Consider this post to be yet another plea for the Informed Saints to apply the FAITH model of analysis.
As we've seen previously, the Informed Saints are determined to persuade Latter-day Saints to disbelieve Oliver Cowdery.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yijdqKn-GQ
The previous post on this topic looked at a summarized and cleaned-up version of the transcript of their video because it was easier to read. That version omitted their specific attacks on Oliver Cowdery's credibility.
Here we'll look at the actual transcript regarding these attacks. In this section of the transcript, we merely corrected some spelling from the auto-generated transcript.
Original in blue, my comments in red. other original quotations in green.
8:14
We get the terminology Cumorah, the name Cumorah. Well, let
me ask you, do you guys know our earliest Latter-day Saint source that we have
record of? This is You can't quiz me on that. [laughter] I You should know. I
believe it's 1833. 33. And it's William Phelps.
To be clear, this is the earliest known published source. Others relate much earlier use of the term, including from the first time Moroni visited Joseph Smith in 1823. The their only known written/published accounts appear after 1833, but that's the "lateness" claim we addressed in the previous post and will address again below.
William Phelps in the evening and the morning star January
1833.
So it's not even Oliver Cowdery. Not Oliver Cowdery. It's
William Phelps as the first recorded instance we have of a Latter Day Saint
calling it, he says, quote “from the hill Cumorah which is in the county of
Ontario in the state of New York.”
The Informed Saints forgot to inform their audience that Phelps would naturally be the first to publish the name Cumorah because he was the first to publish anything (other than the Book of Mormon itself). And no historian would say this was the "first recorded instance" because the best we can say is it is the "first known recorded instance."
Most LDS historians learned this lesson when, after claiming for so long that Phelps also coined the term Urim and Thummim in 1833, an 1832 article in a Boston newspaper was discovered that quoted Orson Hyde and Samuel Smith explaining that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim to translate the plates.
Unfortunately, the Joseph Smith Papers memorialized this error in print and, as of today, they still have not corrected the digital version, as I discussed here:
https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2023/08/u-in-elders-journal-outdated-narratives.html
As self-appointed "Informed Saints," we would think the panel would avoid these errors instead of perpetuating them.
So that's in the church's newspaper in January of 1833. He
calls it uh the hill Cumorah and he's referring to the hill in the Book of
Mormon. Right? So he thinks that that the hill in the Book of Mormon is the
hill where Joseph got the plates uh in New York.
Here they frame it as Phelps merely "thinks" the hill is Cumorah as opposed to reporting what everyone already knew. When we read Phelps' article in context, it is apparent he is reporting facts, not speculating.
But before the glorious and happy results of this book are set forth, it seems necessary to go back to the time it was brought forth. In the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty seven, the plates came forth from the hill Cumorah, which is in the county of Ontario, and state of New-York, by the power of God. In less than three years after, it was translated by the gift and power of God, and then published; and on the 6th of April, 1830, the church of Christ was organized, with six members.
(Evening and Morning Star I.8:57 ¶5)
Readers should know that Phelps had been a newspaper editor since 1819. He (like Oliver) knew the difference between facts and speculation/opinion.
Um the second person to call this this is now Oliver Cowdery.
Now they have shifted the narrative from Phelps being the first to publish the name Cumorah (which is correct, so far as we know) to Phelps being the first to "call" the hill Cumorah, which is pure speculation that contradicts the rest of the historical record.
Obviously we can't tell if this deceptive framing is intentional or merely reflects their anti-New York Cumorah worldview, but either way it is inexcusable for these podcasters presenting themselves as "Informed Saints."
Oliver Cowdery is Oliver Cowdery. In 1835 in what is called letter 7. So the context for this document is uh you know in 1834 a thing called Mormonism Unveiled gets published by E.D. Howe and Hurlebut right we've talked about this with Garrett Durkmott. uh they it's a it's a very sustained anti-mormon polemic against Joseph Smith and the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
um partly or majorly in response to this Oliver Cowdery with
the assistance from William Phelps and some assistance from Joseph Smith in
1835 began publishing a history in the church's newspaper in Kirtland, the
messenger and advocate, to counter the narrative of E.D. Howe and this is where
this letter seven because there's a series of letters between between Oliver
and William.
The assistance from Joseph Smith is explicitly stated and embedded in the eight essays. But Phelps was living in Missouri at the time and his only involvement was the letters he sent back to Oliver that we can all read.
So in letter 7, that's also where we get Oliver Cowdery in
July of 1835 calling it uh the hill Cumorah. He talks about being the Nephites
being encamped around this hill Cumorah and he gives this big description of
the hill and he's clearly talking about the hill in New York, right? Yeah. And
and yeah, and that's it's it's very explicit and like you said very detailed.
