Part 3 of Theodore Schroeder’s series on the origins of the Book of Mormon.

Date
1907
Type
Book
Source
Theodore Schroeder
Critic
Non-LDS
Hearsay
Late
Secondary
Reference

Theodore Schroeder, “The Origin of the Book of Mormon: From Rigdon to Smith via P. P. Pratt,” in American Historical Magazine (New York: The Americana Society, 1907), 57-76

Scribe/Publisher
Publishing Society of New York
People
Hyrum Smith, John Spaulding, J. H. McCauley, Catherine Smith Salisbury, Martha Spaulding, Sidney Rigdon, Silas Engles, Emma Hale Smith, Joseph Smith, Sr., Abel Chase, Lyman Wight, Orson Pratt, Robert Patterson, Laban, Doctor Philastus Hurlbut, Theodore Schroeder, Lorenzo Saunders, Joseph Smith, Jr., Oliver Cowdery, Lucy Mack Smith, J. Harrison Lambdin, Peter Whitmer, Jr., Henry Lake, Ziba Peterson, Solomon Spaulding, Parley P. Pratt, Orrin Porter Rockwell
Audience
General Public
PDF
PDF
PDF
Transcription

When to this evidence already adduced is added, as will be done, conclusive proof of the identity of the salient features of the Book of Mormon and Spaulding's rewritten "Manuscript Found," it would seem that the case of plagiarism through Rigdon's complicity is established beyond reasonable doubt. The Mormon objector, however, insists that no possible connection between Rigdon and Smith has ever been shown to exist prior to 1830, and that, therefore, even if Rigdon did steal the manuscript, Smith could not have obtained it for use as a help in preparing the Book of Mormon. It would seem as if the facts above recited should, even if unaided by more direct evidence, raise an almost conclusive presumption of the existence of an undiscovered connection between the two. But we are not confined to an inference from such evidence alone. There are still more pointed evidentiary circumstances to which we will now give attention.

Parley Parker Pratt was born at Burlington, Otsego County, N. Y., April 12, 1807, of parents who later resided at Canaan, Columbia County, N. Y.85 During his sixth year (1813) he went to reside with his father's sister, named Van Cott, which name afterward became conspicuous in the early history of Utah. In 1826 Pratt spent a few months with an uncle in Wayne (formerly Ontario) County, N. Y. This, it will be remembered, is the same county in which Smith was at that time gaining much newspaper notoriety as a "peep-stone" money digger through mention made of him in papers published in several counties in southern New York and northern Pennsylvania. While Smith was thus working the gullible of his neighborhood with his necromancy, Pratt was a peddler, who, it is said, knew almost everybody in western New York. At that time Ontario County took in all the territory of several counties as now bounded, and in 1820 had only a population of 80,267. Pratt, therefore, could hardly have helped knowing Smith's fame, which was such as at once to have suggested him as the star actor in any scheme of fraud requiring a prophet. In view of Pratt's subsequent connection with the Wells family, who were Smith's neighbors and friends, it is more than probable that he knew the Smiths personally in or prior to 1826, although, of course, they would carefully guard the fact of such acquaintance from publicity as a most important secret.

In October of this year Pratt went to Ohio, locating at Amherst, thirty miles west of Cleveland and was also located fifty miles west of Kirtland. One of the temptations inducing Pratt's departure from New York was to get to a country where, as he himself expresses it, there is "no law to sweep [away] all the hard earnings of years to pay a small debt.” The ethical status of an average country peddler who is willing to leave his native state to avoid the payment of his "small debts" furnishes a fertile immorality in which to plant the seeds of religious imposture.

