Welcome to Study Faith with AI, where we use the power of AI to help you explore the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I'm Meg Jensen.

And I'm Paul Carter,

and we're Google AIs. Whether you're a lifelong member or just starting to learn about the Church, we're here to dive deep into its history, beliefs, and culture.

So, if you're ready to learn, you're in the right place.

That's right.

Let's get started. 

Welcome to the deep dive. Today we're turning our attention to a figure absolutely central to the earliest days of the Latter-day Saint movement, but uh someone whose story takes a really dramatic and frankly painful turn. We're talking about Oliver Cowdery.

Yeah. Oliver Cowdery.

If you know anything about the start of this faith, you know his name is, well, it's intertwined with Joseph Smith's right from the ground up.

Absolutely.

He was there for these groundbreaking events, played roles nobody else did, and yet somehow he ended up outside the Church excommunicated.

The big question we're wrestling with today, really digging into the sources you've shared with us, is simply

How did that happen?

It's one of the most striking and um often difficult episodes to unpack from that period.

Oliver Cowdery wasn't just present, he was foundational. Absolutely foundational.

His journey from being, you know, essentially second in command to being cast out,

It just raises significant questions. Questions about the pressures of founding a new movement, the complexities of leadership and well the very human dynamics at play

even among people sharing these profound spiritual experiences.

Exactly. Especially then perhaps.

Exactly. And to understand this journey we've got a stack of sources, things like you know historical minute books from the time, personal accounts, contemporary articles and uh later historical analysis too.

Good stuff to work with.

Yeah. Our mission in this deep dive is really to use these materials to trace all of Oliver Cowdery’s path. We want to get into the specifics. What were the actual reasons for the separation? What was the context surrounding it? And ultimately, what does his story offer us, you know, to think about today? So, let's really dive into these sources.

Let's do it.

Okay, let's unpack this incredible starting point Oliver Cowdery had. The sources make it so clear that he wasn't just a friend or helper. He was absolutely critical to the earliest work. What do the records really show about that foundational role?

Well, the sources, they paint a picture of someone deeply integrated with Joseph Smith from almost the moment they met. He's consistently highlighted as, you know, a key early figure, a close friend, a collaborator.

Oh, yeah. His role as the principal scribe for the Book of Mormon is maybe his most well-known contribution. It put him literally side by side with Joseph for that huge monumental task.

And it seems his involvement went way beyond just writing down words, right? The documents point to his participation in these foundational spiritual experiences alongside Joseph. Absolutely. According to the accounts, he claimed with Joseph Smith to have received the Lesser what we now call the Aaronic Priesthood that was supposedly under the hands of John the Baptist on May 15th, 1829.

Heavenly messengers conferring authority right there at the beginning. And the sources say this happened again with more authority.

Yes. The claim is that not long after he and Joseph received the greater or Melchizedek Priesthood. This time under the hands of Peter, James, and John.

Wow.

This delegation of divine authority, you know, to preach and administer ordinances. It's presented in the sources as incredibly significant. And Oliver was a joint recipient in both key restoration events.

So, he's the scribe for the central text and a recipient of priesthood authority directly from heavenly beings and the early structure of the Church. It reflected his prominence, didn't it?

It certainly did. He was designated the second elder of the Church. That's noted in Doctrine Covenants section 20.

He also took on significant organizational leadership very early on.

Like leading the very first mission heading west. I remember reading about that.

Exactly. He was called as the first mission president and the sources indicate that by December 1834 his role was formalized as assistant president that effectively ranked him directly next to Joseph Smith.

So number two essentially.

Pretty much. Yeah.

And their collaboration wasn't just administrative either. The sources show they continued to share these profound spiritual experiences together.

Yes. The records mention his participation with Joseph in receiving significant revelations. like D&C 101 in Kirtland back in 1833. But the sources really emphasize the experience they shared in the Kirtland Temple. That was April 3, 1836 recorded in D&C section 110.

Ah yes, that's the account where they reportedly received priesthood keys from the Savior, Moses, Elias, and Elijah right there in the temple.