He is a kind of envisioning this like you know to imagine to wonder to be in awe about you know these these two great civilizations. as he talks about like being, you know, coming to their end at this hill, right?
Anyone who reads Letter VII can see that Oliver uses the term "fact" instead of "imagine." The Informed Saints frame it as "envisioning" but Oliver frames it as reporting facts.
There's all there's obviously no question he believes this is where the the end
of the Nephites and Jaredites happen. And it's not like an outlandish
conflation to make like the plates are coming from the hill.
Here they reprise the "belief" narrative, which contradicts Oliver's own terminology. They condescendingly acknowledge that this is "not like an outlandish conflation" but even that condescension portrays Oliver as merely "conflating" instead of reporting facts.
So like, oh, and Moroni, the angel Moroni is here and like,
oh, and this is a hill and the Nephites had a battle on a hill and there were
plates at that hill. Okay, the same place.
More condescending speculation that Oliver was merely speculating.
And and to to add another layer on top of that, uh there is
also, you know, the the common 19th century mound builder myth at the time
where and this is something uh I think it was Richard E. Bennett did some
research on this with um uh Mitchell, Samuel Mitchell, who Martin Harris goes
back to New York City and he's one of the people he talks to, shows the
characters to and stuff.
And there's this account, I think, from Gordon Bennett of uh
Mitchell basically telling Martin that it looks like it's this script from this
people who were who once were lost or no more. Yeah. Peopled and destroyed or
whatever.
The irony here is that the archaeological record does show Ohio Hopewell sites in western New York consisting of rudimentary fortifications built in haste, with that civilization mostly vanishing around 400 AD. IOW, while the traditional moundbuilder myth included speculation, it was based on common experience with these mounds and the Indian narratives about them.
And his theory on on that like actually pinpointed their
destruction to like within 10 miles of like Palmyra and stuff. And so there's a
little bit of a conflation of like there is this myth going around the mound
builder myth. The mound builder myth of a people who whose destruction and end
culminated in upstate New York that I think is influencing early Latter-day
Saint thinking about where the hill is. Cool.
Another view is that the moundbuilder myth was speculative expansion based on the reality described by the Book of Mormon.
So we don't have to go over all the other sources. There are
a few. Orson Pratt in 1840 he makes this identification right. Uh you get
others. Um, very early on this becomes we can call the traditional
identification that the hill in New York is the same hill described in Mormon 6
where the final battle happens with the Nephites.
The operative phrase here is "very early on." The historical record pinpoints one--and only one--source for the identification of the hill as Cumorah: Moroni himself. The Informed Saints and other M2Cers (and B2Cers) necessarily reject the historical sources in favor of an imaginary, unspecified origin.
Assessing sources + Oliver Cowdery details (Chapter 3)
Um, now uh well before we get to Joseph Smith real quick,
let's just kind of critically assess our sources uh you know quickly. Um and
this has been written on extensively so we don't have to get too much into it
but let's look at all of Cowdery’s letter 7 for example.
Um it is true that Joseph Smith gives some assistance in the
writing of these of this history uh in the mid 1830s that gets into letter 7
and others and some have taken that as evidence that aha therefore Joseph Smith
must have given Oliver Cowdery the idea that the hill in Cumorah or the hill in
New York is the hill Cumorah right uh this information must be coming directly
from Joseph Smith
This is a red herring. While it is possible that Oliver got the identification directly from Joseph Smith (after all, in 1830 he told the Lamanites that Moroni called the hill Cumorah anciently), Oliver also explained how he had independent, first-hand knowledge that it was a fact that the hill in New York is also the hill Cumorah/Ramah.
we actually don't know how much influence Joseph has
directly on the contents of these letters we know he says he gives Oliver some
biographical details and things like that um there's also like factual errors
in the letters.
In Letter IV, for example, Oliver explains that some details Joseph could not provide. "In this situation hours passed unnumbered—how many or how few I know not, neither is he able to inform me; but supposes it must have been eleven or twelve, and perhaps later, as the noise and bustle of the family, in retiring, had long since [p. 62] ceased." This comment reflects Oliver's attention to detail, his desire to get the facts correctly, and his reliance on Joseph for specific information.
We know that Oliver gets things wrong.
To the contrary, Oliver made efforts to get everything correct, as the above example shows. He also pointed out errors, such as here: By turning to the 529th and 530th pages of the book of Mormon120 you will read Mormon’s account of the last great struggle of his people, as they were encamped round this hill Cumorah. (it is printed Camorah, which is an error.)
Another example is this opening of Letter IV, dated February 1835, which the Informed Saints turn into a "botch" of the first vision.
