Richard Lloyd Anderson, “The Credibility of the Book of Mormon Translators” in Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (Provo: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1982), 213-37.
Richard
Lloyd Andersonwas a professor of ancient scripture of Religion at Brigham Young University when this was published.
No two people knew more about the astounding beginnings of Mormonism. Schoolteacher Oliver Cowdery boarded with Joseph Smith's parents the winter after the manuscript of the first translation was lost. Joseph was then married and living over a hundred miles away in Harmony, Pennsylvania. His earliest record tells of frustration at spare-time progress: "My wife had written some for me to translate . . . and I cried unto the Lord that he would provide for me to accomplish the work where unto he had commanded me.”1 Oliver had never seen Joseph Smith and was seeking answers about Joseph's ancient records and an angelic commission to translate them. Late in life Joseph's mother remembered Oliver's intense investigation, her full detail of which has only recently become available.2 One day "he had been in a deep study all day, and it had been put in his heart that he would have the privilege of writing for Joseph when the term of school which he was then teaching was closed." The "next day" he braved drenching rain and slimy roads, determined to be with the Smiths instead of overnighting nearer the school. With more intense resolve to help Joseph, Oliver said that conviction of the truth of the Book of Mormon was "working in my very bones, insomuch that I cannot for a moment get rid of it."3
Oliver's
spiritual search was not yet over, according to Lucy Smith. Although
he had prayed and was sure "that there is a work for me to do in
this thing," the Smiths counseled him:
We thought it was his privilege to know whether this was the case and advised him to seek for a testimony for himself. He did so, and received the witness spoken of in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants.4
The mentioned "witness"
is in the revelation that came through Joseph Smith soon after the two
young men met, the Lord saying to Oliver, "if you desire a further
witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me."
The Lord asked, "Did I not speak peace to your mind?" and
then emphasized: "I have told you things which no man knoweth."5
Readers have long known that Oliver received an answer, for after the
revelation he told it to Joseph, who said, "one night after he
had retired to bed he called upon the Lord to know if these things were
so, and the Lord manifested to him that they were true, but he had kept
the circumstances entirely secret."6 Thus a great vision
is only suggested, a striking pattern in early Mormon history. The noisy
braggart exaggerates his experiences and trumpets them for ego or profit.
On the other hand, Joseph Smith acts like an authentic person in waiting
for the appropriate time to share many details of his revelations. Both
Joseph and Oliver shared deep convictions consistently but cautiously,
leaving many profound dimensions to come out as their friends—and
later historians—became better acquainted with their early lives.
In this case, Joseph's private record almost incidentally gives the
full answer to Oliver's prayer, which was never paraded for notoriety
by either Joseph or Oliver:
[The] Lord appeared to a young man by the name of Oliver Cowdery and showed unto him the plates in a vision, and also the truth of the work and what the Lord was about to do through me, his unworthy servant. Therefore he was desirous to come and write for me to translate.7
Oliver's
many sacrifices for the restored gospel had begun. Joseph's brother
Samuel had planned to spend spring with the young prophet, evidently
taking responsibility for planting his small farm. So the helpful brother
and the prospective scribe faced late March as soon as school ended
for farmers' children:
The weather had for some time previous been very wet and disagreeable, occasionally freezing nights. This made the roads almost impassable, particularly in the middle of the day. But Mr. Cowdery was determined not to be detained by wind or weather and persevered until they arrived at Joseph's house, although Oliver froze one of his toes and suffered much on the road from fatigue, as well as Samuel.8
The
meeting was a moment of destiny for both men. Oliver first wrote of
it:
Near the time of the setting of the sun, Sabbath evening, April 5, 1829, my natural eyes for the first time beheld this brother. . . . On Monday the 6th, I assisted him arranging some business of a temporal nature, and on Tuesday the 7th, commenced to write the Book of Mormon.9
Joseph's later history echoes Oliver's recollection, indicating that "I had never seen him" until the meeting and that "during the month of April, I continued to translate, and he to write, with little cessation, during which time we received several revelations."10 One revelation authorized Oliver to translate, though his lack of success brought instruction to continue as they had begun.11 Joseph recalled May, when "we still continued the work of translation."12 In June they moved to the Whitmer farm and completed the book. The result was that no one but Joseph and Oliver knew intimate details of the whole translation. Before moving from Pennsylvania, they were given restored priesthood authority together in daylight appearances of ancient apostles and prophets. And at noontime both of them stood before the angel as he displayed the plates to the Three Witnesses. No two knew more about the astounding beginnings of Mormonism. The reality of these events must be measured largely by the credibility of Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith. These men can now be studied in depth at an early point largely because of the historical upgrading of the extensive Mormon archives in the last two decades.
