Oliver’s excommunication

[Pazooka]

Why didn’t Joseph Smith have Sidney Rigdon excommunicated? It seemed he wanted to be rid of him on more than one occasion but most definitely in October of 1843.

He was killed before he could deal with Sydney. By 1843 things were spiraling out of control in Nauvoo. Hundreds of members were passing rumors of polygamy. There was mistrust among members. Outsiders were threatening. Joseph was on the run. There wasn't time for a public ecommunication preceding. Things were getting chaotic. Sydney Rigdon, was the last of the concerns. Whereas, with Oliver, the only enemy were those from within.

October 1843: Smith attempts to replace Rigdon
In October 1843, a Special Conference was called to consider "the case and standing of Elder Sidney Rigdon".[15]

Joseph Smith "stated his dissatisfaction" with Rigdon. Charges were leveled that Rigdon had disloyal correspondences with John C. Bennett, former Governor Carlin, and "the Missourians". Rigdon was also accused to "leaguing with dishonest persons in endeavoring to defraud the innocent". In "indirect testimony" from Porter Rockwell's mother, Rigdon was accused of having had been responsible for informing others about Smith's visit to Dixon and instructing them to arrest him while there.[15]

Smith told the conference that, in light of the charges, Smith requested Rigdon be replaced as First Counselor.[15]

The Times and Seasons and the History of the Church both record that Rigdon addressed the conference, denied the charges and made a "moving appeal"; they record "the sympathies of the congregation were highly excited". A vote was called, and the congregation held that Rigdon would be permitted to retain his position.[15] ~ Wikipedia’s summation

There could be another reason Joseph Smith did not have Rigdon ex’d, possibly owing to insider knowledge regarding such things as the origin of the BofM.

[TheDuke]

I find the reasons that Oliver was excommunicated humorous. They sound like some of the same reasons people are exed today….speaking against the leaders and not following their “revelations” especially for petty things. I think if Joseph was alive he would agree with how things are done in the church….”the brethren are never wrong and should not be insulted or questioned” mindset.

“I do hereby prefer the following charges against President Oliver Cowdery.

1st, For stiring up the enemy to persecute the brethren by urging on vexatious Lawsuits and thus distressing the inocent.

2nd, For seeking to destroying the character of President Joseph Smith jr, by falsly insinuating that he was guilty of adultry &c.

3rd For treating the Church with contempt
by not attending meetings.

4th. For virtually denying the faith by declaring that he would not be governed by any ecclesiastical authority nor Revelation whatever in his temporal affairs.

5th For selling his lands in Jackson County contrary to the Revelations.

6th For writing and sending an insulting letter to President T[homas] B. Marsh while on the High Council, attending to the duties of his office, as President of the Council and by insulting the whole Council
with the contents of said letter

7th., For leaving the calling, in which God had
appointed him, by Revelation, for the sake of filthy lucre, and turning to the practice of the Law.

8th, For disgracing the Church by lieing
being connected in the ‘Bogus’ buisness as common report says.

9th. For dishonestly Retaining notes after they had been paid and finally for leaving or forsaking the cause of God, and betaking himself to the beggerly elements of the world and neglecting his high and Holy Calling’ contrary to his profession.”

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... book-2/121

curious where did you get this list from? Which excommunication council are you referring to? There are several councils held regarding Oliver. He fought with Joseph at times and Joseph like to resolve things by council. Not sure they would all be what we call "membership councils" today, more like High Council meetings to discuss. It could end up in exing a person. I think looks like a mix of several. But wonder where the list was compiled from or the source. I see lots of comments that are making assumptions of which time this was brought up? Kirkland, Mo, Nauvoo? NY?

[Mamabear]

I find the reasons that Oliver was excommunicated humorous. They sound like some of the same reasons people are exed today….speaking against the leaders and not following their “revelations” especially for petty things. I think if Joseph was alive he would agree with how things are done in the church….”the brethren are never wrong and should not be insulted or questioned” mindset.

“I do hereby prefer the following charges against President Oliver Cowdery.

1st, For stiring up the enemy to persecute the brethren by urging on vexatious Lawsuits and thus distressing the inocent.

