Jump to content

Olivery Cowdery


AeonJ

Recommended Posts

Cowdery was pretty well educated and was with Smith through i'm guessing half his early visions, and spiritual visitations, plus was with Smith while translating the BoM subposedly only scribing what was dictated.

If anyone else was "in on it" it would have definitely been Cowdery. Being the "scribe" and being with Smith when the "keys were passed", makes him an invalueable figure to have had testifing against the church's truthfulness.

He, however, after being disinfranchized with the Church, didn't come forward with any deathnell information, or any crippling accusations; he quitely just left.

With his close hierarchy relationship with Joseph, Oliver could have split the church or even crushed most of it with a negative testimony, but chose not to. For better or worse, Cowdery's choice to not oppose the church after leaving it, stands as a strong testimony to me of the truthfulness found within it.

But if the Church wasn't true.....

Knowing this was all a faint by Joseph Smith, why is it that, Oliver Cowdery gave up so much time, effort, and work scribing and validating for Smith to play second fiddle to Smith's prophethood?

Obviously, Cowdery would have to be the brains behind the BoM, being an educated man that actual was the one "scribing" it, so why didn't he also claim the role of a prophet/leader?

When he left the church why didn't he try forming his own spinoff church (after all if it was all a fake why not do this)?

For that matter, why not just reveal that Smith was a fraud?

Why would he not denign his testimony till his dieing breath?

Link to comment

If Joseph was a fraud, Cowdery definitely presents a conundrum. How much was he in on? Was he and Whitmer both in on when they claimed an angel showed them the golden plates, or where they some how duped? Cowdery was an educated man who, despite his superstitions, you would think would've been able to figure it out. How did Joseph trick Cowdery into believing they saw the angels of John the Baptist, Moroni, the Apostles, and the Kirtland visions?

But if he was in on it, there are still some problems. When Cowdery finally left the Church, he told Joseph that it wouldn't be able to survive without him. Well, Cowdery was wrong. There's always the question you posed in your original post: why didn't Cowdery reveal Joseph? Was he worried that his character too would be tarnished, as a co-conspirator? I don't know about that -- outside of the Mormon world, he would have already been looked at a little funny for being a Mormon (and one so well-immersed in the Church's founding). Why did Cowdery continue to stand by the truth of the Book of Mormon?

And if Cowdery really wasn't in on it, why did he rejoin the Church, travel to Utah, take out his endowment, and do other temple work, without any place of authority in the Church? Since he no longer had power, and his former co-conspirator was long dead and his relationship with the Church's new leader tangible -- why did he rejoin, and why did he try to convince David Whitmer to rejoin as well?

Obviously Oliver was not a full-fledged fraud. I believe Vogel holds that he would've been somewhere in the middle -- perhaps ultimately believing in Joseph's prophetic ability and the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, but exagerating their visions and spiritual experiences to enhance the Church's message.

Me, I don't buy it.

Link to comment

If Joseph was a fraud, Cowdery definitely presents a conundrum.

How much was he in on?

If Emma Smith was a pious fraud, in telling her sons and others that her husband had nothing

to do with polygamy; then Nauvoo Stake President William Marks presents a conundrum.

How much was he in on, in justifying the creation of the RLDS Church?

Uncle "Or that famous RLDS polygamist, William Smith -- who also said there was no such polygamy"

Link to comment

If Joseph was a fraud, Cowdery definitely presents a conundrum. How much was he in on? Was he and Whitmer both in on when they claimed an angel showed them the golden plates, or where they some how duped? Cowdery was an educated man who, despite his superstitions, you would think would've been able to figure it out. How did Joseph trick Cowdery into believing they saw the angels of John the Baptist, Moroni, the Apostles, and the Kirtland visions?

But if he was in on it, there are still some problems. When Cowdery finally left the Church, he told Joseph that it wouldn't be able to survive without him. Well, Cowdery was wrong. There's always the question you posed in your original post: why didn't Cowdery reveal Joseph? Was he worried that his character too would be tarnished, as a co-conspirator? I don't know about that -- outside of the Mormon world, he would have already been looked at a little funny for being a Mormon (and one so well-immersed in the Church's founding). Why did Cowdery continue to stand by the truth of the Book of Mormon?