It will be remembered that it was also in 1826 that Rigdon went for a second time to reside in Ohio, where he became an itinerant "Disciple" preacher, laboring in the vicinity of Bainbridge, Mantua, Kirtland, Mentor, Chester, New Lisbon, and Warren, at some of which places Rigdon had an unsavory reputation. Rigdon and Pratt, therefore, were in the same neighborhood in 1826, and undoubtedly met soon after. The date of their first meeting is nowhere given, but may reasonably be inferred from an address delivered by Parley P. Pratt in 1843 or '4. In this discourse Pratt tells of an occurrence which transpired on his way to his future Ohio home, which occurrence furnishes the key to his first connection with Mormonism. On his way he stopped at a humble cottage, the name of whose occupant he carefully fails to give. Here, while asleep (so he says), “a messenger of a mild and intelligent countenance suddenly stood before me [Pratt], arrayed in robes of dazzling splendor." According to Mormon theology, an angel is but an exalted man. Of course Sidney Rigdon was an exalted man; why not, then, an angel? This angel claimed to hold the keys to the mysteries of this wonderful country, and took Pratt out to exhibit those mysteries to him. Pratt then had portrayed to his mind the whole future of Mormonism; its cities, with inhabitants from all parts of the globe; its temples, with a yet unattained splendor; its present church organizaztion was, with considerable definiteness, outlined; its political ambition to establish a temporal kingdom of God on the ruins of this government was set forth with quite as much definiteness as in the subsequent more publicly uttered, treasonable sermons. I conclude from the exact manner in which this "Angel of the Prairies" foreknew the ambitions, hopes, and future achievements of the Mormon Church and the similar admitted foreknowledge of Rigdon and the subsequently established connection between Rigdon, Pratt, and Smith, that the "Angel of the Prairies" who outlined to Pratt his then contemplated and now executed religious fraud, was none other than Sidney Rigdon himself, and that this fact accounts for Pratt's failure to give the name of his host or the date of his first meeting with Rigdon.

Lambdin, who, by some, has been suspected of once having been Rigdon's partner in the contemplated fraud, died August 1, 1825. Engles, Patterson's foreman, died July 17, 1827. Spaulding had died in 1816, and Robert Patterson, it seems, knew nothing personally of the contents of the Spaulding manuscript, which fact Rigdon probably well knew through his intimate acquaintance with Lambdin. In September of 1827 the time was, therefore, as ripe as it was ever likely to be for active preparation in the matter of bringing forth the "Book of Mormon," since probably all those having any intimate knowledge of the "Manuscript Found" had conveniently died.

In 1827 Pratt started back to New York for the purpose of getting married. Now, remember, this was nearly three years before the advent of Mormonism. Pratt reached the home of his aunt Van Cott July 4, 1827, and in his autobiography records a summary of a conversation with his future wife thus: "I also opened my religious views to her and my desire, which I sometimes had, to try and teach the red man." In October, 1830, within a month after Pratt's professed conversion to Mormonism, a revelation was received for Pratt, in which the Lord, through "Joseph Smith, the Prophet," directed Pratt to carry out this very design. The desire which Pratt thus expressed to his wife three years before the advent of Mormonism was afterward and for a long time the pet scheme of all Mormons. Pratt was married September 9, 1827. On September 22, 1827, a "heavenly messenger" appeared to Joseph Smith and unfolded to him the scheme of the Book of Mormon, and disclosed the whereabouts of the "Golden Plates." This "heavenly messenger" is called the Angel Moroni. According to Mormon theology, "God may use any beings he has made or that he pleases, and call them his angels, or messengers.'' “God's angels and men are all of one species, one race, one great family." "God is a man like unto yourselves; that is the great secret." Why, of course! "That is the great secret." God is but an "exalted man," and may call Parley Parker Pratt his angel. Parley Parker Pratt was the "heavenly messenger," the angel who, on that day (September 22, 1827), appeared to Joseph Smith and told him where were the golden plates, that is, Spaulding's "Manuscript Found." Sidney Rigdon, for Smith's purposes, was the "exalted man," the "God" who sent this "heavenly messenger,' Parley Parker Pratt, just as the Mormon people now look upon Joseph Smith as the "God to this people." Now, watch the sequel, and no doubt can remain.

