Page 2

	Home
	Page 1
	Page 3
	Page 4

Criticism of the Spalding Theory

Lester Bush also complains about the uniformity of names mentioned by the witnesses: "Of some 300 potential names, Hurlbut's witnesses all used the same handful of specific examples" (Bush 1977, 44). Bush does not explain why he finds this suspicious. Isn't this what we would expect, that the witnesses would remember only the principal names? If they claimed to remember a host of specific names from the Book of Mormon, we would have reason to be suspicious. Here is how the supposed uniformity actually breaks down. Artemas Cunningham mentioned only the name Nephi, and particularly the repetition of the phrase "I, Nephi." The names Nephi and Lehi were remembered by four people (John and Martha Spalding, John Miller, and Oliver Smith). John and Martha Spalding added the names Nephites and Lamanites. John Miller was the only person to list the names Moroni and Zarahemla, while Henry Lake was the only one to name Laban. Aaron Wright did not mention any specific names, but made a general statement, saying that the names in the Book of Mormon were the same as those in Spalding's manuscript. Nahum Howard did not refer to any names. Thus we have seven names: Nephi, Lehi, Nephites, Lamanites, Moroni, Zarahemla, and Laban. Of these seven, three were mentioned by only one person. It is difficult to find any suspicious uniformity here. If Hurlbut was manipulating the witnesses, why didn't he succeed in getting the others to remember the names Moroni, Zarahemla, and Laban?

Here is another example of the use of innuendo by the opponents of the Spalding theory. John Miller made this statement: "When Spalding divested his history of its fabulous names, by a verbal explanation, he landed his people near the Straits of Darien, which I am very confident he called Zarahemla, they were marched about that country for a length of time, in which wars and great blood shed ensued, he brought them across North America in a north east direction" (Howe 1834, 283). Lester Bush comments: "One of Hurlbut's sources recalled the group landing near the 'Straits of Darien' (now Panama), reflecting an early interpretation of Book of Mormon geography shared by Eber D. Howe, among others. (Joseph Smith reportedly placed the landing near Valparaiso, Chile.)" (Bush 1977, 44). Bush will not allow us to believe that Miller might have actually received his information from Spalding. This would prove that Miller was not remembering the Fabius story, which takes place in North America. No, the idea must have been planted in Miller's mind by Howe, although Howe did not interview Miller, and Bush provides no evidence that Howe made any reference to the Straits of Darien prior to receiving Miller's statement from Hurlbut. John Miller must have been a very impressionable and imaginative man, if he not only accepted a hint from Howe and Hurlbut, but also invented an entire conversation with Spalding around this hint. If this is Bush's position, it is not believable. Two years after Mormonism Unvailed was published with Miller's statement and one reference to the Straits of Darien by Howe, Joseph Smith and Orson Pratt were toying with the idea that Lehi had landed near Valparaiso, Chile. If Miller knew in 1833 that Lehi landed near the Straits of Darien, why didn't Joseph Smith publish this information before 1842?

The critics have simply ignored the unique elements and personal anecdote in the statements of the witnesses. John Spalding said that Solomon's story was meant "to account for all the curious antiquities, found in various parts of North and South America," which implies that the story dealt with more than just North America. Martha Spalding stated that some of the people in Solomon's story were "represented as being very large." Henry Lake said that he spent many hours listening to Spalding read from the "Manuscript Found," and he commented: "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" (Howe 1834, 282). John Miller said that he perused the "Manuscript Found" as often as he had leisure, and he also related his conversation with Spalding, in which Solomon explained that Lehi landed near the Straits of Darien. Aaron Wright said that he had "frequent conversations" with Spalding about the history that he was writing, showing that the Indians were the descendants of the lost tribes of Israel. Oliver Smith stated that he "read and heard read one hundred pages or more" of Spalding's manuscript. Nahum Howard stated that Spalding "frequently showed me his writings, which I read." Artemas Cunningham said that Spalding first outlined his story, and then they "sat down and spent a good share of the night, in reading them, and conversing upon them." But, we are required to believe that the Conneaut witnesses did not know what they were talking about and that they not only imagined that there was a second story called the "Manuscript Found," but also that they imagined having specific conversations with Spalding about this nonexistent manuscript.

