Did Oliver Cowdery Know the Book of Mormon Was A Con?

[_Themis]

I agree that teaching school wasn't a cure for poverty ;) But Cowdery was capable of doing any number of things, as his later life attests. For a young man on the make, taking up with an impoverished and widely reviled social outcast on a quixotic (and almost universally ridiculed) project to translate and publish a new book of scripture doesn't strike me as the best career move. If Cowdery believed that the as yet non-existent Book of Mormon would make him a fortune, he must have had great faith indeed.

I tend to think he was religious and easily manipulated, but many then and now can see that religion can have major payouts financially. I remember on my mission realizing how much money one could make with religion if they had a little charisma.

I don't think Cowdery would have viewed the use of a Bible during the translation as something needing to be covered up. The biblical quotations and allusions in the Book of Mormon are quite conspicuous and were even more obvious to nineteenth-century readers steeped in the KJV than they are today. Was Cowdery ever asked about a Bible being present? I'm not aware that he was. In any case, so I don't see his failure to disclose its presence as evidence of deceit.

Yet we have little from him on these topics that would be of interest to so many. I have a hard time thinking many did not ask for details. The speed of translation is also very suspect. Why so so slow before then then lightning fast. All Cowdery is supposed to be providing is dictation. Something others were willing to provide.

As for other source texts being present (View of the Hebrews, the Spalding MS, The Late War, the Westminster Confession of Faith, Hamlet, etc.), I doubt there were any. I don't see evidence of direct borrowing from anything other than the Bible. And the Book of Mormon text itself points to it being a dictation.

Other then the possible missing Spalding MS, the others show that the Book of Mormon has the same source, which is the 1800's culture and thinking. Not that the Book of Mormon was copied from them.

Regarding "Cowdery's failure to debunk Joseph's years later story of Peter, James and John," Cowdery himself affirmed in his 1846 letter to Phineas Young that he had received the Melchizedek Priesthood from Peter. Either he was lying outright or he believed this to be true. I incline toward the latter explanation.

Runtu's thread about Packer got me thinking about this. Packer in his infamous talk about church history is promoting dishonesty to protect the church and gospel. This idea of lying for the lord has been prevalent in the church, and outside of it, from the beginning and still is today.

When Oliver met up with Joseph, he was, by all accounts, a highly religious, visionary type. He used a divining rod and inhabited a world full of wonders, infused with the supernatural. Oliver apparently saw the plates in vision before he ever met Joseph and quickly became obsessed with them. Lucy Mack Smith remembered that in the months that Oliver lived with them, he was "so completely absorbed in the subject of the record that it seemed impossible for him to think or converse about anything else."

Dan Vogel has written: "Considering [Cowdery's] state of mind and visionary predisposition, his obsessive thoughts may have carried him to the point of delusion; at least, this possibility should be taken into consideration when assessing his role as one of the three witnesses" (Vogel, "The Validity of the Witnesses' Testimonies," in American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, ed. Brent Lee Metcalfe and Dan Vogel [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002], 96).

I agree with Vogel that this is a possibility. I've recently been reading Lawrence Wright's Going Clear, which includes testimony from Scientologists and ex-Scientologists about out-of-body travel and past life memories/visions experienced during "auditing." I assume most of them are not simply inventing these stories. "Believing is seeing," as they say.

As for the "evolving, contradictory versions of the Moroni visitations," I don't think the differences are really all that great or significant. In any case, I doubt Oliver thought the stories were made up. I think he believed them because he too was a product of a visionary subculture. Angels and spirits were real to him.

You take Cowdery's involvement with divining rods as evidence that he was also a con man, since he must have known that they didn't really work. However, I tend to think that Cowdery sincerely believed in such things.

One important factor is the ability to delude others, but maybe even more important is the ability of others to delude themselves. All to common and makes the fraudsters job so much easier.

