The Coming of Sidney Rigdon.—We then behold the resurrection of the old yarn about the theft of the manuscript from the printing office of one Patterson in Pittsburgh where Mr. Rigdon intimate as alleged with one Lambdin a partner employee or friend of the proprietor had sufficiently free access to copy or purloin the precious literary treasure. If any such theft really occurred it was most probably between the years 1812 and 1816 when Rigdon born in 1793 was between 19 and 23 years of age. He was rather young to conceive a plot to make this book the basis of an alleged ‘‘revelation’’ and as one might suppose—and our author draws numerous ‘‘inferences’’—was sufficiently honest to wait for the printing and publishing of the manuscript in order to read it at his leisure. He must be made to steal it however since under other conditions the ‘‘crime’’ would not seem sufficiently aggravated. At any rate another line of “affidavits’’ is presented by numerous inconspicuous persons stating that Rigdon had had or had shown them some manuscript or had stated that some book was to appear about ancient America which would “make a stir” etc. Some one must have been extremely industrious or extremely fortunate in his searches to unearth so many accusers of Mr. Rigdon. Nor is there any reason for accepting these ‘‘affidavits” in view of the evident ‘‘editing’’ done to those on the Spaulding authorship matter. Our author however quotes this:

“Mrs. Amos Dunlap [every one knows who she was] in 1826-27 while visiting at the house of Rigdon saw him reading a manuscript which he was accustomed to keep locked up in a trunk and heard him say in response to the impatient remark of his wife that she would like to burn the thing up ‘It will be a great thing some day.’ There is no reason for supposing that this was other than the manuscript which Dr. Winter saw in Rigdon’s study several years before.”

As may be remarked also there is no reason whatever for supposing it was the same or for making any supposition regarding it. Such ‘‘affidavits’’ as this establish nothing.

The ‘‘Mysterious Stranger.’’—The question of Rigdon’s possession of this or some other manuscript is however a minor matter beside that referring to the manner in which it came into the possession of Joseph Smith to be edited ‘‘translated’’ transcribed and finally printed and published with his name on the title-page as ‘‘author and proprietor.’’ This is indeed the weakest link in the entire chain of allegations made in regard to the ‘‘history’’ of this famous hypothetical screed of Spaulding’s. It is however a necessary stage of the argument for anti-Mormon writers because it is supported by the same kind of absurd and gossiping ‘‘affidavits’’ as are alleged for all the supposed doings of Smith Rigdon Spaulding and others. Thus as specified by ‘‘affidavits’’ presented by Tucker who knew all about Smith a ‘‘mysterious stranger’’ begins calling on him about two years before the appearance of the ‘‘Book of Mormon’’ in print; and as argued this person could be no other than Rigdon come to discuss the details of the great project. Numerous ‘‘old neighbors’’ come forward of course identifying Rigdon with this ‘‘mysterious stranger”’ and their ‘‘testimony’’ is accepted in spite of the fact that we have only Tucker’s word for it that any of them ever existed. And none of them explains how it was that Rigdon was recognized or identified which - one would suppose was desirable in view of the fact. that he resided at a place over 200 miles from Palmyra and was not a man of international reputation not even a dispenser of patent medicines who distributed almanacs with his portrait in every copy. Nevertheless neighbors of Rigdon also testify that at about this period he was in the habit of leaving home for weeks at a time ‘‘going no one knew where.’’ Mr. Smith entertains callers whose identity he declines to divulge to his curious neighbors—forthwith they become ‘‘mysterious strangers’’; Mr. Rigdon is seized with a Wanderlust every now and then and his family professes ignorance of his whereabouts. What more perfectly evident than that Rigdon was the great unknown who called at Smith’s residence?

How Rigdon Found a Publisher.—And for what purpose did Mr. Rigdon on frequent occasions visit Mr. Smith who resided several days’ journey from his own home? The answer given is that he wished him to ‘‘undertake the publication’’ of the manuscript, which as he is represented as having stated would be ‘‘a great thing some day.’’ In other words, having no confidence in the ordinary publisher and knowing how easily precious manuscripts may be purloined from printing offices, he seeks out a gentleman known to his neighbors as possessing an ‘‘indolent and vagabondish character’’ and ‘‘habits of exaggeration and untruthfulness’’; who was a member of a family of ‘‘shiftless and untrustworthy’’ people; who practiced ‘‘peepstone impostures’’ and as we may judge from his neighbors’ remarks was ignorant to the verge of imbecility. And Mr. Rigdon traveled 200 miles to find a man like this! As our author remarks in another connection, ‘‘all these things fall into one continuous series.’’ The foolish young man who, according to a certain Ingersoll, gathers quarts of useless sand and who speaks of his parents as ‘‘d——d fools’’ finds a firm friend and benefactor in an older and even bigger fool than himself, a man to whom distance is no obstacle and who must have sought for printers with a ‘‘peepstone.’’ Of course, in order to avoid this preposterous conclusion one must reject the ‘‘affidavits’’ quoted to establish Rigdon’s theft of the manuscript and those alleging that he had it in his possession. But this involves suspicion on all the ‘‘affidavits’’ given by Howe and Tucker and the dreadful admission that Smith may have told the truth in some particulars.