Having convinced themselves that the eight Conneaut witnesses were confused, mindless sheep, who obediently followed Hurlbut's lead, the critics turn next to the testimony of Spalding's wife and daughter. Matilda Spalding Davison was interviewed in 1839 by a Mr. Austin, and her statement was published in the Boston Recorder in an article written by the Rev. John Storrs. Mrs. Davison was later interviewed again by Jesse Haven, a Mormon. When asked if she had sent a letter to Storrs, Mrs. Davison answered, no. Haven then asked her if she had signed the letter, and she again replied, no. Austin and Storrs admitted that this was correct, but insisted that Mrs. Davison had signed a statement of facts, based upon the notes which Austin took during the interview. When asked if the contents of the published statement were true, Mrs. Davison answered, "In the main." She did not object to any of the details of the statement.

Mrs. Davison has been accused by the critics of an enlargement of memory. This accusation is based upon Howe's account in Mormonism Unvailed of what Mrs. Davison reportedly told Hurlbut: "She states that Spalding had a great variety of manuscripts, and recollects that one was entitled the 'Manuscript Found,' but of its contents she has now no distinct knowledge" (Howe 1834, 287). In her 1839 statement, Mrs. Davison said that Solomon's story "claimed to have been written by one of the lost nation, and to have been recovered from the earth, and assumed the title of 'Manuscript Found'" (Davis, Scales, and Cowdrey 1977, 44). She also said that Solomon imitated the style of the Old Testament and introduced many "singular names," and that the neighbors often came in to hear Spalding read his manuscript. This seems to be more than she told Hurlbut, although she did not provide a great many details. However, the accusation of an enlargement of memory rests on the fact that Howe did not publish a signed statement by Mrs. Davison, but gave only a brief, secondhand summary. Mrs. Davison's daughter, Mrs. McKinstry, was interviewed in 1880 by Ellen Dickinson, and her statement was published in Scribner's Magazine (August 1880). She stated that as a young girl, she frequently heard her father read his manuscript to friends: "Some of the names that he mentioned while reading to these people I have never forgotten. They are as fresh to me today as though I heard them yesterday. They were Mormon, Maroni, Lamenite, Nephi" (Davis, Scales, and Cowdrey 1977, 52). This too seems to be more information than was given to Hurlbut. However, Mrs. McKinstry also said: "My mother was careful to have me with her in all the conversations she had with Hurlburt, who spent a day at my house. She did not like his appearance and mistrusted his motives" (Davis, Scales, and Cowdrey 1977, 54). Thus it appears that Spalding's wife and daughter simply did not want to volunteer any information to Hurlbut. Their lack of cooperation is demonstrated by Hurlbut's failure to obtain a statement from either woman, as he had done with the Conneaut witnesses. If Hurlbut had been such a powerful influence on the Conneaut witnesses, these two women should have been no match for his wiles.

Having done their best to undermine the testimonies of Spalding's wife and daughter, the critics perform a surprising turnabout, appealing to this same testimony to prove that the Spalding theory is false. Their argument is based upon statements made about what happened to Spalding's manuscript after it was taken to the printer. According to E. D. Howe, Mrs. Davison said: "While they lived in Pittsburgh, she thinks it was once taken to the printing office of Patterson & Lambdin; but whether it was ever brought back to the house again, she is quite uncertain: if it was, however, it was then with his other writings, in a trunk which she had left in Otsego county, N. Y." (Howe 1834, 287-88). In her 1839 statement, Mrs. Davison said that Mr. Patterson kept the manuscript for a long time "and informed Mr. S. that if he would make out a title page and preface, he would publish it, and it would be a source of profit." For some reason, Spalding failed to accomplish this: "At length the manuscript was returned to its author, and soon after we removed to Amity, Washington County, Pa., where Mr. S. deceased in 1816. The manuscript then fell into my hands, and was carefully preserved. It has frequently been examined by my daughter, Mrs. McKinstry, of Monson, Mass., with whom I now reside, and by other friends." In her 1880 interview, Mrs. McKinstry stated that, according to her mother, Patterson returned the "Manuscript Found" to Solomon and said, "'Polish it up, finish it, and you will make money out of it.'" After Solomon died, she and her mother moved to the home of her uncle, William H. Sabine, at Onondaga Valley, New York: "We carried all our personal effects with us, and one of these was an old trunk, in which my mother had placed all my father's writings which had been preserved." The contents of the trunk included sermons and other papers, including a story called "The Frogs of Wyndham" and the "Manuscript Found." Concerning the latter, Mrs. McKinstry said, "I did not read it, but looked through it and had it in my hands many times, and saw the names I had heard at Conneaut, when my father read it to his friends. I was about eleven years of age at this time." She remained at Sabine's house while her mother went to her father's home, but her mother did not take the trunk with her. In 1820 her mother married Mr. Davison of Hartwicks, New York, and sent for the trunk. After marrying Mr. McKinstry in 1828, she was joined by her mother at Monson, Massachusetts, but the trunk was left in the care of Jerome Clark in Hartwicks, until it was inspected by Hurlbut. (See Davis, Scales, and Cowdrey 1977, 44-45, 52-54) Thus the critics claim that Patterson returned Spalding's manuscript, which remained in the family trunk until it was removed by Hurlbut, who delivered it to Howe. And since the manuscript in Howe's possession was the Fabius story, there could not have been a second story called the "Manuscript Found."

