Oliver Cowdery'S Earliest Known Written Testimony?

[ANACO]

According to Martin Harris' testimony, they entered into a grove. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~archibald/Martin_Harris_Testimony.html

Whitmer was in a field plowing when the other three approached him, he tied his team to a nearby fence and the four entered into nearby trees - per Rough Stone Rolling, P78

I don't see any discrepancy with this and Oliver Cowdery's: It was a clear, open beautiful day, far from any inhabitants, in a remote field

"Open" appears as a reference to the sky.

[wenglund]

Here's a link to the original manuscript:

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

I find it useful to compare what is written in Joseph's journals with what all ended up in the HoC, since it can expose the difference between early and late recollections, as well as first-hand and second or third-hand recollections. Not all entries attributed to Joseph Smith in the HoC are actually his statements. And, in terms of the quote in question here, it appears that Joseph did make the statement, though not until several years after the fact--which may account, to some degree, for the discrepancies between Cowdery's early recollection and Joseph's somewhat late recollection, as you may have already surmised.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Wow.

Pretty clear- it's hard to give that any kind of nuanced understanding- it's either what happened or it"s a lie. Very straightforward.

This is kind of truth critics struggle with...great stuff.

[Scott Lloyd]

I find it useful to compare what is written in Joseph's journals with what all ended up in the HoC, since it can expose the difference between early and late recollections, as well as first-hand and second or third-hand recollections. Not all entries attributed to Joseph Smith in the HoC are actually his statements. And, in terms of the quote in question here, it appears that Joseph did make the statement, though not until several years after the fact--which may account, to some degree, for the discrepancies between Cowdery's early recollection and Joseph's somewhat late recollection, as you may have already surmised.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think ANACO makes a strong point, as I have tried to do, that both a field and a grove were likely involved in the setting for the experience.

Edited August 25, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Glenn101]

This is kind of truth critics struggle with...great stuff.

Most of the critics I have dealt with do not struggle with anything at all. They just dismiss any pro evidence out of hand.

Glenn

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Most of the critics I have dealt with do not struggle with anything at all. They just dismiss any pro evidence out of hand.

Glenn

The three witnesses is a difficult wall to climb over...it is not so easily dismissed, since all left the Church afterwards, with two returning.

[mfbukowski]

I think ANACO makes a strong point, as I have tried to do, that both a field and a grove were likely involved in the setting for the experience.

If you know Western New York- I grew up there- that is exactly what the geography is. We would run and play in the plowed fields and swing on trees that were wind-breaks and then walk just a few hundred yards into heavily wooded areas.

That's essentially what it is- farmers fields from which trees have been cleared, interspersed with wooded areas. Totally believable in my opinion.

[wenglund]

I think ANACO makes a strong point, as I have tried to do, that both a field and a grove were likely involved in the setting for the experience.

I agree. I was just allowing for another benign option for consideration. If people read the two statements with less charity as you and I and ANACO, perhaps their minds may be eased in realizing that it is no big deal that Joseph may have misremembered several years later certain unimportant details about this important event.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 25, 2012 by wenglund

[why me]

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.

Memory is tricky. Looking back several years later one can see themselves in a place where they never were at the time it happened nor the correct year. It just shows that the human brain is frail when it comes to memory even though we think that we have perfect memory of the event. The truth is it is just the opposite.

[why me]

I agree. I was just allowing for another benign option for consideration. If people read the two statements with less charity as you and I and ANACO, perhaps their minds may be eased in realizing that it is no big deal that Joseph may have misremembered several years later certain unimportant details about this important event.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And the event itself may overtake the memory of the location. I remember when I met an old friend from yesteryear. I haven't seen her for three decades. When I began to discuss the years we were personal friends I discovered that i was off by a few. I had us meeting in1978 but it actually occurred a couple of years later. Shock. But then again, did she remember correctly? Or did I? Who knows. What was important was that we met, spent time together and became good friends.

[Duncan]

And the event itself may overtake the memory of the location. I remember when I met an old friend from yesteryear. I haven't seen her for three decades. When I began to discuss the years we were personal friends I discovered that i was off by a few. I had us meeting in1978 but it actually occurred a couple of years later. Shock. But then again, did she remember correctly? Or did I? Who knows. What was important was that we met, spent time together and became good friends.

I have had that happen the way you remember things may not be the way they actually happened and later in life you could learn something that changes everything about the way you remember something, it's crazy!

[why me]

I have had that happen the way you remember things may not be the way they actually happened and later in life you could learn something that changes everything about the way you remember something, it's crazy!

