical in some way.
Maybe it’s me that’s overstating, but when you ask people to evaluate whether they “accept” those measures–as if even the hint of questioning any aspect of them in any scope is tantamount to personal apostasy–it seems intolerantly heavy-handed. The Dutch did a widescale study showing that public policies promoting mask use didn’t have any benefits over large populations. They concluded, politically, that the decision should be local rather than national as to whether to implement rules about mask wearing in public. Does using that information, and questioning whether the scope of Elder Renlund’s teachings put the entire nation of Holland under condemnation for failing to comply with one interpretation of the universality of “apostolic teachings”? Or perhaps its you who are suggesting a scope beyond what even he was intending, and following Christ’s model of care and concern for others is ALSO possible in forms other than mask-wearing, or even in opposition to widescale mask mandates. I’m open-minded enough to allow that one could fully accept the apostolic teaching, fully follow it, and still speak out against the imposition of such measures. Why? Because I understand that apostolic teachings are always voluntary in nature, whereas political decisions aren’t always.
And while he is quite right in stating, with the implied position of spokesperson for believers in Christ, that wearing a mask is a symbol of our Christian care for others, symbols always escape all attempts to reduce them to single speaker-enforced meanings. Masks symbol more than one thing, and there’s nothing incompatible with following Christ’s example by our intention to make a mask a symbol of our brotherly love, and critiquing the mask as a symbol of the betrayal of (also very apostolic–let’s not haggle in mint and anise and cummin to the detriment of the “weightier matters”) teachings on the principles of liberty and moral agency to which some jurisdictions have put them.
The overall rhetorical thrust of your article is to call on people to judge for themselves. In that sense, it’s escaping judgmentalism in the clearest possible way: on its surface. I’m just insisting on a minor implication that I think could stand in the way of that refusal to judge others.
Thanks again for the article and engagement in comments.
This item is late for this posting, but may be of interest to some, since it covers the same topic, only with a different disease:
November 17, 1900, Deseret News editorial:
To the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Greeting:
The widespread feeling of fear and anxiety concerning the prevalence of smallpox in this city has caused us to advise that the Latter-day Saints college be closed for a short time, until the excitement is allayed concerning that institution of learning and others where people are in danger of exposure to this dread disease. We take this opportunity of suggesting to the people generally that they employ every precaution to prevent the spread of the contagion, by seeing to it that those who are or have been exposed exclude themselves strictly from public association with others, lest they be the means of communicating the disease. To the question of vaccination we have given careful thought and consideration; and our conclusion is that where care is taken as to cleanliness and purity of the vaccine matter, the treatment is beneficial, in that if it does not prove a preventative, it at least acts as a palliative, that is, it robs the plague of much of its terror by causing it to assume in the case of a vaccinated person, a lighter form. We are aware that there is a difference of opinion in the community as to the merits of this question; and, while we have regarded it largely as a matter of individual choice, we have felt reluctant to express ourselves publicly upon it. Now, however, we feel to publish the foregoing as our conclusion; and we therefore suggest and recommend that the people generally avail themselves of the opportunity to become vaccinated, using the utmost care to procure the services of those who are competent and will be conscientious in supplying only the purest virus that can be obtained. We feel in our minds justified in making this recommendation, and trust that it will be generally adopted. Signed: Lorenzo Snow and George Q. Cannon.
https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets?id=f056b3cf-ff0a-43a4-8edb-c1baf4db4cd1&crate=0&index=234