The Penalty of ‘‘Plagiarism.’’—But Rigdon’s feverish anxiety to get his manuscript into print not only sends him into the wilderness and into the arms of a man reputed to have ‘‘practiced impostures’’ but quite unnecessarily entails his own humiliation, as alleged, and his subordination in dignity to the man whose fortune he is represented as creating. A certain recent anti-Mormon writer has supposed that Rigdon’s motives for recasting the Spaulding manuscript into the ‘‘Book of Mormon’’ and inciting Joseph Smith to ‘‘undertake its publication’’ was his desire to ‘‘get even’’ with the Campbell brothers, founders of the Disciples’ denomination, with whom he had had a serious disagreement. [A dreadful revenge indeed!] Commenting on this line of argument, Prof. N. L. Nelson says:

“But now come two difficulties. The first is that Rigdon, whose motive for theft and forgery was to get even with the Campbells for robbing him of glory, consents nevertheless to play second fiddle to Joseph Smith and to be ‘snubbed and ill-treated’ by the very tool of his successful villainy. Mr. Linn sees in the latter fact some deep mysterious power which the younger man exercised over the older—quite in the dime novel fashion. The other difficulty is the very consistent, logical, undeviating account by Joseph Smith of each successive event in the coming-forth of the ‘Book of Mormon.’ But this narrative Mr. Linn points out was not written till 1838, ten years after the translation of the ‘Book of Mormon’ and seven years after Sidney Rigdon joined the Church—time enough for the arch-plotter Rigdon to make the invention smooth and plausible!”—The Mormon Point of View, pp. 161-162.

‘Prometheus Bound’’ Again.—The reason why Rigdon, as supposed, did not rebel at the ‘‘ill-treatment’’? and go ‘‘give the whole thing away’’ is thus stated by Linn and restated by the scholarly author under discussion:

“The former [Rigdon] was shown considerable deference and in various relations was treated as only second to Smith. But on the other hand he was subjected to such humiliations as a high-spirited man could scarcely have endured who was not rendered comparatively helpless by consciousness of complicity in fraud. So Linn argues with a good show of reason. ‘The iron hand’ he says ‘with which Smith repressed Rigdon from the date of their arrival in Ohio affords strong proof of Rigdon’s complicity in the Bible plot and of the fact that he stood to his accomplice in the relation of a burglar to his mate where the burglar has both the boodle and the secret in his possession.’ ”

There can be little doubt of the fact that Rigdon, in spite of his abilities as a preacher and writer, was a constant source of trouble to Smith—though whether this be due to his ‘‘humiliation’’ or not is not so clear. To adopt the line of argument, however, that is given in the foregoing quotation is very absurd. Linn’s simile is extremely far fetched. If the two men had actually been engaged in house-breaking or other crime before the law, it might be reasonable; but when Rigdon's apostasy and betrayal of the alleged ‘‘plot’’ would have accomplished the injury of a man, Joseph Smith, already detested by the religious community—who ‘‘hated him yet the more because of his dreams’’—the conclusion is unescapable that he, Rigdon, would have been perfectly safe from all danger of prosecution—for he had done nothing of which the law could take account—would be welcomed even as a public benefactor. Rigdon was certainly clever enough to have stated the ‘‘case’’ in such a way as to have thrown all the blame on his ‘‘accomplice’’ while himself enjoying the reputation for simple ‘‘truth-telling’’ so long the quiet possession of the Hurlburts, Howes, Tuckers, Stenhouses, and others who have written so much that would have ‘‘corroborated’’ his assertions. The ‘‘reasons’’ given for Rigdon’s ‘‘silence’’ are exceeded in stupidity only by those given for his original ‘‘complicity.’’ Both constitute together a thoroughbred reductio ad absurdum for the entire Howe-Tucker-Spaulding theory.