2nd, For seeking to destroying the character of President Joseph Smith jr, by falsly insinuating that he was guilty of adultry &c.

3rd For treating the Church with contempt
by not attending meetings.

4th. For virtually denying the faith by declaring that he would not be governed by any ecclesiastical authority nor Revelation whatever in his temporal affairs.

5th For selling his lands in Jackson County contrary to the Revelations.

6th For writing and sending an insulting letter to President T[homas] B. Marsh while on the High Council, attending to the duties of his office, as President of the Council and by insulting the whole Council
with the contents of said letter

7th., For leaving the calling, in which God had
appointed him, by Revelation, for the sake of filthy lucre, and turning to the practice of the Law.

8th, For disgracing the Church by lieing
being connected in the ‘Bogus’ buisness as common report says.

9th. For dishonestly Retaining notes after they had been paid and finally for leaving or forsaking the cause of God, and betaking himself to the beggerly elements of the world and neglecting his high and Holy Calling’ contrary to his profession.”

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... book-2/121

curious where did you get this list from? Which excommunication council are you referring to? There are several councils held regarding Oliver. He fought with Joseph at times and Joseph like to resolve things by council. Not sure they would all be what we call "membership councils" today, more like High Council meetings to discuss. It could end up in exing a person. I think looks like a mix of several. But wonder where the list was compiled from or the source. I see lots of comments that are making assumptions of which time this was brought up? Kirkland, Mo, Nauvoo? NY?

The link is in my first post.

[NeveR]

We have to consider too that all the signatures of the witnesses in the Book of Mormon attesting to its truthfulness were all in Oliver Cowdery's handwriting.

Seriously? I literally never heard this before.

I have to admit I'm struggling with having a testimony right now. This kind of thing doesn't help.

[Dusty Wanderer]

We have to consider too that all the signatures of the witnesses in the Book of Mormon attesting to its truthfulness were all in Oliver Cowdery's handwriting.

Seriously? I literally never heard this before.

I have to admit I'm struggling with having a testimony right now. This kind of thing doesn't help.

Well, the signatures in question that were in Oliver's handwriting were on the printer's manuscript. Their actual signatures were on the original manuscript, which was put in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House.

[Dusty Wanderer]

There could be another reason Joseph Smith did not have Rigdon ex’d, possibly owing to insider knowledge regarding such things as the origin of the BofM.

Oliver would've also been involved in that ruse, but Joseph did ex him. Why would SR talk if he was ex'd, but OC would not? I don't understand this line of reasoning - doesn't add up to me.

[Good & Global]

Well, the signatures in question that were in Oliver's handwriting were on the printer's manuscript. Their actual signatures were on the original manuscript, which was put in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House.

Can you provide a link to the original manuscript page with their original signatures? Sorry but I need proof or it didn't happen. Not that I don't believe you. There has just been too much gaslighting on the part of the church to not verify something like this.

[Dusty Wanderer]

Well, the signatures in question that were in Oliver's handwriting were on the printer's manuscript. Their actual signatures were on the original manuscript, which was put in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House.

Can you provide a link to the original manuscript page with their original signatures? Sorry but I need proof or it didn't happen. Not that I don't believe you. There has just been too much gaslighting on the part of the church to not verify something like this.

Not asking anyone to believe me personally. I wouldn't, if I were me.

As you probably already know, the original manuscript was recovered in 2022 (I think) and is in the Church History Library. They say only 28% survived -- you can google the pictures yourself. . I don't know if the Three Witness' signatures are among them; haven't been able to confirm that, as you probably already also know.

I understand the sentiment, and would be right there with you in most cases. However, to simply deny the probability of something based solely upon an absence of a particular type of evidence is a little extreme. In this case those whose signatures are purported to be on the original manuscript have themselves never claimed foul play, and in many cases, have attested to the account given on the manuscript.

Are you suggesting that the lack of original manuscript page with their signatures invalidates everything they said or didn't object to throughout their entire lives?

[NeveR]

Well, the signatures in question that were in Oliver's handwriting were on the printer's manuscript. Their actual signatures were on the original manuscript, which was put in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House.

Can you provide a link to the original manuscript page with their original signatures? Sorry but I need proof or it didn't happen. Not that I don't believe you. There has just been too much gaslighting on the part of the church to not verify something like this.