Belief in another's story is normally based on practical and instinctive tests that teachers and parents use with children, careful buyers with sellers, or discerning citizens with officials suspected of duplicity. Does the story fit known events accompanying it? Is the story verified by other eyewitnesses? Is the story told plausibly and without obvious exaggerations? Are private comments consistent with public explanations? Do details given spontaneously add up to a consistent picture? Does the person telling the story have a record of honesty? Finally, what sincerity does the teller project?
This
last question is hard to pin down historically because it is hard to
measure in real life. How many times are the real facts shown by the
intuition of a psychologist, or a mother, or by the subtle currents
of a lie detector? History cannot fully replay the manner in which something
was said or watch the expressions of Joseph or Oliver telling of their
visions. But it can search their private language for clues on what
motivated them in life. It can furnish documents that capture their
religious feelings. Above all, the religious believer asks whether true
spirituality is found in the person he trusts, whether it is Christ,
Paul, Wesley, or Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. The above tests can
be complex when the issues are interwoven. For instance, consistency
of story weaves into the manner in which the story was told. But three
strong issues follow here that can be illuminated by fresh discussion.
They are highlighted by subheadings.
Historical Verification
The translation story invites
historical investigation. For instance, Cowdery's recollection of meeting
Joseph on April 5, 1829, is given above, with his comment that they
took care of "some business of a temporal nature" the next day.
A land contract exists between Joseph Smith and his father-in-law, dated
April 6, 1829, and signed by Oliver Cowdery and Samuel Smith, who Lucy
says arrived in Harmony the previous day with him.13 As another
example, translating was difficult because Joseph was poor, and the
translators could not work for a living while devoting their full time
to producing a large manuscript. Joseph's earliest record gives his
financial condition when Oliver arrived: "We had become reduced
in property, and my wife's father was about to turn me out of doors,
and I cried unto the Lord that he would provide for me to accomplish
the work whereunto he had commanded me."14 Later he
summarized their conditions during translation:
Mr. Joseph Knight, Sr., of Colesville, Broome County, New York, having heard of the manner in which we were occupying our time, . . . very kindly and considerately brought us a quantity of provisions, in order that we might not be interrupted in the work of translation by the want of such necessaries of life. . . . [H]e several times brought us supplies, a distance of at least thirty miles, which enabled us to continue the work, which otherwise we must have relinquished for a season.15
Knight's own recollections survive, a talkative account that displays little awareness of what the Prophet had independently said. With unique details Knight confirms translation during poverty. Before Cowdery's coming, Joseph Smith was "poor," and "his wife's father and family were all against him and would not help him." Knight mentions several visits he made back and forth between upper Pennsylvania and his lower New York home. He gave food, some money, and writing paper. On one trip Knight found that Joseph and Oliver had run out of food, suspending writing to "find a place to work for provisions." As the Prophet said, Knight's help enabled them to continue translating.
