Oliver Cowdery'S Earliest Known Written Testimony?

[Nevo]

Does it necessarily have to connote a farm field? Could have been a woodland meadow. Just considering possibilities here.

Perhaps. I've only been to the Whitmer farm once, about ten years ago. The country was beautiful but I don't recall if there were any woodland meadows nearby. Maybe Bro. Poulsen can work up some models for us on Google Earth

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps. I've only been to the Whitmer farm once, about ten years ago. The country was beautiful but I don't recall if there were any woodland meadows nearby.

Thus, the word "remote," perhaps. "Wilderness" suggests that it may have been quite far removed from the farm.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Cobalt-70]

The revelation calling the 8 witnesses (D and C 17) was received in June 1829. The Joseph Smith Papers dates their testimony to either June or August. The letter is dated to 9 November 1829, so it would seem that the answer is no.

The Joseph Smith papers people have not actually dated this testimony. They just give an estimate of "circa June-Aug. 1829." I think that range has to be wrong. Although the plates demonstration probably happened in June, I don't think anyone knows when the Testimony of Eight Witnesses was written down.

The earliest version of the Testimony I am aware of is from the Book of Mormon printer's manuscript, written in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery. Cowdery did not start work on the printer's manuscript until late August 1829. Cowdery wrote a few pages at a time per day, and sent them with Hyrum to the printer for typesetting, until the typesetting was complete in March 1830. The Testimony of Eight Witnesses is at the very end of the 1830 Book of Mormon, so this could have been the very last thing Cowdery sent to the printer. So the date of the Testimony of Eight Witnesses could have been as late as March 1830.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

Perhaps. I've only been to the Whitmer farm once, about ten years ago. The country was beautiful but I don't recall if there were any woodland meadows nearby. Maybe Bro. Poulsen can work up some models for us on Google Earth

The location of woodlands in modern Fayette can be vastly different from the way it was back in 1829. The first thing people did when they settled land was to chop down all the trees.

[wenglund]

Perhaps. I've only been to the Whitmer farm once, about ten years ago. The country was beautiful but I don't recall if there were any woodland meadows nearby. Maybe Bro. Poulsen can work up some models for us on Google Earth

Here are some pictures--keep in mind that this is how things appear today, and may have appeared somewhat different 180+ years ago):

http://hillcumorah.org/whitmer.php

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

Here are some pictures--keep in mind that this is how things appear today, and may have appeared somewhat different 180+ years ago):

http://hillcumorah.org/whitmer.php

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

From the website:

In the nearby woods an angel showed the gold plates to Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris and David Whitmer, in the company of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Don't know how authentic this summary is, but it is directly contradicted by the newly found Cowdery letter, which refers to a remote field.

Regarding the photos, there is one that shows a cultivated farm field next to some woods. If that's how things were in 1829, it may not be too difficult to reconcile Oliver's recollection with Joseph's.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[volgadon]

"It was a clear, open beautiful day, far from any inhabitants, in a remote field, at the time we saw the record"

I don't know why, but I really like the idea of this taking place in an open field—"amid the alien corn" as it were—on a beautiful, clear day. So many of the early theophanies seem to take place in rather closed spaces: forests, cramped bedrooms, etc.

It is a bit strange that Joseph later remembered the event as taking place in "the woods" (1838 History, 1838, A-1, 24; D&C 128:20 has "wilderness"), but Oliver's account is clearly to be preferred, as it was written just four months or so after the vision. Oliver wrote his letter on November 9, 1829; the vision took place in late June/early July 1829.

Obviously word of the vision must have traveled quickly, as Mr. Blatchy—a resident of New York City—evidently had heard of it well before November 9. This really is a remarkable find.

Thanks for the Keats reference!

[wenglund]

Don't know how authentic this summary is, but it is directly contradicted by the newly found Cowdery letter, which refers to a remote field.

It also says that it was "far from inhabitants," whereas the account in the HoC said it was "convenient" to the Whitmer farm.

These discrepancies may make it difficult to locate the exact spot for the angelic visitation, but are relatively meaningless to this important spiritual event.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[volgadon]

Cornelius Blatchly, the author of the comment you quoted, wasn't a Mormon. Non-Mormons typically compared Joseph Smith with "Mahomet" and the Book of Mormon with the Qur'an.

There is also that delightfully preposterous print of Mameluke Danites in Bennet's book.