And if Cowdery really wasn't in on it, why did he rejoin the Church, travel to Utah, take out his endowment, and do other temple work, without any place of authority in the Church? Since he no longer had power, and his former co-conspirator was long dead and his relationship with the Church's new leader tangible -- why did he rejoin, and why did he try to convince David Whitmer to rejoin as well?

Obviously Oliver was not a full-fledged fraud. I believe Vogel holds that he would've been somewhere in the middle -- perhaps ultimately believing in Joseph's prophetic ability and the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, but exagerating their visions and spiritual experiences to enhance the Church's message.

Me, I don't buy it.

Cowdery had to have been a true co-conspirator if the BoM is a fraud.

It simply isn't rational to me how the simple-minded Joseph could have authored the complex work that is the BoM. Nor is it rational how two people can share the same exact hausinagenic (sp?) experiences.

Simply put either it's legit stuff or Cowdery is a fraudulent christian heretic with no sense of oportunism. Both seem equally incredible.

Link to comment

I think back then, and honest and honerable man would not betray somebody, even if they had a falling out. As it seems, Oliver was at a point where he thought the church was just doing good on Joseph's merits alone. Joseph Smith died, the church still stood, so it proved itself.

Oddly enough, I think the death of Joseph Smith might have been the best thing to happen to the church. After all, it wasn't about him, it's about the restoration of the Gospel.

Link to comment

I think back then, and honest and honerable man would not betray somebody, even if they had a falling out. As it seems, Oliver was at a point where he thought the church was just doing good on Joseph's merits alone. Joseph Smith died, the church still stood, so it proved itself.

Oddly enough, I think the death of Joseph Smith might have been the best thing to happen to the church. After all, it wasn't about him, it's about the restoration of the Gospel.

I think it just hit me that oddly enough too, it was probably best Cowdery did have his falling-away. (I've always had the romantic idea of him being a great 2nd Prophet-President until now)

Link to comment

If Joseph was a fraud, Cowdery definitely presents a conundrum. How much was he in on? Was he and Whitmer both in on when they claimed an angel showed them the golden plates, or where they some how duped? Cowdery was an educated man who, despite his superstitions, you would think would've been able to figure it out. How did Joseph trick Cowdery into believing they saw the angels of John the Baptist, Moroni, the Apostles, and the Kirtland visions?

But if he was in on it, there are still some problems. When Cowdery finally left the Church, he told Joseph that it wouldn't be able to survive without him. Well, Cowdery was wrong. There's always the question you posed in your original post: why didn't Cowdery reveal Joseph? Was he worried that his character too would be tarnished, as a co-conspirator? I don't know about that -- outside of the Mormon world, he would have already been looked at a little funny for being a Mormon (and one so well-immersed in the Church's founding). Why did Cowdery continue to stand by the truth of the Book of Mormon?

And if Cowdery really wasn't in on it, why did he rejoin the Church, travel to Utah, take out his endowment, and do other temple work, without any place of authority in the Church? Since he no longer had power, and his former co-conspirator was long dead and his relationship with the Church's new leader tangible -- why did he rejoin, and why did he try to convince David Whitmer to rejoin as well?

Obviously Oliver was not a full-fledged fraud. I believe Vogel holds that he would've been somewhere in the middle -- perhaps ultimately believing in Joseph's prophetic ability and the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, but exagerating their visions and spiritual experiences to enhance the Church's message.

Me, I don't buy it.

I don't see a conundrum.

Why didn't he reveal his role in the fraud? There are a myriad of reasons. Maybe he didn't want to be disbarred, jailed for fraud, had his reputation sullied. By contrast, what good would it do. He was an apostate. We all know that apostates are liars.

Why did he return to Utah, and rejoin the church?

Well isn't that where 30,000 plus religious fanatics lived. People who also believed that Oliver played a role in restoring the one true church. Its not really a stretch to think that Utah would be natural place for Oliver to go, if he were looking to exploit his role in the restoration for business and personal purposes.

Before you consider his return to Utah a conundrum, you have to ask, how was he received by the masses of faithful. Was he tarred, feathered and castrated, or was he welcomed back with open arms and open hearts?

Cowdery actions are a conundrum, to only those who have an agenda to promote.

Link to comment

I don't see a conundrum.

Why didn't he reveal his role in the fraud? There are a myriad of reasons. Maybe he didn't want to be disbarred, jailed for fraud, had his reputation sullied. By contrast, what good would it do. He was an apostate. We all know that apostates are liars.

Why did he return to Utah, and rejoin the church?