[_Tonto Schwartz]

Hi Nevo,

The fact that Cowdery may have written Phineas Young in 1846 that Cowdery saw Peter is only the weakest of proof that Joseph's story that he and Cowdery were ordained by Peter James and John to the higher priesthood in 1830 is true. The evidence we're looking for Is believable contempory evidence from a trustworthy source. I believe the original story was that after praying to God Joseph and Cowdery baptized each other. As I previously stated, David Whitmer never heard the story until 1834-36 and claimed the whole priesthood idea was a later invention of Rigdon, nowhere to be found in the Book of Mormon. Also, the story of John the Baptist appearing to Joseph and Oliver to restore the Aaronic priesthood was a much later invention, not being published, I believe, until the early 1840s. See, generally, Ch 11,Priesthood, in Mormonism, Shadow or Reality. The fact of the matter is that Cowdery had to know that these stories were not original to 1830 or to the original Book of Commandments, but were made up years after the fact. Did Cowdery believe back in 1830 he had these experiences or did he only purport to believe these stories after they were invented years later. We would expect Cowdery to use these stories to increase his prestige and power (and consequently wealth). We would also expect him to pass along the tales to people such as Phineas. but that doesn't mean Cowdery believed the stories. A better indicator of how sincerely Cowdery really believed all the stories of divine origin is that he tossed the divine church for the Methodists. Certainly, if he had been visited by all these divine beings he would have stayed in some form of Mormonism.

With respect to treasure digging, I agree that many people engaged in this activity (mostly on the fringes of society) and many superstitiously believed that they could find treasures magically. That people were so superstitious and gullible helps explain how Joseph and many other religious frauds of the times were so easily able to con them. And, when Joseph for a number of years charged people substantial amounts of money to find the treasures and was never successful, but always had some excuse for his failure such as the treasure is guarded by spirits who kept moving the treasure further into the earth, the only reasonable explanation is conscious fraud. Now, I don't know whether Cowdery charged money for finding things with his rod, but I suspect he did like his father. Maybe someone else knows. If Cowdery did charge money, then I suspect he was conscious of this fraud also.

What about the story Brigham repeated years later about Joseph and Oliver (maybe others) finding a large room inside the Hill Cumorah containing all sorts of marvelous things such as the Sword of Laban and the golden plates and spectacles. This was told to Brigham and by Brigham as a real physical occurance. Do You think Cowdery believed such nonsense or did it only increase his power and prestige?

Tonto

[_Tonto Schwartz]

One other minor point I forget to mention, Nevo, you state that Cowdery probably would not have been bothered by Joseph reading from and referring to the 1769 Bible, but that Bible and its errors and different language was not in existence when the Book of Mormon was supposedly written 1300-2300 years earlier. How could it not have bothered Cowdery that a Bible translation made thousands of years after the Book of Mormon was supposedly written was part of the Book of Mormon text translated by the gift and power of god. Also, Joseph's claim was that he translated with his head in the hat and just read the English words appearing in the hat. I would be absolutely shocked if Joseph really did this other than when visitors were present, but reading from the Bible is directly contradictory to Joseph's claim. As Emma claimed, Joseph translated without any other books or materials in the room. So Cowdery was aiding and abetting Joseph's translation fraud by not disclosing how Joseph was really writing the book. Why would the extremely honest Cowdery you posit assist this fraud?

[_moksha]

Ever hear of a pious fraud?

You mean someone who denyeth not the power of both stone and hat, yet faileth to wear a similar hat?

[_Nevo]

Hi Tonto,

Sorry for the delay in replying to your posts. You argue that there is no contemporary evidence for the 1829 priesthood ordinations by John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John, and that "Cowdery had to know that these stories were not original to 1830 or to the original Book of Commandments, but were made up years after the fact."

I agree that contemporary evidence for angelic priesthood ordinations in 1829 is lacking (although not for all angelic ministrations). The closest thing, perhaps, is the reference in Joseph Smith's 1832 history to "the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of—Aangels," which is listed chronologically after the visits of Moroni.

I see two possibilities here: 1) Oliver knew that no angels conferred priesthood authority on him in 1829, but nevertheless colluded with Joseph to fabricate a bogus account; or, 2) Oliver believed, or came to believe, that angels did confer priesthood authority in 1829 but didn't talk about it openly until 1834. I don't rule out either possibility. However, my overall sense of Cowdery's personal integrity inclines me to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Now, I don't know whether Cowdery charged money for finding things with his rod, but I suspect he did like his father. Maybe someone else knows. If Cowdery did charge money, then I suspect he was conscious of this fraud also.

