Book of Mormon Original Manuscript

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Did Cowdery own the manuscript?

Post by Shulem »

The original manuscript written almost exclusively in Oliver Cowdery’s handwriting would have likely been written with Oliver’s personal pen. Oliver, a schoolteacher by profession, surely owned his own pen. He probably had a bottle of ink too and kept the pen and ink in a personal tote.

So, what about the foolscap paper? Where did it come from? Who purchased it and who provided the paper for the translation. It’s reasonable to think that perhaps Cowdery himself provided the paper, pen, and ink! If that is the case, then Oliver Cowdery was the lawful and rightful owner of the original manuscript unless he deeded it over to Smith.

In any case, you’d think that Oliver Cowdery would have had an interest in the preservation or ownership of the original manuscript. In 1838, Cowdery and Smith had serious disagreements and subsequently Cowdery was excommunicated. Obviously, Smith had possession of the manuscript and both men parted ways. Due to a threatening Danite Manifesto, Cowdery was ultimately run out of Far West County. I have to wonder if both parties were amicable about Smith retaining Cowdery’s personal property? After all, it was his handwriting written with his ink, and possibly his paper he provided for the translation. Was Smith in legal possession of the manuscript? Did he have the legal right to simply bury it and get rid of the “problem”?
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

That’s my manuscript too!

Post by Shulem »

churchofjesuschrist.org wrote: After the original manuscript was completed, Joseph Smith instructed Oliver Cowdery to prepare a second copy for the printer’s use. Because 116 pages of the Book of Mormon manuscript had been lost a year earlier, Joseph and his associates were wary about the manuscript’s safety. Thus, the original manuscript remained in Joseph’s possession while pages of the printer’s manuscript were shared with the publisher. The pencil markings on the manuscript were added during the publishing process.

Oliver Cowdery, Hyrum Smith, and an unidentified scribe prepared the printer’s manuscript during a period of roughly five months. Joseph later made additional annotations on the manuscript in dark ink while preparing to publish a second edition of the Book of Mormon in Kirtland, Ohio, in 1837. The printer’s manuscript was retained by Oliver Cowdery and eventually acquired by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 1903.

It’s interesting to note that Smith retained the original manuscript and Cowdery retained the copy. It suggests, at minimum, both parties had an equal interest in the physical properties consisting of the manuscripts that brought forth the Book of Mormon. It seems to suggest both parties had some kind of mutual agreement that Smith would hold on to the original and Cowdery gets the copy. Was this a legally binding agreement or just a gentleman’s agreement? It could be argued that Cowdery might not have agreed to have the original buried in the Nauvoo cornerstone had he been aware of it. But Cowdery had been cut off by Smith, excommunicated, and was not consulted about Smith’s sudden urge (so it seems) to toss the manuscript into the cornerstone as if a last minute idea, per Ebenezer Robinson’s eyewitness account of those events:

Ebenezer Robinson wrote:After the brethren had assembled at the southeast corner of the foundation, where the cornerstone was to be laid, President Joseph Smith said: ‘Wait brethren, I have a document I wish to put in that stone,’ and started for his house, which was only a few rods away, across Main Street. I went with him to the house, and also one or two other brethren. He got a manuscript copy of the Book of Mormon, and brought it into the room where we were standing, and said: ‘I will examine to see if it is all here,’ and as he did so I stood near him, at his left side, and saw distinctively the writing, as he turned up the pages until he hastily went through the book and satisfied himself that it was all there

Did Joseph Smith have every right to bury the manuscript without Oliver Cowdery’s consent?

I question that right!

What if Smith had offered to sell the original manuscript to the highest bidder? Suppose someone was willing to pay a fortune for real-time Mormon revelations contained on paper that was penned and purchased by Oliver Cowdery! Wouldn’t Oliver have a legal right to some of those proceeds?

I believe so. It could be argued that Smith’s burying the manuscript could be construed as a kind of crime in itself and was certainly not a morally justifiable act.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

A SEER who does not SEE

Post by Shulem »

With regard to Joseph Smith and original manuscripts it should be pointed out that there were two occasions in which Smith is responsible by his actions in causing manuscripts to disappear or crumble by the elements of mother nature.