Well isn't that where 30,000 plus religious fanatics lived. People who also believed that Oliver played a role in restoring the one true church. Its not really a stretch to think that Utah would be natural place for Oliver to go, if he were looking to exploit his role in the restoration for business and personal purposes.

Before you consider his return to Utah a conundrum, you have to ask, how was he received by the masses of faithful. Was he tarred, feathered and castrated, or was he welcomed back with open arms and open hearts?

Cowdery actions are a conundrum, to only those who have an agenda to promote.

Why would he have been tarred, feathered, and castrated by Latter-Day Saints?

Link to comment

Please don't confuse the EV's with the facts...They have already made up their minds. Compassion please!

Pa Pa :P

Don't confuse inferences with facts.

Oliver did not publicly admit he participated in a fraud, ergo the Church is true. Yeah, right. No other rational explanation exists.

Link to comment

I don't see a conundrum.

Why didn't he reveal his role in the fraud? There are a myriad of reasons. Maybe he didn't want to be disbarred, jailed for fraud, had his reputation sullied. By contrast, what good would it do. He was an apostate. We all know that apostates are liars.

Why did he return to Utah, and rejoin the church?

Well isn't that where 30,000 plus religious fanatics lived. People who also believed that Oliver played a role in restoring the one true church. Its not really a stretch to think that Utah would be natural place for Oliver to go, if he were looking to exploit his role in the restoration for business and personal purposes.

Before you consider his return to Utah a conundrum, you have to ask, how was he received by the masses of faithful. Was he tarred, feathered and castrated, or was he welcomed back with open arms and open hearts?

Cowdery actions are a conundrum, to only those who have an agenda to promote.

Quite an insult to those who sacrificed so much to cross the plains in order to worship God as they pleased.

I guess the Israelites following Moses were religious fanatics? I guess since the Apostles endured persecution for following Christ, they were religious fanatics? Maybe Jesus himself was a fanatic?

What evidence do you have that Oliver exploited his role for business and personal purposes? Or are you just throwing out ridiculous speculation?

Oliver was challenged once in court in Ohio about his association with the Church after he had left it, in an effort to discredit him to the jury. He defended his beliefs and what he did.

Link to comment

Oliver was challenged once in court in Ohio...

If you will provide me with a set of reliable source citations for that assertion,

I will upload the information to my web-site:

Oliver Cowdery.com

Otherwise, stick to stuff you know for certain is accurate.

UD

Link to comment

Quite an insult to those who sacrificed so much to cross the plains in order to worship God as they pleased.

I guess the Israelites following Moses were religious fanatics? I guess since the Apostles endured persecution for following Christ, they were religious fanatics? Maybe Jesus himself was a fanatic?

What evidence do you have that Oliver exploited his role for business and personal purposes? Or are you just throwing out ridiculous speculation?

Oliver was challenged once in court in Ohio about his association with the Church after he had left it, in an effort to discredit him to the jury. He defended his beliefs and what he did.

Yes, I consider the early Mormons to be religious fanatics. Since the're all dead now, I don't think they mind.

I did not say Oliver exploited his role as witness. I simple addressed the question, why would Oliver come west, by providing a possible reason why he might come west, consistent with the theory that he was part of the fraud.

I don't know what was in his mind. It you and your kind, that are trying to extrapolate an inference as to what he genuinely believed based on what he did. SO, what evidence do you have that that possibility would never enter his mind? Is he of such fine moral character, notwithstanding his excommunication, that the thought of exploiting his role would never enter his mind?

Finally, as the alleged court incident. So what? Did he lose the case, because he defended his beliefs? What inference are you seeking to draw from his conduct.

Link to comment

Yes, I consider the early Mormons to be religious fanatics. Since the're all dead now, I don't think they mind.

I did not say Oliver exploited his role as witness. I simple addressed the question, why would Oliver come west, by providing a possible reason why he might come west, consistent with the theory that he was part of the fraud.

I don't know what was in his mind. It you and your kind, that are trying to extrapolate an inference as to what he genuinely believed based on what he did. SO, what evidence do you have that that possibility would never enter his mind? Is he of such fine moral character, notwithstanding his excommunication, that the thought of exploiting his role would never enter his mind?

Finally, as the alleged court incident. So what? Did he lose the case, because he defended his beliefs? What inference are you seeking to draw from his conduct.

Typical "Jaybearing".