Not asking anyone to believe me personally. I wouldn't, if I were me.

As you probably already know, the original manuscript was recovered in 2022 (I think) and is in the Church History Library. They say only 28% survived -- you can google the pictures yourself. . I don't know if the Three Witness' signatures are among them; haven't been able to confirm that, as you probably already also know.

I understand the sentiment, and would be right there with you in most cases. However, to simply deny the probability of something based solely upon an absence of a particular type of evidence is a little extreme. In this case those whose signatures are purported to be on the original manuscript have themselves never claimed foul play, and in many cases, have attested to the account given on the manuscript.

Are you suggesting that the lack of original manuscript page with their signatures invalidates everything they said or didn't object to throughout their entire lives?

Can we see the original signatures on the original document? Have they been evidentially verified?

[Dusty Wanderer]

Can you provide a link to the original manuscript page with their original signatures? Sorry but I need proof or it didn't happen. Not that I don't believe you. There has just been too much gaslighting on the part of the church to not verify something like this.

Not asking anyone to believe me personally. I wouldn't, if I were me.

As you probably already know, the original manuscript was recovered in 2022 (I think) and is in the Church History Library. They say only 28% survived -- you can google the pictures yourself. . I don't know if the Three Witness' signatures are among them; haven't been able to confirm that, as you probably already also know.

I understand the sentiment, and would be right there with you in most cases. However, to simply deny the probability of something based solely upon an absence of a particular type of evidence is a little extreme. In this case those whose signatures are purported to be on the original manuscript have themselves never claimed foul play, and in many cases, have attested to the account given on the manuscript.

Are you suggesting that the lack of original manuscript page with their signatures invalidates everything they said or didn't object to throughout their entire lives?

Can we see the original signatures on the original document? Have they been evidentially verified?

I'm unaware of the original signature page being recovered w/ rest of the manuscript.

What would an "evidentially verified" page of the Three Witness signatures from the recovered manuscript change, in this specific case?

[Pazooka]

There could be another reason Joseph Smith did not have Rigdon ex’d, possibly owing to insider knowledge regarding such things as the origin of the BofM.

Oliver would've also been involved in that ruse, but Joseph did ex him. Why would SR talk if he was ex'd, but OC would not? I don't understand this line of reasoning - doesn't add up to me.

There are two reasons I can think of that would explain why OC was ex'ed but not SR (during JS's lifetime):

1) SR was Solomon Spalding's neighbor. An 1816 notice in the Pittsburgh Commonwealth shows mail at the Pittsburgh post office for both Rigdon and Spalding. There is also a connection between both Rigdon and Spalding and the publisher/book printer since Rigdon was a tanner and leather book binder and Spalding had deposited a copy of the manuscript with Patterson the printer but did not have the funds to have it published and shortly passed away before that could happen.

It is surmised that Rigdon obtained the manuscript from the printer and edited it, adding more religious material, in the same way he used to write pseudo-scripture such as the "3rd Epistle of Peter to the Preachers and Rulers of Congregations" published in Campbellite literature in 1824.

*If Rigdon was the principle agent involved in the doctoring up of the manuscript being passed off as the BofM, it is *possible* Oliver Cowdery did not have the same security clearance, so to speak - was not in possession of as much of the first-hand knowledge and hence less leverage

2) Every parent knows you don't discipline kids exactly the same: some are steered by the thought of losing privileges and others just need a verbal warning, depending on their currency. I suspect Cowdery was of a higher character than Rigdon. It's possible Joseph Smith may have understood his character well enough to know that Cowdery valued his good name above all else - so much so that he would not betray the secret of his participation in a less-than-honest promotion of ideas that were not as they represented themselves to be. People are complex.

Rigdon's grandson, in an interview, told that the family knew that the "Golden Bible" was a hoax, contrived by Rigdon and Joseph Smith Junior, to make money and that it was based on the Spalding manuscript. Robert Patterson, the son of the printer where the manuscript went missing, wrote a book that contained statements by about 30 witnesses who knew the people involved in these events called Who Wrote the Book of Mormon? And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[Pazooka]

There could be another reason Joseph Smith did not have Rigdon ex’d, possibly owing to insider knowledge regarding such things as the origin of the BofM.