Verification
involves one of Cowdery's two descriptions of that period, which emphasizes
his role as scribe:
I wrote with my own pen the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet as he translated it by the gift and power of God, by means of the Urim and Thummim, or as it is called by that book, "Holy Interpreters." . . . That book is true. Sidney Ridgon did not write it. Mr. Spaulding did not write it. I wrote it myself as it fell from the lips of the Prophet.16
Remains of the original Book
of Mormon manuscript match Cowdery's description. Decay took its toll
after it was placed in the humid cornerstone at Nauvoo. But 30 percent
of Joseph Smith's dictation to Cowdery is now preserved in Latter-day Saint archives.
Dean Jessee has analyzed the surviving leaves:
Of the 144 pages of the Book of Mormon manuscript in the Church Historian's Office, 124 pages are in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery; eleven were probably written by John Whitmer; and twelve others are the work of an unidentified scribe.17
This means that 86 percent of the manuscript remaining was written by Oliver Cowdery. Since the handwriting of others is limited to 1 Nephi, Cowdery very probably did all the rest, in which case he wrote 95 percent of the manuscript. Thus he is correct in saying that he wrote "the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages)," the known exception adding up to 23 pages done by others.18
Oliver
Cowdery's other description is familiar because it speaks on the central
issue, the inspiration of the process:
These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued uninterrupted to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim . . . the history or record called The Book of Mormon.19
Thus Cowdery reinforced Joseph
Smith's terse phrases from the beginning. The Prophet's first edition
preface said that the plates were translated "by the gift and power
of God," that this work was completed according to "the commandments
of God . . . through his grace and mercy."20 Joseph
no doubt wrote this in 1829 for publication early the following year.
So Joseph Smith's words of deep faith are contemporaneous with final
translation. And Oliver's earliest letter also comes from the last month
of the translation, one filled with quotations from a new revelation
on the value of each soul before God. Oliver encouraged Hyrum Smith
to begin to share the glorious restored gospel:
Stir up the minds of our friends against the time when we come unto you, that then they may be willing to take upon them the name of Christ, for that is the name by which they shall be called at the last day.21
The practical point of the letter is to thank the Rockwells for shoes, indicating a possible visit. But the writer's goal is clearly spiritual, for most of the letter stresses discipleship and follows the opening theme: "These few lines I write unto you, feeling anxious for your steadfastness in the great cause of which you have been called to advocate." The letter is unsophisticated and intense, a spontaneous burst of faith. It shows the inner elation that Oliver later claimed to have experienced while working on the Book of Mormon. Written in the third month of translation, it confirms the sustained enthusiasm of the secretary.
These
sample verifications show that the Book of Mormon translators met and
did practical business at the place and time that they reported, that
their poverty and Knight's help were just as they claimed, and that
Oliver Cowdery in fact wrote as much of the manuscript as was reported.
So their memories were accurate for physical circumstances. But something
more appears in the investigation—the enthusiasm of spirit, the state
of mind that they claimed to have. Here history comes close to reconstructing
what is spiritual, for the translators' thoughts are on record at that
critical time. During 1829 Oliver Cowdery seems totally sincere and
moved by altruism. From his first days in the Smith household there
is the deepest desire to serve God, followed by his sacrifices in translation
and his personal zeal. Such inner experience is the end product for
most religions and the point of beginning for Mormon foundations. For
Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith moved far beyond the inner light of
the Pietist, Quaker, or Seeker, adding their firm witness that supernatural
beings authenticated their translation, displayed the ancient metal
book, and gave authority to refound Christ's church.