Precisely. And the crucial takeaway from the sources here, something that gets repeated is that every major event of priesthood restoration that laid the foundation for the Church involved both Joseph and Oliver.

Every single one.

Their joint experience and authority are consistently highlighted as central. Absolutely central.

And we shouldn't forget his role as one of the Three Witnesses who testified of the Book of Mormon plates. The sources also show he was involved in ordaining nine apostles in February 1835 along with David Whitmer and Martin Harris. Right.

And he also participated in ordaining Parley P. Pratt with Joseph Smith and David Whitmer. So, this wasn't some peripheral figure. He was absolutely woven into the spiritual and administrative fabric of the Church's very beginnings.

Which just makes his later departure all the more jarring to consider, doesn't it?

It really does, given that deep connection and that foundational role. How did things start to, well, fall apart? The sources tell us tensions began to surface relatively soon after that Kirtland Temple experience. What were the flash points?

Well, the records and historical accounts, they really point to money. Financial issues seem to be a primary source of the rising tension.

Okay.

And this was happening right in the context of the Kirtland banking crisis in 1837 and 1838 which frankly led to significant turmoil and um intense apostasy among many members including prominent leaders

Uh, the Kirtland Safety Society. Yeah. The sources mentioned that Joseph Smith Oliver and most of the leadership were heavily invested in this venture which, well, it failed spectacularly.

That's right. The sources even note Joseph's use of, sort of spiritual language when encouraging investment and that he personally lost the most money when it collapsed.

And the failure itself seems to have had multiple causes based on what the sources say. It wasn't just one thing.

No, definitely not. The accounts describe a confluence of factors. There was a run on the bank where the community started cashing out notes. One source actually uses that It's a Wonderful Life analogy to describe the dynamic.

Right. I've heard that comparison.

And then there was some documented corruption by clerks and critically a wider national economic crash that was happening at the same time.

So not just internal issues but external pressures too. A perfect storm really, that led to this collapse and the sources say this failure had a direct impact on people's confidence and leadership. Right.

It absolutely did. The records indicate that this financial disaster caused many people including foundational figures like Oliver to lose confidence not just in Joseph Smith's financial judgment but crucially to begin questioning his prophetic role itself.

It kind of blurred the lines for them, you know, between earthly management and spiritual authority.

That's a critical takeaway right there. How a financial failure became a catalyst for questioning religious leadership. Was there anything else feeding the tension around this time?

Yes. The sources also mentioned a related dynamic concerning leadership and, um, potential succession. This involved David Whitmer, who was Oliver's brother-in-law.

Right. The records mention an 1835 blessing where Joseph apparently named David as a potential successor if he remained faithful and there was an earlier ordination of David as president in 1834 and Oliver supported David.

He reportedly did. Yes. So this added another layer of internal friction and you know competing loyalties within the top ranks.

Meanwhile, Oliver himself was really struggling financially made worse by the banking crisis and the sources suggest his health actually declined under the stress of these conflicts and mounting disagreements. The bad feelings according to the records really peaked in the spring of 1837.

Okay. So facing these pressures, financial hardships, strained relationships, Oliver makes a significant move. The sources tell us he relocated to Missouri in 1837.

He did. And the records indicate he decided to pursue a legal career there, specifically to try and alleviate his growing personal debts.

Makes sense.

By the spring of 1838, after Joseph Smith had also moved to Missouri, the sources describe Oliver as having sort of gradually withdrawing from Church activities and association. He wasn't really participating anymore.

And this period in Missouri, it was incredibly contentious for the Church as a whole, wasn't it? The sources mention this push to clean house among some members there.

Yes, the records definitely suggest a context where certain zealous members in Missouri felt a need to, well, purify the community and remove those perceived as causing trouble or dissent.

And Oliver got caught up in that.

It seems so. Given his disagreements and withdrawal. He appears to have gotten caught in their crosshairs.

And this led to a formal proceeding, didn't it? A trial.

It did. A high council hearing was convened on April 12th, 1838 in Far West, Missouri. The minutes note that Oliver didn't attend, but he did send a letter responding to the charges. And it's worth noting, as the sources point out, the hearing was presided over by the high council, not Joseph Smith himself. That followed the procedure outlined in D&C 107 for trying members of the First Presidency. Though Joseph Smith was present at the hearing.

