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

[_aussieguy55]

When Cowdery wrote up the early history of Smith, he mentions the revival occurred in 1824-24 and that the Smith family joined the Presbyterian church in 1823-24 with Smith Senior refraining because the preacher had said Alvin(his son) had gone to hell (AS died in 1823). In a footnote in RSR Bushman states that the circumstantial evidence suggests the family joined in 1823-24.. Why didn't Oliver know about the FV? Was he also part of the con?

[_I have a question]

Religion definitely pays....

Yet, even in difficult times, some churches and pastors are soaring. While not a definitive guide, HuffPost Religion has has compiled a slideshow of some of the best paid pastors in America. For several, their high income comes not only from employment as pastors, but also from TV appearances, book sales and charity management.

For the lucky few, being a pastor can mean being a multi-millionaire.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/1 ... 14043.html

[_Mormon Think]

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)?

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.

Regarding Oliver's return to Mormonism later in life, some people believe that when Oliver rejoined the Saints he did it because he was hoping he could convince the Saints to abandon polygamy which he was strongly against. Unfortunately Oliver died of consumption in Missouri at the home of fellow witness David Whitmer shortly after attempting the journey out West at age 43. I believe it was Grant Palmer who told me that.

It's interesting to note that Cowdery's funeral was conducted by a Methodist church and not the Mormon church.

Here's some more information on Oliver: http://www.mormonthink.com/witnessesweb.htm#didoliver

Bill

[_tsig]

Ever hear of a pious fraud?

Or a pious fool.

[_tsig]

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.

People write books, they do it every day so what is so amazing that Joe wrote a book, those who seek some manuscript found that will explain the Book of Mormon are buying into the Mormon belief in it's uniqueness. One need look no farther than the inventive brain of Joe Smith to find the origins of it.

[_Tobin]

People write books, they do it every day so what is so amazing that Joe wrote a book, those who seek some manuscript found that will explain the Book of Mormon are buying into the Mormon belief in it's uniqueness. One need look no farther than the inventive brain of Joe Smith to find the origins of it.

Precisely.

[_Roger]

Hi Tonto:

I believe this was because Cowdery could not tell the truth without implicating himself in the con. But, his law partner is reported to have said after Cowdery's death that Cowdery admitted to him the Book of Mormon was a fraud (who knows whether this reported statement is true).

Yes. This is, quite simply, the most reasonable conclusion.

I don't know how to explain these facts and those set forth in my initial post other than that Cowdery was committed to the Church and Mormonism, but that he knew very well the stories that Joseph evolved concerning the divine origin of the Book of Mormon, the Church and the priesthood were false. How could Cowdery not have known that Joseph was reading and paraphrasing from the 1769 version of the Bible and probably other sources during the writing of the Book of Mormon when there was not curtain to conceal Joseph from Cowdery? Why didn't Cowdery disclose this fact?

Excellent questions. I see Nevo's response (who, last I knew was still a faithful LDS) follow's Dan Vogel's logic:

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.

So Cowdery was (allegedly) never asked and therefore not guilty of covering anything up. Seems really weak to me, as you point out, Cowdery had to have known a good chunk of the Book of Mormon text was coming directly from the KJVB, not from words appearing in a rock. If I remember correctly, I'm pretty sure Vogel acknowledges this but then comes to the same conclusion Nevo does: Cowdery was a true believer and wouldn't have thought anything was suspicious about using a KJVB. That seems highly unlikely to me.

I certainly could be wrong, but I believe that either Cowdery knew of the con or he was even more of a deluded religious fanatic than Martin Harris.

And that's the key question. Vogel concludes duped but honest fanatic. I conclude willing accomplice. We report, you decide.

This thread is especially interesting if you've got unlimited reading time:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16575

Some of the more interesting back and forth on the reliability (or lack thereof) of the Book of Mormon witnesses begins around this page:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16575&start=2226

And still more reading....
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=35162&p=833597#p833597

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=35996

[_Tonto Schwartz]

I just recently listened to Dan Vogel's two part You Tube video on the Evolution of Mormon Authority Claims. As I understand him, Vogel concludes that Joseph and Cowdery made up the claims about John The Baptist and Peter James and John restoring the two priesthoods around 1834-1836 and that at least by that time Cowdery was a co-conspirator with Joseph. I completely agree, but I think Cowdery was in on the con from the beginning. One point I have not previously made is that even though faithful Mormon witnesses stated that Joseph translated with the stone in the hat all of the existing Book of Mormon, I have a real hard time swallowing that story. It seems more likely to me that Joseph used the stone in the hat as a prop when people were around, but the rest of the time did not. Joseph could not have memorized all of the outside material that he incorporated in the Book of Mormon, especially all of the Isiah material that goes on page after page. Cowdery had to know how Joseph was translating and that the stories which he told to his followers and his followers repeated concerning the stone in the hat were not true. I know some followers such as David and Elizabeth Whitner claimed to have watched him for hours, but I think they are exaggerating to enhance their importance and the supernatural origins of the Book of Mormon. Emma also claimed that Joseph used the stone in the hat and that if she had written anything incorrect, even a spelling error, Joseph would correct her before going on with the translation. Emma's story is clearly false as shown by, among other things, all of the many hundreds of spelling and grammatical errors in the original Book of Mormon. If God was correcting any errors as the translation proceeded, He sure did a lousy job. Emma was no more honest on this subject that she was in denying that Joseph ever practiced polygamy and that Brigham started polygamy in Utah.

Tonto

[_Roger]

I just recently listened to Dan Vogel's two part You Tube video on the Evolution of Mormon Authority Claims. As I understand him, Vogel concludes that Joseph and Cowdery made up the claims about John The Baptist and Peter James and John restoring the two priesthoods around 1834-1836 and that at least by that time Cowdery was a co-conspirator with Joseph.