Oliver would've also been involved in that ruse, but Joseph did ex him. Why would SR talk if he was ex'd, but OC would not? I don't understand this line of reasoning - doesn't add up to me.

And, oh my gosh…Joseph probably still needed him around to continue to create the revelations that are totally Rigdon’s thing. If you read his earlier pseudo-scripture you will notice that it is written in the same style as the D&C.

[Dusty Wanderer]

There could be another reason Joseph Smith did not have Rigdon ex’d, possibly owing to insider knowledge regarding such things as the origin of the BofM.

Oliver would've also been involved in that ruse, but Joseph did ex him. Why would SR talk if he was ex'd, but OC would not? I don't understand this line of reasoning - doesn't add up to me.

And, oh my gosh…Joseph probably still needed him around to continue to create the revelations that are totally Rigdon’s thing. If you read his earlier pseudo-scripture you will notice that it is written in the same style as the D&C.

97% of all the revelations in the 1844 D&C were written before Oliver C was ex’d. Which of the 3 post-Oliver revelations in the 1844 D&C were Rigdon’s work? Based upon the numbers, and according to your idea that Joseph would need to keep his revelation writer close for on-going revelations, seems like there’s a better case to be made that it was Oliver, not Sydney.

Joseph received a very poor return on his investment if he only kept Sydney around all those years after Oliver for additional revelation material.

[Pazooka]

Oliver would've also been involved in that ruse, but Joseph did ex him. Why would SR talk if he was ex'd, but OC would not? I don't understand this line of reasoning - doesn't add up to me.

And, oh my gosh…Joseph probably still needed him around to continue to create the revelations that are totally Rigdon’s thing. If you read his earlier pseudo-scripture you will notice that it is written in the same style as the D&C.

97% of all the revelations in the 1844 D&C were written before Oliver C was ex’d. Which of the 3 post-Oliver revelations in the 1844 D&C were Rigdon’s work? Based upon the numbers, and according to your idea that Joseph would need to keep his revelation writer close for on-going revelations, seems like there’s a better case to be made that it was Oliver, not Sydney.

Joseph received a very poor return on his investment if he only kept Sydney around all those years after Oliver for additional revelation material.

I don’t disagree that keeping Sidney around was a poor investment. But I don’t think it was entirely to maintain the integrity of the style of writing of the “revelations.” I think he could have been more along the lines of an infant with a nuke button, which you’d want to keep close in order to supervise.

But, again, I’ll refer you to the Letters of Ezra Booth on this one. He was highly participant in one of the key phases of the Church. What he witnessed was the cause of his great disappointment:

These commandments come from Smith, at such times and on such occasions as he feels disposed to speak, and Rigdon or Cowdery to write them. Their exact number I have never taken pains to ascertain. I have in my possession the "27th commandment to Emma my daughter in Zion;" and should presume there are betwixt fifty and a hundred. They received the addition of five or six while in Missouri; and these are considered a miracle in themselves, sufficient to convince any rational mind. But none but the strong in faith are permitted to witness their origin. I had an opportunity of seeing this wonderful exhibition of the wisdom and power of God, at three different times; and I must say, it bore striking marks of human weakness and wickedness. They are received by the church as divinely inspired, and the name of the Lord is substituted for that of Smith. They are called "The Commandments of the Lord." They are considered "The mysteries of the Kingdom;" and to divulge them to the world, is the same as casting pearls before swine. When they and the Scriptures are at variance, the scriptures are wrongly translated; and Smith, though totally ignorant of the original, being a translator or alterator, can easily harmonize them. Every thing in the church is done by commandment; and yet it is said to be done by the voice of the church. For instance, Smith gets a commandment that he shall be the "head of the Church," or that he "shall rule the Conference," or that the Church shall build him an elegant house, and give him 1000 dollars. For this the members of the church must vote, or they will be cast off for rebelling against the commandments of the Lord.

[John Tavner]

We have to consider too that all the signatures of the witnesses in the Book of Mormon attesting to its truthfulness were all in Oliver Cowdery's handwriting.

Seriously? I literally never heard this before.