1) 116 Page Manuscript penned by Martin Harris -- vanished!
2) Original Manuscript penned by Oliver Cowdery -- crumbled!

In both instances it can be safely concluded that Smith did not FORSEE the ultimate consequences that would result in his actions in loaning an uncopied virgin manuscript and burying another manuscript within the cavity of a rock. This does not bode well for one who calls himself a prophet, SEER, and revelator. Just what does a prophet SEE when he fails to see the near future that results in disastrous consequences due to his own poor choices? Smith failed to SEE that giving the Manuscript to Harris would result in it not coming back and putting the other in the cornerstone would result in it rotting within the confines of God’s nature.

I know that Joseph Smith was not a seer and could not predict or see the future. The above two examples serve as solid proof that Smith was not a SEER – one who actually sees. In effect, Smith was acting blindly and hoping for the best.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: A SEER who does not SEE

Post by Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
Tue Apr 27, 2021 7:38 pm
I know that Joseph Smith was not a seer and could not predict or see the future. The above two examples serve as solid proof that Smith was not a SEER – one who actually sees. In effect, Smith was acting blindly and hoping for the best.

The Book of Mormon gives explicit definition to what it means to be a seer and that those who possess this power have great ability given them from God. Now, with that said, we should expect that one who claims to be a SEER is going to manifest the qualities and virtues of having such a gift especially when it comes to important things pertaining to God’s revealed word such as the scriptures.

Mosiah 8 wrote:15 And the king said that a seer is greater than a prophet.

16 And Ammon said that a seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given him from God.

17 But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known.

So, how can a seer allow the first Manuscript to vanish and the second to crumble in a forgotten cavity of stone? Where is the vision? Where is the foresight? How is the mighty power of God manifest in blindness? It’s crystal clear that Joseph Smith had no insight or inkling that his precious Manuscripts would be lost or destroyed through his own personal actions. This is indeed a poor reflection of one who claims to be a SEER who can know of things to come or that things may be made known by them which otherwise could not be known.

Joseph Smith didn’t act like a SEER. These things are evidence to show that he was not a SEER as he claimed.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: A SEER who does not SEE

Post by Shulem »

The Church was organized on April 6, 1830. At this time Joseph Smith assumed the title of seer. The newly called founder of Mormonism was now designated as the Seer for the whole Church:

D&C 21:1 wrote:Behold, there shall be a record kept among you; and in it thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church through the will of God the Father, and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ,

Could it therefore be said that when Smith first translated the Book of Mormon in 1828 with Martin Harris that he was not yet a SEER in the Lord’s eyes? That doesn’t make too much sense seeing that he was already a TRANSLATOR and we know that both of those titles go together. Plus, the prophecy that came a little later when translating with Cowdery revealed JOSEPSH SMITH in the Book of Mormon as a SEER. This seems to indicate that the TRANSLATOR would know who he was: He prophesied of Joseph Smith, the latter-day seer.

2 Nephi 3 wrote: 6 For Joseph truly testified, saying: A seer shall the Lord my God raise up, who shall be a choice seer unto the fruit of my loins.
7 Yea, Joseph truly said: Thus saith the Lord unto me: A choice seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins

So, when Joseph lost the 116 page manuscript he most assuredly already was a SEER. He can’t be excused for failing to SEE the disastrous future result in handing over his manuscript to Harris in which he would never see it again. Smith’s spiritual insight in SEEING was blind!

But to make matters worse, this self-proclaimed declaration of calling oneself a SEER came again just in time for burying the manuscript in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House in which it too would become a casualty of Smith’s inability to foresee the future.

D&C 124:125 wrote:I give unto you my servant Joseph to be a presiding elder over all my church, to be a translator, a revelator, a seer, and prophet.