Label those who are dead as "fanatics" since they are not here to defend themselves. Noble, indeed.

As I asked, any of those Biblical examples "fanatics" in your book? If not, why not?

You're the one who insinuated that Oliver went to SLC to exploit his reputation. Let's see you back it up.

CFR.

Link to comment

Don't confuse inferences with facts.

Oliver did not publicly admit he participated in a fraud, ergo the Church is true. Yeah, right. No other rational explanation exists.

It does for me...and he came back. Dispite other stories...Oliver, Martin and David never recanted. Seems very solid to me. But then again I believe the Apostles account of the resurection. Go figure?

Pa pa :P

Link to comment

It does for me...and he came back. Dispite other stories...Oliver, Martin and David never recanted. Seems very solid to me. But then again I believe the Apostles account of the resurection. Go figure?

Pa pa :P

Hey, you are perfectly welcome to draw that inference. I have absolutely no problem with that. Go figure?

What I have a problem with is the assertion by apologist that no other rational or reasonable explanation exists, and that anyone who does not draw the same inference is fool, under the influence of satan, or an antimormon with an axe to grind.

ERMD: Typical "Jaybearing".

Label those who are dead as "fanatics" since they are not here to defend themselves. Noble, indeed.

So what is the term for misusing someone's board name? You seem to have some deep seeded need to personally insult me today. Perhaps you should take a day off, and chill out.

If you want to begin a thread addressing the question of whether the early saints were or were not religious fanatics, I would be most pleased to defend my use of the term. I think it would be a fascinating discussion.

As I asked, any of those Biblical examples "fanatics" in your book? If not, why not?

See above. But yes, you should expect that I be consistent in my use of the label.

You're the one who insinuated that Oliver went to SLC to exploit his reputation. Let's see you back it up.

CFR.

I did not "insinuate" I provided a possible "motive" for Oliver's return to SLC, consistent with his participation in a fraud. The question presented is whether his decision to return to Utah presents a conundrum when juxtaposed against an allegation of fraud.

Knock off the mass murder/religious fanatics and other labels. If you can't talk about something without the labels you are on the wrong board. Take a break for a few days and think it over. ~Mods

Link to comment

If you want to begin a thread addressing the question of whether the early saints were or were

not religious fanatics, I would be most pleased to defend my use of the term.

I think it would be a fascinating discussion.

Might be interesting -- some of them were my ancestors -- so if I participate in

such a thread, don't expect me to always take the anti-Mormon position.

I provided a possible "motive" for Oliver's return to SLC... his decision to return to Utah...

How could Oliver "return" to a place he had never been? Great Salt Lake City was a collection

of adobe shacks and dug-outs when Oliver died in Missouri. He had dreams of being the

Brighamite representative in Europe -- but he was too sick to go anywhere.

UD

.

Link to comment

I don't see a conundrum.

Of course you don't.

Why didn't he reveal his role in the fraud? There are a myriad of reasons.

Yes, there are. Few of them, however, are credible.

Maybe he didn't want to be disbarred, jailed for fraud, had his reputation sullied.

And just who would have disbarred him or jailed him for exposing a fraud? This would have helped him more than hurt him. His reputation was already sullied, by his own admission, his practice suffered from his reputation of having, once, been associated with the Mormons.

By contrast, what good would it do. He was an apostate. We all know that apostates are liars.

Good grief.

Why did he return to Utah, and rejoin the church?

Uh... he didn't return to Utah. In fact he never, in his entire life, set foot in Utah.

Well isn't that where 30,000 plus religious fanatics lived. People who also believed that Oliver played a role in restoring the one true church. Its not really a stretch to think that Utah would be natural place for Oliver to go, if he were looking to exploit his role in the restoration for business and personal purposes.

Well, since he never went there, you can cross this off your list of "a myriad" of reasons.

Before you consider his return to Utah a conundrum, you have to ask, how was he received by the masses of faithful. Was he tarred, feathered and castrated, or was he welcomed back with open arms and open hearts?

He wasn't received by them at all, he never went there.

Cowdery actions are a conundrum, to only those who have an agenda to promote.

Who are you referring to?

T-Shirt

Link to comment

If Emma Smith was a pious fraud, in telling her sons and others that her husband had nothing

to do with polygamy; then Nauvoo Stake President William Marks presents a conundrum.

How much was he in on, in justifying the creation of the RLDS Church?