Robert Patterson originally denied knowing anything about Spalding or his manuscript, but in 1842 he stated that Silas Engles, the foreman printer, "informed R. P. that a gentleman, from the East originally, had put into his hands a manuscript of a singular work, chiefly in the style of our English translation of the Bible." Patterson said that he read only a few pages, but "said to Engles, he might publish it, if the author furnished the funds for good security. He (the author) failing to comply with the terms, Mr. Engles returned the manuscript, as was supposed at that time, after it had been some weeks in his possession with other manuscripts in the office" (Davis, Scales, and Cowdrey 1977, 66). The ambiguous wording of this statement leaves open the question of whether the manuscript was actually returned. It is also curious that the critics have not questioned Patterson's original lack of knowledge and subsequent enlargement of memory.

The critics have largely ignored the testimonies of Joseph Miller and Redick McKee, who give further information about what happened after the Spaldings moved to Amity. In an 1869 statement, Miller said that Spalding read portions of the "Manuscript Found" to him in Amity and that he specifically remembered that the Amalekites placed a red mark on their foreheads. In an 1879 statement published in the Pittsburgh Telegraph, Miller said that he heard Spalding read most of his manuscript to friends and had frequent conversations with him about it: "My recollection is that Mr. S. had left a transcript of the manuscript with Mr. Patterson, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for publication, that its publication was delayed until Mr. S. would write a preface . . . ." In another statement dated 20 January 1882, Miller said that Spalding "took his manuscript to Mr. Patterson, then engaged in a publishing house. Mr. Patterson told him if he would write a title page he would publish it. He left a copy and moved to Amity. He afterwards went back to have his MS. published, but it could not be found." Miller repeated this information in another statement in February 1882. In 1886 Redick McKee stated that he had boarded with the Spaldings in Amity and that Solomon had told him that he "had prepared a copy of his manuscript for the printer and left it with Mr. Patterson for examination." However, Engles, the manager of the print shop, wanted Spalding to make a deposit, which Solomon was unable to do, and "the manuscript was laid aside in the office for further consultation." Spalding then moved to Amity: "While the question of printing was in abeyance Mr. S. wrote to Mr. P. that if the document was not already in the hands of the printer he wished it to be sent out to him in order that he might amend it by the addition of a chapter on the discovery of valuable relics in a mound recently opened near Conneaut. In reply Mr. P. wrote him that the manuscript could not then be found, but that further search would be made for it." In another statement, McKee said: "Mr. Spaulding told me that he had submitted the work to Mr. Patterson for publication, but for some reason it was not printed, and afterwards returned to him. I also understood he was then occasionally re-writing, correcting, and he thought improving some passages descriptive of his supposed battles." (See Davis, Scales, and Cowdrey 1977, 67-85, 102) The statements of Miller and McKee do not contradict those of Mrs. Davison and Mrs. McKinstry. Before the Spaldings moved to Amity, Patterson returned the manuscript with instructions for Solomon to write a title page, or to polish it up and finish it. However, Miller says that Patterson had a copy of the manuscript at the same time that Spalding was reading the manuscript to friends in Amity. And McKee also says that Patterson had a copy, while Spalding was rewriting and adding material to the manuscript in Amity. Therefore, it seems obvious that the copy which Mrs. Davison preserved in the trunk was not the printer's copy.

