Why Didn’t Cowdery, Whitmer, or Harris Expose Joseph Smith as a Fraud?

A common apologetic argument in defense of Joseph Smith is that his closest early associates—Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris—never outright denounced him as a fraud, even after they left or were cast out of the church. The logic goes: if anyone would have known the “truth” behind the origins of the Book of Mormon, it would be these men. And if they didn’t expose it as a con, then it must have been true.

But this line of reasoning makes several assumptions and conveniently ignores both human nature and history.

Problems with Exposing Joseph as a Fraud

Consider what it would have meant for Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, or Martin Harris to denounce Joseph Smith as a fraud. These weren’t casual observers of early Mormonism. They were at the very heart of its origin story—men whose names are printed in every edition of the Book of Mormon as the Three Witnesses. They weren’t just passive believers; they were active participants, bearing public testimony that they had seen visions, handled golden plates, and heard angelic voices.

For being so deeply entangled in the foundation of the church, speaking out against Joseph Smith wasn’t a simple act of changing their minds. To admit that he was a fraud would not only condemn Joseph—it would also implicate all of them, including themself. Such a confession would mean acknowledging that they had either been deceived to an extraordinary degree, or worse, that they had knowingly misled others. Either way, their own reputations and legacies would be destroyed. To publicly declare, “I helped start a cult,” is to shoulder a shameful burden few would ever volunteer to carry.

And yet, in spite of that cost, they did speak out. Each of the Three Witnesses, at different points in their lives, denounced Joseph Smith’s actions and character. Oliver Cowdery accused him of adultery and deception. David Whitmer described him as a fallen prophet and warned others not to be deceived. Martin Harris called him a “fallen prophet” and distanced himself from his authority. These weren’t the words of outsiders or enemies—they came from the very men who once stood closest to him. If even they could not remain by Joseph’s side, what does that say about the fruits of his ministry?

The narrative that Joseph’s confidants never betrayed him simply doesn’t withstand scrutiny. The truth is more complicated and far less flattering. Those who knew him best often saw through the façade, and some were brave—or desperate—enough to say so, even at great personal cost.

Were They Believers?

Also, we often underestimate just how much these men believed—at least in something. It’s possible they were sincere in their spiritual experiences. They may have believed Joseph had some divine gift, even if they later thought he fell from grace. For example, when Oliver Cowdery tried to translate part of the Book of Mormon and failed, that experience may have reinforced his belief in Joseph’s supposed prophetic gift. If Joseph could do something Oliver couldn’t, it must be from God, right?

The church often repeats the claim that none of these witnesses ever denied their testimony. This is oft repeated to persuade members that they stood by their claims, but when we consider that their experience wasn’t as described in the Book of Mormon text, as they “saw” the plates with their “spiritual eyes.”

The Lord provided for a group of three and then eight men to see the plates. Many of these witnesses helped in some way with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. For example, David Whitmer invited Joseph and Emma to live with them while Joseph translated, Martin Harris mortgaged his farm to pay the printing costs of the Book of Mormon, and Oliver Cowdery served as scribe for much of the translation. Joseph’s father and his brothers Hyrum and Samuel were also witnesses of the plates and helped Joseph in important ways. Although some of these men later left the Church, none of them ever denied their testimonies of the Book of Mormon.

Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual (2024), Introductory Pages of the Book of Mormon, The Testimonies of Three Witnesses and Eight Witnesses
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/book-of-mormon-seminary-teacher-manual-2024/02-introductory-pages/024-teacher

Not one of the Three Witnesses ever denied his testimony of the Book of Mormon.

Michael R. Morris, The Last Witness of the Three Witnesses, New Era, January 2020
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2020/01/the-last-witness-of-the-three-witnesses

Oliver Cowdery

When Cowdery eventually left the church, it wasn’t because he thought the Book of Mormon was a fraud. It was because he disagreed with Joseph’s behavior—most notably, Joseph’s affair with Fanny Alger, which Oliver considered adultery. He refused to back down, and was excommunicated. But even afterward, Cowdery never denied his testimony of the plates.

He viewed Joseph not as a fraud, but as a fallen prophet—someone who once had divine authority but had strayed. He also never denied his testimony that Joseph had an affair with Fanny Alger, a relationship that the church no longer denies, since they suggest Fanny Alger as Joseph’s first experimentation with plural marriage. Oliver did make a statement when trying to join a Methodist congregation that he was “sorry and ashamed of his connection with Mormonism.”

David Whitmer

David Whitmer followed a similar arc. He broke with Joseph over doctrinal innovations and authoritarian leadership, especially with the rise of polygamy and secretive church governance. Yet even to his dying day, Whitmer insisted that he had seen the plates.

He published statements reaffirming his testimony, while also declaring that the church had gone astray. He specifically called out the absence of the Priesthood in the early church and the changes to revelations that were included in the first Doctrine and Covenants. He stated that church leadership, in printing the Doctrine and Covenants to replace the Book of Commandments, changed some revelations and added to others. This insight explains how the priesthood restoration and other late additions to the doctrines were retroactively updated in the first Doctrine and Covenants. He stated that if anyone believed his testimony of the Gold Plates, they should also believe his testimony that the church had gone astray and God told him to leave it.

This isn’t quite the shining testimony the church wants to attribute to David Whitmer.

