�鶹��ý

It began with a curious, small, black stone in the possession of Hiram Page. He believed the stone held special powers and used it to seek inspiration and revelation. Foolish as the practice may seem, Page lived in a religious climate and during a time when many people believed in the use of objects such as stones and divining rods to locate purported treasures, coins, jewelry, and lost articles, or to receive spiritual messages and communications.[1] Folk superstition supported Page’s claim of his so-called mystical gift to also use his stone for such purposes.

Hiram Page was born in Vermont around 1800 and spent his early years learning folk medicine in preparation for a career as a naturopathic physician. As a young man, he traveled throughout Vermont, parts of Canada, and eventually to Fayette, Seneca County, New York, in the Finger Lakes region, practicing his craft. It was here, in 1825, he became acquainted with the Peter Sr. and Mary Musselman Whitmer family. In early November, Page married the Whitmer’s eighteen-year-old daughter, Catherine, and together the couple made their new home on the Whitmer homestead.[2]

Sometime around 1828, the Whitmer family became acquainted with Oliver Cowdery, who was also from Vermont, and who had also relocated to New York in 1825. In the fall of 1828, Cowdery secured a teaching position in Manchester, New York, about thirty-five miles northwest of Fayette. During the school year, Cowdery boarded for a time with the Joseph Smith Sr. family. From them he learned about Joseph Smith’s spiritual experiences and his receipt of the gold plates containing the Book of Mormon. When the school term ended in late March 1829, Oliver felt compelled to travel to Harmony, Pennsylvania, to meet Joseph Smith and investigate for himself, and Samuel Smith agreed to accompany him. En route to Harmony, Oliver and Samuel stopped at Fayette so Oliver could visit his friend David Whitmer, Peter Sr. and Mary’s middle son. While there he informed the Whitmer clan (which likely included Hiram Page) about Joseph Smith’s claims. Cowdery also promised he would inform the Whitmers of what he discovered. Oliver and Samuel arrived at Harmony on April 5, 1829, and two days later Oliver began to act as the Prophet’s scribe in translating the Book of Mormon.

During the next several weeks, as the translation progressed, so did the opposition and hostility. Feeling the need to locate elsewhere, Cowdery wrote to David Whitmer and asked him if he and Joseph could relocate to Father and Mother Whitmer’s home in Fayette to finish the translation. The Whitmers agreed, and in late May David went to Harmony and brought Oliver and Joseph to Fayette, where they arrived around June 1. Perhaps it was during this time that Hiram Page learned that Joseph Smith possessed a stone by which he was able to translate the Book of Mormon. This may have given rise to the thought that perhaps Page too had a divine spiritual gift to see and understand things by means of a stone.

In the weeks and months that followed, along with the rest of the Whitmers, Page came to believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet. In late June 1829 at the completion of the translation, Page was privileged to view the plates (along with his brothers-in-law Christian, Jacob, John, and Peter Jr.) as one of the Eight Witnesses to the Book of Mormon.[3] He was also present and participated in the official organizational meeting of the Church held on April 6, 1830, at his father-in-law’s home.[4] Five days later on April 11, 1830, he and his wife Catherine were baptized members of the Church of Christ by Oliver Cowdery.[5]

The April 6, 1830, Organizational Meeting

During the April 6, 1830, organizational meeting, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were sustained as the first and second elders of the Church respectively, after which Joseph ordained Oliver an apostle to be “the first preacher” of the Church (Doctrine and Covenants 21:10, 12). Oliver, in turn, ordained Joseph as “a seer, a translator, a prophet, [and] an apostle of Jesus Christ”. Following their ordinations, the sacrament was administered and the gift of the Holy Ghost was confirmed upon those who had been baptized previously. Joseph then dictated a revelation to those present (Doctrine and Covenants 21) in which his role as a prophet was defined: “Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; for his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith” (vv. 4–5; emphasis added). The revelation clearly placed the Prophet at the head of the Church and specified his role not only as a revelator to the Church but also as an authorized spokesman for Jesus Christ himself.[6]

June 1830 Conference

On June 9, 1830, two months following the April 6 organizational meeting, the first official conference of the Church was held, once again at Peter Sr. and Mary Whitmer’s home in Fayette. During this conference Joseph Smith formalized the April organizational meeting by presenting to the membership the Articles and Covenants of the Church (Doctrine and Covenants 20), which document was unanimously accepted as being somewhat synonymous to a constitution of the Church.[7] In the opening verses of the revelation, Joseph Smith’s authoritative position was reiterated once again as one “called of God,” and “ordained an apostle of Jesus Christ [and] first elder of this church.” Likewise, Oliver “was also called of God [as] an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be the second elder of this church, and ordained under his [Joseph’s] hand” (vv. 2–3). It was during this conference that Hiram Page was ordained to the office of teacher in the Aaronic Priesthood.[8]