Jerald and Sandra Tanner castigated Davis, Scales, and Cowdrey for suggesting that there were two copies of Spalding's manuscript: "We have a difficult time accepting that there was more than one manuscript . . . . We feel that it is much more reasonable to believe there was only one manuscript" (Tanner 1977, 30). How do the Tanners back up their position? They accuse Davis, Scales, and Cowdrey of deliberately omitting a portion of Redick McKee's 1886 statement, which "is very damaging to their argument that Rigdon actually stole and retained Spalding's manuscript." As quoted above, McKee stated that Spalding wrote to Patterson, requesting that the manuscript be returned to him, so that he could add a chapter: "In reply Mr. P. wrote him that the manuscript could not then be found, but that further search would be made for it. This excited Mr. Spaulding's suspicions that Rigdon had taken it home. . . ." The Tanners point out that the following passage was omitted: "In a week or two it was found in the place where it had originally been deposited, and sent out to him. The circumstances of this finding increased Mr. S's suspicions that Rigden had taken the manuscript and made a copy of it with a view to ultimately publishing the story as the product of his own brain" (Tanner 1977, 30). The Tanners claim that since the manuscript was returned to Spalding, Rigdon could not have stolen the original manuscript. But, of course, this does not prove anything. What happened after the manuscript was returned to Spalding? Presumably, Spalding would have made changes to the manuscript and then sent it back to Patterson. Wasn't that the whole point of Spalding's request? In a final twist of logic, the Tanners destroy their own argument by stating: "In any case, Mr. McKee's statement is probably not too reliable anyway" (Tanner 1977, 30).

If a copy of the manuscript remained in the trunk, why didn't Hurlbut find it? Ellen Dickinson interviewed George Clark and his wife in 1880, who claimed that Mrs. Davison gave Spalding's manuscript to Mrs. Clark to read in 1831. Mrs. Clark said that she found it dry reading, returned the manuscript to Mrs. Davison, and could not remember any of the contents of the story. Critics claim that this proves that the manuscript remained in the trunk. But what it actually proves, if it proves anything, is that the manuscript had been removed from the trunk. What happened to it after Mrs. Clark returned it? Did Mrs. Davison place it back in the trunk, or did she store it in another location? Did she take it with her to Monson? Did she give it to another friend to read? Or, was the manuscript either accidentally or intentionally thrown out? All that we know is that when Hurlbut spoke with Mrs. Davison, she was noncommittal, but gave him permission to look inside the trunk in Hartwicks. And Hurlbut claimed that the only manuscript he found was the Fabius story. Furthermore, if Mrs. Clark's story is true, it proves that Mrs. Davison had knowledge of her husband's manuscript just two years before Hurlbut arrived. Therefore, the critics have no sound reason to accuse her of an enlargement of memory.

Both Fawn Brodie and Lester Bush complained that none of the witnesses issued a signed statement affirming that Spalding had written two separate stories having different subjects. Technically, this is correct. However, after Hurlbut found the Fabius story, he wrote on the cover: "The Writings of Sollomon Spalding. Proved by Aron Wright Oliver Smith John Miller and others. The testimonies of the above Gentlemen are now in my possession." And Howe stated that the Fabius story "has been shown to several of the foregoing witnesses, who recognise it as Spalding's, he having told them that he had altered his first plan of writing, by going farther back with dates, and writing in the old scripture style, in order that it might appear more ancient. They say that it bears no resemblance to the 'Manuscript Found'" (Howe 1834, 288). Furthermore, several witnesses stated that they were aware that Spalding had written more than one manuscript. John Miller said that Spalding "had written two or three books or pamphlets on different subjects; but that which more particularly drew my attention, was one which he called the 'Manuscript Found.'" Aaron Wright said: "Spalding had many other manuscripts, which I expect to see when Smith translates his other plate" (Howe 1834, 283-84).