Unaffected History
There is a credibility of modesty in supernatural claims. Paul's personality was hardly modest, but he had a healthy reserve about narrating "the abundance of the revelations."22 Several visions in Acts are not even mentioned in his letters. His first known reference to the Damascus vision is a stark, "Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?"23 Impressive details would come later as Luke wrote Paul's early history, also including Paul's two speeches about his early visions.24 Scholars are generally suspicious of expansion and interpolation. So although Joseph Smith has taken much criticism for not detailing his visitations at the beginning, this apparent historical weakness is really a great religious strength. One of the most obvious facts in organizations is the inverse ratio of power and assertiveness. The person with real authority needs no excess words, a truth well known to psychologists, who perceive overacting as a telling admission of weakness. Joseph and Oliver later said that their authority to baptize was first given by the miraculous appearance of John the Baptist, who then commanded them to baptize each other. In 1829 they firmly acted on such power by adding the phrase "having authority given me of Jesus Christ" to the traditional baptismal formula.25 In 1830 they also used higher authority in performing spiritual ordinances done by New Testament Apostles, the earliest reference stating that Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer were under Joseph and were as "Paul, mine apostle, for you are called even with that same calling with which he was called."26In 1830 the position of the Church was clear, as it was that year to the journalist who reported Cowdery as saying that "the ordinances of the gospel have not been regularly administered since the days of the apostles, till the said Smith and himself commenced the work."27 But at that point no document explains the basis for this position.
Some
critics charge fraud, since Joseph and Oliver did not write up their
experiences then, but this is normal life. The two men later particularized
as they had opportunity. The careful diarist is rare in any society.
What biographers normally get are general statements about important
experiences, followed by what further circumstances their subjects might
recall if they are writing or being interviewed. In 1832 Joseph Smith
made a raw record of his main religious experiences, and he started
with a survey in this sequence: "testimony from on high";
"ministering of angels"; "reception of the holy priesthood
by the ministering of angels to administer the letter of the gospel
. . . and the ordinances"; "reception of the high priesthood
after the holy order of the son of the living God . . . the keys of
the kingdom of God."28 Thus Joseph privately recorded
the sequence of his first vision of God, Moroni's appearances in connection
with Book of Mormon translation, and the restoration of the lesser and
higher priesthoods—forthright but concise statements of revelation
and authority. A formal summary was printed in 1835, a revelation stating
the source of priesthood authority:
John I have sent unto you, my servants, Joseph Smith, Jr., and Oliver Cowdery, to ordain you unto this first priesthood which you have received . . . and also . . . Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles . . . and bear the keys of your ministry . . . unto whom I have committed the keys of my kingdom.29
These are crisp claims, carrying little description or justification. Yet Oliver and Joseph both saw the need to make fuller reports. In biography, elaboration is not usually invention, because those who make history are usually too busy to write it. There are more war memoirs than war diaries. The Church grew, obtained a stable location, and established a regular periodical circulating to the whole Church. Then Oliver Cowdery was driven from Jackson County and came to Kirtland to carry on the interrupted Church newspaper. Soon he announced a decision to expand a recollection into "a full history of the rise of the Church of the Latter-day Saints, and the most interesting parts of its progress," a project that faded after telling quite fully how Joseph Smith learned of the plates and finally obtained them.30 Cowdery started the series with the coming of John the Baptist, a narrative filled with the spontaneous detail of the eyewitness. Oliver spoke of the "voice of the Redeemer," the angelic glory superimposed on the brilliant May sunlight, John's reassuring voice, which "though mild, pierced to the center," then of kneeling "when we received under his hand the holy priesthood." He poured out gratitude to God for the restored authority and for "the majestic beauty and glory which surrounded us on this occasion."31 Cowdery's words are eloquent and convey the impact of an overwhelming experience. They are more impressive because Oliver waited for a natural opportunity and did not feel forced into a public release at the beginning.
Likewise, Joseph Smith struggled for years for the chance to write his history in depth, finally beginning in earnest in 1838, several years after Cowdery had summarized priesthood restoration.32 Joseph added his own particulars, not at all relying on the Cowdery narrative. He described the prayer for knowledge of authority to baptize, the angel descending "in a cloud of light," the ordination, the baptism, and the subsequent ecstasy of "great and glorious blessings from our Heavenly Father" as the translators rejoiced and prophesied by the Holy Ghost.33 If Joseph had been skilled at publicity, he would have circulated all this with the Book of Mormon at the outset. Instead, it came artlessly as his later life furnished time and scribes for his autobiography.
