Did God Remove Oliver Cowdary's Name From His Patriarchal Blessing?

[cinepro]

Weren't some of the original blessings in the D&C published using pseudonyms to protect the privacy and security of the brethren named?

 

Just the parts about the United Order:

 

The original 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, a book of LDS scripture, used code names for certain people and places. These names appear only in a few of the book's sections, mainly those dealing with the United Order. It is believed that their purpose was to avoid the use of these sections in lawsuits by opponents of the Church, since giving the real names might have provided evidence that the United Order was legally a company, with its members financially liable for each other and the whole Order.^[1]

 

The 1981 LDS edition replaced these with the real names. The Community of Christ edition still uses the code names.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_code_names_in_the_Doctrine_and_Covenants

 

[oremites]

Traces indicated a knife or something like it was use to scrape off the name. Why would God need to use such a tool instead of just fading the name away by commanding the molecules of the ink to come out of the paper?

 

If God wanted the name removed, He'd prompt someone to remove it.  God wouldn't even tell them how to do it.  He'd let that person come up with their own best solution using whatever tools they have at hand (such as a knife).  That person may or may not even be aware the idea came from God.  Since, as you said, there's no apparent teaching being done here, there's no reason for any sort of "miraculous" name removal.  A simple prompting is sufficient to get the job done.

 

That said, I seriously doubt God had anything to do with it.  It was probably for some mundane and silly reason.  If we asked whoever did this, they'd probably say, "It seemed like a good idea at the time."

[pogi]

Does God remove people's names from their patriarchal blessings when they are excommunicated?  Does it change anything?  Is the blessing somehow less valid?  It is not the name written on the page that guarantees a blessing, it is worthiness.  God would not waste his time on such a silly thing - but man would.  The blessing was pronounced and remains valid upon his worthiness, wether his name is on paper or not.

 

It sounds like the doing of a vindictive, bitter or perhaps betrayed person, not the doing of a God.  

[Calm]

If God wanted the name removed, He'd prompt someone to remove it. God wouldn't even tell them how to do it. He'd let that person come up with their own best solution using whatever tools they have at hand (such as a knife). That person may or may not even be aware the idea came from God. Since, as you said, there's no apparent teaching being done here, there's no reason for any sort of "miraculous" name removal. A simple prompting is sufficient to get the job done.

That said, I seriously doubt God had anything to do with it. It was probably for some mundane and silly reason. If we asked whoever did this, they'd probably say, "It seemed like a good idea at the time."

I agree that given plenty of human agents around for inspiration, God would most likely inspire someone to remove it, but the opening post specified a miracle and later posts seemed to me to continue that theme so that was what I was addressing.

Unless someone did this in front of Oliver himself or used it as an object lesson ("and now his name is blotted out here like it will be blotted out in God's Book of Life!") and if that happened I think it likely some sort of note would have been made, but I suppose it could have been lost, but given the information we have there seems little reason save for an emotional outburst.

Edited February 4, 2015 by calmoriah

[Investigating]

I agree that given plenty of human agents around for inspiration, God would most likely inspire someone to remove it, but the opening post specified a miracle and later posts seemed to me to continue that theme so that was what I was addressing.

 

I remember all the papers I destroyed (trying to correct some spelling or arithmetic errors) with a pencil or pen eraser, and it seems more than a little miraculous to me that a human hand (using a knife) could scratch the top layer of paper off a paper document in four different places without destroying the document.

 

God using a human hand, using a knife, would be a different story.

 

Unless someone did this in front of Oliver himself or used it as an object lesson ("and now his name is blotted out here like it will be blotted out in God's Book of Life!") and if that happened I think it likely some sort of note would have been made, but I suppose it could have been lost...

 

Or maybe it was/is meant as some kind of message/warning/witness to the rest of us, now that the original document can be viewed by millions online.

 

Is that possible?

 

but given the information we have there seems little reason save for an emotional outburst.

 

If it was done in an emotional outburst, why not destroy the whole document?

 

If you tried taking a knife and scratching the top layer of paper off a document in four different places, wouldn't you be more than likely to end up destroying the document (even if that wasn't your intention)?

 

Doesn't meticulously scratching a name off a document in multiple places, without destroying the document require a state of mind inconsistent with an emotional outburst?