Rigdon in Rebuttal—In spite of the ‘‘strong proofs’’ and specious arguments ‘‘with a good show of reason,’’ the fact remains that Rigdon did not secede from the Mormon Church until a very late date; and that he never made a ‘‘confession’’ of any description. Although, however, the people who eagerly accept the silly slanders of the Ingersolls and the absurd ‘‘affidavits’’ of the Spaulding coterie would credit nothing said by Rigdon himself in his own defense, it may be in place to quote from a document whose genuineness may be proved or disproved even at this day. As related by several writers, Rigdon’s son John W. Rigdon—a person no more evidently ‘‘mythical’’ than Brother John Spaulding—visited Utah in 1863. After spending about a year in the Territory, he returned home and had an interview with his father, which he embodied in a biography of him now in the archives of the Church Historian’s office in Salt Lake City. This interview is in part as follows:

“I said to him [Sidney Rigdon] that what I had seen at Salt Lake had not impressed me very favorably toward the Mormon Church and as to the origin of the ‘Book of Mor- mon’ I had some doubts. You have been charged with writ- ing that book and giving it to Joseph Smith to introduce to the world. You have always told me one story; that you never saw the book until it was presented to you by Parley P. Pratt and Oliver Cowdery; and all you ever knew of the origin of that book was what they told you and what Joseph Smith and the witnesses who claimed to have seen the plates _ told you. Is this true? If so all right; if it is not you owe it to me and to your family to tell it. You are an old man and you will soon pass away and I wish to know if Joseph Smith in your intimacy with him for fourteen years has not said something to you that led you to believe he obtained that book in some other way than what he had told you. Give me all you know about it that I may know the truth. My father after I had finished saying what I have ‘repeated above looked at me a moment raised his hand ‘above eyes: his head and slowly said with tears glistening in his ‘My son I can swear before high heaven that what

I have told you about the origin of that book is true. Your mother and sister Mrs. Athalia Robinson were present when that book was handed to me in Mentor Ohio and all I ever knew about the origin of that book was what Parley P. Pratt, Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith and the witnesses who claimed they saw the plates have told me and in all my intimacy with Joseph Smith he never told me but the one story and that was that he found it engraved upon gold plates in a hill near Palmyra New York and that an angel had appeared to him and directed him where to find it: and that I now repeat to you.’ I believed him and now believe he told me the truth. He also said to me after that that Mormonism was true; that Joseph Smith was a Prophet and this world would find it out some day.”—Quoted in Roberts’ New Witness for God.

The ‘‘Missing Link.’’—In the development of the theory of Rigdon’s ‘‘complicity in the Bible plot,’’ which rational people are urged to accept, ‘the question naturally arises as to how Rigdon first became acquainted with Smith in order to assist him ‘‘in making good his empty boast.’’ Some writers have suggested that the two were brought together by Parley P. Pratt who as represented ‘‘met Smith in the course of his wanderings over New York State’’ and recognized him as ‘‘good prophetical timber.’’ Mr. Pratt, according to this theory, is represented as having been at one time a peddler, which fact should supposedly render him still more odious in the eyes of the democratic American public. [It may be that he dealt in hazel rods for ‘‘water-witching,’’ which as we hear are still manufactured and sold in large quantities by some tariff-protected concerns in our country.] Attracted perhaps by Smith’s ‘‘bad reputation’’ among his neighbors—on the principle ‘‘woe unto you when all men speak well of you’’—he introduces him to Rigdon, who was also as we are informed a ‘‘thorn in the flesh’’ to his associates. It is in place to ask, however, why it is that Pratt himself, an ‘‘accomplice’’ according to this theory, did not essay the réle of ‘‘prophet.’’ By personality and innate abilities he was eminently fitted to be a leader of men—particularly a religious leader—and his faithful advocacy of the teachings of ‘‘Mormonism’’ even to the date of his death when he was murdered out of revenge for a crime of which a jury had already acquitted him shows that he would have carried out the character to the end. [Remember that he is accused of having been in the ‘‘plot’’ all this time.] But he, like Rigdon himself, was also subordinated to another man and made an earnest contributor to that other’s reputation.

The Reasonable Verdict.—The unescapable conclusion is that the origin of the ‘‘Book of Mormon’’ and its ‘‘coming-forth’’ were with the man Joseph Smith and that we have no evidence worth considering that it came from any other person—in the world of humanity at least—or any other ‘‘explanation’’ of it than that which he himself has left us. His representations may be untrue, but we have only theories to oppose to them; and no ‘‘demonstrations’’ that amount even to presumption of truth. Various persons have accused him of worthlessness of character and ignorance of the densest description; but he appeared before the world as a real leader of men, an eminent executive, and a forceful thinker. Lame theories have been invented and passionately advocated to show that some inconspicuous scribbler or other ‘‘wrote the ‘Book of Mormon’’’ but Smith’s accredited writings quite equal anything in the Book under discussion. Finally, his own knowledge of the Bible and his constant ability to point his teachings from Scripture show that he needed no assistance in adding any ‘‘religious matter’’ to some original hypothetical groundwork of a story. It would be an act decidedly worthy of ‘‘gifted writers’’ of Methodist and other connections to discover the fact that Joseph Smith must be to the intelligent critic in the words of Mr. Quincy ‘‘not a rogue to be criminated but a phenomenon to be explained’’ both personally and historically.