[volgadon]

That was going to be my response. Those were the days long before American anti-Muslim bigotry set in. Islam was considered by many Americans to be a respectable and proud religion. Joseph Smith once even compared himself to Muhammad.

Do you mean "the Alcoran or the sword"? If so, don't you think your statement disngenious at best?

[Scott Lloyd]

It also says that it was "far from inhabitants," whereas the account in the HoC said it was "convenient" to the Whitmer farm.

These discrepancies may make it difficult to locate the exact spot for the angelic visitation, but are relatively meaningless to this important spiritual event.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Can you give the specific reference or quotation in History of the Church where the location is described as being convenient to the farm?

Never mind, I found it.

On this website there are pictures of farm fields next to groves. Again, I don't think it's difficult at all to reconcile the newly found Cowdery letter with reports give by the Prophet.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Nevo]

Can you give the specific reference or quotation in History of the Church where the location is described as being convenient to the farm?

Here's a link to the original manuscript:

http://josephsmithpa...p=30&s=&sm=none

[Scott Lloyd]

Here's a link to the original manuscript:

http://josephsmithpa...p=30&s=&sm=none

Thanks, but I found what I was looking for (see prior post).

[Bob Oliverio]

These discrepancies may make it difficult to locate the exact spot for the angelic visitation, but are relatively meaningless to this important spiritual event.

Agree.  And much like the difficulty of locating the exact place for the BOM location.  But, again, meaningless for an existence of a "spiritual history".

[volgadon]

Agree. And much like the difficulty of locating the exact place for the BOM location.

Much like locating the actual site of the duel in which Lermontov met his death.

Edited August 23, 2012 by volgadon

[halconero]

Great find by Erin Jennings. It raises a few interesting questions. For example, why is no mention made of the 8 witnesses? Obviously, Blatchley had never heard of the eight witnesses, and it would have been natural for Cowdery to point out to Blatchley in his defense that there were more than just the four witnesses. The fact that he didn't is curious.

It doesn't seem likely that Cowdery would have been ignorant of the eight witnesses. In fact, Cowdery used the phrases "have the appearance of gold" and "curious workmanship," which seem to have been lifted out of the text of the Testimony of Eight Witnesses. So either the Testimony of Eight Witnesses had already been written, yet for some odd reason Cowdery did not mention it, or it had not yet been written and it was Cowdery, not Smith, who drafted it, borrowing language Cowdery had already used in the Bletchley letter.

Also, why does Cowdery describe the location where the three witnesses had their vision as "far from any inhabitants, in a remote field," but Joseph Smith's much later 1838 account says that they went "into the woods, and "made choice of a piece of woods convenient to Mr Whitmer's." So Cowdery says the vision was in a field close to any inhabitants, and Smith later said the vision was in the woods close to the Whitmer home. I'd have to think Cowdery's description is more reliable, given that it was more contemporary.

Having grown up in an area similar to upstate New York, and going to school just 2 hours north of Palmyra on the Canadian side...it can be both. Do you know how many small clearings you suddenly run into while waklthrough the woods?

[Nevo]

Having grown up in an area similar to upstate New York, and going to school just 2 hours north of Palmyra on the Canadian side...it can be both. Do you know how many small clearings you suddenly run into while waklthrough the woods?

The "remote field" may be an open area in the woods, but given the "open day" (sky?) Cowdery mentions and the fact that the usual meaning of "field" in 1829 was "a piece of land inclosed for tillage or pasture; any part of a farm, except the garden and appurtenances of the mansion; properly land not covered with wood," I think it may be better understand it as an area away from trees.

I don't think it is imperative that we harmonize Cowdery's account, written a few months after the vision, with Joseph's memory of it a decade later. I think it's possible that Joseph misremembered the physical setting.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Nevo

[nealr]

The "remote field" may be an open area in the woods, but given the "open day" (sky?) Cowdery mentions and the fact that the usual meaning of "field" in 1829 was "a piece of land inclosed for tillage or pasture; any part of a farm, except the garden and appurtenances of the mansion; properly land not covered with wood," I think it may be better understand it as an area away from trees.

I don't think this invalidates that possibility that it was a clearing in the woods. Such a clearing would be "land not covered by wood," although the land surrounding the clearing would be covered by woods.