Martin Harris

Martin Harris wandered in and out of various religious movements after leaving Mormonism, including joining James Strang’s breakaway sect. Like Cowdery and Whitmer, he held to his experience as one of the Three Witnesses, despite separating himself from Joseph’s later actions. Martin called the Kirtland Safety Society, Anti-Bank, a fraud and left “the fold” in 1837. He wasn’t done with a restored church, though, and attempted to reorganize another. Later that year, Harris was excommunicated (among many others) by Joseph and the Kirtland High Council.

Martin Harris didn’t remain silent on Joseph Smith. In 1841, the Painesville Telegraph reports Martin’s thoughts on Joseph Smith, “having become worldly and proud, has been forsaken of the Lord, and has become a knave and impostor.” Is this not the type of denunciation one would consider equivalent to calling Joseph a fraud? If someone calls a man a knave, they mean that he is dishonest and should not be trusted, a dishonest, deceitful person; tricky rascal, which clarifies the intended meaning of imposter too.

As to his present relation to the Mormons—Martin Harris believes that the work in its commencement was a genuine work of the Lord, but that Smith, having become worldly and proud, has been forsaken of the Lord, and has become a knave and impostor. He expects that the work will be yet revived, through other instrumentalities. This we had sometime since from Harris himself, and it has been repeated to us within the last week by a brother of his.

Painesville Telegraph, Volume 7: 1841 June 30, No 26, Page 3
https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/10fa4044-1161-4c22-9103-f707264ec8e6/0/2

Joseph Smith

While the church repeatedly claims that none of these men denied their testimony of Joseph, we can see they did not stand by him, and they didn’t speak kindly of him or his later doctrines. None of these men ever returned to full activity under Joseph. They likely believed at least some of their early experiences were real, but they rejected the later developments—particularly polygamy, theocratic control, and Joseph’s increasing consolidation of power. Perhaps they got wise to the spiritual manipulations of Joseph, but couldn’t reconcile the dissonance of being manipulated by one they considered to be a prophet. The feeling was mutual, and Joseph called these three men “too mean to mention.”

William Law and the Nauvoo Expositor

Then there’s William Law, Joseph Smith’s former second counselor in the First Presidency. Law did not play a part in founding the church. He was fresh to the church, which is likely a reason Joseph chose him for his First Presidency. Then, when things hit the fan, Law did expose Joseph. After learning of Joseph’s secret plural marriages—including an alleged proposal to Law’s own wife—Law left the church and published the Nauvoo Expositor, a newspaper calling out Joseph’s teachings and practices. Joseph ordered the press destroyed, which, as an illegal action, led directly to his arrest and eventual death in Carthage Jail. So yes, someone close to him did expose Joseph—and Joseph had the man’s press destroyed.

William Law believed in Joseph and the restoration, but believed more in truth and transparency. One of Joseph’s close confidants in the end, was the reason for his downfall. Law intended to publicly share the dirty secrets, and did just that with the Nauvoo Expositor. He wanted people to know, consequences be damned, or in other words, “Do what is right; let the consequences follow.” He wanted Joseph to be held accountable, though he didn’t likely foresee his death so quickly.

The irony is sharp: Apologists ask us to trust these early men when they affirm their testimony of the plates, but simultaneously minimize and discredit them when they criticize Joseph’s behavior. They want us to believe Oliver Cowdery when he says he saw an angel, participated in the Priesthood Restoration, but ignore him when he called Joseph’s relationship with Fanny Alger “a dirty, nasty, filthy affair.” They want us to believe David Whitmer’s visions and Witness to the Gold Plates, but dismiss his warnings that Joseph became corrupt. You can’t have it both ways.

And let’s not forget—of all these men, only Joseph Smith was ever brought to court for fraud, and that was before the church was even formally established. After founding the church, he was constantly in legal and personal turmoil—fleeing states, evading arrest, and eventually dying in jail while awaiting trial for destroying a printing press.

The church often insists that Joseph Smith’s closest confidants never denounced him as a fraud, and that this silence should strengthen our faith in his divine calling. But history tells a different story. Many of those who knew him best—his scribes, witnesses, counselors, and friends—did speak out, calling him an “imposter” and worse. The Book of Mormon itself declares, “by their fruits ye shall know them.” So what were Joseph’s fruits? Deception, authoritarianism, secret marriages, broken friendships, and repeated brushes with the law.

One by one, his inner circle either left him or were excommunicated for daring to challenge his claims. That doesn’t look like the foundation of a divine church. It looks like the unraveling of a cult of personality. A spiritual movement? Perhaps. But one led by a deeply flawed man, whose own friends ultimately could not remain by his side.

If you’ve wrestled with these same questions, you’re not alone. At wasmormon.org, we collect and showcase stories from people who have stepped away from Mormonism and found new paths of meaning. We invite you to share your own story of faith, doubt, or deconstruction—and join the conversation.

• Witnesses Saw Gold Plates With Spiritual Eyes
• Retroactive Mormon Priesthood Restoration Problems
• Leadership Suppress Dissenfecting Light – The Nauvoo Expositor
• https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/book-of-mormon-seminary-teacher-manual-2024/02-introductory-pages/024-teacher
• https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2020/01/the-last-witness-of-the-three-witnesses
• Special Witnesses – Have Mormon Apostles Seen Jesus?