The
story of higher priesthood restoration was even more cautiously told.
Its reality rests on the first statements quoted above; as discussed,
they follow the inverse principle that real authority needs no self-conscious
explanation of it. And there is a corollary operating—an inverse law
of sacredness which dictates that the highest gifts will be reported
guardedly and reverently. On at least seven occasions Joseph Smith alluded
to higher priesthood restoration, but he never saw the need to give
a full account.34 In the meantime the tragic estrangement
of Joseph and Oliver came, the latter withdrawing from the Church for
a decade. During this separation both translators gave new details that
were consistent with the unguarded comments of the other. And neither
argued the point—both took for granted the angels' ordination. For
instance, Cowdery wrote his brother-in-law that his reputation must
be cleared before returning to the Church because its credibility rested
on "the private character of the man who bore that testimony."
He had "stood in the presence of John with our departed Brother
Joseph, to receive the lesser priesthood." He had also stood "in
the presence of Peter to receive the greater."35 When
prematurely aged by his lung condition, Oliver Cowdery returned to the
exiled Mormons. Obviously making his peace with God before dying, he
very simply reviewed what he knew about the beginnings:
I was present with Joseph when an holy angel from God came down from heaven and conferred or restored the Aaronic priesthood and said at the same time that it should remain upon the earth while the earth stands. I was also present with Joseph when the Melchizedek Priesthood was conferred by the holy angels of God, which we then confirmed upon each other by the will and commandment of God.36
Eighteen
years before, the first printed copies of the Book of Mormon carried
a testimony of revelation printed over the names of three witnesses,
Oliver being one:
And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; . . . [T]he voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it.37
Again we see the rhetoric of assertion, not persuasion. The public statement is forceful, but it is not descriptive in trying to overawe the reader by divine brilliance, costume, or countenance. These realistic features were given later as the Three Witnesses freely spoke and answered questions, last-surviving David Whitmer sometimes submitting to extensive cross-examination by newspaper reporters. Through decades after seeing the angel, none of the three denied their daylight experience or reduced it to a subjective level.38 In reality there are four witnesses, for Joseph Smith had been with them. He gave the first printed details of the angelic revelation and the voice of God to the Three Witnesses. This procedure would be odd for a conspiracy, for the three severed their membership in 1838; Joseph produced this part of his history manuscript in 1839 and did not publish it until 1842.39 He dared to greatly enlarge the story without consulting any of them.
The
world would read the witnesses' declaration in the Book of Mormon, but
believers and serious investigators could feel the dimensions of the
experience in Joseph's later history. There he portrayed the first "light
above us in the air" and the angel's appearance as he held the
ancient record, turning "over the leaves one by one, so that we
could see . . . the engravings thereon distinctly."40
He also included the words of the voice of God. The 1830 public testimony
only summarized the Lord's words approving the manuscript and commanding
the listeners to witness, but Joseph Smith gave the more complete and
persuasive version later:
1830 Testimony
that “they have been translated by the gift and power of God.”
that “we should bear record of it.”
1839 History
These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear.41
In form the 1830 words are a clear condensation of sentences that would originally be spoken in an expanded form. Quotation in indirect discourse of the third person tends to be more compressed than the first version in first person. In other words, approximate quotation is generally more concise than exact quotation. Thus not all expanded accounts are interpolations.
The shift from early simple records to later complex ones tempts the critic to see fabrication. But no real analyst can ignore the purpose of the compositions he studies. The issue is not really short versus long accounts, but beginning testimony versus later history. Symbolic of all vision reports, the above seventeen words of 1830 became forty-four as the Prophet told God's message in 1839. Early visions—even those seen by Joseph Smith alone—were mostly reported in the main two stages of a shorthand declaration followed by later graphic narrative. It is beside the point to apply a strict historical measure to early Mormonism, because it first acted on the need for summary testimony to announce its new message to the world. The need for history developed as the Church grew. It then produced history at a point which, compared to other world religions, was very early, and with superbly direct information. The story of Book of Mormon translation and visions was produced mainly between the years 1832 and 1839 and hardly grew after that. There is no ongoing mythology of founding, but after those years merely summary testimony based on the narrative record.
Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith are consistent with themselves and with each other in discussing the visions, whether in short or extensive form. Usually they simply reiterate what they have seen, without attempts to oversell or overexplain. For instance, a Shaker community reported Oliver's testimony a year after finishing the manuscript: "He stated that he had been one who assisted in the translation of the golden Bible, and had seen the angel. . . . He appeared meek and mild."42 Nearly two decades later his Book of Mormon knowledge was recorded on returning to the Church: "I beheld with my eyes, and handled with my hands, the gold plates from which it was translated. I also beheld the Interpreters."43
There
are advantages in examining Joseph and Oliver through documents, for
lifetime patterns appear there that could not be judged by their first
converts. But those converts made decisions based on personal impressions
of look and tone. One can approximate this experience through Parley
P. Pratt's letter to his Canadian converts. Six years after his own
conversion he was still overwhelmed by the reality of the Prophet's
testimony of the beginning:
One of the most interesting meetings I ever attended was held in the Lord's house Sunday before last. One week before, word was publicly given that Brother Joseph Smith, Jr. would give a relation of the coming forth of the records and also of the rise of the Church and of his experience. Accordingly a vast concourse assembled at an early hour. Every seat was crowded, and four or five hundred people stood up in the aisles. Brother Smith gave the history of these things, relating many particulars of the manner of his first visions, and the spirit and power of God was upon him in bearing testimony, insomuch that many, if not most of the congregation were in tears. As for myself I can say that all the reasonings in uncertainty and all the conclusions drawn from the writings of others... dwindle into insignificance when compared with living testimony.44
Religious Credibility
Joseph
and Oliver kept private journals and wrote many candid letters, current
tools from which to estimate their motives and values. Part of their
credibility is that they were generally regarded by associates as honest
men. As with Lincoln, public storms raged around them but personal friends
were convinced of their truthfulness. Joseph's religiously divided family
knew him well, and all became Mormons, confident that his word was reliable.45
Oliver Cowdery's non-Mormon community respected him as a man of honor.46
These facts are important, though the careful student wants to confront
the men as personally as did Parley P. Pratt. New manuscript sources
opening up in the last few decades furnish much more information on
these men, and a high proportion is personal. A main thrust of present
Mormon studies is the reopening of early records. Thus there are now
better tools with which to know the youthful Joseph Smith. Although
secular biographers sought to do this with Freudian theory, they used
guesswork instead of firsthand sources. Joseph Smith speaks personally
in many documents from the early 1830s. Nauvoo manuscripts, on the other
hand, often reveal his extensive responsibilities more than his inner
feelings. He was then a leader directing the economic, political, social,
and religious problems of thousands. Joseph's Nauvoo diaries are also
inferior to his Kirtland diaries in personal reflections because the
pressure of affairs made entries shorter, and they seem more the product
of secretaries than previously. In the Nauvoo diaries it is harder to
find the private thoughts of this busy administrator. The best collection
of the Prophet's teachings contains about four hundred pages, and a
hundred of these are devoted to the New York and Ohio periods, the first
half of the Prophet's direction of the Church. Moreover, this New York
and Ohio selection features business letters, doctrinal expositions,
and official Presidency statements. The title of the book, Teachings
of the Prophet Joseph Smith, of course indicates its design, which as
a byproduct gives a formal image of the Prophet. But the intimate view
of the Prophet is found in the minutes of talks, Joseph's private diaries,
and his personal letters—and much of this material is unpublished.