September 9, 1827, Pratt was married. On September 22, 1827, he was the angel who appeared to Smith, and in October he started back to Ohio, the home of Rigdon. Rigdon is now brought again upon the scene. He preaches in Pratt's neighborhood, converts him, the latter commences preaching, evidently preparing for his part in the drama about to be enacted.

Rigdon Visits Smith Before Mormonism.

The work of revising the Spaulding manuscript, or, as "Holy Joe" calls it, the "Translation of the Golden Plates," is begun. A mysterious stranger now appears at Smith's residence and holds private interviews with the far-famed money-digger. For a considerable length of time no intimation of the name or the purpose of this personage transpired to the public, or even to Smith's nearest neighbors. It was observed by some of them that his visits were frequently repeated. At about this time Rigdon is away from his Ohio home on several long visits, reporting himself as having gone to Pittsburg.

Abel Chase, a near neighbor of the Smiths, says: "I saw Rigdon at Smith's at different times with considerable intervals between." Lorenzo Saunders, another neighbor, testifies: "I saw Rigdon at Smith's several times, and the first visit was more than two years before the Book appeared." J. H. McCauley, in his history of Franklin County, Pa., states “as a matter too well known to need argument, that Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, and Sidney Rigdon were acquainted for a considerable time before Mormonism was first heard of."

I have been able to find but one specific denial of Rigdon's acquaintance with Smith prior to the appearance of the Book of Mormon. That denial comes from Katherine Salisbury, a sister of the "Prophet Joseph," and is dated April 15, 1881, when she was nearly 68 years of age. She says that

"Prior to the latter part of the year A. D. 1830, there was no person who visited with, or was an acquaintance of, or called upon the said family [of Smith], or any member thereof to my knowledge by the nanie of Rigdon, nor was such person known to the family or any member thereof to my knowledge, until the last part of the year A. D. 1830, or the first part of the year 1831. I remember the time when Sidney Rigdon came to my father's place, and that it was after the removal of my father from Waterloo, N. Y., to Kirtland, O. That this was in the year 1831."

In 1827 and 1828, when Rigdon's visits must have occurred, and his help was needed in revamping Spaulding's "Manuscript Found," this woman was fourteen or fifteen years of age. That Rigdon did visit at the Smiths in New York State, December, 1830, is admitted, and of this she seemingly remembers nothing. She has no recollection of Rigdon's coming to her father's or brother's house until after their removal to Ohio. May she not also, either by design or otherwise, have forgotten visits made by Rigdon to her New York home prior to the admitted, and, by her, forgotten one in December, 1830?

In the same statement she avers that "at the time of the publication of said Book [of Mormon], my brother Joseph Smith, Jr., lived in the family of my father in the town of Manchester, Ontario County, N. Y., and that he had all of his life to this time made his home with the family."

The manuscript of the Book of Mormon was finished and the book copyrighted by June 11, 1829.118 Rigdon's help would be most needed before this time, and from June, 1828, until June, 1829, all and numerous revelations are dated " 'Harmony, Pennsylvania," which, together with Smith's autobiography, shows that he did not all of his lifetime make his home with his parents, nor live at Manchester during all of the most important period of Mormon incubation. The probabilities are that Smith moved to Pennsylvania at this time, for the very purpose of making it easier for Rigdon and Pratt, who lived in Ohio, to furnish him the much needed help.

The admitted errors in Mrs. Salisbury's statement destroy its evidentiary value, and leave it clearly demonstrated by the other evidence adduced, that Rigdon visited Smith several years before the appearance of the Book of Mormon.

The Conversion of Parley P. Pratt.

