Oliver Cowdery Version: Gold Plate Vision was the First Vision?

[el-asherah]

This is a companion post to "Dating of the Joseph's First Vision Letter Book Account" see viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1614

I recently discovered this piece of historical information, to me this is pretty darn close to a smoking gun.

In 1834, Oliver Cowdery seems to be totally unaware of Joseph Smith's Grove Vision and thinks the Gold Plate Vision is the first visitation Joseph had received.

The first written account of the Grove Vision by Joseph is in the Kirkland letter book and is undated. The church dates it to 1832. This dating has always been a head scratcher to me since the account is not chronologically in order with Joseph's evolving theology, and no one at the time seems to know about it. The church's dating is problematic and based on very flimsy circumstantial evidence. The dating can actually range from 1832 to 1837. Perhaps in the future I should write a post on the dating of the 1832 letter book account.

In 1834, Oliver composed some letters to W.W Phelps, the letters were later published as a church history in the Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate, Vol. I. No. 1. Kirtland, Ohio, October, 1834.

Sources

Digital Scan - BYU library http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/co ... 46/id/2828 each page is in a separate pdf file, click on the right side for each pdf

Digital Scan - https://www.slideshare.net/HalcyonKing/ ... w-w-phelps all pages are in a single pdf

Text Version - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letters_ ... day_Saints

As you read Letter III page 16, you will think he is describing the context of the Grove Vision. He is not! He is describing the environment leading up to the Gold Plate Vision described later in Letter IV pg 19.

The silver bullet is in Letter IV pg 18 where Oliver describes some of the reasons for the Gold Plate Vision, "...he continued to call upon the Lord in secret for a full manifestation of divine approbation, and for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him."

What? Really? Joseph didn't know if a supreme being existed! after the Grove Vision had already happened!

This account plus all the other historical lack of evidences indicates that among all the early saints (including Oliver) up to 1835+ the Gold Plate Vision was the First Vision.

Reading through Oliver's account here is a list of some of the key aspects of the Gold Plate Vision:

• Methodist Pastor Lane preaching at the time

• Religious excitement / contention in the area

• Joseph's mother, sisters, brothers join the Presbyterians

• Joseph was troubled about which church to join

• Year is 1823

• Joseph desired to know if a Supreme being even existed

• Joseph wanted to know if he was accepted and his sins were forgiven

• Oliver references James 1:5 indirectly - To those who knock, it shall be opened

• Joseph called upon the Lord in his bedroom

• Bright light appeared and then a single personage appeared

• Messenger sent from the Lord (Oliver does not seem to know the name of the messenger)

• Joseph sins were forgiven, his prayers were heard

• Lord has chosen Joseph to be an instrument, spread the gospel

• Derides those who “draw near to God with their mouths, and honor him with their lips while their hearts are far from him” (implying not to join any religion)

• Joseph is given a brief history of aborigines of this country

• Joseph is told of a record written and deposited not far away, part of the record is sealed

It is interesting that when discussing the various first vision accounts that the church entirely ignores this NULL Version of the First Vision written by Oliver Cowdery.

So I guess my question is – is my reading of Oliver's account off base or not? Are there other explanations?

[Red Ryder]

The different accounts clearly show the evolution of the narrative over time. Interestingly enough, numerous other similar "first vision" accounts exist unrelated to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. Personally I like Norris Stearns' the best.

Perhaps these other accounts influenced both Oliver and Joseph and they didn't have the benefit of instant communication by text, cell phone, or telegraph to get their stories straight.

http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/theophany-mine/

[oliver_denom]

Don't forget about Ellen White:
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/VisionsofEGW.html

...or the Shakers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Era_of_Manifestations

Or the 18th and 19th century development of the Evangelical Conversion Narrative along with its death bed visionary experiences.
https://books.google.com/books?id=VaUUD ... &q&f=false

...or John Wesley
https://wesleygospel.com/2013/01/08/no- ... sh-friend/

[blazerb]

The apologetic response I have heard for this issue is that Oliver was confused. Joseph had told him some things, but Oliver combined the two visions in his head. Never mind that today our leaders say the truth of the Church rests on the reality of the First Vision. If that were the case, why would Oliver not understand it?