None of the Conneaut witnesses implicated Sidney Rigdon as an accomplice in the production of the Book of Mormon. But their statements carry us only to 1812, when the Spaldings moved to Pittsburgh. E. D. Howe was apparently the first person to make a public accusation concerning Rigdon. Howe noted that Rigdon had lived in Pittsburgh in 1823 or 1824: "We have been credibly informed that he was on terms of intimacy with Lambdin, being seen frequently in his shop" (Howe 1834, 289). He speculated that Lambdin had given Spalding's manuscript to Rigdon, who then altered it and handed it over to Joseph Smith. Mrs. Davison said that Rigdon "was at this time connected with the printing office of Mr. Patterson, as he is well known in that region, and as Rigdon himself has frequently stated. Here he had ample opportunity to become acquainted with Mr. Spalding's manuscript, and to copy it if he chose." In his 1879 statement, Joseph Miller stated that Spalding's manuscript could not be found at the print shop: "Mr. S. told me that Sidney Rigdon had taken it, or that he was suspicioned for it. Recollect distinctly that Rigdon's name was used in that connection." Miller repeated this in his two 1882 statements. Redick McKee said in 1886: "Mr. Spaulding told me that while at Pittsburg he frequently met a young man named Sidney Rigdon at Mr. Patterson's bookstore and printing-office, and concluded that he was at least an occasional employee." When Spalding's manuscript could not be found at the print shop, Spalding suspected that Rigdon had taken it home, but it was later found. Ellen Dickinson interviewed Mrs. Ann Treadwell Redfield in 1880, who had been the principal of the Onandaga Valley Academy in 1818. She lodged with William Sabine and said that she frequently heard Mr. Sabine and Mrs. Spalding talk about Solomon's manuscript: "Mrs. Spaulding believed that Sidney Rogdon had copied the manuscript while it was in Patterson's printing office, in Pittsburgh. She spoke of it with regret. I never saw her after her marriage to Mr. Davison of Hartwick (1820)." (See Davis, Scales, and Cowdrey 1977, 45, 71, 83, 86)

Mrs. William Eichbaum, who had worked as a clerk in the Pittsburgh post office from 1811 to 1816, stated: "I knew and distinctly remember Robert and Joseph Patterson, J Harrison Lambdin, Silas Engles, and Sidney Rigdon, I remember Rev. Mr. Spaulding, but simply as one who occasionally called to inquire for letters. I remember there was an evident intimacy between Lambdin and Rigdon. They very often came to the office together. . . . I do not know what position, if any, Rigdon filled in Patterson's store or printing office, but am well assured he was frequently, if not constantly, there for a large part of the time when I was clerk in the postoffice. I recall Mr. Engles saying that 'Rigdon was always hanging around the printing office.' He was connected with the tannery before he became a preacher, though he may have continued the business whilst preaching" (Davis, Scales, and Cowdrey 1977, 96). Lambdin died in 1825, but his widow was contacted in 1879 by Robert Patterson. She was asked if she remembered Rigdon and some other people, but Mrs. Lambdin replied: "I am sorry to say I shall not be able to give you any information relative to the persons you name. They certainly could not have been friends of Mr. Lambdin" (Davis, Scales, and Cowdrey 1977, 99). Fawn Brodie claimed that this proved that Mrs. Eichbaum's statement was false. However, Lambdin was only eighteen in 1816, when Spalding died, and probably was not yet married. In 1819 Rigdon left his family farm and resided with Rev. Andrew Clark in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. He received his minister's license in March 1819 and went to Ohio in May, where he lived with Adamson Bentley. In 1821 he and Bentley traveled to Bethany, West Virginia, where they met with Alexander Campbell and discussed "the ancient order of things." Through Campbell's influence, Rigdon became pastor of a Baptist church in Pittsburgh in 1822. In 1824 the Baptist Communion was split between reformists and conservatives; Rigdon lost his position and obtained employment for two years as a tanner. He then moved to Ohio as a Campbellite preacher. Therefore, Mrs. Lambdin probably could not have known Rigdon while Spalding was alive, and her statement indicates that she did not even have any recollection of Rigdon as either a Baptist minister or as a tanner, when they were both living in the same city. Mrs. Eichbaum, on the other hand, did remember both Spalding and Rigdon and knew that Rigdon held positions as both a preacher and a tanner. Therefore, her memory seems to be much more reliable than Mrs. Lambdin's.