I have to admit I'm struggling with having a testimony right now. This kind of thing doesn't help.

I know you didn't ask me and this isn't even a rebuke, more of a plea- put your testimony in Christ and Him alone- He is the chief cornerstone- the rock, in coming times with that testimony, it will offer peace. The big key is just shifting perspective ot realize that God loves you, He sent His Son to restore relationship between you and hte Father and He gave hIs life so you might live- not just live, but that you might be transformed into His image and manifest God's presence to the world- this is done through HOly Spirit dwelling in you and teaching you as you and I yield. It is also the promise that God has not and will not forsake you. A testimony a so called restoration unintentionally (intentionally?) calls into question the love that GOd has for man and that He is someone who seems to love hte world a lot and gives His life for it, but then gets angry for 2000 years and for some reason can't send down "special" spirits who are supposed to be the light of hte world for at least 2000 years and he casts people off. Mormonism often casts aspersions on the character of God.

[Shawn Henry]

Seriously? I literally never heard this before.

Original signatures or not, they have all made numerous public statements regarding their testimony and have never denied it.

[Momma J]

Until the very end there will be bitter disputes over the validity of the Book of Mormon. I know without a shadow of doubt that the Book of Mormon is true. I also know that Brother Joseph Smith was a true Prophet of God. These are unfaltering truths to which I will stand before men and proclaim, even if uttering would one day bring my demise.

Where our Saviour provided us a way to return to our Father in Heaven, Joseph through the Book of Mormon, provided a guide, to which we can more easily understand the path. Like unto the Bible, it feeds my soul and gives me strength.

Many seek the written words of men (some of questionable intentions) to verify. When instead we should be listening to the words to which the Holy Spirit attests.

[Teancum1]

Courtesy of Brian Hales:

Several nineteenth-century Church leaders accused Oliver Cowdery of either unauthorized polygamy or adultery. It appears that the first mention was by President Brigham Young in 1857, some twenty-five years after the alleged events. On August 26, Elder Wilford Woodruff recorded in his journal: “President Young stayed three-plus hours in compiling his history. He remarked that the revelation upon a plurality of wives was given to Joseph Smith. He revealed it to Oliver Cowdery alone upon the solemn pledge that he would not reveal it or act upon it. But he did act upon it in a secret manner and that was the cause of his overthrow.” (Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 1833–1898)

In 1872, President Young also reportedly taught:
While Joseph and Oliver were translating the Book of Mormon, they had a revelation that the order of Patriarchal Marriage and sealing was right. Oliver said unto Joseph, “Brother Joseph, why don’t we go into the order of polygamy, and practice it as the ancients did? We know it is true, then why delay?” Joseph’s reply was “I know that we know it is true, and from God, but the time has not yet come.” This did not seem to suit Oliver, who expressed a determination to go into the order of plural marriage anyhow, although he was ignorant of the order and pattern and the results. Joseph Said, “Oliver if you go into this thing it is not with my faith or consent.” Disregarding the counsel of Joseph, Oliver Cowdery took to wife Miss Annie Lyman, cousin to George A. Smith. From that time he went into darkness and lost the spirit. ~ Andrew Karl Larson and Katharine Miles Larson, eds., The Diary of Charles Lowell Walker (Logan, UT: Utah State University Press, 1980), 1:349.

https://rsc.byu.edu/days-never-be-forgo ... _noteref-3

To me, events recorded 15-30 years after the fact are wholly unreliable. Statements made by Brigham seem to conveniently convict others and leave him looking like a “Saint”.
Somehow Brian Hales just gets under my skin. I just don’t trust that guy.