As far as I know there is no solid evidence that William Cowdery was a rodsman at all, let alone that he charged money to find things with it. By all accounts, he appears to have been a respected member of his community (see Larry E. Morris, "Oliver Cowdery's Vermont Years and the Origins of Mormonism," BYU Studies 39, no. 1 [2000]: 115–116). The fact is, we don't know how Oliver came to use a divining rod or whether he ever charged for his services. The April 1829 revelation to Cowdery only makes sense if Cowdery actually believed that his "gift of working with the sprout" was real.

A better indicator of how sincerely Cowdery really believed all the stories of divine origin is that he tossed the divine church for the Methodists. Certainly, if he had been visited by all these divine beings he would have stayed in some form of Mormonism.

I disagree. Cowdery was deeply hurt by the treatment he received at Far West and was bitter about it for years. I don't doubt he said some negative things about Mormonism during that period. But I'm not convinced that he ever renounced his belief in Mormonism's divine origins. I don't think he joined the Methodists because he became convinced that they were right and the Mormons were wrong. I think he did it for reasons of expediency and because he had nowhere else to go (there hardly any Mormon offshoots in the early 1840s). Cowdery's later letters and statements persuade me that he remained attached to Mormonism to the end, notwithstanding his disagreements with some of the leadership.

[_Servant]

The evidence seems overwhelming that Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon alone or with the help of others. I'm not interested in arguing that point. My question is what Oliver Cowdery's involvement was. As I understand it, the faithful Mormon eye witnesses stated that Joseph claimed to be translating all but the original first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon by putting his peep stone in his top hat, covering his face with the hat and then reading the English translation of the Reformed Eqyptian characters to his scribe and then when everything was correct the words would disappear from the hat and he would move onto the next words. Martin Harris claimed that when he was the scribe for the first 116 pages that Joseph translated using the spectacles, but Martin could not know this because he claimed Joseph was hidden behind a curtain and no one was permitted to see either the spectacles or the plates upon pain of death.

I have a hard time believing Cowdery was not in on the con, given the evidence of which I'm aware. After the loss of the plates, God supposedly punished Cowdery by taking the plates and spectacles (I don't know why Joseph was being punished given the fact that God told him he could allow Harris to take the plates) in June, 1928. In approx. Sept. 1928, Joseph supposedly received back the plates and his gift to translate (really a gift to read English). Between Sept 1828 and mid April 1829, Emma was Joseph's sole or principal scribe and Joseph in all those months only completed a few pages. Yet, when Cowdery appeared on the scene in mid April 1829, Joseph began making substantial progress and finished the book a little over 2 months later. Why was there such a difference in how fast Joseph was able to read English when Emma was writing it down and when Cowdery was doing the writing? Is there any evidence that the lack of progress was due to Emma's poor writing skills or her lack of time to devote to the work? I suspect the difference was due to perhaps a number of reasons, including one or more of the following: 1) Oliver brought text with him to assist Joseph in writing such as material from Rigdon and The View of The Hebrews written by Cowdery's family minister in Poultney, Vermont, Ethan Smith (was the connection between Cowdery and Ethan Smith just a coincidence given the many parallels which B.H. Roberts and others have found between the Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews?); 2) Joseph could freely quote from and refer to the 1769 King James translation of the Bible and other sources because Cowdery was in on the con; 3) Cowdery and/or perhaps others "co-wrote" substantial portions of the Book of Mormon with Joseph after Cowdery's arrival.

Other witnesses such as Emma, Martin and David Whitmer freely described the manner in which Joseph "translated", but Cowdery said very little, although I understand that on two or three occasions over a number of decades that Cowdery claimed Joseph used the spectacles while Cowdery was the scribe. This claim was clearly false based upon the statements of the other witnesses, the fact that the spectacles were not returned to Joseph after the 116 pages were lost and the fact that according to Joseph no one was permitted to see the spectacles without instantly dying and Cowdery in fact never claimed to have seen them.

