Oliver Cowdery’s Excommunication Trial – A “Difference of Opinion?”

Some believe that Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated in part or in whole for accusing Joseph Smith of adultery with Fanny Alger. Let’s see if this conclusion can be verified in the high council records.

A Closer Look At The Records

First, lets talk about the source records themselves. The original minutes of the meeting are not available. What we have is from Minute Book 2, pages 118-126, written by Hosea Stout, and admittedly “copies of copies,” made between October 1842 and September 1843, some 4.5-5.5 years after the event.

Did Oliver Cowdery Accuse Joseph Smith of Adultery?

Maybe, but we have no records of him doing so. Cowdery was served 9 charges by Seymor Brunson, which included in the laundry list of crimes, including Brunson’s claim that Oliver Cowdery “insinuated” that Joseph Smith was guilty of adultery.

According to the high council minutes, Oliver Cowdery never charged Joseph Smith with adultery. Joseph Smith never charged Oliver Cowdery with accusing Joseph of adultery either. Instead, we have a case of Seymor Brunson charging Oliver Cowdery of “insinuating” that Joseph Smith may (or may not have) accused Joseph Smith of adultery.

This trial was about Oliver Cowdery answering to Seymor Brunson’s charges.

The 9 Charges Against Oliver Cowdery

Seymor Brunson brought forth these specific charges in a High Council meeting on April 12, 1838:

1. “For persecuting the brethren, by urging on vexatious lawsuits against the Brethren and thus distressing the innocent.”
2. “For seeking to destroy the Character of Pres. Joseph Smith Jr by falsely INSINUATING that he was guilty of adultery &c.”
3. “By treating the Church with contempt by not attending meeting.”
4. “For virtually denying the faith by declaring that he would not be governed by any ecclesiastical authority nor revelation whatever in his temporal affairs.”
5. “For selling his lands in Jackson Co. Contrary to the revelations.”
6. “For writing and sending an insulting letter to Pres. T[homas] B. Marsh while on the high Council attending to the duties of his office as president of the Council and insulting the high Council with the contents of said letter”
7. “For leaving his Calling in which God had appointed him by revelation for the sake of filthy lucre & turning to the practice of Law.”
8. “For disgracing the Church by being Connected in the Bogus business as common report says.”
9. “For dishonestly retaining Notes after they had been Paid, and finally for leaving or forsaking the cause of God and returning to the begerly elements of the world, neglecting his high and holy Calling Contrary to his profession”

Oliver Cowdery’s Crime: “Falsely Insinuating”

Seymour Brunson charged Oliver Cowdery with “insinuating” that Joseph Smith was an adulterer. Notice that #2 on the list of charges says that Oliver Cowdery was “falsely insinuating” that Joseph Smith was guilty of adultery. How does one “insunuate” something? Here’s the definition from a then contemporary dictionary:

INSIN’UATE, verb transitive
1. To introduce gently, or into a narrow passage; to wind in.
2. To push or work one’s self into favor; to introduce by slow, gentle or artful means.
3. To hint; to suggest by remote allusion.
4. To instill; to infuse gently; to introduce artfully.

Webster’s Dictionary, 1828 edition

The 4 Witnesses

On April 12, 1838 Ebenezer Robinson records in the High Council minutes the witness testimonies of 4 men regarding the charges. Let’s inspect each one individually, remembering that we’re dealing with recounting particulars of a conversation, recollected some 5-8 months prior:

Joseph Smith

We don’t have all of the words of Joseph Smith recorded on this issue, but we do have reference to Joseph Smith giving a “history respecting the girl business.”

“Joseph Smith jr testifies that Oliver Cowdery had been his bosom friend, therefore he entrusted him with many things. He then gave a history respecting the girl business.”

Far West Record: Minutes of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1830–1844 [1983], p.167–68

There were no formal charges brought against Joseph Smith for adultery either before, during or after this meeting. Therefore, most conclude that Joseph’s explanation to the High Council was sufficient to convince the entire council to drop the case altogether as a non-issue. Without a doubt, if the council had believed Oliver Cowdery’s alleged “insinuations” then Smith would have been charged accordingly.

George W. Harris

The main points from George W. Harris’s testimony are that Oliver Cowdery “seemed to insinuate” Joseph’s guilt of adultery. “Seeming to insinuate” is weaker than insinuating, which is weaker than someone actually doing something. One could wonder whether these guys have any confidence in this accusation based on their choice of words.

Harris also remembers that Oliver Cowdery admited that Joseph Smith never told Oliver he was guilty of adultery. If Joseph Smith had “entrusted him with many things” including a story of him committing adultery with the “girl” then the story itself would have been an admission of guilt.

“George W. Harris testifies that one evening last fall O. Cowdery was at his house together with Joseph Smith jr., and Thomas B. Marsh, when a conversation took place between Joseph Smith jr & O. Cowdery, when he seemed to insinuate that Joseph Smith jr was guilty of adultery, but when the question was put, if he (Joseph) had ever acknowledged to him that he was guilty of such a thing; when he answered No. Also he believes him to be instrumental in causing so many lawsuits as had taken place of late.”

ibid, p.167–68

David W. Patten

Patten’s testimony is interesting for a few reasons. First, in his own words, he went to Oliver Cowdery to ask about “a certain story” being true, indicating that he likely heard the story from someone other than Oliver Cowdery. Second, he says that Oliver “insinuated as though he was guilty.” One can only imagine how to act out “as though he was guilty” in a game of charades.