[Pazooka]

Courtesy of Brian Hales:

Several nineteenth-century Church leaders accused Oliver Cowdery of either unauthorized polygamy or adultery. It appears that the first mention was by President Brigham Young in 1857, some twenty-five years after the alleged events. On August 26, Elder Wilford Woodruff recorded in his journal: “President Young stayed three-plus hours in compiling his history. He remarked that the revelation upon a plurality of wives was given to Joseph Smith. He revealed it to Oliver Cowdery alone upon the solemn pledge that he would not reveal it or act upon it. But he did act upon it in a secret manner and that was the cause of his overthrow.” (Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 1833–1898)

In 1872, President Young also reportedly taught:
While Joseph and Oliver were translating the Book of Mormon, they had a revelation that the order of Patriarchal Marriage and sealing was right. Oliver said unto Joseph, “Brother Joseph, why don’t we go into the order of polygamy, and practice it as the ancients did? We know it is true, then why delay?” Joseph’s reply was “I know that we know it is true, and from God, but the time has not yet come.” This did not seem to suit Oliver, who expressed a determination to go into the order of plural marriage anyhow, although he was ignorant of the order and pattern and the results. Joseph Said, “Oliver if you go into this thing it is not with my faith or consent.” Disregarding the counsel of Joseph, Oliver Cowdery took to wife Miss Annie Lyman, cousin to George A. Smith. From that time he went into darkness and lost the spirit. ~ Andrew Karl Larson and Katharine Miles Larson, eds., The Diary of Charles Lowell Walker (Logan, UT: Utah State University Press, 1980), 1:349.

https://rsc.byu.edu/days-never-be-forgo ... _noteref-3

To me, events recorded 15-30 years after the fact are wholly unreliable. Statements made by Brigham seem to conveniently convict others and leave him looking like a “Saint”.
Somehow Brian Hales just gets under my skin. I just don’t trust that guy.

You may be correct.

From some records closer to the time in question it appears that Oliver was the one accusing JS of adultery:

From http://olivercowdery.com/history//Cdryhst2.htm where you can read the remainder of Oliver’s response.

[Arm Chair Quarterback]

This sunset of an era. Shortly after this, the printing press was mysteriously burned upon its confiscation by the sherif, and Kirtland was essentially abandoned, as Joseph fled to Far West. The church moved on from many of the “old standard” saints in a very short period of time.

I lament this time period in our history.

2nd, For seeking to destroying the character of President Joseph Smith jr, by falsly insinuating that he was guilty of adultry &c.

Fanny Alger — and I don’t believe it was a polygamous thing at all. It was probably nothing more than as reported at the time — “adultery scrape”. The remaining testimony in this same transcript is interesting. Who else was closer than Cowdery to the Smiths at the time? I’m sure it rattled him.

I don’t like that Oliver was so loose-lipped with family confidences. However, at the same time, what was he to do when he knew for sure, but it was swept aside. I get the impression that if Joseph had confessed to the court as part of his repentance, which I believe he did repent though (Oliver even says he confessed to Emma), perhaps Oliver would’ve stayed and remained bosom friends with Joseph. But he lost respect..

8th, For disgracing the Church by lieing
being connected in the ‘Bogus’ buisness as common report says.

These claims were never substantiated. In fact, the “common report” of bogus did not follow Oliver, it followed the church to Far West and then on to Nauvoo.

Really? The prophet of the restoration commits adultery and everything is okay? He's back in the saddle? If any of us were to do the things Joseph did, we would be excommunicated. Instead, Joseph just kept on receiving revelations from God. Another day at the office. Or the barn in the case of Fanny Alger.

How long must we twist in the wind and make excuses for all of this unacceptable behavior? You forgive the woman caught in adultery and tell her to go and sin no more, but you don't make her the mouth piece of god on earth, and have her create an endowment ceremony, build a temple, and receive all sorts of revelations, while also writing an inspired version of the Bible and translate the record of Moses and Abraham.

Am I the only one who thinks that the Fanny Alger affair and leading the church of Christ at the same time are incongruent? Christian history is full of religious frauds who ended up covering their adultery with all sorts of excuses, but at least they asked forgiveness from their followers. Joseph Smith just excommunicated anyone who called him out.

[Shawn Henry]

Am I the only one who thinks that the Fanny Alger affair and leading the church of Christ at the same time are incongruent?

Well, it wasn't the church of Christ now, was it?

In May of 1834 it became the Church of the Latter Day Saints, the Lord removed his name.

What we should be asking is, does anyone think it coincidence that the Lord removed his name and then everything went to pot?

[Shawn Henry]

Why didn’t Joseph Smith have Sidney Rigdon excommunicated? It seemed he wanted to be rid of him on more than one occasion but most definitely in October of 1843.

He was killed before he could deal with Sydney.