Peter Boyer, Rigdon's brother-in-law, stated that Sidney never lived in Pittsburgh before 1822, but this does not preclude the possibility that Sidney traveled to Pittsburgh, since the Rigdon farm was not more than fifteen miles from that city. Robert Du Bois stated that he began working at Pattterson and Lambdin's print shop in 1818, when he was twelve, and left in 1820. He said that he knew nothing of Spalding, or of his book, or of Rigdon. But, of course, Spalding was dead, and Rigdon was living elsewhere during this time period.

John Winter declared that when Rigdon was a minister in Pittsburgh, Sidney showed him Spalding's manuscript in the church office and stated: "A Presbyterian minister, Spalding, whose health had failed, brought this to the printers to see if it would pay to publish it. It is a romance of the Bible" (Davis, Scales, and Cowdrey 1977, 105). Winter's daughter and stepson both stated that Winter related this information to them.

At least two years before the Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph Smith, Rigdon made a statement in the presence of Adamson Bentley and Alexander Campbell concerning the discovery of gold plates and a new book that was to be published. Bentley reported in 1841: "I know that Sidney Rigdon told me there was a book coming out (the manuscript of which had been found engraved on gold plates) as much as two years before the Mormon book made its appearance in this country or had been heard of by me." Campbell said that Bentley's recollections "accorded with mine in every particular, except the year in which it occurred, he placing it in the summer of 1827, I in the summer of 1826, Rigdon at the same time observing that in the plates dug up in New York, there was an account, not only of the aborigines of this country, but also it was stated that the Christian religion had been preached in this country during the first century" (Davis, Scales, and Cowdrey 1977, 110-12). Critics point out that Rigdon was on bad terms with both Bentley and Campbell. Furthermore, they claim that Campbell is involved in a contradiction, since in 1831 he had stated firmly that the Book of Mormon was the sole production of Joseph Smith, but now he was asserting that Rigdon was involved. However, if Bentley and Campbell were conspiring to malign Rigdon, why did they disagree about the year in which the conversation took place? This seems to be an honest admission that their memories differed on this one point. In addition, the statement attributed to Rigdon by Bentley and Campbell is neutral with regard to the authorship of the Book of Mormon. It does not claim that Rigdon wrote the Book of Mormon, but only that Rigdon was aware that the book was going to be published several years before Sidney and Joseph supposedly met each other for the first time. Since Campbell accepted the Spalding theory, wouldn't he and Bentley have made up a conversation in which Rigdon clearly confessed his connection with Solomon's manuscript, if they were simply lying?

In 1885 Lorenzo Saunders, who had been a neighbor of the Smiths, stated: "I saw Sidney Rigdon in the Spring of 1827, about the middle of March. I went to Smiths to eat maple sugar, and I saw five or six men standing in a group and there was one among them better dressed than the rest and I asked Harrison Smith who he was and he said his name was Sidney Rigdon, a friend of Joseph's from Pennsylvania. I saw him in the Fall of 1827 on the road between where I lived and Palmyra, with Joseph. I was with a man by the name of Jugegsah, (sp.?) [Ingersoll]. They talked together and when he went on I asked Jugegsah (sp.?) who he was and he said it was Rigdon. Then in the summer of 1828 I saw him at Samuel Lawrence's just before harvest. I was cutting corn for Lawrence and went to dinner and he took dinner with us and when dinner was over they went into another room and I didn't see him again till he came to Palmyra to preach" (Davis, Scales, and Cowdrey 1977, 128). Brodie and Bush complain that it took Saunders thirty years to recall this information. However, Rodger Anderson has demonstrated that the allegation that Saunders had to mull this question over in his mind, before he came to a decision, is a complete fabrication, and that in fact Saunders did not hesitate in affirming that he had seen Rigdon at the Smith residence (Anderson 1990, 78-89). [For more on this topic, see Solomon Spalding and Revisionist History.] Saunders's memories of the circumstances in which he saw Rigdon seem to be quite specific, and two other people made similar statements. In 1879 Abel Chase reported: "During some of my visits at the Smiths, I saw a stranger there who they said was Mr. Rigdon. He was at Smith's several times, and it was in the year of 1827 when I first saw him there, as near as I can recollect." Mrs. S. F. Anderick said that Joseph Smith "was from home much summers. Sometimes he said he had been to Broome County, New York, and Pennsylvania. Several times while I was visiting Sophronia Smith at old Jo's house, she told me that a stranger who I saw there several times in warm weather and several months apart, was Mr. Rigdon. At other times the Smith children told me that Mr. Rigdon was at their house when I did not see him" (Davis, Scales, and Cowdrey 1977, 126, 134). In all three cases, these people did not claim that they had merely surmised that the stranger was Rigdon, but that they had been specifically informed by members of the Smith family that it was Ridgon.