Which is why we need to make allowances for people getting it not exactly right years later. One sign for a lack of fraud is when people do not have a set memory on paper,,,to get their stories straight. We see this lack of paper memory with Joseph. He had no paper to memorize his story. And so, he just went with memory. If i put myself in Joseph's shoes and all the things that I would be experiencing and the quick pace of these happenings, my mind would be in overdrive and looking back at events would not be easy to recall exactly and an open field would become the woods and the woods would become an open field etc.

[Scott Lloyd]

Which is why we need to make allowances for people getting it not exactly right years later. One sign for a lack of fraud is when people do not have a set memory on paper,,,to get their stories straight. We see this lack of paper memory with Joseph. He had no paper to memorize his story. And so, he just went with memory. If i put myself in Joseph's shoes and all the things that I would be experiencing and the quick pace of these happenings, my mind would be in overdrive and looking back at events would not be easy to recall exactly and an open field would become the woods and the woods would become an open field etc.

I get what you're saying, and it rings true to me.

At the same time I understand that it is a mission of the Holy Ghost to bring things to our remembrance (see John 14:26).

As I already believe in the amazing divine manifestations reported by the Prophet Joeph Smith, I have no trouble at all conceiving that he would be endowed with the spiritual gift of divinely aided memory, particularly as it pertains to reports of events that have been included in the scriptural canon.

For a while there was a bit of a controversy as to whether the organization of the Church took place in Fayette or Manchester. Recently uncovered documentary material has pretty much settled the debate by corroborating the Prophet's account. I suspect that when all is said and done it will be established that Joseph got it right in most, if not all, instances.

Edited August 27, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[why me]

Recently uncovered documentary material has pretty much settled the debate by corroborating the Prophet's account. I suspect that when all is said and done if will be established that Joseph got it right in most, if not all, instances.

Yes, you do have a point. However, it is always best to remember human allowances for memory. I can see him talking to people just off the top of his head and getting his memory a little off. And then, these people who heard the story writing it down in their journal. And even getting that wrong if they wrote it a week later.

We need to remember that we have a lot of second hand reports about what Joseph said and didn't say.

[Cobalt-70]

For a while there was a bit of a controversy as to whether the organization of the Church took place in Fayette or Manchester. Recently uncovered documentary material has pretty much settled the debate by corroborating the Prophet's account. I suspect that when all is said and done if will be established that Joseph got it right in most, if not all, instances.

That's not a very good example, because even Joseph Smith himself said in his 1842 Wentworth Letter that the organization was in Manchester, although at other times, he had said Fayette. And I don't think that the document released by Church Archives settles the issue. There is still a lot of evidence that the formation was in Manchester, including the statements of eye-witnesses, and the new document is just one bit of evidence to the contrary, which has to be weighed against all the other evidence of it being in Manchester.

[William James]

“It was a clear, open beautiful day, far from any inhabitants, in a remote field, at the time we saw the record, of which it has been spoken, brought and laid before us, by an angel, arrayed in glorious light, [who] ascend [descended I suppose] out of the midst of heaven.

“Now if this is human juggling — judge ye.”

Someone help me out, but I must be missing what is so monumental about Cowdery's letter. Is the argument simply that this statement proves that Cowdery saw the plates without any supernatural intervention (i.e., with his "spiritual eyes" or some visionary experience)? If so, then I disagree with that conclusion (I'm not saying Cowdery didn't see the plates, but rather that this letter proves only what his testimony was at the time, and no explicit mention is made of physical versus spiritual beholding).

I also believe that too much emphasis is placed on Cowdery's alleged deathbed testimony. People do not always confess lies on their deathbeds. They may desire that their family eulogize them, something less likely to happen if they confess false prior testimony. A person on a deathbed who is about to leave behind a family would probably also want to preserve the family's reputation- something which would be stained if the person (who apparently practiced law) would have confessed to perjury. If we were to employ the standard of accepting all deathbed testimony of supernatural events, I am sure we would wind up with having to embrace many claimed supernatural experiences of people of other faiths- i.e., appearances of saints and the Virgin Mary, etc. It is not fair to employ a double standard by discarding all of the Catholic spiritual witnesses while crediting all of the faith-promoting LDS ones.

[why me]

Someone help me out, but I must be missing what is so monumental about Cowdery's letter. Is the argument simply that this statement proves that Cowdery saw the plates without any supernatural intervention (i.e., with his "spiritual eyes" or some visionary experience)? If so, then I disagree with that conclusion (I'm not saying Cowdery didn't see the plates, but rather that this letter proves only what his testimony was at the time, and no explicit mention is made of physical versus spiritual beholding).