I've heard it argued that Cowdery could not have been in on the con because he was an honest man, but I disagree. First, Joseph later claimed that Cowdery, Martin and Whitmer were liars, thieves, and counterfeiters and were "too mean to mention." Second, even if Cowdery was pretty honest, nobody is completely honest and it is not uncommon for honest people to do dishonest things, especially where religion is concerned where numerous leaders have justified pious fraud to themselves. Third, if Cowdery was so honest and forthcoming, why was he so reluctant to discuss the translation. Fourth, if Cowdery was so convinced that Mormonism was from God and that Joseph had really translated the book through the gift and power of God, why did Cowdery leave Mormonism and join the Methodists (although years later he briefly returned)? Cowdery obviously thought that Joseph was a scoundrel and had had a "dirty, nasty, filthy" affair with Fanny Alger, but that would only justify possibly leaving Mormonism and starting his own off spring, not joining a completely different faith and apologizing about his Mormon past.

I'd be interested in any thoughts, evidence, threads or other references people may have on this issue. I don't pretend to be an expert on early Mormonism and would really like to learn more on this issue.

Oliver Cowdery is the missing factor when one examines the authorship of the Book of Mormon. I just got finished reading the latest edition of the book, "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon," and there is new evidence that Cowdery had contact with Rigdon prior to 1830; plus Rigdon was living in Pittsburgh prior to 1830 and had access to the Spalding manuscript, "Manuscript Found." Cowdery brought the manuscript to Smith, and sure he knew what was going on.

[_Tobin]

Oliver Cowdery is the missing factor when one examines the authorship of the Book of Mormon. I just got finished reading the latest edition of the book, "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon," and there is new evidence that Cowdery had contact with Rigdon prior to 1830; plus Rigdon was living in Pittsburgh prior to 1830 and had access to the Spalding manuscript, "Manuscript Found." Cowdery brought the manuscript to Smith, and sure he knew what was going on.

Oh boy. Yet another of the missing fictional Spaulding manuscript theories for the Book of Mormon. The fact is no such manuscript ever existed (and this fiction isn't needed to explain the Book of Mormon). But it always amuses me how readily people who disbelieve Mormonism are willing to engage in nonsense of their own.

[_Tonto Schwartz]

Hi Nevo,

I debate with myself whether Cowdery was a true believer who was willing to deceive for the greater good of Mormonism or whether he just pretended to be a true believer to obtain and retain his position of power, authority and prestige as Joseph's second in command. I suspect it was some of both. For example, during the writing of the Book of Mormon, Cowdery and Joseph disagreed as to whether the Apostle John was still alive. Joseph settled the dispute by having a revelation in which he was shown a papyrus written by the Apostle John and buried somewhere in the Middle East. Joseph translated the papyrus which indicated that Joseph was right and John was indeed still alive roaming the earth. Cowdery did not, at least publicly, dispute this preposterous revelation. Was Cowdery deluded enough that he believed this barking mad drivel or did Cowdery just go along to maintain his position? Joseph claimed that Cowdery some years later told Joseph that Cowdery was determined to be wealthy even if he had to do so dishonestly. Joseph also claimed that a warrant was issued for Cowdery's arrest for counterfeiting. Of course, we know Joseph was want to lie so I don't know how reliable these claims are.

What I can't get around and what in the end convinces me that Cowdery was in on the con is that Cowdery had to know that Joseph was reading from the Bible and referring to other sources in writing the Book of Mormon and that Cowdery knew Joseph was making up and changing stories such as Peter, James and John restoring the priesthood years after the fact and that Cowdery never told the truth about these things and in fact lied about Joseph translating using the magic spectacles while Cowdery was scribe.

Perhaps we can settle our disagreement by one of us having a revelation?

Tonto

[_Dr. Shades]

The fact is no such manuscript ever existed[.]

How do you know?

[_Tobin]

The fact is no such manuscript ever existed[.]

How do you know?

Just like I know there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny. You can't absolutely disprove magical beings to the simple minded because they are willing to entertain the belief in nonsense. The same is true of magical books. Maybe you should be asking why there isn't a single copy or even partial drafts of said magical book? After all, books don't appear out of thin air. If such a book ever existed, some actual evidence of it would have surfaced long ago.