I've been out of the loop for a while, but that's news to me. As far as I knew Vogel believed that only Joseph Smith was in on any "fraud" or "con" and that all the rest, including Cowdery, were honest dupes. I seriously doubt Vogel would use the term "co-conspirator with Joseph." (If so that would be real progress). Can you direct me to this video?

I completely agree, but I think Cowdery was in on the con from the beginning.

Agreed, which is why I doubt Vogel would be as forthcoming as you suggest.

One point I have not previously made is that even though faithful Mormon witnesses stated that Joseph translated with the stone in the hat all of the existing Book of Mormon, I have a real hard time swallowing that story.

We are on the same page. I have a really hard time with that. As I recall, this was discussed in some detail on the long thread I linked to. Seems much more reasonable that the head in hat/stone routine was an act done for show, and hence, rare.

It seems more likely to me that Joseph used the stone in the hat as a prop when people were around, but the rest of the time did not.

Exactly. I posted the above before I read this sentence. You and I are on the same page.

Joseph could not have memorized all of the outside material that he incorporated in the Book of Mormon, especially all of the Isiah material that goes on page after page.

Again, ditto. The errors which match the KJVB attest to that. As I recall, Vogel concedes that a KJVB was copied (pretty hard to deny that) but attributes the rest to something akin to automatic writing. This seems unlikely to me. If I recall correctly, this is what brought up the Cowdery question in our lengthy discussion. I suggested that if we concede that a Bible was copied, then Cowdery is the most likely person to have done the copying. So to my mind, that strongly implies Cowdery was in on the con from the beginning - or at least from the time he arrived in Palmyra. Vogel thinks otherwise and sides with the more LDS-friendly notion that Cowdery was never asked about a Bible, therefore he wasn't hiding anything. In fact, for Vogel, all of the early witnesses (except for Smith) were honest dupes.

Cowdery had to know how Joseph was translating and that the stories which he told to his followers and his followers repeated concerning the stone in the hat were not true. I know some followers such as David and Elizabeth Whitner claimed to have watched him for hours, but I think they are exaggerating to enhance their importance and the supernatural origins of the Book of Mormon.

Not sure we have any testimony that states point blank "I watched him do this for hours."

Emma also claimed that Joseph used the stone in the hat and that if she had written anything incorrect, even a spelling error, Joseph would correct her before going on with the translation.

Actually God allegedly would not let the translation proceed until the correction was made.

Emma's story is clearly false as shown by, among other things, all of the many hundreds of spelling and grammatical errors in the original Book of Mormon. If God was correcting any errors as the translation proceeded, He sure did a lousy job.

Agreed. As usual, the Mormons have an answer for this. See D & C 1:24. With regard to Emma's testimony, you might find this page interesting:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16575&start=2163

Emma was no more honest on this subject that she was in denying that Joseph ever practiced polygamy and that Brigham started polygamy in Utah.

Again, we're on the same page. I think most people who look at this rationally will come to that conclusion. The early witness testimony is highly questionable at best because all of them were invested in Mormonism and had close ties to Joseph Smith. It would be like thinking we could get reliable testimony about the inner workings of the FLDS from devoted followers of Warren Jeffs. You might get something closer to the truth from disaffected members, but even then you need to weigh their words with a grain of salt since they may still have loved ones in the group.

At least one reason Vogel is against any notion of "conspiracy" because he rejects the Spalding Theory, which suggests that at least Smith, Cowdery and probably Rigdon conspired to produce the Book of Mormon. This is why I would find it very interesting if Vogel views Cowdery as a "co-conspirator" with Smith at least by 1836.

[_Dan Vogel]

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.

Most if not all of the 116 page ms was done with stone in hat. Emma and Harris were scribes for that portion and they both say it was head in hat.

The average page per day for 116 pages (probably more) and Book of Mormon are about the same. Cowdery probably did better than Emma because he had no other duties. Cowdery was not in on the con. He didn’t come with material, but failed to produce anything when he tried to translate. There’s no evidence that Joseph Smith learned about View of the Hebrews from OC, or that he even needed to know about it to write the Book of Mormon. Cowdery as co-conspirator at this early period is pure speculation, and an unnecessary one at that. It doesn’t solve any problem except for those who defend the Spalding theory.

True, Cowdery lied about the spectacles during the 1830 trial to defend Joseph Smith against those who charged that the Book of Mormon was the same as his money-digging. This only proves that OC was a fanatic who would lie to defend the cause; it does prove he was a co-conspirator in the Book of Mormon’s production. That case has to be made independent of that information. Many people might have motive to kill someone, but that doesn’t tell you who actually did it.

Cowdery wasn’t reluctant to discuss the translation. He discussed it as much as anyone. He suppressed the magic aspects because that wasn’t good for getting converts. Most of the details didn’t come out until Harris and Whitmer were interviewed years later, after OC was dead. The details came out largely in response to the Spalding theory. Cowdery’s joining the Methodists doesn’t prove anything about his disposition about Joseph Smith or Mormonism, only that he wanted to be affiliated with a religious group of some kind.

I think it best to view the actions of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the context of religious zeal and fanaticism. Mormonism (and other religious traditions) has a long history of “lying for the Lord”. As things stand, it does not appear that Cowdery played a role in the Book of Mormon’s creation, but there is evidence that he helped in creating the John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John stories. There is nothing inconsistent in OC’s being a sincere believer in the Book of Mormon and perpetrating a fraud surrounding priesthood restoration. If Joseph Smith convinced OC that it was necessary to hold the church together, he would lie to save the church just as he did at the 1830 trial.