DiscussMormonism.com

I just stumbled across something I hadn’t read before, regarding Oliver Cowdery’s Articles of the Church of Christ:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... une-1829/1

Oliver slips into first-person divine voice (I, Jesus Christ) in this writing. Does this mean early revelations were collaborative experiments in prophetic voice?

Oliver’s ease with writing as Jesus Christ indicates he felt authorized to reveal as such and the first-person revelation format wasn’t unique to Joseph. That’s a huge tell: Joseph’s revelation style was not initially exclusive.

There is another implication, however. In the Restorationist movement, Campbell, Scott, and Rigdon often reflected “the voice of Christ speaking to the church.” And here Oliver does the same thing. It fits a collaborative/allegorical production model in which Rigdon’s Restorationist order precede both the Articles and Moroni 2–6.

Rigdon’s frameplonet appears in Campbell’s Christian System:

https://digitalcommons.discipleshistory ... ldocuments

http://sidneyrigdon.com/books/2001Read.htm#pg063b

Walter Scott’s Five Finger Exercise:

https://theologia.blog/wp-content/uploa ... ercise.pdf

All of which predate Oliver.

The orthodox timeline says that from April–June 1829 Joseph and Oliver translate the end of the Book of Mormon first (Mosiah to Moroni).

In June 1829, Oliver writes the Articles of the Church of Christ—which later become the groundwork for D&C 20–and the standard view is Oliver quoted from Moroni 2–6. Within that model, Moroni’s ecclesiastical chapters exist before Oliver’s 1829 Articles.

But this timeline rests on assumptions, not airtight documentation. So let’s examine those assumptions.

Here’s what is historically sound: Oliver’s 1829 Articles definitely existed before April 1830. There are multiple independent references indicating the Articles were used at or before the formal organization of the church. The printer’s manuscript shows Moroni 2–6 present in the earliest extant manuscript, but we do not have handwritten dating evidence for when Joseph and Oliver translated Moroni 2–6. No diary entry, no witness, no timestamp.

So—what if it was the other way around? Rigdon supplies a church order derived from Restoration writings and sermons, then Oliver writes the Articles (June 1829), and those become the foundation for Moroni 2–6, written from a source document.

It’s not only plausible—it’s actually simpler than the orthodox reconstruction.

Dupe - deleted

Within the “Historical Intoduction” pulldown it says:

“Oliver Cowdery wrote “Articles of the Church of Christ” in June 1829 in response to a Joseph Smith revelation that commanded him to “rely upon the things which are written” in order to “build up my church.”

If Oliver was supposed to “rely on what was written,” wouldn’t what he wrote match the text in Moroni instead of looking like a new revelation?

Dupe - deleted

Meh

the first link doesn't work for me...

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 30, 2025 4:31 pm

the first link doesn't work for me...

Try this:

https://web.archive.org/web/20240214031 ... une-1829/3

Computer is challenging me today.

I read Scott Faulring’s paper:

https://scholarsarchive.BYU.edu/cgi/vie ... text=byusq

Scott writes:

“During the second half of 1829, Oliver Cowdery set about to use the as-yet-unpublished manuscript of the Book of Mormon, along with several early manuscript revelations, to compose the statement on Church procedure and organization that he called the ‘Articles of the Church of Christ.’ In doing so, he literally fulfilled the command given to him the previous June when the Lord told him to ‘build up my church’ by ‘rely[ing] upon the things which are written.’”

Scott acknowledges that Oliver was instructed to rely on things already written, but he then assumes those “things written” must refer to Moroni’s material—an assumption for which there is no documentary evidence. No journal entry, no note from Oliver, no marginal citation—nothing. Just the interpretive leap.

Then Scott claims his own assumption is “confirmed,” but what he gives next muddies the argument even further. He explains Oliver as going beyond what was written and adding his own commentary and new revelation:

“Oliver incorporated procedures and ordinances gleaned from the Book of Mormon, supplemented by modern revelation or commentary of his own origination, to write his Articles of the Church of Christ. 30”

So in one breath, Oliver “relied on the things written,” and in the next Oliver added modern revelation and original commentary.

The footnote (no. 30) points to Faulring’s earlier article, which compares Oliver’s text to near-verbatim Book of Mormon phrases but does not address the additional commentary or the first-person divine voice Oliver inserts.

https://scholarsarchive.BYU.edu/cgi/vie ... ntext=jbms

Faulring’s analysis shows where Oliver borrowed wording, but it never demonstrates that this reliance was intended by the 1829 revelation, nor does it explain why Oliver felt authorized to expand beyond what was written.

In short, the conclusion Faulring wants is built on an assumption and unexplained additions.

A more obvious conclusion is Oliver used what was already written—by Rigdon, reflecting his Restorationist ecclesiastical structure—and “ancientized” it by adding “I, Jesus,” and then he and Joseph used that baseline as a source for the Moroni chapters.