I also believe that too much emphasis is placed on Cowdery's alleged deathbed testimony. People do not always confess lies on their deathbeds. They may desire that their family eulogize them, something less likely to happen if they confess false prior testimony. A person on a deathbed who is about to leave behind a family would probably also want to preserve the family's reputation- something which would be stained if the person (who apparently practiced law) would have confessed to perjury. If we were to employ the standard of accepting all deathbed testimony of supernatural events, I am sure we would wind up with having to embrace many claimed supernatural experiences of people of other faiths- i.e., appearances of saints and the Virgin Mary, etc. It is not fair to employ a double standard by discarding all of the Catholic spiritual witnesses while crediting all of the faith-promoting LDS ones.

Critics love to bring up the spiritual eyes controversy which was stated by Martin Harris during one of his explanations about what happened. But spiritual eyes is in the book of moses where moses is explaining its meaning.

Moses 11:1 But now mine own eyes have ^abeheld God; but not my ^bnatural, but my ^cspiritual eyes, for my ^dnatural eyes could not have ^ebeheld; for I should have ^fwithered and ^gdied in his presence; but his ^hglory was upon me; and I beheld his ⁱface, for I was ^jtransfigured before him.

Martin could have taken his experience and relating it that time from his reading of Moses.

The reason why the deathbed testimony is unique is that he bore it to his wife and daughter and not just friends. There would be no reason to do this unless he believed in what he experienced. Why lie to wife and daughter on his deathbed and why bear his testimony at all if it were a lie? Any explanations that may sound credible?

[Scott Lloyd]

That's not a very good example, because even Joseph Smith himself said in his 1842 Wentworth Letter that the organization was in Manchester, although at other times, he had said Fayette. And I don't think that the document released by Church Archives settles the issue. There is still a lot of evidence that the formation was in Manchester, including the statements of eye-witnesses, and the new document is just one bit of evidence to the contrary, which has to be weighed against all the other evidence of it being in Manchester.

The Marquardt article to which you linked us is old research. It is rendered out of date by the recent finding of The Book of Commandments and Revelations In the First Presidency's office, which not only corroborates the Prophet's later account about the Church's organization taking place in Fayette, but is now the earliest known document regarding that event.

References to it having taken place in Manchester can be accounted for by the possible error of one man, William W. Phelps, who supervised the printing of both the Evening and the Morning Star and the Book of Commandments in Independence, Mo. It happens often that once an error gets into print it tends to get perpetuated, which could account for references in subsequent documents to the event having taken place in Manchester.

As Richard Bushman has noted, the most parsimonious explanation is that it was Phelps who erred rather than Joseph Smith and David Whitmer, as Phelps wasn't present for the Church organization, while the Prophet and Whitmer were.

Admittedly, the reference to Manchester in the Wentworth letter seems anomalous. But this could be explained if Joseph had assigned one or more scribes to draft the document for his signature, which was his routine practice in Nauvoo, and the letter had been sent out without his noticing the error. Such scribe or scribes may have been influenced by past published references to the event having occurred in Manchester, again the perpetuation of an error once it is published.

[Bob Oliverio]

They provide very strong evidence to support the claim that' date=' 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.,[/quote']. 

OK, so they support that Joseph had some "stuff".  I can agree with that.  But how did a witness' testimony to seeing this this "stuff" provide a "credible link" to the existence of a 1,000 year history claim contained in our BOM?

Would anyone really find any interest in an account of one who claimed to have seen a the actual map to the location of the "Lost Dutchman's Gold" in the Organ Mountains, seeing samples of the actual gold coins and swearing the map was was copied "exactly" to the copy we currently have today - if we still can't find the treasure after years of searching?  What is the value and significance of a dying death bed testimony in support of an existence of history if the history can't be corroborated nor established?  Particularly one of millions of peoples, sophisticated societies, and with the names of cities, rivers and other things mentioned in such detail.

I guess I'm just not sure what audience you are attempting to impress or persuade.  The one who needs emotional encouragement on Sundays, or the one who will be swayed by meaningful and intellectual arguments in our academic institutions on Monday.

[ANACO]

.

OK, so they support that Joseph had some "stuff". I can agree with that. But how did a witness' testimony to seeing this this "stuff" provide a "credible link" to the existence of a 1,000 year history claim contained in our BOM?

Would anyone really find any interest in an account of one who claimed to have seen a the actual map to the location of the "Lost Dutchman's Gold" in the Organ Mountains, seeing samples of the actual gold coins and swearing the map was was copied "exactly" to the copy we currently have today - if we still can't find the treasure after years of searching? What is the value and significance of a dying death bed testimony in support of an existence of history if the history can't be corroborated nor established? Particularly one of millions of peoples, sophisticated societies, and with the names of cities, rivers and other things mentioned in such detail.

I guess I'm just not sure what audience you are attempting to impress or persuade. The one who needs emotional encouragement on Sundays, or the one who will be swayed by meaningful and intellectual arguments in our academic institutions on Monday.