For instance, his earliest known letter closely follows the completion
of the Book of Mormon translation and effectively shows his religious
concerns, not only for the typesetting of the new work of scripture,
but for his family and the small nucleus of believers near Palmyra,
New York. He instructs Oliver:
Tell them that our prayers are put up daily for them that they may be prospered in every good word and work, and that they may be preserved from sin here and from the consequence of sin hereafter. And now, dear brother, be faithful in the discharge of every duty, looking for the reward of the righteous. And now may God of his infinite mercy keep and preserve us spotless until his coming and receive us all to rest with him in eternal repose through the atonement of Christ our Lord. Amen.47
Joseph's critics include Christian fundamentalists who should accurately label him deeply Christian, totally devoted to God and his work. The early Joseph is above all the Joseph of faith, of great humility, and of constant prayer. Two 1832 letters to his wife symbolize this. Waiting for Newel Whitney's leg to mend in Indiana, he does not tell of religious study or practical planning. Instead he tells Emma that he has "visited a grove" daily to "give vent to all the feelings of my heart in meditation and prayer."48 Waiting for Newel Whitney to purchase goods in New York City, the Prophet does not have a taste for sightseeing or seeking out libraries. Instead he prefers private "reading and praying and holding communion with the Holy Spirit and writing to you."49 The same year he opens his private journal with a prayer: "Oh, may God grant that I may be directed in all my thoughts; oh, bless thy servant. Amen."50
Oliver
Cowdery's first letters are also intense with love for God and Christ,
the first already quoted, written during Book of Mormon translation.
Cowdery's next letter answered the one just quoted from the Prophet;
it shared some practical affairs but mostly shared faith in the plan
of salvation stressed in the Book of Mormon:
My dear brother, when I think of the goodness of Christ I feel no desire to live or stay here upon the shores of this world of iniquity, only to serve my maker and be if possible an instrument in his hands of doing some good in his cause, with his grace to assist me.51
Six weeks later Oliver sent
Joseph another letter as Father Smith travelled to summon his son on
typesetting business. Knowing that they would soon see each other, Oliver
wrote a short but feeling letter, again addressing some practical problems
but sharing sorrow for a wicked world:
I feel almost as though I could quit time and flyaway and be at rest in the bosom of my Redeemer for the many deep feelings of sorrow and the many long strugglings of prayer in sorrow for the sins of my fellow beings.52
These letters disclose no intrigue—only mutual faith that their authors were engaged in a great, divine cause. Such letters cannot be written for effect, for they are unstudied and unpolished, in this respect quite different from the 1830 testimonies of the witnesses or the Book of Mormon preface. Furthermore, for a long time they lay obscure in Church letter books without any attempt being made to prove anything by them. Their recovery now recreates the earnest faith operating in Book of Mormon translation.
The glimpses in council records sustain the intense dedication shown in the earliest Cowdery-Smith letters. The atmosphere is not one of dreamy perfection; the millennium has not arrived, but these brethren are preparing a people for it. Church recorders captured sincere strugglings and strivings. Oliver exhorts his brethren on "the necessity of having their hearts drawn out in prayer to God and also realize that they are in the immediate presence of God."53 Joseph speaks of the potential of faith: "And could we all come together with one heart and one mind in perfect faith, the veil might as well be rent today as next week, or any other time."54 A year later the Prophet has the same goal, urging Church leaders to pray for a special revelation of comfort and instruction: "To receive revelation and the blessing of heaven it was necessary to have our minds on God and exercise faith and become of one heart and of one mind."He asked the leaders to pray "separately and vocally," which they did; the result was the elevated and stimulating section 88 of the Doctrine and Covenants, a treasury of spiritual insight.55
Profound
faith and reverence characterize Joseph and Oliver in the early years
of the Church. The above illustrations of spirituality all date to 1832,
in a period of about three years after the translation of the Book of
Mormon. And the same qualities continue in their private journals through
the next three years, the peak of Oliver's prominence in the Church.