In my last, published in the 3d No. of the Advocate I apologized for the brief manner in which I should be obliged to give, in many instances, the history of this church. Since then yours [p. 60] yours of Christmas has been received,65 It was not my wish to be understood that I could not give the leading items of every important occurrence. at least so far as would effect my duty to my fellowmen, in such as contained important information upon the subject of doctrine, and as would render it intelligbly plain; but as there are, in a great house, many vessels, so in the history of a work of this magnitude, many items which would be interesting to those who follow, are forgoten. In fact, I deem every manifestation of the Holy Spirit, dictating the hearts of the saints in the way of righteousness, to be of importance, and this is one reason why I plead an apology.
You will recolect that I mentioned the time of a religious excitement, in Palmyra and vicinity to have been in the 15th year of our brother J. Smith jr’s age—that was an error in the type—it should have been in the 17th.—
You will please remember this correction, as it will be necessary for the full understanding of what will follow in time. This would bring the date down to the year 1823.66
I do not deem it to be necessary to write further on the subject of this excitement. It is doubted by many whether any real or essential good ever resulted from such excitements, while others advocate their propriety with warmth.
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/65
JSP note 66 offers this explanation:
Cowdery may have used the editorial interjection regarding an “error in the type” to effect a change in plans between the third and fourth letters. The narrative in the previous letter appears to be setting the stage for a recital of JS’s earliest vision, the theophany JS described in the circa summer 1832 history. However, after changing the date, Cowdery recast the revivalism described in “Letter III” as the background for the 1823 visitation of the angel who directed JS to the gold plates.
The passage deserves more discussion, but for now it is obvious that Oliver was correcting an error, not making one. He was not present in Palmyra during Joseph's teenage years, so he had to rely on Joseph's own account for this information.
Nevertheless, look at how our "Informed Saints" frame the passage.
So, most infamously
he gets he just totally botches the first vision, right? He's narrating the
first vision. Uh oh, there was all this religious excitement and you know,
President Smith was, you know, our brother Joseph was worried about his soul
and so he went to pray to God and then and then an angel appeared and it was in
1823.
It's like, well, wait, hold on, wait a second, right? like
he totally glosses over the father and the son and the sacred grove, that kind
of stuff.
Um there's theories about why maybe Oliver does this, but
what in any case, it's clearly an error that contradicts Joseph's own history.
There are so many errors in their framing that we can't go through them all, but to begin with, Joseph's own history up to this time consisted of a brief handwritten (and unpublished) 1832 account in which he related that "I saw the Lord." No mention of "the father and the son." So if anyone "botched" the first vision as of February 1835, it was Joseph, not Oliver.
It's amazing. The Informed Saints accuse Oliver of speculating when he states facts about Cumorah, and of "botching the first vision" when there is no known record of the first vision with God the Father prior to Nov. 1835.
The Informed Saints criticize Oliver for "infamously" not reporting something that was unknown at the time. (Alternatively, and more likely, Joseph asked him not to publish the First Vision at that point.)
IOW, rather than "botching" the First Vision, Oliver followed Joseph's lead on this. Had Oliver written about the First Vision here, critics could later claim that it was he, not Joseph, who invented it.
In fact, when Joseph did relate more details about the First Vision in Nov. 1835, he still did not mention the Father, but instead said he "saw many angels," a detail lacking from the official account in JS-H. And notice how loosely he referred to the dates as "about 14 years old" and "about 17 years old."
he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee, he testifyed unto me that Jesus Christ is the son of God;70 <and I saw many angels in this vision> I was about 14. years old when I received this first communication; When I was about 17 years old I saw another vision of angels, in the night season after I had retired to bed
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-1835-1836/25
Furthermore, in Lucy Mack Smith's history, she never mentioned the First Vision. (The second draft merely inserts the passage from JS-H.) She related the account of Moroni's visit similar to the way Oliver wrote about it. Thus, both Oliver's and Lucy's accounts corroborate the point that Joseph did not openly talk about the First Vision until long after it happened (apart from the one minister he related it to).
So, we need to be careful with just, you know, taking Oliver at face value on everything.
This is a euphemism to excuse their repudiation of facts Oliver stated that the Informed Saints don't like because the facts contradict their own subjective interpretation of the text.
Even worse, Oliver's statements of fact about Cumorah are corroborated by many other accounts, all of which the Informed Saints reject solely for the same reason: these facts contradict their theories about Book of Mormon geography.
All of this is the antithesis of serious scholarship.
We need to be careful with William Phelps taking
him on face value at everything. The punchline is kind of uh when I look at
these sources, while it is true that Joseph has some kind of uh uh assistance
in crafting this history and it is true that Joseph will copy Oliver Cowdery’s
history into his own history or rather he'll have his clerks do it, his
secretaries will do it for him. So Joseph kind of in a sense approves the
history.