Reading their testimony you can see the audience intended by the three witnesses. http://www.lds.org/s...uction?lang=eng

The Lord knows the secular world relies on the testimonies of men. So He provided it for the Book of Mormon.

There was no attempt to deceive anyone. Given the 3 witnesses were removed from membership of the Church, with only, I believe, Oliver Cowdery returning late in his life, shows there was no collusion on their parts.

Also the fact the leadership of the Church disfellowshipped/excommunicated them, shows they held no special status of membership, above any other member, due to their testimonies of seeing the angel and the plates.

Edited August 26, 2012 by ANACO

[Bob Oliverio]

Appreciate response ANACO, but don't believe it was really on topic.  My post was in response to Mr. Peterson.  I'll let him respond if he chooses so.

[volgadon]

Appreciate response ANACO, but don't believe it was really on topic. My post was in response to Mr. Peterson. I'll let him respond if he chooses so.

No, "Bob," or is it Dan? This is a discussion board. You don't get to dodge things that easily.

BTW, am still waiting for you to name names.

Edited August 27, 2012 by volgadon

[Cobalt-70]

The Marquardt article to which you linked us is old research. It is rendered out of date by the recent finding of The Book of Commandments and Revelations In the First Presidency's office, which not only corroborates the Prophet's later account about the Church's organization taking place in Fayette, but is now the earliest known document regarding that event.

There are plenty of factors mentioned in the Marquardt article that are not affected by the BCR finding. But I don't want to derail the topic. Suffice it to say that, especially given Joseph Smith's 1842 reference to Manchester, you can't say that the BCR finding is evidence that Joseph Smith has some sort of "divine memory" that is superior to the memory of mere mortals.

[Scott Lloyd]

There are plenty of factors mentioned in the Marquardt article that are not affected by the BCR finding.

If you're referring to "eye-witness accounts" about Manchester, none of them that I see establish the actual presence of said witnesses at an organizational meeting there. Rather, they pertain to baptisms taking place in Manchester on or around April 6, 1830, which could have happened even though the organizational meeting took place in Fayette on that date.

At least one account refers to a baptism having taken place in Manchester in the evening. Fayette, I understand, is about 30 miles from Manchester Township. I Googled the question "How fast can a horse-drawn carriage go?" Responses range from 10 to 35 mph. Assuming this is accurate, even with a minimal speed of travel, there would have been ample time to have an organizational meeting in Fayette in the morning, then return to Manchester and conduct baptisms the same day.

But I don't want to derail the topic. Suffice it to say that, especially given Joseph Smith's 1842 reference to Manchester, you can't say that the BCR finding is evidence that Joseph Smith has some sort of "divine memory" that is superior to the memory of mere mortals.

I have already suggested a plausible reason why the Wentworth letter might have given Manchester instead of Fayette as the location for the Church organization. As time went on, Joseph Smith relied increasingly on the aid of scribes and clerks in the production of his documents. Much of what we have from the Prophet today, even though written in the first person, is actually the work of his subordinates. This followed documentary conventions that were perfectly acceptable in Joseph Smith's day.

Moreover, historians agree the Wentworth letter was drawn from a pamphlet written by Orson Pratt, which itself likely was influenced by the publications supervised earlier by William W. Phelps, which (erroneously, in my view) gave Manchester as the location for the Church organization meeting.

And it is one thing to doubt or deny that Joseph received any visions, revelations, theophanies or spiritual manifestations whatsoever. But to believe that he did and then doubt or deny that God could have aided his recall by the power of the Holy Ghost strikes me as inconsistent. I'm not insisting that this happened in every instance, only that it's reasonable to believe it occurred at least part of the time, given Joseph's prophetic calling and attendant spiritual gifts.

Edited August 27, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[LoudmouthMormon]

Would anyone really find any interest in an account of one who claimed to have seen a the actual map to the location of the "Lost Dutchman's Gold" in the Organ Mountains, seeing samples of the actual gold coins and swearing the map was was copied "exactly" to the copy we currently have today - if we still can't find the treasure after years of searching?

Yes - pretty much any treasure-seeker would. And I'm guessing some historians and anthropologists and other such folk would too. And folk who like to read interesting historical bios. And people who live in the area.

How come the answer isn't self-evident to you?

What is the value and significance of a dying death bed testimony in support of an existence of history if the history can't be corroborated nor established?

It is of value when tallying available evidence for "Joseph just making it all up", or "Satan appeared as an angel of light", or "People of that time ingested so much mercury they were hallucinating", or "The BoM is a good story with some good values in it, but isn't literal history".

This answer sort of jumps out at me. Am I the only one?