Uncle "Or that famous RLDS polygamist, William Smith -- who also said there was no such polygamy"

Geez, Unk, why can't you ever just say what you mean? I always have to decipher parallels, sarcasm, and who knows what else -- never knowing if what I wind up with is what you were saying. You're like the board's Dumbledore. :P

Link to comment

Cowdery was pretty well educated and was with Smith through i'm guessing half his early visions, and spiritual visitations, plus was with Smith while translating the BoM subposedly only scribing what was dictated.

If anyone else was "in on it" it would have definitely been Cowdery. Being the "scribe" and being with Smith when the "keys were passed", makes him an invalueable figure to have had testifing against the church's truthfulness.

He, however, after being disinfranchized with the Church, didn't come forward with any deathnell information, or any crippling accusations; he quitely just left.

With his close hierarchy relationship with Joseph, Oliver could have split the church or even crushed most of it with a negative testimony, but chose not to. For better or worse, Cowdery's choice to not oppose the church after leaving it, stands as a strong testimony to me of the truthfulness found within it.

But if the Church wasn't true.....

Knowing this was all a faint by Joseph Smith, why is it that, Oliver Cowdery gave up so much time, effort, and work scribing and validating for Smith to play second fiddle to Smith's prophethood?

Obviously, Cowdery would have to be the brains behind the BoM, being an educated man that actual was the one "scribing" it, so why didn't he also claim the role of a prophet/leader?

When he left the church why didn't he try forming his own spinoff church (after all if it was all a fake why not do this)?

For that matter, why not just reveal that Smith was a fraud?

Why would he not denign his testimony till his dieing breath?

Well, I think there are pretty good explanations for Oliver Cowdery's actions whether he believed if it were true or false. First of all I don't think Oliver Cowdery had the charisma to start his own Church, so I imagine that would have been his reason for being 'second fiddle'. In terms of exposing the fraud (if that's what it was) to do so would expose himself as a charlatan if he were 'in' on the whole thing-not a very good career move. No, the best thing for him to do would be to walk away from the whole thing quietly and try to start over. I'm not saying that the whole thing was a fraud but I hardly feel that Oliver Cowdery's actions can be entered in as proof that it wasn't.

Link to comment

QUOTE(Uncle Dale @ Aug 1 2007, 11:22 PM) *

If Emma Smith was a pious fraud, in telling her sons and others that her husband had nothing

to do with polygamy; then Nauvoo Stake President William Marks presents a conundrum.

How much was he in on, in justifying the creation of the RLDS Church?

Uncle "Or that famous RLDS polygamist, William Smith -- who also said there was no such polygamy"

Geez, Unk, why can't you ever just say what you mean? I always have to decipher parallels,

sarcasm, and who knows what else -- never knowing if what I wind up with is what you were saying.

You're like the board's Dumbledore. :P

Why? Because most of the MB members are intelligent and discerning enough to catch my meanings,

without my having to beat folks over the head in every single posting I make here.

My point with the Emma mention, was to show that pious, well-meaning Latter Day Saints could

indeed lead others astray, for what those leaders believed were good intentions. In such cases, the

participants in the "fraud" (or hoax, or lie, or half-truth, or whatever you want to call it) are not

always evil people. Actually, they generally seem to be good people who simply believe that their

hoped-for ends will justify their devious means.

In the creation of the RLDS Church, many good people went along with the "fraud" of there having

been no polygamy among the Smith men at Nauvoo. They knew better of course -- but they must

have either chosen to forget the facts, or they purposefully kept silent, in order to allow the "latter

day work" to go forward.

Having witnessed such things among modern Saints myself, first-hand, I am more apt to think that the

earlier Saints may have acted in the same manner --- and that deceptions may have indeed been

perpetrated by "good men" -- not for what they thought were evil purposes, but for what they thought

were godly purposes.

Call me a fool, or bone-headed, or some such thing --- but those are honestly my conclusions.

UD

Link to comment

Geez, Unk, why can't you ever just say what you mean? I always have to decipher parallels,

sarcasm, and who knows what else -- never knowing if what I wind up with is what you were saying.

You're like the board's Dumbledore. :P

Why? Because most of the MB members are intelligent and discerning enough to catch my meanings,

without my having to beat folks over the head in every single posting I make here.

I was just picking on you , I got what you meant. And I definitely don't have a problem with the way you post. <_<

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...