Both times Smith is called a SEER by his Church and both times he failed to foresee and perceive what would happen to his manuscripts which he alone was responsible for. It’s hard to believe that Smith was a SEER seeing that he did not act like one.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Book of Mormon Original Manuscript

Post by Shulem »

Suppose for a moment, just suppose, the Original Manuscript which Smith placed in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House – survived perfectly intact when uncovered and retrieved by Emma Smith’s second husband. What if the manuscript had survived the 40 years of weathering while entombed in the cavity of a rock sealed up by the prophet Joseph Smith? I’ll tell you: The Church today would be going on and on about how it was a miracle and that God preserved the manuscript through divine means as a testimony that the Book of Mormons is true.

Unfortunately, for miracle seeking Latter-day Saints, that was not the case. No miracles can be proclaimed on that account. God did not preserve the manuscript – he let it rot in the rock left by his prophet who had no idea that it was going to rot.

Isn’t that rather ironic, if you’re a believing Mormon? It certainly seems much more desirable to be able to proclaim something miraculous rather than just another failure on the prophet’s part.

Just saying.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Blame them

Post by Shulem »

Perhaps it’s unfair of me to place the entire blame on the President of the Church, Joseph Smith. Afterall, the First Presidency consisted of three members who work together in unison with Joseph receiving counsel and advice from his two counsellors, Hyrum Smith and William Law. What about the advice given by Smith’s brother, Hyrum? Did he fully agree to the idea of putting the manuscript into the cornerstone? Did his spiritual insight urge Joseph to go ahead and seal up the record in the exterior stone of a building that had not yet been built? And what about William Law? What kind of counsel did he offer Joseph about burying up records within exterior walls made of stone? Is it fair to conclude that Hyrum and William were just as blind as Joseph when it came to failing to perceive or SEE that the precious record would rot within the casing of stone over the years and that the Nauvoo House was never be built? Did these brethren not know that they were sealing up the Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon in a building in which they were commanded by God to build but would fail to build it and eventually be run out of Nauvoo?

It seems, I’m forced to conclude that the entire First Presidency lacked the inspiration necessary to properly safeguard the original Book of Mormon Manuscript. The buck has to stop with the First Presidency with Joseph at the head. If we go any further up the chain of command it will be necessary to blame the Holy Ghost and suspect him of being uninspired or even Jesus Christ the Head of the Church! So, let’s just put the blame on Joseph and his counsellors and leave it at that.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

What if?

Post by Shulem »

What if Section 124 of the Doctrine and Covenants had contained a verse whereby the Lord specifically commands Joseph to seal up the record of the Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon into the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House? What IF the Lord had commanded Joseph to place the Manuscript therein as a testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon where it would be preserved and kept in remembrance for generations to come, even until the third and fourth generation? What if the revelation had declared that the Nauvoo House will be built by his people and that no unhallowed hand can prevent the Lord’s will from being fulfilled in this generation?

What if?

I think it would be safe to say that IF that were the case, it would naturally be concluded that the prophecy was false and that Smith was pretending to speak for the Lord in order to advance his own cause and personal ambitions with regards to his religious operations in Nauvoo. So, the Latter-day Saints can breathe a sigh of relief that those particular points weren’t included in the revelation. But they just as well could have been! Indeed.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

YES OR NO (just answer the questions)

Post by Shulem »

I agree with Joseph Smith and believe he made the right choice in placing the manuscript in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House.

[ ] YES
[ ] NO


I believe Joseph Smith and the First Presidency were inspired to place the manuscript in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House.

[ ] YES
[ ] NO


I believe it was the Lord’s will that the manuscript rot in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House.

[ ] YES
[ ] NO


Answering YES to any of the questions above will lead to the conclusion that the manuscript is of little value and consequently could just as well be discarded in its entirety. Therefore, Robin Jensen may be encouraged to pitch it in the trash and get rid of it once and for all or, not.
Last edited by Shulem on Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: YES OR NO (just answer the questions)

Post by Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:27 pm
I agree with Joseph Smith and believe he made the right choice in placing the manuscript in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House.

[ ] YES
[ ] NO


I believe Joseph Smith and the First Presidency were inspired to place the manuscript in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House.

[ ] YES
[ ] NO


I believe it was the Lord’s will that the manuscript rot in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House.

[ ] YES
[ ] NO

Answering NO to any of the questions above is to question the wisdom or inspiration of Church leaders and the will of God to work through them.
Post Reply