The Informed Saints forgot to tell their audience that Joseph expressly gave Benjamin Winchester permission to republish Oliver's essays in the Gospel Reflector and had his brother Don Carlos republish them in the Times and Seasons.
He wants he considers it valuable. He considers it valuable.
We actually don't know if it's originating from Joseph Smith as opposed to
Oliver and William Phelps. And I do think it's an important distinction to make
here uh because I can already, you know, people might be making comments
already, but we're not saying that this 1835 history from Oliver Cowdery is not a
valuable uh source in church history. Yeah. We're saying, and this is true of
like literally every source in all history, it has its problems and it needs to
be used critically. Indeed.
But the problem they attribute to Oliver--omitting the First Vision--is not an error but an example of his focus on facts and accuracy.
And that's certainly true for the church history that he was
a contemporary for.
But when we're talking about Book of Mormon history and Book
of Mormon geography, Oliver is not actually a contemporary. He is not a an
eyewitness source. He is another degree removed from from Joseph Smith. From
Joseph Smith, he doesn't meet until April 1829.
This is irrelevant, of course, because Oliver explained from the outset that for certain facts, he would have to rely on Joseph.
Uh you know, so this is you've just got to be critical in
how you use these sources. They're certainly not canonized revelations. Yeah.
This is the phony "revelation" objection.
So just because Oliver Cowdery identifies that hill as the Hill Cumorah and Joseph Smith had involvement in that production does not necessarily mean that Joseph Smith himself is saying that hill is Cumorah.
Whether Joseph said it or not doesn't matter because Oliver had personal knowledge anyway.
Well
even maybe Joseph is you know but even if he is that doesn't mean like this is
revealed knowledge right like Joseph and Oliver are great authorities on the
early history of the church and of their personal experience of their personal
experience but Book of Mormon history is like gener like 8400 years away from
them. Right. Yeah.
A reprise of the phony "revelation" objection.
But Joseph Smith's a prophet. Wouldn't he know? Like he
would know. Well, we'll get to that in just a second. That's exactly the thing
that's at stake here.
Where is this coming from? I will mention and then we'll get
to Joseph Smith. Um, if you want to accept Oliver Cowdery's identification of the
hill in New York as the Hill Cumorah Mormon 6, that's fine.
Finally, they say something that makes sense. But it would come across as more sincere if they were transparent about all the sources.
But guess what else Oliver Cowdery identifies as a Book of Mormon geography site? He identifies Lehi's landing place as in Chile, the coast of South America.
Now the Informed Saints go off the rails again with speculation.
It's kind of hard to have. We have early we have early
contemporary newspaper accounts of Oliver Cowdery and Orson Pratt and those
guys preaching in the area of Kirtland in the early 1830s 183132 when they come
out there on their mission and they're saying the new Mormonites have brought
their gold Bible with them and they give the following account and they kind of
summarize the Book of Mormon. They say that a prophet named Lehi landed in
Chile off the coast of South America. So I mean if you want to accept Oliver as
that invocation of Cumorah you kind of have to identify his location of Lehi's
landing place. got to accept a hemispheric. They give an exact latitude even.
The newspaper account is a hearsay version of what the reporter understood someone in the group to have said. Parley P. Pratt, who with his brother Orson promoted the hemispheric model for decades even after Joseph deleted it from the Wentworth letter, was among the group.
And I think it's worth noting because sometimes when this gets brought up, people point out that those are, you know, secondhand sources. We don't have Oliver's own handwriting.
Not only don't we have Oliver's handwriting, we don't have any published account from Oliver about this.
We do, of course, have a Frederick G.
Williams has one handwriting statement and he was uh, you know, he was actually
part of that early missionary group. He joins them in Kirtland. And um, but
it's it's worth noting like there's there's no reason these newspapers have to
make up that detail. Like they're just trying to report what they're hearing
from these guys. um like what that that's a weird detail for them to make up
and Orson Pratt puts it in the footnotes of the 1879 Book of Mormon along with Cumorah
being in New York Lehigh Landing in Chile and so and so the fact that this is
originating with like Oliver Orson Pratt like that missionary group it's
actually the evidence is very solid that
Here they admit Orson promoted this idea but they still try to pin it on Oliver anyway. What they don't tell their audience is that in the 1879 footnotes, Orson unambiguously stated the New York Cumorah was a fact while the landing in Chile was merely speculation ("it is believed," etc.)
This is yet another example of how clarity--openness, full disclosure, adherence to fact, etc.--does not work in favor of the Informed Saints.
Consider this another plea for the Informed Saints to apply the FAITH model of analysis.
No comments:
Post a Comment