I would love to know more about the dating of the earliest account of the First Vision. I hope you can share that. The differences in the accounts of the First Vision have not bothered me as much as they have others. I have been interested in the evolution of the priesthood restoration accounts. I find those changes disturbing. These letters touch on that as well.

Thanks for the resource.

[el-asherah]

The apologetic response I have heard for this issue is that Oliver was confused. Joseph had told him some things, but Oliver combined the two visions in his head. Never mind that today our leaders say the truth of the Church rests on the reality of the First Vision. If that were the case, why would Oliver not understand it?

I would love to know more about the dating of the earliest account of the First Vision. I hope you can share that. The differences in the accounts of the First Vision have not bothered me as much as they have others. I have been interested in the evolution of the priesthood restoration accounts. I find those changes disturbing. These letters touch on that as well.

Thanks for the resource.

Thanks for the response.

I have limited bandwidth, maybe next week I will have time to write a post on the dating of the Joseph's letter book first vision account. I'm of the opinion that the church MUST date Joseph's first vision account before 1834 in order to negate the Oliver Cowdery history. A little teaser, the church's position for the 1832 dating boils down to two words "Holy" "Priesthood".

The various versions of the first vision have never really bothered me either, because they are just shades of gray. What does bother me is the black and white contrast of NO Grove Vision vs the First Grove Vision, which the Oliver account shows.

I know you are not an apologist so I guess this is a rhetorical question. Do apologists have historical factual evidence that Joseph told Oliver about the Grove Vision? or are they just making stuff up out of thin air?

The entire argument that Oliver was confused between the Grove Vision and Gold Plate Vision falls flat for several reasons

• Joseph never corrected the confusion between the Grove Vision and the Gold Plate Vision. Why ? The confusion would not just be with Oliver, but with every member who read the "Messenger and Advocate" in Kirtland. The confused narrative would have been widely circulated but Joseph never fixes it?

• Oliver at this time was the Second President, and he doesn't know or is confused about the foundational facts of the church? even though he has been with the church and Joseph from the very beginning

• So we are to accept Oliver's testimony of the BoM, but not his testimony of the Gold Plate Vision?

• Is there any evidence anytime before 1835 that Joseph Smith told anybody about the Grove Vision, if not why the big secret?

[el-asherah]

The different accounts clearly show the evolution of the narrative over time. Interestingly enough, numerous other similar "first vision" accounts exist unrelated to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. Personally I like Norris Stearns' the best.

Perhaps these other accounts influenced both Oliver and Joseph and they didn't have the benefit of instant communication by text, cell phone, or telegraph to get their stories straight.

http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/theophany-mine/

Wow this is fascinating, I wasn't aware of this material. Thanks!

I did not know that all these other first vision events were happening around Joseph Smith in the "burnt over district", is nothing with Joseph Smith unique?

The Norris Stearn account of two human like personages is very similar to Joseph's account, amazing...

[blazerb]

If the initial story were that Joseph received the plates in response to his searching for the true religion, would this explain the stories of revivals associated with the First Vision? I am relying on Wikipedia here, so inform me if this information is incorrect. This article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_lif ... seph_Smith, reports that there were major religious revivals in the 1824-25 time frame. If the original story were the one reported by Oliver, the revivals would correspond with the original revelation of the plates. Then, when the story morphed into a vision of God, it had to be put earlier but the same revivals would be needed to explain why Joseph was asking about religion. I could imagine that he would not remember that the major revivals were not going on when he was 14-16. If anyone knows more, please share.

[el-asherah]

If the initial story were that Joseph received the plates in response to his searching for the true religion, would this explain the stories of revivals associated with the First Vision? I am relying on Wikipedia here, so inform me if this information is incorrect. This article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_lif ... seph_Smith, reports that there were major religious revivals in the 1824-25 time frame. If the original story were the one reported by Oliver, the revivals would correspond with the original revelation of the plates. Then, when the story morphed into a vision of God, it had to be put earlier but the same revivals would be needed to explain why Joseph was asking about religion. I could imagine that he would not remember that the major revivals were not going on when he was 14-16. If anyone knows more, please share.