Got it. And what did the sources say were the specific charges brought against Oliver at this hearing? There were several, right?

The records list nine charges. Let's focus on a couple that are particularly detailed in the sources.

Okay. What were they?

Well, a major one was, and I'm quoting here, stirring up the enemy to persecute the brethren by urging on vexatious lawsuits.

Vexatious lawsuits. So, suing people.

Yeah. And specifically, it seems suing fellow Church members to collect debts. The charge sheet notes he frequently solicited for business in collecting debts.

And how did the Church leadership view that?

Well, the sources make it pretty clear they saw it as fundamentally wrong, like morally wrong for members to sue each other. They pointed to scriptures. Okay.

In fact, there was already a formal resolution on the books from the Kirtland Quorum of the Seventy back in ‘37. It basically said they'd withdraw fellowship from anyone who kept pushing lawsuits among the members.

Wow. So Oliver trying to make a living as a lawyer ran smack into this Church principle.

Exactly. His professional life clashed directly with what leaders saw as, you know, community and religious duty.

Okay, that's one big conflict point. There was another major charge.

Oh, yeah. This one seems even more serious based on the source accounts. It was uh for seeking to destroy the character of President Joseph Smith Jr. by falsely insinuating that he was guilty of adultery, etc.

Wow. Okay. So, insinuation of adultery. How did the sources describe the evidence for that charge?

Well, they cite testimony from people like David Patton. He apparently reported that Oliver had privately told him about some kind of adultery scrape Joseph supposedly confessed to Emma, his wife.

Privately told him. Okay.

And then Thomas Marsh testified. He said Oliver was asked directly, you know, did Joseph confess adultery to you? And Oliver apparently said no.

But there's a but there, isn't there?

Yeah. Marsh described it as Oliver saying no only after a considerable winking, etc. You know, sort of suggestive behavior. And this winking was taken as an insinuation that it was true, just not confessed directly to Oliver.

So, the charge wasn't necessarily that he lied outright, but that he insinuated something falsely through his actions.

Seems that way based on the sources, and Joseph Smith himself apparently got involved, asking Marsh if Oliver ever told him Joseph confessed to anyone. Mar said no. The charge was sustained for these false insinuations.

It's quite specific. Now, the sources also mention something else that might provide some background here, right? About Fanny Alger.

Yes, they do. The sources bring up reports from several early members about Joseph Smith having married Fanny Alger, described as his first plural wife, though the marriage was apparently short-lived.

Okay. So, reports of this relationship existed.

Right now, the sources we're looking at don't explicitly connect that specific marriage to Oliver's insinuation in the trial. It's not like the trial minutes say he insinuated about Fanny Alger.

Gotcha.

But the fact that these reports were circulating in the community, you know, it provides a possible context. It suggests what the adultery scrape rumors or insinuations might have been about, even if not explicitly named in the proceedings described.

It adds a layer of potential understanding. So, the high council presided over by Thomas B. Marsh with Joseph Smith actually present. They found those two charges sustained, the lawsuits and the insinuations.

That's what the minutes say. And there were other charges mentioned around that time, not just against Oliver, but sometimes against him. The Whitmers, W.W. Phelps. Kind of a cluster of issues.

Like what sort of things?

Oh. stuff like: skipping meetings, writing insulting letters, hurting the Church's reputation, telling lies, siding with dissenters back in Kirtland, not doing his Church duties, even not keeping the Word of Wisdom, which was, you know, less emphasized then, but still popped up in charges. It paints a picture of a broader falling out. And the sources do indicate that Oliver's failure to appear at the hearing to defend himself was definitely a factor in the council sustaining some of the charges against him.

Right. Not being there didn't help his case. And the ultimate outcome of this hearing was the excommunication of Oliver Cowdery from the Church.

Yes. Based on these sustained charges, the decision was made to excommunicate him.

Now, it's vital, isn't it, to layer another piece of context from the sources onto this period in Missouri. The sources discussed the environment created by groups like the Danites and the pressure exerted on dissenters.

