Skip to main content

A Newly Discovered Early Report of Seeing the Plates from One of the Three Witnesses


When it comes to history, early, primary sources are the always the ideal. Of course, they are not always readily available. Sometimes you have to settle for a primary source that is late, or you have an early source, but it’s second hand. Or you have both, have to decide if you’ll give more weight to the document that is early, even though it is secondary, or to the document that is first hand, despite it’s being late. Actually, quite often you will have multiple documents, some primary, others second (or even third or fourth) hand; some earlier, and others later, and whole bunch in-between, and deciding which documents to give priority to is difficult. History is a messy business, and more often than not there is more than enough room for disagreement on the what, how, who, and why of “what happened.” But when you have these ideal documents – the early, primary ones – you can sort through that mess with a little more confidence.


With in mind, I draw your attention to very exciting find. Okay, that is an understatement. This find is monumental, epic, colossal… get the idea? I don’t want to overstate this, but I honestly wonder if “overstatement” is even possible. I just want to stress that this is HUGE. Independent historian Erin Jennings discovered an 1829 letter from Oliver Cowdery (printed in a newspaper) which discusses the experience of the three witnesses. The letter is dated November 9, 1829. John W. Welch dates the revealing of the plates to the three witnesses to around June 20, 1829.[1] That means that this letter was written – by one of the three witnesses – within four months of the experience. This makes the document both early and primary. This thing is like historical gold! The letter reads, in regards to the three witnesses’ experience, as follows (brackets are from the newspaper reporter):

You also wished Mr. Harris to inform you respecting his seeing this book, whether there could not possibly have been some juggling at the bottom of it. A few words on that point may suffice. –

It was a clear, open beautiful day, far from any inhabitants, in a remote field, at that time we saw the record, of which it has been spoken, brought and laid before us, by an angle, arrayed in glorious light, [who] asend [descended I suppose] out of the midst of heaven. 
Now if this is human juggling – judge ye.

Note that “juggling” in the nineteenth century could refer to what we might call “trickery” – attempting to deceive or fool others into believing something. Cowdery is responding to the accusation that Joseph Smith “juggled” (that is, tricked or fooled) the witnesses into seeing the plates. He seems to strongly be of the opinion that it is not.

I don’t want it to seem like this is the only valuable contribution this letter makes to Mormon history, because it is not. There is much more to the letter than this, and it is going to be important for Mormon history for a number of reasons. Also, it has been pointed out that the setting Oliver Cowdery describes seems to be different from that described in Joseph Smith’s 1838 account (which indicates that it was in the woods, not in a field, near the Whitmer home, not “far from any inhabitants”). I believe that these details are reconcilable, but at any rate, discrepancies in how an event is reported hardly prove that the event did not take place. It will be interesting to see how historians choose to deal with these differences in the future. For now, it is exciting to just be able to read the direct testimony of one of the three witnesses from so soon after the event.



[1] John W. Welch, “The Miraculous Translation of the Book of Mormon,” in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820-1844, John W. Welch, ed. (Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 2005), 97.

Comments

  1. Good job on a very interesting article. What newspaper was this printed in? Where can I find your source? Very interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Advanced:

    Sorry about not including a link to this in the OP. I meant to(I will be fixing that). But here it is:

    http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/1829-mormon-discovery-brought-to-you-by-guest-erin-jennings/

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Nephite History in Context 4: The Iron Dagger of King Tutankhamun

Editor’s Note: This is the fourth contribution to my new series Nephite History in Context: Artifacts, Inscriptions, and Texts Relevant to the Book of Mormon. Check out the really cool (and official, citable) PDF version here. To learn more about this series, read the introduction here. To find other posts in the series, see here.
The Iron Dagger of King Tutankhamun
Background
The discovery of King Tutankhamun’s tomb in 1922 was a worldwide sensation, and to this day is widely regarded as one of the greatest archaeological discoveries of all-time due to the veritable treasure trove of artifacts found inside. The treasure was so great that to this day many of the items have yet to be studied. Likewise, Tutankhamun (ca. 1336–1327 bc) remains the best-known Pharaoh of Egypt in popular culture today, but details about his actual reign and accomplishments are still generally unknown among the public. Some are aware that he ascended to the throne as a mere child, about 8 years old, but few r…

Nephite History in Context 3: Vered Jericho Sword

Editor’s Note: This is the third contribution to my new series Nephite History in Context: Artifacts, Inscriptions, and Texts Relevant to the Book of Mormon. Check out the really cool (and official, citable) PDF version here. To learn more about this series, read the introduction here. To find other posts in the series, see here.
Vered Jericho Sword
Background
Vered Jericho was a small ancient Israelite fortress first excavated in the winter of 1982 by archaeologist Avraham Eitan. It’s located roughly 3.7 miles (6 km) south of Jericho proper, on the northern side of Wadi es-Suweid. The walls still stand over 6 and half feet tall (2 m) and nearly 3 feet (0.9 m) wide, with two towers on each corner flanking the gate. Inside the fort is a courtyard and two dwelling structures. The fort may have also had cultic or ritual functions as a “high place” (beit bamah). It dates to the late seventh to early sixth century BC, and was destroyed by fire, quite likely in either the Babylonian siege of …

Responding to the New Video on Nahom as Archaeological Evidence for the Book of Mormon

Many of my (few) readers have probably already seen the new video by Book of Mormon Central on Nahom as archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, starring my good friend (and co-author on a related paper) Stephen Smoot. If you haven’t, check it out:


As usual, comments sections wherever this video is shared have been flooded by Internet ex-Mormons insisting this not evidence for the Book of Mormon. I’ve actually had a few productive conversations with some reasonable people who don’t think Nahom is, by itself, compelling evidence—and I can understand that. But the insistence that Nahom is not evidence at all is just, frankly, absurd. So I’ll just go ahead and preempt about 90% of future responses to this post by responding to the most common arguments against Nahom/NHM now:
1. The Book of Mormon is false, therefore there can be no evidence, therefore this is not evidence. First, this is circular reasoning. It assumes the conclusion (Book of Mormon is false) which the evidence pre…