Section 110

[Yobispo]

Maybe we can ask Consiglieri to reach out to his friend RFM and ask for a multi-part exhaustive study on this topic...

[Hagoth]

It would also explain why JS couldn't reproduce what he and Martin had done together (116 pages).

If those pages are ever found it would be a pretty good indicator of how much Oliver contributed. Wouldn't you love to compare the Joseph/Martin writing style to the Joseph/Oliver style?

There's an interesting little book Called The Prophet and the Plates: Oliver Cowdery on the Events of the Restoration, which is a series of letters from Oliver Cowdery to W.W. Phelps for publication in the Messenger and Advocate newspaper to educate members of the church about the first days of the church. These letters were written in 1834 and 1835. Cowdery states in the first letter that these letters were reviewed by Joseph and changes were made to ensure the facts were correct.

Maybe the most fascinating thing about these letters are the omissions. For one thing, there is no First Vision. The narrative starts with a period of religious excitement in Palmyra which led Joseph to seek a remission of his sins. He knelt by his bed and prayed for eleven or twelve hours from the time his family went to bed until late into the night (how many hours did people sleep in those days, and how long were the nights?!) when "a messenger from the skies" appeared before him, surrounded by light. This being, who was a little bit larger than a human and wore a seamless robe, told Joseph he had been sent by the Lord to tell Joseph that his sins were forgiven. The angel then told Joseph that the American "aborigines" were descended from Abraham and that they had written and buried a record in a nearby hill, along with the Urim and Thummim. He also told him that part of the plates was sealed, which consisted of the same revelation that was given to John on Patmos.

You can clearly see Joseph controlling the narrative in things that Cowdery says. Oliver starts the 4th letter by apologizing for stating in a previous letter that the period of religious excitement had been in Joseph's 15th year, but that Joseph had clarified that it was actually in his 17th year. This is especially interesting because in the official 1838 version it was changed back to the 15th year and the First Vision inserted. Also, Cowdery tells Phelps that an angel bestowed the Priesthood upon himself and Joseph. There is no mention of this being John the Baptist, or that it was the Aaronic Priesthood. It isn't until much later, after Joseph had edited the D&C to add John the Baptist, the two priesthoods, and the visitation by Peter James and John that Cowdery also started telling that version of the story.

All of this makes me think that either Cowdery was a confederate or that Joseph had so much influence over him that he would rewrite his own memories to coordinate with Joseph's ever-morphing version of history.

[Yobispo]

I just googled the book that Hagoth mentioned and our beloved apologist Brad Wilcox also has a book by that title. Buyer beware.

[jfro18]

This is an amazing thread.

I think at some point there was one on this where we talked about how that vision was recorded, but this has a lot more depth to it.

It also makes me wonder how the Elias/Elijah screwup originated... and of course how apologetics try to brush that aside by making Elias a title for a forerunner instead of the literal way Joseph Smith used it in the vision.

These threads are gold though - such great info and crazy how every day you learn more and more about the messiness in the church's foundation.

[Hagoth]

... and of course how apologetics try to brush that aside by making Elias a title for a forerunner instead of the literal way Joseph Smith used it in the vision.

This is another of those things that can only be dealt with in LDS apologetics by offering a multiple choice question.

Bruce R. McConkie said:

There is no valid reason for confusion as to the identity and mission of Elias. There was a man named Elias who came to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery on April 3, 1836, in the Kirtland Temple to restore "the gospel of Abraham." (D&C 110:12.) Whether he was Abraham himself or someone else from his dispensation, we do not know. Elias is one of the names of Gabriel who is Noah, and it was in this capacity that Gabriel visited Zacharias the father of John the Baptist... Elias is also the title or name of a forerunner who goes before to prepare the way for someone who is greater; this is the doctrine of Elias, and in this sense John the Baptist was both Elias and an Elias.

On the other hand, some might think there is a very valid reason. Why would Joseph (or I guess it was actually Warren Cowdery) clearly identify Moses and Elijah but choose to use a symbolic name for Abraham, Noah or John the Baptist - and give absolutely no information to indicate which of these people had visited him. He had a very intimate relationship with both Abraham and John, having already been visited by one, and translated the scripture written by the other, and had never felt the need to use secret code names for them before. If he was going to use a secret code name for Noah wouldn't he stick with Gabriel to avoid two-levels-deep confusion?

This is really a big problem with a simple explanation that has been abused by some really bad apologetic tap dancing. Someone should write a book called Desperate Apologetics for this stuff.

[Palerider]

... and of course how apologetics try to brush that aside by making Elias a title for a forerunner instead of the literal way Joseph Smith used it in the vision.

This is another of those things that can only be dealt with in LDS apologetics by offering a multiple choice question.

Bruce R. McConkie said:

There is no valid reason for confusion as to the identity and mission of Elias. There was a man named Elias who came to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery on April 3, 1836, in the Kirtland Temple to restore "the gospel of Abraham." (D&C 110:12.) Whether he was Abraham himself or someone else from his dispensation, we do not know. Elias is one of the names of Gabriel who is Noah, and it was in this capacity that Gabriel visited Zacharias the father of John the Baptist... Elias is also the title or name of a forerunner who goes before to prepare the way for someone who is greater; this is the doctrine of Elias, and in this sense John the Baptist was both Elias and an Elias.

On the other hand, some might think there is a very valid reason. Why would Joseph (or I guess it was actually Warren Cowdery) clearly identify Moses and Elijah but choose to use a symbolic name for Abraham, Noah or John the Baptist - and give absolutely no information to indicate which of these people had visited him. He had a very intimate relationship with both Abraham and John, having already been visited by one, and translated the scripture written by the other, and had never felt the need to use secret code names for them before. If he was going to use a secret code name for Noah wouldn't he stick with Gabriel to avoid two-levels-deep confusion?

This is really a big problem with a simple explanation that has been abused by some really bad apologetic tap dancing. Someone should write a book called Desperate Apologetics for this stuff.

In addition, McConkie's reasoning/logic is absolutely circular.

One has to first accept Joseph's word that Gabriel is Noah is Elias, in order to ascertain that there's nothing wrong with the section 110 screw up. This makes no sense whatsoever in helping someone determine whether Joseph is a prophet or just a fraud.

"Ya gonna believe me or your lyin' eyes!?!?

[blazerb]

In addition, McConkie's reasoning/logic is absolutely circular.

One has to first accept Joseph's word that Gabriel is Noah is Elias, in order to ascertain that there's nothing wrong with the section 110 screw up. This makes no sense whatsoever in helping someone determine whether Joseph is a prophet or just a fraud.

"Ya gonna believe me or your lyin' eyes!?!?

Everything in the church is circular.
Q: How do we know that Peter, James, and John restored the Melchizedek priesthood?
A: Because Joseph taught it.
Q: Where did he teach it, because when he prepared the history of the church he tells a different story?
A: That history was written by others. JS did not have much to do with it.
Q: Then why do we believe section 110? That was written by others.
A: Because keys, authority, patriarchs, Abrahamic covenant, etc.

When the spiritual technospeak begins, you know that the discussion is over.