 

I seriously doubt God had anything to do with it.  It was probably for some mundane and silly reason.  If we asked whoever did this, they'd probably say, "It seemed like a good idea at the time."

 

Can you think of any mundane or silly reason a wholly uninspired human might have had for doing this?

 

I always thought his name was erased by an owner of the book after he was excommunicated in 1838

 

Any idea who that would be?

 

Is any information available on who had possession of the book after Oliver was excommunicated in 1838?

[pogi]

Or maybe it was/is meant as some kind of message/warning/witness to the rest of us, now that the original document can be viewed by millions online.

 

Is that possible?

 

That is not a very effective message.  You are probably the only person who believes that this was some sort of divine message/warning.

 

Wouldn't it be more effective for God to simply state that message through Joseph Smith?  Why wait over 100 years to get that message to his people, rather, the very limited few who actually cared to read this patriarchal blessing, and the even fewer still who deciphered the message (you)? 

 

There simply is no precedence for God communicating a warning to his people through such a strange/mysterious and delayed means.  Those who are familiar with the dealings and communications of God to man in His church would recognize this as the doings of man and not God.  He doesn't work that way and never has.  

 

Any idea who that would be?

 

Is any information available on who had possession of the book after Oliver was excommunicated in 1838?

 

Now that would be an interesting question to find out. 

Edited February 7, 2015 by pogi

[Sevenbak]

Actually, it kinda is.

I've been informed by the LDS response team that the document is made out of paper, that the text is written in ink, and that the top layer of paper has been scratched off leaving blank spaces where Oliver's name originally appeared.

Now consider who would have a reason to do this?

If Oliver didn't want to be associated with the saints (because he wanted to avoid persecution) wouldn't he have destroyed the whole document (instead of carefully scratching his first name out of the text and leaving his full name at the bottom, where he's identified as the recording scribe)?

And if Joseph wasn't a prophet, and he simply got carried away when he gave some of these blessings to Oliver, and he was latter embarrassed by some of the things he said (even though any unfulfilled promises could easily be explained as conditional), why would he carefully scratch Oliver's name out of the text when he could just as easily have destroyed the whole document?

The book of Mormon says:

And those that would not confess their sins and repent of their iniquity, the same were not numbered among the people of the church, and their names were blotted out. (Mosiah 26:36.)

And (particularly since I see no reason for anyone else to have done it) I'm quite serious when I ask "could God have removed Oliver Cowdery's name from this document"?

Spoken in my best Yul Brynner voice...

Let The Name...'Moses'...Be Stricken From Every Public Obelisk...

So let it be written, so let it be done.

[Investigating]

Spoken in my best Yul Brynner voice...

Let The Name...'Moses'...Be Stricken From Every Public Obelisk...

So let it be written, so let it be done.

 

So you think God did strike Oliver's name from this book, or did prompt someone to do it?

[Investigating]

Is there anything in the Doctrine and Covenants about striking anyone's name out of the records of the Church?

[Sevenbak]

No, I don't think that is the case.  Just waxing filmegorically...

[Calm]

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/85.5?lang=eng#4

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/20.83?lang=eng#82

[Investigating]

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/85.5?lang=eng#4

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/20.83?lang=eng#82

 

Doctrine and Covenants 85:1-5.

 

 

1 It is the duty of the Lord’s clerk, whom he has appointed, to keep a ^ahistory, and a general church ^brecord of all things that transpire in Zion, and of all those who ^cconsecrate properties, and receive ^dinheritances legally from the bishop;

 2 And also their manner of life, their faith, and works; and also of the ^aapostates who apostatize after receiving their inheritances.

 3 It is contrary to the will and commandment of God that those who receive not their ^ainheritance by ^bconsecration, agreeable to his ^claw, which he has given, that he may ^dtithe his people, to prepare them against the day of ^evengeance and burning, should have their ^fnames enrolled with the people of God.

 4 Neither is their ^agenealogy to be kept, or to be had where it may be found on any of the records or history of the church.

 5 Their names shall not be found, neither the names of the fathers, nor the names of the children written in the ^abook of the law of God, saith the Lord of Hosts.

 

What's meant by "the book of the law of God"?