The early Joseph and Oliver are men with missions, servants of Christ
devoted to his work. This is supremely relevant in judging their Book
of Mormon translation. They are the kind of men that God would use in
such a great work. Their lives and thoughts are in harmony with what
they claimed to do. He who invited men to ask and receive ought to respond
to such seekers after his kingdom. Their intense prayerfulness is consistent
with communion with God. Not only is their translation story credible
by numerous practical tests—the translators themselves emerge as spiritually
credible.
Summary
This essay joins others in asking what intellectual tests the Book of Mormon can meet, but that book also transcends intellectual tests. It closes with the invitation to pray and know through the Holy Ghost, the invitation of every true prophet. Paul's travels are exciting reading in Luke's Acts of the Apostles. That work is respected by many tough-minded historians and classicists, who accept its rich information about ancient sea voyages, cities, and social customs. But one should step from physical authenticity to its spiritual witness that Paul and Peter performed miracles in Christ's name, and brought salvation from God to their converts. Paul warned that spiritual things must be spiritually discerned and chided the Corinthians for using only reason to determine what parts of the gospel to believe.56 Neither Jesus nor his apostles offered the world painless belief. They challenged all to put God's cause above money, power, cheap pleasure, status, and reputation. Those who confound the logical with the respectable will not easily see why Paul said, "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise."57 Early Mormon Jared Carter had no problem in believing that the Spirit might speak through the unsophisticated as he measured Joseph Smith in an 1831 meeting: "Brother Joseph, notwithstanding he is not naturally talented for a speaker, yet he was filled with the power of the Holy Ghost, so that he spoke as I never heard man speak."58
Religious history is blind without unflinching use of history, but empty if history cannot include religious experience. Knowing God is closely related to knowing love, ethical values, and other inner realities. Did Oliver and Joseph translate by revelation and receive testimony and authority from angels? One must judge their credibility and discern the product of their work. Their activities are verified and their lifetime testimonies unwavering. The translators' minds harmonize with their prophetic call. Moreover, their claims are phrased with the confident simplicity of men who expect to be believed. What they said is important, but so also is how they said it; lack of overstatement in their first testimonies underlines depth of conviction. Were they sincere but deceived? The counterquestion is whether God and prayer are realities. If so, Joseph and Oliver cannot be faulted in prayerfulness and Christian discipleship. Their words are impressive by every test at the beginning and by the supreme test of enduring to the end, for ridicule and persecution brought no change. Their testimony appears in many forms, including the forceful context of the dedication of the Kirtland Temple, a time of God's favor yet glowing in the records of scores who were there. One was Oliver Cowdery, who privately wrote of the visible glory that filled the temple in the evening meeting.59 He also reported the day's dedication service with characteristic restraint. Near the end, "President J. Smith then arose and bore record of his mission." Soon after, "President O. Cowdery spoke and testified of the truth of the Book of Mormon, and of the work of the Lord in these last days."60
By
this time documents disclose these founders' personal feelings about
their testimony. A secular society hardly recognizes that decisions
can be made in terms of future accountability. But the Prophet reveals
this perspective in adjusting a conflict with the intense comment, "I
would be willing to be weighed in the scale of truth today in this matter,
and risk it in the day of judgment."61 The Prophet and
Cowdery kept journals with periodic and profound introspection. Thus
Cowdery's editorial farewell rings true in saying that he had well counted
the cost of trying to "persuade others to believe as myself,"
and he willingly faced the "judgment seat of Christ," who
would see "the integrity of my heart."62 The names
of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery led the rest in certifying the truth
of the events and teachings of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, the
first book to name the messengers restoring both the Book of Mormon
and the two priesthoods.63 The preface, stamped with Oliver
Cowdery's phraseology, expresses their solemn view of eternal responsibility:
We do not present this little volume with any other expectation than that we are to be called to answer to every principle advanced, in that day when the secrets of all hearts will be revealed, and the reward of every man's labor be given him.64
Notes
167 Heber J. Grant Building Provo, Utah 84602 (801) 422-6975 Send Message