In the summer of 1830 the Book of Mormon came from the press, and the time had come for Pratt and Rigdon to be astonished by its appearance. Now watch their maneuvers. That year Pratt left Ohio for a visit to New York. Of this. trip his autobiography records the following:

"Landing in Buffalo, we [Pratt and wife] engaged our passage for Albany in a canal boat, distance three hundred and sixty miles. This, including board, cost all our money and some articles of clothing."

Would a mere desire to visit friends induce him to give up part of his clothing for passage money? Hardly; he was after larger game. But let us read on:

"Arriving at Rochester, I informed my wife that, notwithstanding our passage being paid through the whole distance, yet I must leave the boat and leave her to pursue her passage to our friends, while I would stop a while in this region. Why, I did not know; but so it was plainly manifest by the Spirit to me. I said to her: 'We part for a season; go and visit our friends in our native place; I will come soon, but how soon I know not, for I have a work to do in this region of country, and what it is or how long it will take me to perform it, I know not; but I will come when it is performed. My wife would have objected to this, but she had seen the Hand of God so plainly manifest in His dealings with me many times that she dare not oppose the things manifest to me by His Spirit. She therefore consented, and I accompanied her as far as Newark, a small town upwards of a hundred miles from Buffalo, and then took leave of her and of the boat." "It was early in the morning, just at the dawn of day. I walked ten miles into the country [remember now he doesn't know where he is going], and stopped with a Mr. Wells."

This was undoubtedly a member of the same Wells family of Macedon with whom Joseph Smith had long been on terms of intimacy. Pratt's autobiography continues:

"I proposed to preach in the evening. Mr. Wells readily accompanied me through the neighborhood to visit the people and circulate the appointment." "We visited an old Baptist deacon by the name of Hamblin. After hearing of our appointment for the evening, he began to tell of a book, a strange book, a very strange book in his possession, which had just been published. I inquired of him how and where the book was to be obtained. He promised me the perusal of it at his house the next day, if I would call. I felt a strange interest in the book. Next morning I called at his house, where, for the first time, my eyes beheld the 'Book of Mormon,' that book of books."

Pratt says he opened it with eagerness and examined its contents. "As I read, the spirit of the Lord was upon me, and I knew and comprehended that the book was true as plainly and as manifestly as a man comprehends and knows that he exists."

Pratt soon determined to see Smith, and, accordingly, visited Palmyra, where Hyrum Smith welcomed him to their house, and they spent the night together. Joseph had not returned from Pennsylvania. One is led to wonder if Hyrum Smith would take in every inquisitive stranger as his bedfellow. In the morning Pratt returned to fill his appointment to preach the doctrine of Alexander Campbell. Hyrum Smith presented Pratt with a copy of the book, which the latter tells us he was glad to receive, because he had not yet finished his reading of it. Pratt preached the doctrines of the "Disciples" that night and the following one, then returned to the Smith house, and from there went to the Whitmers in Seneca County, resting that night, and taking his Mormon baptism the next day. On the next Sabbath Pratt attended a Mormon meeting and preached a Mormon sermon at the house of one Burroughs. "My work was now completed, for which I took leave of my wife and the canal boat some two or three weeks before."

About the details and the order of events in such remarkable occurrences, there could not possibly be doubt or errors of memory. Had they actually transpired, these events would have been the most important in any eventful career, and would have been indelibly impressed upon Pratt's memory. If, however, this marvelous tale is but a falsehood told to conceal Pratt's real connection with a fraud, then it is quite possible that he and those associated with him should forget how the falsehood had been told at other times, and thus produce contradictory statements.

Let us, in the light of this comment, examine the foregoing account more carefully. Evidently in this account Pratt is desirous of conveying the impression that, as he has elsewhere expressed it, he "was greatly prejudiced against the book." However, in a sermon delivered in 1856-thirty-two years before the publication of the autobiography-Pratt tells us he was converted before completing the reading of the Book of Mormon, or meeting a single true "Saint." Here are his own words:

"I knew it was true, because it was light, and had come in fulfillment of scripture; and I bore testimony of its truth to the neighbors that came in during the first day that I sat reading it at the house of an old Baptist deacon named Hamblin."