“David W. Patten testifies, that he went to Oliver Cowdery to enquire of him if a certain story was true respecting J. Smith’s committing adultery with a certain girl, when he turned on his heel and insinuated as though he was guilty; he then went on and gave a history of some circumstances respecting the adultery scrape stating that no doubt it was true. Also said that Joseph told him, he had confessed to Emma, Also that he has used his influence to urge on lawsuits.”

ibid, p.167–68

Lastly, he says that Oliver Cowdery stated that “no doubt it was true.” So, which was it? An “insinuation as though he was guilty” (which is not a certain statement) or Cowdery “stating that no doubt it was true” (the opposite of an insinuation)?

Thomas B. Marsh

Marsh also claimed that Oliver Cowdery is guilty of “insinuation” and “conveyance of an idea” based on some gestures that he observed.

“Thomas B. Marsh testifies that while in Kirtland last summer, David W. Patten asked Oliver Cowdery if he Joseph Smith jr. had confessed to his wife that he was guilty of adultery with a certain girl, when Oliver Cowdery cocked up his eye very knowingly and hesitated to answer the question, saying he did not know as he was bound to answer the question yet conveyed the idea that it was true. Last fall after Oliver came to this place he heard a conversation take place between Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery when J. Smith asked him if he had ever confessed to him that he was guilty of adultery, when after a considerable winking &c. he said No. Joseph then asked him if he ever told him that he confessed to any body, when he answered No.”

ibid, p.167–68

His description of Oliver Cowdery’s cocking up his eye “very knowingly” is a vague claim that he knew Oliver Cowdery’s thoughts, which is not only impossible, but hard to prove in any case. Furthermore, Marsh states that Cowdery “conveyed the idea that it was true.” Basically, Marsh had the idea that Joseph Smith was guilty, but Oliver Cowdery is perceived as being guilty of those thoughts.

Did Oliver Cowdery Admit That Joseph Smith Confessed Adultery?

According to 2 witnesses (Harris, Marsh), Oliver Cowdery denied that Joseph Smith admitted to adultery, but he did admit to it Patten.

1. “seemed to insinuate” (Harris)
2. “cocked up his eye very knowingly and hesitated to answer the question” (Marsh)
3. “turned on his heel and insinuated as though he was guilty” (Patten)
4. “stating that no doubt it was true.” (Patten)

If it’s the same conversation these three are referring to, then simply put: somebody is lying in the group, or perhaps has a faulty memory.

Oliver Cowdery Answers The 9 Charges For Himself

Oliver Cowdery’s letter answering the 9 charges from Seymour Brunson was included in the High Council meeting minutes. In the letter, Oliver Cowdery only specifically answers charges #4 and #5, and none else. He states:

“I could have wished, that those charges might have been defered untill after my interview with President Smith; but as they are not, I must waive the anticipated pleasure with which I had flattered myself of an understanding on those points which are grounds of different opinions on some Church regulations, and others which personally interest myself… So far as relates to the other seven charges [including #2 about adultery], I shall lay them carefully away, and take such a course with regard to them, as I may feel bound by my honor, to answer to my rising posterity. I beg you, sir, to take no view of the foregoing remarks, other than my belief on the outward government of this Church. I do not charge you, or any other person who differs with me on those points, of not being sincere; but such difference does exist, which I sincerely regret. With considerations of the hi[gh]est respect, I am, Your obedient servent. O Cowdery.”

Oliver Cowdery, recorded in Minutes, 12 April 1838 – JSP #17705, p.119

How Did Oliver Cowdery Answer to His Charges?

• He wished the charges would have been deferred
• We wished that he could have talked to Joseph Smith before the charges were issued
• He didn’t get a chance to talk with Joseph Smith about the charges before hand (“i must waive the anticipated pleasure”)
• He’s not claiming to understand the points of the charges
• Some points in question “are grounds of different opinions on some church regulations”
• The other points (all points except #4 and #5) Cowdery claimed “I shall lay them carefully away, and take such a course with regard to them”
• He begged the council to “take no view of the foregoing remarks, other than my belief on the outward government of this church.”
• Cowdery says “I do not charge you, or any other person who differs with me on those points, of not being sincere“
• He acknowledges that differences in opinion exist, which he sincerely regrets

If Oliver Cowdery believed that Joseph Smith committed adultery with Fanny Alger, then this trial was a perfect chance to testify of Joseph’s immorality and accuse him to an audience of 13+ witnesses. But Oliver didn’t take that chance to set the record straight. In fact, he never even mentioned Fanny Alger or the “scrape” in any of the proceedings. One must ask the obvious question: why not?

Some make this trial out to be about Joseph Smith vengefully excommunicating Oliver Cowdery for even “insinuating” that he committed adultery. According to the limited records we have, this is nonsense. This was a trial between Seymour Brunson and Oliver Cowdery, wherein Oliver Cowdery only spoke to the charges he cared about. And Joseph Smith’s adultery was not one of them.

Here’s what a long-time law and business partner said of Oliver:

“Mr. Cowdery was an able lawyer and a great advocate. His manners were easy and gentlemanly; he was polite, dignified, yet courteous…. His association with others was marked by the great amount of information his conversation conveyed and the beauty of his musical voice. His addresses to the court and jury were characterized by a high order of oratory, with brilliant and forensic force. He was modest and reserved, never spoke ill of anyone, never complained.”

William Lang, “History of Seneca County” (Springfield, Ohio 1880), p.365

Perhaps it simply wasn’t in Oliver’s nature to get involved in these types of accusations. Or, perhaps the “girl business” was never about adultery.