Although Church members likely agreed in principle to the revealed doctrine that Joseph Smith was a modern-day prophet who received revelation, some, namely Oliver Cowdery and the Whitmers, clearly misunderstood the unique position he held in his role as the prophet and spokesman for Christ. Shortly after the conference, Oliver Cowdery and the Whitmers “began to consider themselves as being independent authorities with the right to correct Joseph and receive revelation.”[9] For example, in July, Oliver wrote to Joseph and commanded him “in the name of God” to change the word works in a revelation (Doctrine and Covenants 20:37) so that priestcraft might not be part of the Church.[10] Oliver apparently felt it his responsibility to question Joseph on certain matters. The Prophet spent considerable effort persuading Cowdery that the wording should remain as first revealed:

I immediately wrote to him in reply, in which I asked him, by what authority he took upon him to command me to alter, or erase, to add or diminish to or from a revelation or from Almighty God. In a few days afterwards I visited him and ’s family, when I found the family in general of his opinion concerning the words above quoted; and it was not without both labor and perseverance that I could prevail with any of them to reason calmly on the subject; however , at length got convinced that it was reasonable and according to scripture, and finally, with his assistance I succeeded of <in> bringing not only the Whitmer family, but also also to acknowledge that they had been in error, and that the sentence in dispute was in accordance of <with> the rest of the commandment. And thus was this error rooted out, which having its rise in presumption and rash judgement, was the more particularly calculated (when one once fairly understood) to teach each and all of the us the necessity of humility, and meekness before the Lord, that he might teach us of his ways; that we might walk in his paths, and live by every word which proceedeth forth from his mouth.[11]

Years later David Whitmer described how he felt a decline of confidence in Joseph’s seership when the Prophet announced after finishing the translation of the Book of Mormon that he would no longer use the Urim and Thummim or the seer stone to receive revelation. Whitmer felt that without the use of an instrument, Joseph’s power of seership would be diminished.[12] At least in the case of David Whitmer and the Whitmer family, as well as Oliver Cowdery, this may help to explain why they felt justified in acting counter to the revelations and challenging Joseph Smith’s role as the only person who could receive revelation for the Church as a whole. Support for this view may have also come from others who opposed an authoritarian ministry and struck at the foundation of the revealed order of the Church and the unique role of the living prophet. This attitude likely contributed to an acceptance by Oliver Cowdery and the Whitmers of Hiram Page’s claims that he too could receive revelation for the Church.

Hiram Page’s Seer Stone Revelations

Although Oliver Cowdery’s criticism of the wording used in the Articles and Covenants (Doctrine and Covenants 20) appeared to be resolved, another crisis soon arose. In the days immediately preceding the conference on September 26, 1830, Hiram Page claimed to have received revelations by means of a stone that came into his possession, which he and others, including the Whitmers and Oliver Cowdery, considered to be genuine. Emer Harris, brother of Martin Harris, recalled: “Bro. Hiram Page dug out of the earth a black stone [and] put it in his pocket. When he got home, he looked at it. It contained a sentence on paper to befit it. As soon as he [w]rote one sentence, another sentence came on the stone, until he wrote 16 pages.”[13] Joseph Smith later recorded that Page claimed to have received two revelations that had to do with the “upbuilding of Zion” and “the order of the Church,” both of which “were entirely at variance with the order of Gods house, as laid down in the new Testament, as well as in our late revelations.”[14]

Newel Knight remembered the Prophet’s anguish: “Joseph was perplexed and scarcely knew how to meet this new exigency,” he wrote. “That night I occupied the same room that he did and the greater part of the night was spent in prayer and supplication.”[15] “One person asked Joseph if it is right. He said he did not know, but he prayed and got revelation that the stone was of the devil.”[16] The answer came in a revelation, recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 28.

Oliver Cowdery’s initial acceptance of the Page revelations manifested his lack of understanding regarding the fundamental principle that only the prophet can receive revelation for the Church. This is why the beginning verses of Doctrine and Covenants 28 were addressed to him and were meant to remind him of his role as the second presiding elder. The revelation also provided Oliver the opportunity and responsibility to restore confidence in the revealed principles of Church government; by accepting and acting on the revelation, he would be part of the solution rather than remaining part of the problem.

The opening passage clearly states that revelation for the Church will be given to the prophet, in this case Joseph Smith, and no one else. “But behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses” (v. 2). Oliver, on the other hand, was compared with Aaron, who served as a spokesman for Moses, hence the injunction for Oliver to “declare faithfully the commandments and the revelations, with power and authority unto the church” (v. 3), a clear reminder of his role as the second presiding elder. The revelation assured him that he could “speak or teach . . . unto the Church,” but not “write by way of commandment, but by wisdom” (vv. 4–5). Then in a somewhat stern reproof, he was told, “Thou shalt not command him who is at thy head, and at the head of the church” (v. 6). This was because Joseph, as a prophet, seer, and revelator, had been given “the keys of the mysteries, and the revelations which are sealed” (v. 7).