Of course such a conversion was altogether too miraculous and sudden to preclude suspicion of Pratt's complicity in the fraud; hence it has usually been stated that the conversion did not, in fact, take place until much critical examination, and sometimes, it is said, after much supplication to the Lord. In Joseph Smith's autobiography he puts the time of conversion as during Pratt's visit to the Whitmers in Seneca County. Here are his words: "After listening to the testimony of the 'witnesses' [at Whitmers, in Seneca County] and reading the 'Book,' he became convinced that it was of God."

The "prophet's" mother, who, with the mother of the Danite, Orin Porter Rockwell, was present at Pratt's alleged first visit to the Smith home, has a third account of this conversion. Pratt, according to the account above quoted from his sermon, had not yet seen the prophet, and had not yet finished reading the Book of Mormon, but was already converted and had borne testimony to its truth. Now read Mother Lucy's account as published by Orson Pratt (Parley Pratt's brother and his first miraculous convert) and "written by the direction and under the inspection of the Prophet."

"Just before my husband's return, as Joseph was about commencing a discourse one Sunday morning, Parley P. Pratt came in very much fatigued. He had heard of us at some considerable distance, and had traveled very fast in order to get there by meeting time, as he wished to hear what we had to say, that he might be prepared to show us our error. But when Joseph had finished his discourse, Mr. Pratt arose and expressed his hearty concurrence in every sentiment advanced. The following day he was baptized and ordained."

This conversion is quite as miraculous and sudden as the one Pratt tells us about as having occurred at Deacon Hamblin's. The prophet's mother, Lucy Smith, who wrote this account, and the prophet himself, under whose supervision it was written, must have been both present, and in this account related only what they pretended they themselves saw. In contradiction of this, Pratt, in two different places, tells us that while at the Whitmers in Seneca County he was baptized and ordained an elder by Oliver Cowdery, and that then he preached a Mormon sermon, after which he went to visit his friends in Columbia County. On his return from Columbia County, over a month after he had been baptized, he for the first time saw Joseph Smith.130 These discrepancies can be best accounted for by the explanation that they are different accounts of an event that never happened, and told to conceal one that did happen.

I understand that the Utah Mormon sect, after publishing "Mother Lucy's" book, condemned it as containing errors, but never pointed out any. The "Josephite" sect of Mormons, however, republished it. It still remains that in telling what she pretended to have seen, she told the story as at some time it had been agreed upon. Further, Lucy Smith could not have written the book, bad as it was from a literary point of view. The statement that it was written. under the direct supervision of the prophet, I, therefore, consider as literally true. That it was published in 1853 by Orson Pratt and S. W. Richards, who had undoubtedly heard the stories corroborated many times and saw nothing erroneous in the book, is also significant, as is the further fact that it had been read by Saints four years before any errors were discovered.

Rigdon's Miraculous Conversion.

Pratt having been converted, the next act of importance must, of course, be the conversion of Rigdon, and, so far as possible, the congregation whose members he had so carefully prepared for the reception of Mormonism.

Pratt is still in New York State with Smith, it being October, 1830. He has already converted his relatives. The Lord, by a revelation through Joseph Smith,131 directs Pratt to go with Oliver Cowdry, Peter Whitmer, and Ziba Peterson "unto the wilderness among the Lamanites" (meaning the American Indians). Pratt, it will be remembered, had sold part of his clothing for passage money with which to travel in his quest for the Book of Mormon. He was, therefore, ill prepared for a winter trip to Ohio and Missouri. "As soon as the revelation was received, Emma Smith and several other sisters began to make arrangements to furnish those who were set apart for the mission with the necessary clothing, which was no easy task, as the most of it had to be manufactured out of the raw material." Pratt's wife was taken to the Whitmers, that she might not want while he was away converting Indians and Rigdon. Thus situated, Pratt took leave of his friends "late in October and started on foot." According to his autobiography it was a hundred miles from Buffalo to Newark, ten miles from Newark to Macedon, where lived the Wells family, and twenty-five miles from Palmyra to the Whitmers in Seneca County. The distance from Buffalo to Cleveland is given as two hundred miles; from Cleveland to Kirtland as thirty miles. These distances were no doubt given as they were believed to be according to the roads as then traveled.