 

Could this mean (or have been taken to mean) that it was the duty of the Lord's clerk to remove Oliver's name from record of the patriarchal blessing he received from Joseph (after he was excommunicated in 1838)?

Edited February 8, 2015 by Investigating

[Calm]

Unlikely given that there were lots of other apostates at the time and apparently this is the only time it happened.

[Investigating]

Unlikely given that there were lots of other apostates at the time and apparently this is the only time it happened.

 

So if it's unlikely anyone took D&C 85:1-5 to mean they should take it upon themselves to remove Oliver's name, does that mean you think God did prompt someone to do it?

Edited February 8, 2015 by Investigating

[Investigating]

What does this mean?

 

 

Requested and received readmission to LDS church, 1848, at Kanesville (later Council Bluffs), Pottawattamie Co., Iowa.

 

Was Oliver accepted back into the Church?

 

Was he rebaptized?

 

Was he in fellowship with the Church when he died?

[Calm]

So if it's unlikely anyone took D&C 85:1-5 to mean they should take it upon themselves to remove Oliver's name, does that mean you think God did prompt someone to do it?

I don't think someone saw it as a duty otherwise they would have removed other apostates' names. It is more likely to be a personal reason not prompted by God, but emotion.

Edited February 9, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

What does this mean?

Was Oliver accepted back into the Church?

Was he rebaptized?

Was he in fellowship with the Church when he died?

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Cowdery,_Oliver

More detail:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1092&index=7

Edited February 9, 2015 by calmoriah

[Investigating]

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Cowdery,_Oliver

More detail:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1092&index=7

 

Thank you.

 

I'd like to believe that Oliver is saved, but if God did remove his name from his patriarchal blessing (whether He did it directly, or by prompting someone to scratch it out with a knife), wouldn't that mean that he's lost?

 

And isn't there a passage in Doctrine and Covenants that says we have to see God's hand in all things (and wouldn't that mean that however Oliver's name was removed, it means something)?

[Calm]

Do you think when someone does something bad, like break the vow of chastity, that has God's hand in it?

 

If the individual who removed his name (and no one else's) had a personal grudge against Oliver, perhaps he was jealous of the man or had been offended by him and when Oliver was excommunicated, rather than feeling sorrow in the loss of a brother he delighted in it and to really rub it in Oliver's fact…or at least have a secret revenge, he removed Oliver's name from his blessing as if that would actually change anything but give his anger an outlet.

Edited February 9, 2015 by calmoriah

[Investigating]

Do you think when someone does something bad, like break the vow of chastity, that has God's hand in it?

 

If the individual who removed his name (and no one else's) had a personal grudge against Oliver, perhaps he was jealous of the man or had been offended by him and when Oliver was excommunicated, rather than feeling sorrow in the loss of a brother he delighted in it and to really rub it in Oliver's fact…or at least have a secret revenge, he removed Oliver's name from his blessing as if that would actually change anything but give his anger an outlet.

 

But if God prompted someone (maybe Joseph himself, the instrument He used to give the blessing) to remove his name (because those blessings no longer applied to him), it wouldn’t be "something bad" (like breaking the vow of chastity) would it?

 

Does anyone else tend to see the hand of Providence in this?

[Calm]

I was referring to your comment:

"that says we have to see God's hand in all things"

I don't believe it means to see God as motivating someone to do something bad.

[Investigating]

But is there any good reason not to believe He motivated someone to remove Oliver's name from this document, in the unusual (and apparently unique) way it has been removed from every place it originally appeared in this document.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Investigating

[Calm]

Your decision to make. I do not feel inspired by the idea myself so I tend to accept a more mundane solution. If you feel the Spirit is telling you differently, you should make your decision on that and the other evidence.L

[Boanerges]

I was reminded of this last night watching Jeopardy. The question was about the Benedict Arnold plaque at West Point (which I have seen). The plaques honor West Point generals who served int he revolution. His name was removed from his plaque, but other information remains. I don't think God did  it.

[Investigating]

I was reminded of this last night watching Jeopardy. The question was about the Benedict Arnold plaque at West Point (which I have seen). The plaques honor West Point generals who served int he revolution. His name was removed from his plaque, but other information remains. I don't think God did  it.

 

Why didn't they just remove the whole plaque?

Edited February 21, 2015 by Investigating