As for the "convenient" to the Whitmer farm vs. remote and away from inhabitants, they could have entered the woods near the Whitmer home, but by the time they reached the clearing (or "field"), they were far away from people, or at least it seemed far away because of the dense woods surrounding them.

Just some possibilties. I ultimately agree with you that:

I don't think it is imperative that we harmonize Cowdery's account, written a few months after the vision, with Joseph's memory of it a decade later. I think it's possible that Joseph misremembered the physical setting.

Given that by 1838 Joseph Smith had had several visions, and we know that at least some of them were in the woods, it is not the least bit surprising that he might confuse the setting of this vision with that of others.

So, they might be reconcilable, but it doesn't matter either way.

[Cobalt-70]

Do you mean "the Alcoran or the sword"? If so, don't you think your statement disngenious at best?

How so?

[Cobalt-70]

I don't think it is imperative that we harmonize Cowdery's account, written a few months after the vision, with Joseph's memory of it a decade later. I think it's possible that Joseph misremembered the physical setting.

That's my take. I'd trust Cowdery's more contemporary description over Smith's much later one. A lot of other stuff happened in the woods, such as the 8 witnesses, the first vision, etc., and it would be easy for Smith to get the details of such events mixed up after ten years. Look what happened to his memory of the first vision over the years.

Edited August 24, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[volgadon]

How so?

Probably neglecting to mention context, such as the time, place, circumstances and source.

[Bob Oliverio]

Much like locating the actual site of the duel in which Lermontov met his death.

Please!  Not even close!

But really, I've always wondered:  What do the witnesses have to do with the validation of the BOM history?

I've always wondered since coming here why people spend a lifetime making the BOM witnesses a reason and rationalization for the history claim of the B0M.  Why not make an accepted scholarly argument for the existence of the 1000 year history the BOM represents?  Has there ever been a claimed record of such similar claimed history that never draws any evidence or interest?!?

Why focus on the irrelevancy of "witnesses"?????

I get the fact it makes good "blog" material for some.  But where is the "meat" - so to speak?!?!?

[volgadon]

Please! Not even close!

No? There is no disputing that Lermontov fought a duel in Pyatigorsk, on the 27th of July, 1841. We know he was shot and killed. We know the participants, we know the city, we know the area, but the exact location is unknown. You would think that with all the available information pinpointing the event would be easy. Guess what, the real world is full of mysteries.

But really, I've always wondered: What do the witnesses have to do with the validation of the BOM history?

I've always wondered since coming here why people spend a lifetime making the BOM witnesses a reason and rationalization for the history claim of the B0M. Why not make an accepted scholarly argument for the existence of the 1000 year history the BOM represents? Has there ever been a claimed record of such similar claimed history that never draws any evidence or interest?!?Why focus on the irrelevancy of "witnesses"?????

I get the fact it makes good "blog" material for some. But where is the "meat" - so to speak?!?!?

DanGB, your post is filled with unintentional irony. You demand physical evidence of the BoM, yet dismiss what you can of it. The witnesses are just that, real, live human beings who were shown something by the power of God. The truth claims of all Christianity, in fact, rest on flesh and blood eyewitnesses.

I would love for you to name names. Who are these people spending a " lifetime making the BOM witnesses a reason and rationalization for the history claim of the B0M."

[Daniel Peterson]

What do the witnesses have to do with the validation of the BOM history?

They provide very strong evidence to support the claim that, in the late 1820s, Joseph Smith possessed a set of ancient-looking artifacts, including not only a sixty-pound set of inscribed golden plates but a breastplate, a sword, a pair of "interpreters," a mysterious compass-like object, and etc.,

Somebody manufactured these objects, and that lends at least some credibility to the claim that ancient people did. (It's easer to believe that A produced X if X is known to exist than it is to believe that A produced X if X is suspected not to exist.)

The testimony of the Three Witnesses, with their account of an angelophany, hearing the voice of God confirming the translation of the plates, and so forth, provides strong evidence that the claim of supernatural involvement in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is valid. And that, in turn, supports Joseph Smith's claim that the Book of Mormon is a supernaturally delivered record, which is an important part of his claim that it is the supernaturally delivered record of an ancient people, and that, since a divine voice affirmed its truthfulness, it's true.

These aren't small or peripheral matters.

[robuchan]

Reading the account of the three witnesses in Rough Stone Rolling caused one of the initial cracks in my testimony. The source material reads like a con on Martin Harris, IMHO.