Joseph initiated a trial and the High Council voted to keep Rigdon. Joseph is later on record saying everything is right between them. He even accepted him as his VP running mate.

[Luke]

This sunset of an era. Shortly after this, the printing press was mysteriously burned upon its confiscation by the sherif, and Kirtland was essentially abandoned, as Joseph fled to Far West. The church moved on from many of the “old standard” saints in a very short period of time.

I lament this time period in our history.

2nd, For seeking to destroying the character of President Joseph Smith jr, by falsly insinuating that he was guilty of adultry &c.

Fanny Alger — and I don’t believe it was a polygamous thing at all. It was probably nothing more than as reported at the time — “adultery scrape”. The remaining testimony in this same transcript is interesting. Who else was closer than Cowdery to the Smiths at the time? I’m sure it rattled him.

I don’t like that Oliver was so loose-lipped with family confidences. However, at the same time, what was he to do when he knew for sure, but it was swept aside. I get the impression that if Joseph had confessed to the court as part of his repentance, which I believe he did repent though (Oliver even says he confessed to Emma), perhaps Oliver would’ve stayed and remained bosom friends with Joseph. But he lost respect..

8th, For disgracing the Church by lieing
being connected in the ‘Bogus’ buisness as common report says.

These claims were never substantiated. In fact, the “common report” of bogus did not follow Oliver, it followed the church to Far West and then on to Nauvoo.

Really? The prophet of the restoration commits adultery and everything is okay? He's back in the saddle? If any of us were to do the things Joseph did, we would be excommunicated. Instead, Joseph just kept on receiving revelations from God. Another day at the office. Or the barn in the case of Fanny Alger.

How long must we twist in the wind and make excuses for all of this unacceptable behavior? You forgive the woman caught in adultery and tell her to go and sin no more, but you don't make her the mouth piece of god on earth, and have her create an endowment ceremony, build a temple, and receive all sorts of revelations, while also writing an inspired version of the Bible and translate the record of Moses and Abraham.

Am I the only one who thinks that the Fanny Alger affair and leading the church of Christ at the same time are incongruent? Christian history is full of religious frauds who ended up covering their adultery with all sorts of excuses, but at least they asked forgiveness from their followers. Joseph Smith just excommunicated anyone who called him out.

Or maybe it wasn’t adultery.

[Dusty Wanderer]

This sunset of an era. Shortly after this, the printing press was mysteriously burned upon its confiscation by the sherif, and Kirtland was essentially abandoned, as Joseph fled to Far West. The church moved on from many of the “old standard” saints in a very short period of time.

I lament this time period in our history.

2nd, For seeking to destroying the character of President Joseph Smith jr, by falsly insinuating that he was guilty of adultry &c.

Fanny Alger — and I don’t believe it was a polygamous thing at all. It was probably nothing more than as reported at the time — “adultery scrape”. The remaining testimony in this same transcript is interesting. Who else was closer than Cowdery to the Smiths at the time? I’m sure it rattled him.

I don’t like that Oliver was so loose-lipped with family confidences. However, at the same time, what was he to do when he knew for sure, but it was swept aside. I get the impression that if Joseph had confessed to the court as part of his repentance, which I believe he did repent though (Oliver even says he confessed to Emma), perhaps Oliver would’ve stayed and remained bosom friends with Joseph. But he lost respect..

8th, For disgracing the Church by lieing
being connected in the ‘Bogus’ buisness as common report says.

These claims were never substantiated. In fact, the “common report” of bogus did not follow Oliver, it followed the church to Far West and then on to Nauvoo.

Really? The prophet of the restoration commits adultery and everything is okay? He's back in the saddle? If any of us were to do the things Joseph did, we would be excommunicated. Instead, Joseph just kept on receiving revelations from God. Another day at the office. Or the barn in the case of Fanny Alger.

How long must we twist in the wind and make excuses for all of this unacceptable behavior? You forgive the woman caught in adultery and tell her to go and sin no more, but you don't make her the mouth piece of god on earth, and have her create an endowment ceremony, build a temple, and receive all sorts of revelations, while also writing an inspired version of the Bible and translate the record of Moses and Abraham.