The next few verses in Doctrine and Covenants 28 provide clues regarding what Hiram Page’s revelations possibly contained. After reproving Oliver for believing Page’s revelations, the Lord appointed Cowdery to serve an extended mission “unto the Lamanites and preach my gospel” (v. 8). Then the next verse reads: “And now, behold, I say unto you that it is not revealed, and no man knoweth where the city Zion shall be built, but it shall be given hereafter. Behold, I say unto you that it shall be on the borders by the Lamanites” (v. 9; emphasis added). Throughout the Book of Mormon, numerous passages discuss the future establishment of the city of Zion on the American continent, but none more comprehensive than the resurrected Savior’s teachings found in 3 Nephi 21 (see also Ether’s descriptions in Ether 13:1–12). Furthermore, in 1830, the region west of Missouri was known as Indian Territory, and to members of the Church who had come to believe in the Book of Mormon, the indigenous Native American tribes would have been considered descendants of the Lamanites. This short passage, although identifying the location of the latter-day Zion only in general terms, had to have excited the Church members.

The phrase “no man knoweth” suggests that the place Page identified as the location of Zion was incorrect (although he likely placed it somewhere in the Americas), when in fact it was something he could never have known, because the location was one that “no man knoweth.” This supposition is supported by the statement made by Joseph Smith cited earlier in his history that Page made claims concerning the “upbuilding of Zion.”[17]

The revelation also instructed Oliver to inform Hiram Page that “those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me and that Satan deceiveth him” (v. 11). Because of his involvement in the incident, Oliver was expected to act in his priesthood office as second elder and use his authority and influence to correct Hiram, the Whitmers, and others, which he did.[18] A final injunction was that the entire membership were to discuss the matter “in order, and by common consent, . . . by the prayer of faith” (v. 13).

Indeed, there was considerable discussion about Page’s stone and his so-called revelations, and “after considerable investigation, Brother Page, as well as the whole church who were present, renounced the said stone, and all things connected therewith, much to our mutual satisfaction and happiness.” To settle the matter even further, the stone was “broke to powder and the writings burnt.” The minutes of the meeting simply record, “Brother Joseph Smith, Jr. was appointed by the voice of the Conference to receive and write Revelations & Commandments for this Church.” Newel Knight wrote that a rich outpouring of the Spirit followed. “It was wonderful to witness the wisdom that Joseph displayed on this occasion, for truly God gave unto him great wisdom and power, and it seems to me, even now, that none who saw him administer righteousness under such trying circumstances could doubt that the Lord was with him, as he acted—not with the wisdom of man, but with the wisdom of God, The Holy Ghost came upon us and filled our hearts with unspeakable joy.”[19]

Conclusion

The events and revelations associated with the early conferences of the Church and the Hiram Page controversy marked a significant point in the doctrinal development of the Church. The issue was essentially that of the prophetic authority of the prophet as President of the Church. The revelations established a clear precedent in defining the process of revelation and the central role of the prophet as the one to whom is given “the keys of the mysteries, and the revelations” (Doctrine and Covenants 28:7). From that time forth, this principle has remained central in governing the Church. Of this matter, the Prophet later said, “I will inform you that it is contrary to the econemy [sic] of God for any member of the church, or any one, to receive instructions for those in authority, higher than themselves, therefore you will see the impropriety of giving heed to them . . . for the fundamental principles, government, and doctrine of the church are vested in the keys of the kingdom.”[20]

Even after several generations, the Hiram Page incident remains an example of an important principle in Church government. In the October 1972 general conference, President Harold B. Lee read from a 1913 letter by the First Presidency: “From the days of Hiram Page . . . at different periods there have been manifestations from delusive spirits to members of the Church. . . . When visions, dreams, tongues, prophecy, impressions, or an extraordinary gift of inspiration convey something out of harmony with the accepted revelations of the Church or contrary to the decisions of its constituted authorities, Latter-day Saints may know that it is not of God, no matter how plausible it may appear.”[21]

The Hiram Page incident prepared Church members for the coming revelations that would require them to leave their homes in New York and participate in the gathering in Ohio. Joined by a growing number of converts, the faithful gave heed to the Prophet Joseph Smith and worked to build a community of Saints and to raise temples in expectation of a divine endowment. Led by the Prophet, the Saints overcame great adversity as they learned the lessons about building Zion. Their faith in receiving the Lord’s word through Joseph Smith, “as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith,” enabled them to receive the promised blessing: “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” (Doctrine and Covenants 21:5–6).