I think you are correct. The initial foundational story within the early church seems to be the Gold Plate Vision - that was how Joseph found God, answered his questions about which religion to join, received the gold plates, got his calling from an angel, etc.. This was all set in the context of the revivals around 1824, the revivals are what started the ball rolling.

But then the story later morphed, into a 2nd story - where the Grove Vision had to predate the Gold Plate Vision. All of the context (such as the revivals) of the Gold Plate Vision had to be reassigned to the Grove Vision in 1820 to explain why was Joseph questioning religion. The only problem is that the dating of the revivals is entirely wrong, leaving apologists scratching their heads trying to defend something that makes no sense. And it is not just the dating of the revivals that is off, I don't have time to look it up but aren't there lots of other conflicting dates, such as the family was not even in the area at the time?

The question in my mind is when did the story morph and the concept of the Grove Vision first come into existence, and why?

The very first "public version" of the Grove Vision I know about is in 1835, namely the account given by Joseph to Erastus Holmes on November 14, 1835, originally published in the Deseret News of Saturday May 29, 1852.

Based on the Oliver Cowdrey account, the story had not yet morphed in late 1834. What was happening in 1835 to cause the narrative to change from the Gold Plate Vision to the Grove Vision?

Of course the church claims Joseph wrote his letter book Grove Vision story down in 1832, but then he never told anyone about it. The church's dating of 1832 is based on very flimsy evidence, and the dating could actually be in the range from 1832 to 1837. I hope to post on this in the near future. The church has to claim 1832 in order to negate Oliver's 1834 version of the story.

[Mad Jax]

Does this make Cowdery the original NOM?

[oliblish]

Brigham Young seemed to think the Moroni visit was the first vision. But FAIR explains this by letting us know that back then people referred to Jesus as an Angel...


https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Jose ... gham_Young

[el-asherah]

Brigham Young seemed to think the Moroni visit was the first vision. But FAIR explains this by letting us know that back then people referred to Jesus as an Angel...


https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Jose ... gham_Young

The apologists are redefining words, I'm not surprised. I guess if you redefine words you can make anything mean anything. Horse is not a horse, translate doesn't mean translate, angels don't mean angels, the hill Cumorah doesn't mean the hill Cumorah, ...

In the 1834 Oliver Cowdrey account, Oliver is very clear when he is talking about the "Lord" or a "Messenger", which is way before Brigham Young.

The Brigham Young 1855 quote that FAIR is talking about is:

"The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek[,] the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowledge of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith Jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him."

FAIR is taking the position that this is a reference to the Grove Vision, but since it refers to "His Angel" they must redefine the word angel to mean Jesus. But there is nothing in the Brigham Young reference that identifies it has being a reference to the Grove Vision. In fact it exactly matches the Gold Plate Vision that Oliver Cowdrey describes in his 1834 history, nothing has to be changed or redefined to make it match.

[blazerb]

Brigham Young seemed to think the Moroni visit was the first vision. But FAIR explains this by letting us know that back then people referred to Jesus as an Angel...


https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Jose ... gham_Young

I made the mistake of reading this FAIR post. In order to prove that Brigham Young taught about the First Vision, they produce a huge number of quotes where Brigham Young testifies of everything but the First Vision. They threw in some quotes by other people just for good measure. They also fail to talk about the First Vision. But apparently some books were published in the 1800's that included the First Vision account(s).

I am sure that Brigham Young knew about the First Vision. But why bother compiling such a large number of quotes that don't address the question? I don't think the FAIR contributors are dishonest. I think they are truly saying what they believe. But that list of quotes was a mess. I can't imagine what they were hoping to accomplish.

[el-asherah]

I made the mistake of reading this FAIR post. In order to prove that Brigham Young taught about the First Vision, they produce a huge number of quotes where Brigham Young testifies of everything but the First Vision. They threw in some quotes by other people just for good measure. They also fail to talk about the First Vision. But apparently some books were published in the 1800's that included the First Vision account(s).