Oh, this is a crucial point the sources highlight. It adds another dimension beyond just the formal charges of the trial.

How so?

The records state that around the time of the trial And in the period leading up to it, accusations, including those related to lawsuits, but also things like stealing and counterfeiting, were surfacing against Cowdery, David Whitmer, and W.W. Phelps.

And these accusations were coming from specific people.

Yes. Specifically from individuals connected to the Danite movement.

And the sources get quite specific about the actions taken by those connected to the Danites against these men. Right. It wasn't just talk.

No, not at all. The documents explicitly record that Cowdery and Phelps were threatened by Danites in June 1838.

So this is shortly after Oliver's excommunication and they were explicitly told to leave Caldwell County.

Told to leave. Wow.

Yes. There's even mentioned in the sources of a letter reportedly signed by prominent figures including Sidney Rigdon and Hyrum Smith, though notably not Joseph Smith in this specific documented instance demanding they leave immediately and threatening trouble if they stayed.

Wow. So this wasn't just an ecclesiastical separation based on the trial. These foundational figures, including Oliver, were facing intense pressure and potential physical danger, essentially being forced out of the community by this group.

That's precisely what the sources indicate. This external pressure from within the community provides really critical context for understanding Oliver’s departure from Missouri and his physical separation from the main body of the Church members gathering there. It wasn't just about the trial results.

Okay. So, with Oliver excommunicated and having left Missouri under these well threatening circumstances, what do the sources reveal about Joseph Smith's stated position on this major break with someone who had been so incredibly close.

Well, the sources mentioned that Joseph had spoken about tensions with Oliver even earlier. Apparently, he publicly stated in Kirtland before January 1838, that Oliver had confessed to him that he, Oliver, had willfully lied about Joseph.

Oliver confessed to lie.

That's what Joseph stated publicly. And that this act had created a separation, making them two rather than one in purpose. Joseph presented this prior confession as a breaking point in their relationship even before the Missouri trial.

Interesting. And obviously the charges brought at the trial in Far West reflect the official leadership's perspective on why Oliver's removal was deemed necessary at that specific point.

Yes, absolutely. Those charges represent the institutional reasons given for the excommunication. But the sources also highlight something else that Oliver having been so incredibly close to Joseph, almost like brothers, as one account puts it, he was privy to and maybe felt strongly about about what he perceived as Joseph's flaws,

Perhaps related to financial management, maybe some impetuous decisions.

The human side.

Exactly. And these strong feelings, all tangled up with their shared history, likely fueled the conflicts and the fights they had, which are mentioned in some accounts.

And from the perspective of dissenters or critics at the time, how did Oliver's departure reflect back on Joseph and his leadership, especially with charges involving questioning Joseph's character, like the adultery insinuation.

Well, the sources suggest that Oliver's accusations, or at least his perceived insinuations, even though officially ruled as false insinuations by the council, were seen by some critics as confirmation of underlying issues with Joseph's character or leadership.

So, Oliver leaving gave ammunition to critics.

You could say that Oliver's dissent, especially coming from someone so foundational and so close, definitely added fuel to critical narratives about Joseph. It highlighted that even those who shared the most sacred experiences had serious disagreements and well saw very human flaws in him.

Okay, so Oliver is out. What did the sources tell us about his life after the excommunication? What was his path forward?

The sources briefly cover his life outside the main Church body. He focused on building his legal career, which ironically had been a point of conflict earlier, right?

But the really significant point the sources emphasize is his eventual return to the Church.

And that happened quite a bit later, didn't it? Not right away.

No, years later. He returned in 1848. This was in Kanesville, Iowa, which was a major gathering point for the Saints before they headed further west.

And was he just welcomed back? How did that work?

According to the sources, yes, he was welcomed back. The charges that led to his 1838 excommunication were removed from the record and he was rebaptized into the Church

Just like that. The charges removed.

Apparently. So, the record indicates they were set aside upon his return.

Are there any accounts of his return or his testimony after coming back? What was that like?