Adding fifteen miles for the distance from Macedon to Palmyra, we find the total distance to be traveled, all on foot, going from Whitmer's home in Seneca County, N. Y., to Kirtland, O., is three hundred and seventy miles, "preaching by the way," even to Indians. When we remember the time of year and the almost certainty of inclement weather and the unimproved condition of the roads in that then wild west, it could hardly be expected that Pratt, traveling "on foot" and preaching by the way, could reach Kirtland before the middle of November. Rigdon must have been converted in great haste, because, by the end of November, he is already a Mormon visitor at Smith's home in New York, and on December 7 is the recipient of a special revelation from God. These conclusions accord with the diary of Lyman Wight, who, being baptized on the same day as Rigdon, entered the fact as on November 14, 1830. These facts also confirm Howe's statement that Rigdon was baptized on the second day after Pratt's arrival. Another authority conversant with the occurrence, and desiring to be very exact, fixes the time as thirty-six hours after Pratt's arrival.

The Mormons are not all dull, and their cunning leaders readily saw that it would be unwise to advertise the suddenness of this conversion, since it might serve to identify the guilty conspirators. Therefore it is now represented that Pratt and Rigdon were at first in a state of great antagonism to Mormonism, which it took weeks to overcome. This cannot be, unless Pratt could walk three hundred and seventy miles in less than no time at all.

The facts of this sudden conversion and the subsequent concealment of its precipitate character all reveal a guilt on the part of those who are conscious of having done something they wish to keep from the knowledge of others. Had this conversion been honestly miraculous, there would have been no thought of concealment.

November 14, 1830, the date of Rigdon's baptism, was Sunday, and of course the first Sunday after the arrival of Pratt. At their first interview during this visit, Pratt requested and "readily" received permission to preach Mormonism in Rigdon's church. The prophet's account says:

"At the conclusion [of Pratt's sermon] Elder Rigdon arose and stated to the congregation that the information that they had received was of an extraordinary character, and certainly demanded their most serious consideration, and as the Apostle advised his brethren to prove all things, and hold fast that which is good,' so he would exhort his brethren to do likewise, and give the matter a careful investigation, and not turn against it without being fully convinced of its being an imposition, lest they should possibly resist the truth. This was indeed generous on the part of Elder Rigdon, and gave evidence of his entire freedom from any sectarian bias."

But according to Elder Lyman Wight's diary and the other evidence here adduced, Rigdon was already a convert. Why, then, all this false suggestion and hypocritical cant about Rigdon's generosity and freedom from prejudice? There is but one answer, and that is, the authors of it are thereby attempting to conceal the real facts.

On December 7, 1830, and with due promptness, be it observed, Rigdon, through Smith, received a revelation making him (Rigdon) scribe to the prophet, and informing Rigdon how, all unconsciously to himself, he had been preparing the way for Mormonism. This is speedily followed by another revelation, in which Rigdon's Ohio home, where he so carefully prepared the people for the reception of his new faith, is designated as the gathering place of the faithful, the promised land of the "Saints."