Hiram Page accepted the Lord’s revelation and the Prophet’s counsel and responded obediently to the call to move first to Kirtland and then to Missouri. He suffered during the expulsion from Jackson County, Missouri, and worked to settle in Clay County, and later in Caldwell County.[22] Sadly, in 1838 he became disenchanted because of the failure of the Saints to establish Zion and, along with Oliver Cowdery and the Whitmers, began to question the Prophet’s leadership. False accusations and improper handling of Church funds and property led to the excommunication of Oliver and the Whitmers and led Hiram Page to withdraw from the Church.[23] He relocated in Ray County, Missouri, and lived there until he died in 1852. Yet even after his dissociation from the Church, Hiram Page continued to testify of the reality of the gold plates and the divinity of the Book of Mormon.

Notes

[1] For a discussion of folk traditions associated with search for treasure, see Ronald W. Walker, “The Persisting Idea of American Treasure Hunting,” BYU Studies 24, no. 4 (Fall 1984): 429–61.

[2] Andrew Jenson, “Page, Hiram,” in LDS Biographical Encyclopedia (Salt Lake City: Andrew Jenson History Company, 1935), 1:277–78. For a comprehensive discussion of Hiram Page, see Bruce G. Stewart, “Hiram Page: An Historical and Sociological Analysis of an Early Mormon Prototype” (master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, 1987).

[3] History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 (23 December 1805–30 August 1834), 26, .

[4] See Larry C. Porter, “Organizational Origins of the Church of Jesus Christ, 6 April 1830,” in Regional Studies in Latter-day Saint Church History: New York, ed. Larry C. Porter, Milton V. Backman Jr., and Susan Easton Black (Provo, UT: Department of Church History and Doctrine, Brigham Young University, 1992), 154.

[5] History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 (23 December 1805–30 August 1834), 39, www.josephsmithpapers.org.

[6] See Revelation, 6 April 1830 (D&C 21), in JSP, D1:126–30.

[7] See Articles and Covenants, circa April 1830 (D&C 20), in JSP, D1:116–26.

[8] “Minutes of the first Conference held in the Township of Fayette, Seneca County, State of New York,” June 9, 1830, in The Conference Minutes and Record Book of Christ’s Church of Latter Day Saints, 1, LR 7874 21, CHL; also published in The Far West Record: Minutes of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1830–1844, ed. Donald Q. Cannon and Lyndon W. Cook (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1983), 1.

[9] Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 120.

[10] History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 (23 December 1805–30 August 1834), 50, www.josephsmithpapers.org.

[11] History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 (23 December 1805–30 August 1834), 51, www.josephsmithpapers.org.

[12] For comment on the reaction of David Whitmer to Joseph Smith’s decision to no longer use the seer stone, see David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, by a Witness to the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon (Richmond, MO: David Whitmer, 1887), 32–34.

[13] Emer Harris, statement, Provo Utah Central Stake general minutes, April 6, 1856, 10:273, LR 9629 11, CHL; spelling and punctuation corrected.

[14] History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 (23 December 1805–30 August 1834), 54, www.josephsmithpapers.org. Ezra Booth, an early Ohio convert (and an apostate), later learned about some of the facts associated with Page’s claims and wrote: “[He] found a smooth stone, upon which there appeared to be writing, which when transcribed upon paper, disappeared from the stone, and another impression appeared in its place. This when copied, vanished as the former had done, and so it continued alternately appearing and disappearing; in the meanwhile, he continued to write, until he had written over considerable paper. It bore most striking marks of a Mormonite revelation, and was received as an authentic document by most of the Mormonites, till Smith . . . discovered it to be a Satanic fraud.” Ezra Booth, “Mormonism—No. VII,” Ohio Star (Ravenna, OH), December 8, 1831, 1; also cited in JSP, D1:184n351.

[15] Newel Knight’s Journal, in Scraps of Biography (Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1883), 64.

[16] Harris, statement, 273.

[17] History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 (23 December 1805–30 August 1834), 53–54, www.josephsmithpapers.org.

[18] Sidney B. Sperry, Doctrine and Covenants Compendium (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1960), 131.

[19] Newel Knight’s Journal, 65. Historian Donna Hill wrote that the conference was a “stormy affair” that resulted in a confidence crisis settled only by a vote of the members. See Donna Hill, Joseph Smith: The First Mormon (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977), 117–18. That opinion stands in marked contrast to the observations of Newel Knight.

[20] History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 (23 December 1805–30 August 1834), 285, www.josephsmithpapers.org.

[21] Harold B. Lee, in Conference Report, October 1972, 125–26, https://archive.org/details/conferencereport.

[22] Jenson, Biographical Encyclopedia, 278.

[23] Stewart, “Hiram Page,” 152–54.