I don't think I personally advocated for anything that would warrant your response here. Twisting in the wind... making excuses... really? Must've struck a chord. Maybe your response was meant more for the general audience.

The problem I have with this line of thinking is that it seems to posit that the principle of repentance should be less accessible for those in more high profile circumstances... or that due to the unmet expectations that other mortals have for them, they should have to suffer more? I suppose the parable of the prodigal son may not sit well with this line of thinking either.

Am I the only one who thinks that the Fanny Alger affair and leading the church of Christ at the same time are incongruent? Christian history is full of religious frauds who ended up covering their adultery with all sorts of excuses, but at least they asked forgiveness from their followers. Joseph Smith just excommunicated anyone who called him out.

And what of a father or mother who incongruently sin while they are supposed to be leading their family? What to do with them?

I believe hyperbole hinders any objective understanding.

I'm pretty sure there are more dimensions to Joseph than what you state here. Dare I believe that he may have even asked forgiveness from various followers at other points in his life. I prefer to think Joseph was a multifaceted human being and I'm more concerned with discovering authenticity than painting caricatures that do a disservice to that end, and would really only serve to bolster or rationalize my own personal desires and circumstances.

[Arm Chair Quarterback]

This sunset of an era. Shortly after this, the printing press was mysteriously burned upon its confiscation by the sherif, and Kirtland was essentially abandoned, as Joseph fled to Far West. The church moved on from many of the “old standard” saints in a very short period of time.

I lament this time period in our history.


Fanny Alger — and I don’t believe it was a polygamous thing at all. It was probably nothing more than as reported at the time — “adultery scrape”. The remaining testimony in this same transcript is interesting. Who else was closer than Cowdery to the Smiths at the time? I’m sure it rattled him.

I don’t like that Oliver was so loose-lipped with family confidences. However, at the same time, what was he to do when he knew for sure, but it was swept aside. I get the impression that if Joseph had confessed to the court as part of his repentance, which I believe he did repent though (Oliver even says he confessed to Emma), perhaps Oliver would’ve stayed and remained bosom friends with Joseph. But he lost respect..


These claims were never substantiated. In fact, the “common report” of bogus did not follow Oliver, it followed the church to Far West and then on to Nauvoo.

Really? The prophet of the restoration commits adultery and everything is okay? He's back in the saddle? If any of us were to do the things Joseph did, we would be excommunicated. Instead, Joseph just kept on receiving revelations from God. Another day at the office. Or the barn in the case of Fanny Alger.

How long must we twist in the wind and make excuses for all of this unacceptable behavior? You forgive the woman caught in adultery and tell her to go and sin no more, but you don't make her the mouth piece of god on earth, and have her create an endowment ceremony, build a temple, and receive all sorts of revelations, while also writing an inspired version of the Bible and translate the record of Moses and Abraham.

I don't think I personally advocated for anything that would warrant your response here. Twisting in the wind... making excuses... really? Must've struck a chord. Maybe your response was meant more for the general audience.

The problem I have with this line of thinking is that it seems to posit the principle of repentance should be less accessible for those in more high profile circumstances... or that due to the unmet expectations that other mortals have for them, they should have to suffer more? I suppose the parable of the prodigal son may not sit well with this line of thinking either.

Am I the only one who thinks that the Fanny Alger affair and leading the church of Christ at the same time are incongruent? Christian history is full of religious frauds who ended up covering their adultery with all sorts of excuses, but at least they asked forgiveness from their followers. Joseph Smith just excommunicated anyone who called him out.

And what of a father or mother who incongruently sin while they are supposed to be leading their family? What to do with them?

I believe hyperbole hinders any objective understanding.

I'm pretty sure there are more dimensions to Joseph than what you state here. Dare I believe that he may have even asked forgiveness from various followers at other points in his life. I prefer to think Joseph was a multifaceted human being and I'm more concerned with discovering authenticity than painting caricatures that do a disservice to that end, and would really only serve to bolster or rationalize my own personal desires and circumstances.

Points all well taken. I suppose I was comparing his behavior to how he would be treated as a modern day general authority. He would be excommunicated and striped if his office in todays church. But as the leader of the church it’s hard to do that now or then. Be he a prodigal son or not.