I am sure that Brigham Young knew about the First Vision. But why bother compiling such a large number of quotes that don't address the question? I don't think the FAIR contributors are dishonest. I think they are truly saying what they believe. But that list of quotes was a mess. I can't imagine what they were hoping to accomplish.

An apologist has to do what ever it takes, including drowning the issue in a sea of words.

I'm with you, I'm sure Brigham Young knew about the Grove Vision at some point in his life, just when? The 1855 quote, doesn't preclude Brigham Young from knowing about it, he just didn't mention it in that specific quote.

After Joseph died, it really doesn't matter when people knew about it, the story definitely did come from Joseph. The issue in my mind is when did the story come to be known by Joseph?

[blazerb]

After Joseph died, it really doesn't matter when people knew about it, the story definitely did come from Joseph. The issue in my mind is when did the story come to be known by Joseph?

I think you're right. After Joseph died, it's a non-issue. If the dating of the 1832 account is off by a couple of years, the development of the First Vision could have coincided with the beginning of the stories of John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John restoring the priesthood. I have found articles about the earliest accounts of the First Vision here, https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/exploring- ... rst-vision, and here, http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/site/a ... rst-vision . I have found articles about the earliest references to the restoration of the priesthood here, https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/prie ... -documents . Does anyone have a source of early references to the vision that led to the Gold Plates? I seem to remember that the earliest account said Nephi was the angel that told Joseph where to go, but I am not sure where to check that. The letter from Oliver to WW Phelps would certainly be very early. All these areas show that Joseph was developing his backstory well into the 1830's. I will have to read up on when the dissent in Kirtland started ramping up. Maybe all this was a response to questions about his revelations from dissenters.

[el-asherah]

I will have to read up on when the dissent in Kirtland started ramping up. Maybe all this was a response to questions about his revelations from dissenters.

Thanks for all the references, looks like I have a little bit of lite reading to do

This is pure speculation but for me the key date for the development of the Grove Story seems to be late 1834 to late 1835. I based this solely on the evolving theology of the visions stories (simple to more complex theology)

• 1820-1835 no public reference to the Grove Vision

• 1834 Sept Oliver Cowdrey "public": Gold Plate Vision + angel, contradicts Grove Vision, no clarification from Joseph

• 1835?? Joseph Smith Letterbook "private": Grove + one personage (the Lord) (undated, the church dates this version to 1832)

• 1835 Nov 9, Joseph Smith/Joshua the Jewish minister "public": Grove + 14 years old + angels + two personages, one testifying of Christ

Edited to add:
the period of late 1834 to late 1835 contains - the aftermath of the Zions Camp failure, formation of the Q12, Q70, BoA translation, .....

In terms of Nephi being the angel maybe this will get you started http://www.mormonthink.com/nephiweb.htm

[DrTxn]

I found a link to the letter in the syllabus of this BYUI professor.

http://emp.byui.edu/satterfieldb/rel341/

http://emp.byui.edu/satterfieldb/rel341 ... nd%20A.htm

Notice the part that is underlined. Apparently, this professor has the answers you seek. /s

[el-asherah]

Notice the part that is underlined. Apparently, this professor has the answers you seek. /s

Could you be a little more clear at what you are getting at, I'm confused at what your point is or what answers the professor is providing since he seems to confirm my analysis.

In the Oliver Cowdery history link you provided:

"You will recollect that I mentioned the time of a religious excitement, in Palmyra and vicinity to have been in the 15th year of our brother J. [Joseph] 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."

This clearly establishes the year as 1823, 3 years after the Grove Vision, 1823 is the year of the Gold Plate Vision.

Then what follows is where Oliver states:

"But if others were not benefited, our brother was urged forward and strengthened in the determination to know for himself of the certainty and reality of pure and holy religion. And it is only necessary for me to say, that while this excitement continued, he continued to call upon the Lord in secret for a full manifestation of divine approbation, and for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him. This, most assuredly, was correct -- it was right. The Lord has said, long since, and his word remains steadfast, that for him who knocks it shall be opened, & whosoever will, may come and partake of the waters of life freely."

Per the dating this is 1823, 3 years after the Grove Vision and Joseph doesn't know if God or Jesus exists.

