Does anyone know the earliest possible date that Rigdon and Joseph Smith crossed paths? The official history has Rigdon reading the BofM at the end of 1830 and jumping on board then.
I ask because of the study (ref'd below) that textually examines the BofM suggests Rigdon as the primary author. What is interesting to me is that the only other BofM scribes aside from Cowdery were Emma and Martin Harris, and their "assisting work" was solely done on the 116 missing pages (am I wrong on this point?). That would leave Cowdery as the sole scribe working on the post-116 manuscript with Joseph. I see this as curious with the timely entrance of Rigdon, in relation to the BofM's publication, as well as the messy priesthood restoration.
I was just reading Dan Vogel's article on the priesthood restoration (ref'd below), and he makes some interesting comments about Cowdery. We also know that Rigdon was likely influential in getting Joseph's mind on the subject of priesthood as Rigdon was formerly a Campbellite.
Quote from Vogel on suspicious Cowdery involvement in priesthood restoration narrative:
What I'm getting at is ---> Does the priesthood restoration timeline give support to the Spaulding-Rigdon theory of BofM authorship? If JS, Cowdery, and Rigdon were all colluding on the BofM, then it is not surprising to see them all involved in centralizing power in the church via priesthood, which was possibly Rigdon's contribution to Joseph's theology. If it was collusion, then if I were them I would certainly want it to appear that Rigdon had nothing to do w/ Joseph pre-1830, so as to eliminate suspicion of Rigdon being involved in authoring the BofM. Maybe behind the scenes Cowdery was pissed off for being left out of the hierarchy whilst away in Missouri. Being a part of the BofM creation, he wanted his share of influence while Joseph and Rigdon started to operationalize priesthood authority and perhaps had leverage to get what he wanted.September 1834 –– In a letter to WW Phelps in Missouri, Oliver Cowdery (with Smiths help) wrote the first account of his and Smiths ordination by an unnamed angel in May 1829, which was published in the Messenger and Advocate the following month. Significantly, Cowdery began by stating that he hoped that his account would "prove especially beneficial by confirming [Phelps and the Missouri church] in the faith of the gospel," and then made the startling disclosure: "The angel of God came down clothed with glory his voice, though mild, pierced to the center, and his words/I am thy fellow servant/ dispelled every fear. We received under his hand the holy priesthood, as he said, upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer this priesthood and this authority, which shall remain upon earth, that the sons of Levi may yet offer an offering unto the Lord in righteousness!"
By putting the Malachi 3:3 apologetic in the angels mouth, Cowdery created an anachronism, because the notion of a greater and lesser priesthood, with the lesser being associated with the Levitical priesthood, wasn't part of the discourse until September 1832 when Joseph Smith dictated his revelation on priesthood. The term "priesthood" is also anachronistic since it wasn't used until June 1831 in connection with the high priesthood. The term did not even appear in the June 1830 (April 10, 1830) Articles and Covenants. Note also that Cowdery's use of the term "holy priesthood" is consistent with Smiths 1832 History but inconsistent with the September 1832 revelation, which links the term with the High or Melchizedek Priesthood. The motivation for introducing the story of angelic ordination seems to be internal conflict and Smiths effort to create a hierarchical structure that would align other church leaders under his authority and make him less vulnerable to usurpers and prevent his organization from splintering. It should be observed that the introduction of this angelic ordination story not only enhanced Joseph Smith's leadership, but it also raised Cowdery to prominence as a co-receiver of special authority. It would not be long before Cowdery's new status would be officially recognized.
December 5, 1834 –– Oliver Cowdery was ordained an assistant or co-president by Sidney Rigdon. In Joseph Smiths "large journal" (later used as Manuscript History book A-i), Cowdery recorded that Smith ordained him "to the office of assistant President of the High and Holy Priesthood in the Church of the Latter-Day Saints" and then explained: "It is necessary, for the special benefit of the reader, that he be instructed into, or> concerning the power and authority of the above named Priesthood. First, The office of the President is to preside over the whole Church; Second. The office of Assistant President is to assist in presiding over the whole Church, and to officiate in the abscence of the President, according to their <his> rank and appointment, viz: President Cowdery, first; President Rigdon Second, and President Williams Third, as they are <were> severally called."
Note that that these counselors were not ordained in that order, that Cowdery was last. Concerning his sudden rise to the second highest office in the church, Cowdery went on to explain: "The reader may further understand, that Presidents <the> reason why <High Counsellor > Cowdery was not previously ordained <to the Presidency, > was, in consequence of his necessary attendance in Zion [Missouri], to assist Wm* W* Phelps in conducting the printing business; but that this promise was made by the angel while in company with President Smith, at the time they received the office of the lesser priesthood. And further: The circumstances and situation of the Church requiring, Presidents Rigdon and Williams were previously ordained, to assist President Smith."
There are two problems with Cowdery s explanation. First, Cowdery's claim that he and Smith were told about the offices of president and assistant president of the high priesthood is doubtful and anachronistic for the May 1829 setting. The high priesthood wasn't introduced until June 1831, and a president of the high priesthood wasn't revealed until the following November in response to the challenge of bishop Edward Partridge. Even then, counselors for the president weren't provided until March 1832.
Second, Cowdery's excuse for the delay of his ordination is also suspicious since there had been more than ample opportunity before December 1834. Most notably, Smith and Cowdery were reunited in late April 1832 when Smith made a second visit to Missouri with counselors Sidney Rigdon and Jesse Gause and was sustained as president of the high priesthood on the 26th. Cowdery returned to Kirtland in August 1833 to continue printing there following the destruction of the press in Missouri. While there were many opportunities to ordain Cowdery, none were as obvious as when Cowdery assisted Joseph Smith on April 19, 1834, and "confirmed upon" Sidney Rigdon authority as first counselor "to preside over the Church in the abscence [sic] of brother Joseph." When Smith left Kirtland for Missouri the following month at the head of Zions Camp, Rigdon rather than Cowdery presided over the church for the next three months. So Cowdery s elevation was sudden and unexpected, but it paved the way for Smiths subsequent hierarchical innovations, which he had previously resisted.
Overall, I see the following to be very curious: 1) Rigdon as a primary co-author of the BofM (Jockers et al. 2008); 2) Rigdon's timely entrance into Mormonism shortly following BofM publication; and 3) evolution of priesthood authority with Joseph, Cowdery, and Rigdon largely benefiting from the seizing of power (Vogel 2014).
Note that I am no historian. This may be naive speculation on my part and clearly dismissible based on history and nuances I'm not aware of.
Thoughts?
--- --- --- ---
Refs:
BofM Textual Analysis Study (Jockers, Witten, and Criddle 2008):
https://academic.oup.com/dsh/article-ab ... 65/1039019
Dan Vogel Article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43200577?s ... b_contents