There's a well-documented account related to a meeting in Kanesville. Orson Hyde, who was one of the Twelve Apostles presiding there, reportedly saw Oliver in the congregation, called him up to the stand and actually asked him to share his testimony.

Wow. Put on the spot.

Yeah. And Ruben Miller, who was present, recorded an account of Oliver's powerful testimony given on that occasion.

And what did Oliver say according to that account? Did he address his past?

Miller's account reports Oliver bearing witness to his foundational experience. It includes the incredibly powerful line, I wrote with my own hand, the Book of Mormon.

Bringing it right back to the beginning.

Exactly. Connecting his return directly back to his earliest, most fundamental role and experience, reaffirming that core witness.

That's a powerful thread connecting his entire journey, isn't it? So, pulling all of this together, his absolutely critical founding role, the financial and leadership conflicts, those specific charges in the trial, the external threats from the Danites, his painful departure, and then his eventual return and reaffirmed testimony. What are the key takeaways for someone today looking back through these sources?

Well, Oliver Cowdery’s story is presented in these historical documents. It's just a really vivid, complex, and honestly challenging window into the realities of the early Church.

Yeah, it's not simple.

Not at all. It shows us the immense pressures faced by those early leaders, the struggles with finances and governance, the very real, very human conflicts, and it shows how personal convictions and even powerful spiritual experiences could collide head-on with the demands and expectations of an evolving institution.

It definitely shows that even being present for miracles doesn't make you immune to conflict or doubt or making mistakes.

Exactly. And a crucial point the sources consistently highlight is that Oliver, like the other Book of Mormon witnesses, despite his profound disagreements and his separation from the organization and its leaders,

He never renounced his fundamental testimony

Of seeing the plates encountering the divine,

Right? That core witness stayed even when everything else fell apart between him and the Church leadership.

So his dissent wasn't presented in the sources as a simple loss of belief in the core spiritual claims. It was more tangled.

That's what the records strongly suggest. His conflict and dissent appear to have been tangled up with specific complex issues. You have the financial difficulties, the personality clashes with Joseph, disagreements over policy, the nature of authority, and as we discussed those very real physical threats he faced in Missouri.

So, a whole mess of things.

Yeah. It wasn't portrayed simply as a rejection of the foundational spiritual experiences he always testified of.

And his return adds yet another layer of complexity to that whole picture.

It really does. His entire story, the rise, the fall, the return, it, it can really resonate, I think, with anyone trying to navigate their own faith journey.

Yeah.

Especially when they encounter flaws in leaders or disagree with institutional policies or find themselves in conflict with the organization while still wrestling with their own deeply held personal spiritual experiences or core beliefs.

Precisely. His return also offers a perspective maybe on the possibility of finding a way back even after significant pain and separation.

It's quite a journey.

Oliver Cowdery’s story is just such a stark reminder that the founding of this faith, like any significant human endeavor, was lived out by real complex people facing extraordinary and often incredibly messy circumstances.

Yeah. His experience demonstrates pretty clearly that holding profound spiritual witnesses and being deeply committed doesn't automatically shield individuals from conflict or doubt or even painful separation from the institution they helped build.

And his return culminating in that powerful reaffirmation of his core witness just adds an essential layer to that complexity. He went through the fire, he left, but that foundational experience, the one he testified he wrote with his own hand, seems to have stayed with him through it all.

Mhm. and it anchored him. Perhaps

it really makes you pause and think about the nature of faith, leadership, and institutions, doesn't it? Here's a final thought for you to maybe ponder as you go about your day. How do you personally navigate that tension? You know, the tension when your individual spiritual experiences or convictions seem to conflict with the direction or actions of the institution or maybe its leaders. What part does holding on to a core belief play when you see the very human side, the flaws in people you may revere?

That's a heavy question. It's a question Oliver Cowdery wrestled with throughout his remarkable and challenging life. And his story offers a rich, though sometimes difficult, source for reflection on those very dynamics even today.

If you find value in this exploration, please like, share, follow, and consider becoming a subscriber. Your contributions help keep these conversations going and allows us to maintain the highest quality production. You can find all the details at studyfaithwithai.com. Thank you for being part of this journey.