Then we have Oliver going into more detail and giving the specific date of the Gold Plate Vision

On the evening of the 21st of September, 1823, previous to retiring to rest, our brother's mind was unusually wrought up on the subject which had so long agitated his mind -- his heart was drawn out in fervent prayer, and his whole soul was so lost to every thing of a temporal nature, that earth, to him, had lost its claims, and all he desired was to be prepared in heart to commune with some kind messenger who could communicate to him the desired information of his acceptance with God.


I'm confused at what you are pointing out. The dating in the document seems to confer that for Oliver, the First Vision was the Gold Plate Vision. The underlining sections and statement from the BYUI professor seem to confirm this.

[Emower]

Wow, I didn't know about this stuff either. Its pretty hard to believe that Oliver could be just "confused" about the most basic truth claim the church professes.

[Hagoth]

In the Oliver Cowdery history link you provided:

"You will recollect that I mentioned the time of a religious excitement, in Palmyra and vicinity to have been in the 15th year of our brother J. [Joseph] 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."

This clearly establishes the year as 1823, 3 years after the Grove Vision, 1823 is the year of the Gold Plate Vision.

These letters are published in a small volume called The Prophet and the Plates. For this quote the author of the footnote realizes that this date is incorrect and suggests that the reason it was changes was that the First Vision was too sacred to talk about. He even offers that Oliver was told to change it by Joseph. In other words, Joseph told him to lie about something sacred. If the first vision really is too sacred to talk about, someone should tell those 80,000 missionaries out in the field to stop talking about it.

Also, I see that in my copy of the book I have written "No mention of first vision!" in the margins.

Per the dating this is 1823, 3 years after the Grove Vision and Joseph doesn't know if God or Jesus exists.

No doubt Oliver would again find himself conveniently looking up at the chasis of the bus for this one.

[el-asherah]

These letters are published in a small volume called The Prophet and the Plates. For this quote the author of the footnote realizes that this date is incorrect and suggests that the reason it was changes was that the First Vision was too sacred to talk about. He even offers that Oliver was told to change it by Joseph. In other words, Joseph told him to lie about something sacred. If the first vision really is too sacred to talk about, someone should tell those 80,000 missionaries out in the field to stop talking about it.

Also, I see that in my copy of the book I have written "No mention of first vision!" in the margins.
No doubt Oliver would again find himself conveniently looking up at the chasis of the bus for this one.

Uumm... I guess this is not new ground, nothing new under the sun!! Oliver doesn't seem to be getting a lot of sun lately, being under the bus.

I assume it is the author's speculation that Oliver was told not to talk (lie) about the Grove Vision? Is there anything backing this up? any journal entry, any diary, any reference anywhere? ... or is there any reference anywhere to the First Vision before 1835? or is this pure unbridled speculation by the author, .... because ... well gosh darn it ... there just has to be a Grove Vision, so lets throw Oliver under the bus.

It should be noted that the issue is also much larger than the fact that the First Vision (Grove Vision) is missing from Oliver's testimony. The larger issue is that Oliver's testimony describes the Gold Plate Vision with most of the same key components and the same environmental context that the church now associates with the Grove Vision. Specifically the following items I listed in the opening post, Oliver testified were part of the Gold Plate narrative:

Methodist Pastor Lane preaching at the time - Rivals Religious excitement / contention in the area - Joseph's mother, sisters, brothers join the Presbyterians - Joseph was troubled about which church to join - Joseph desired to know if a Supreme being even existed -Joseph wanted to know if he was accepted and his sins were forgiven - James 1:5 is referenced indirectly - To those who knock, it shall be opened - Joseph sins were forgiven, his prayers were heard - the messenger derides those who “draw near to God with their mouths, and honor him with their lips while their hearts are far from him” (implying not to join any religion) ....

This narrative has been shifted from the Gold Plate Vision to the Grove Vision

So if Joseph told Oliver to lie about (not talk about) the Grove Vision then, Oliver did a poor job because almost exactly the same narrative is all over the Gold Plate Vision that Oliver testified too.

I find it ironic that I'm to accept Oliver's testimony of the Gold Plates, but not accept his testimony of the Gold Plates Vision (he was confused or told to lie about it)