The Plagiarism Clinched

Thus far we have established in a general way the existence and nature of Solomon Spaulding's rewritten "Manuscript Found." By undenied evidence we have shown its theft from Patterson's printing office before Spaulding's death and under circumstances which made the latter suspect Sidney Rigdon as the thief; that Rigdon, prior to this time, was so intimate with the employees of that printing office as to give rise to a general belief that he was himself employed there, and beyond all question evidencing an intimacy such as afforded him opportunity to purloin the manuscript. By like uncontradicted evidence, we have shown Rigdon to have been in possession of a similar manuscript, the existence of which is not explained by any other literary work ever done by him, and which, on one of the several occasions when he exhibited it, was said by him to have been written by Spaulding. We have established a perfectly plain and probable connection between Smith and Rigdon through Parley P. Pratt, and such contradictory statements as to the sudden and miraculous conversions of the two latter as bring home with redoubled force the suspicion of a concealed motive, such as a conspiracy in fraud would best explain. It now remains only to make more certain the points of identity between Spaulding's rewritten "Manuscript Found" and the Book of Mormon. When this is done, we will have established the plagiarism and convicted Smith, Rigdon, and Pratt as the conspirators who perpetrated the fraud. With the identity of the distinguishing features in the "Manuscript Found" and Book of Mormon established, we will have demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt the very low origin of the Mormons' Book.

Some day will be done a work of supererogation in making a critical examination of the absurdities and contradictions upon which rest the claim of divinity. Present space will only allow the completion of that branch of the argument under consideration.

Before proceeding to the examination of the direct evidence, it will be well to give an account of the discovery of this identity, the very spontaneity of which adds force to the evidence adduced. Spaulding, like most authors, had a great fondness for his productions, and often read them to his friends. In 1832 or 1833, when Mormonism was fairly afloat, a Mormon preacher brought a copy of the Book of Mormon to Conneaut or New Salem, as it was sometimes called, the very place where Spaulding wrote most of his "Manuscript Found." A public meeting was appointed, in which the Book of Mormon was copiously read from and discussed by the elder. The historical part and style were immediately recognized by many present, among them John Spaulding, brother to Solomon Spaulding. Being "eminently pious," he was amazed and afflicted that his brother's manuscript should have been perverted to so wicked a purpose. With tear-filled eyes he arose in the meeting and expressed sorrow and regret that the writings of his sainted brother should be used for a purpose so vile and shocking. So much excitement was produced that a citizens' meeting appointed Dr. Philastrus Hurlburt to gather the evidence which afterwards was published in Howe's "Mormonism Unveiled."

In the first publication of Matilda Spaulding Davidson's letter, from which the above is gleaned, the words 'Mormon preacher" in the manuscript published over her name were, by the typesetter, converted into "woman preacher." Mormons at once undertook to impeach the statement, not by denying the main features of the story or its value as an argument, but wholly upon the ground that Mormons never had a "woman" preacher. As the result of this criticism, it was shown to have been due solely to typographical error, thus leaving the statement as corrected free from criticism upon this ground. The very spontaneity of this outburst and its surrounding circumstances absolutely preclude every imputation of premeditation, every suspicion of personal interest, and every impeachment based upon an assumed hatred of Mormonism. Further, when we in addition remember that this occurrence was comparatively close to the time when Spaulding read his manuscript to many of those present in this same audience, then this circumstance will rightfully be accorded a very great evidentiary weight.

The evidence gathered by Dr. Philastrus Hurlburt pursuant to the citizens' meeting of Conneaut was first published in Howe's "Mormonism Unveiled," in 1834, and is the most important single collection of original evidence ever made upon this subject. We will first examine that evidence in so far as it relates to the identity of Spaulding's "Manuscript Found" and the Book of Mormon, afterwards introducing such corroborating evidence as may be at hand. Unless otherwise indicated, the following evidence was taken before and published in 1834 by E. D. Howe in the nineteenth chapter of his "Mormonism Unveiled." The first witness introduced is John Spaulding, who lived with his brother Solomon Spaulding at Conneaut, O. Of a book his brother had been writing John Spaulding says this:

"The book he was writing was entitled 'Manuscript Found,' of which he read to me many passages. It was an historical romance of the first settlers of America, endeavoring to show that the American Indians are the descendants of the Jew, or the lost tribes. It gave a detailed account of their journey from Jerusalem by land and sea till they arrived in America under the command of Nephi and Lehi. They afterwards had quarrels and contentions and separated into two distinct nations, one of which he denominated Nephites and the other Lamanites. Cruel and bloody wars ensued, in which great multiudes were slain. They buried their dead in large heaps, which caused the mounds so common in this country. The arts, sciences and civilization were brought into view in order to account for all the curious antiquities found in various parts of North and South America. I have re cently read the Book of Mormon, and, to my great surprise, I find nearly all the same historical matter, names, etc., as they were in my brother's writings. I well remember that he wrote in the old style and commenced about every sentence with 'And it came to pass,' or 'Now it came to pass,' the same as in the Book of Mormon, and, according to my best recollection and belief, it is the same as my brother Solomon wrote, with the exception of the religious matter. By what means it has fallen into the hands of Joseph Smith, Jr., I am unable to determine. "JOHN SPAULDING."

Our next witness is Martha Spaulding, wife of John Spaulding. She says:

"I was personally acquainted with Solomon Spaulding about twenty years ago. I was at his house a short time before he left Conneaut; he was then writing a historical novel, founded upon the first settlers of America. He represented them as an enlightened and warlike people. He had for many years contended that the aborigines of America. were the descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel, and this idea he carried out in the book in question. The lapse of time which has intervened prevents my recollecting but few of the leading incidents of his writings; but the names of Nephi and Lehi are yet fresh in my memory as being the principal heroes of his tale. They were officers of the company which first came off from Jerusalem. He gave a particular account of their journey by land and sea till they arrived in America, after which disputes arose between the chiefs which caused them to separate into different bands, one of which was called Lamanites and the other Nephites. Between these were recounted tremendous battles, which frequently covered the ground with the slain; and their being buried in large heaps was the cause of the numerous mounds in the country. Some of these people he represented as being very large. I have read the Book of Mormon, which has brought fresh to my recollection the writings of Solomon Spaulding, and I have no manner of doubt that the historical part of it is the same that I read and heard read more than twenty years ago. The old, obsolete style and the phrases of 'and it came to pass,' etc., are the same. "MARTHA SPAULDING."

Our third witness is Henry Lake, Spaulding's business partner at Conneaut. He says:

"He [Spaulding] very frequently read to me from a manuscript which he was writing, which he entitled the 'Manuscript Found,' and which he represented as being found in this town. I spent many hours in hearing him read said writings, and became well acquainted with its contents. He wished me to assist him in getting his production printed, alleging that a book of that kind would meet with a rapid sale. I designed doing so, but the forge not meeting our anticipations, we failed in business, when I declined having anything to do with the publication of the book. This book represented the American Indians as the descendants of the lost tribes, gave an account of their leaving Jerusalem, their contentions and wars, which were many and great. One time, when he was reading to me the tragic account of Laban, I pointed out to him what I considered an inconsistency, which he promised to correct, but by referring to the Book of Mormon I find, to my surprise, that it stands there just as he read it to me then. Some months ago I borrowed the Golden Bible, put it into my pocket, carried it home, and thought no more about it. About a week after my wife found the book in my coat pocket as it hung up, and commenced reading it aloud as I lay upon the bed. She had not read twenty minutes when I was astonished to find the same passages in it that Spaulding had read to me more than twenty years before from his 'Manuscript Found.' Since that I have more carefully examined the said Golden Bible, and have no hesitation in saying that the historical part of it is principally, if not wholly, taken from the 'Manuscript Found.' I well recollect telling Mr. Spaulding that the so frequent use of the words, 'And it came to pass,' 'Now it came to pass,' rendered it ridiculous."
Copyright © B. H. Roberts Foundation
The B. H. Roberts Foundation is not owned by, operated by, or affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.