It is doubtful that Rigdon had much influence on the revision of Spalding's manuscript, after giving it to Joseph Smith. Fawn Brodie published an itinerary, covering Rigdon's official duties as a minister between November 1826 and November 1830. However, the itinerary contains large gaps in the Spring and Fall of 1827 and the Summer of 1828, when Lorenzo Saunders said that he saw Sidney and Joseph together. Still, since Rigdon could not be there a large part of the time, he could have had little control over what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery did with the manuscript. Rigdon always denied any involvement with the Book of Mormon, but Oliver Cowdery seemed almost to take pride in emphasizing his role. Years after being excommunicated, Oliver stated at Council Bluffs, Iowa: "I wrote, with my own pen, the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph Smith . . . . Sidney Rigdon did not write it; Mr. Spaulding did not write it. I wrote it myself as it fell from the lips of the Prophet" (Ludlow 1976, 26-27). It is as if Oliver were guardedly asserting that he was largely responsible for the final form of the Book of Mormon.

Jerald and Sandra Tanner ask "why the affidavits collected by Hurlbut in Palmyra in 1833 do not mention Rigdon being with Joseph Smith before the Book of Mromn appeared? Since these early affidavits by Joseph Smith's neighbors are silent regarding this, we can only conclude that they knew nothing about the matter. Any statements given at a later date, therefore, carry very little weight" (Tanner 1977, 28). Well, one obvious reason comes to mind to explain why Rigdon was not mentioned: Joseph and Sidney did not want anyone to know about Rigdon's involvement, because he could be connected with Spalding's manuscript. Apparently, however, the Smith children were not very guarded in giving information to their friends.

Fawn Brodie quoted the testimony of James Jeffries as an example of the faulty memory of witnesses who tried to link Rigdon with the Spalding manuscript. On 20 January 1884, Jeffries wrote: "Forty years ago I was in business in St. Louis. The Mormons then had their temple in Nauvoo. I had business transactions with them. I knew Sidney Rigdon. He told me several times that there was in the printing office with which he was connected, in Ohio, a manuscript of the Rev. Spaulding, tracing the origin of the Indians from the lost tribes of Israel. This M.S. was in the office several years. He was familiar with it. Spaulding wanted it published, but had not the means to pay for the printing. He [Rigdon] and Joe Smith used to look over the M.S. and read it on Sundays. Rigdon said Smith took the MS. and said, 'I'll print it,' and went off to Palmyra, New York" (Davis, Scales, and Cowdrey 1977, 104). Brodie objected: "Forty years previous to 1884 would have been the year of Smith's assassination. Rigdon never lived in St. Louis, nor did Joseph Smith ever visit Ohio before 1831" (Brodie 1971, 453). Lester Bush consigns Jeffries's testimony to a note and says that the conversation took place "about 1840," instead of 1844. Jeffries was obviously confused about the location of the print shop; it was in Pennsylvania, rather than Ohio, but Rigdon had been a preacher in Ohio. Brodie has no basis for saying that Joseph Smith never visited Ohio before 1831; the truth is that his whereabouts cannot be accounted for. For example, Richard Bushman states that Joseph was not listed as a resident at the Smith farm by the census taker in 1820, the same year in which Joseph had his first vision, "probably because he lived elsewhere during the growing season" (Bushman 1984, 59). In his statement, Jeffries does not assert that Rigdon lived in St. Louis, as Brodie implies; he says only that he talked with Rigdon in St. Louis in 1844. And there is good evidence that Rigdon was in St. Louis in 1844 and was in a frame of mind to reveal the true origins of the Book of Mormon.

After Joseph Smith's death in 1844, Rigdon attempted to assert his right to lead the church, but was rejected. On 3 September 1844 Rigdon told Brigham Young that he had more power and authority than the apostles. The apostles then demanded Rigdon's license; he refused to give it up and said that "he should come out and expose the secrets of the church" (Joseph Smith 1976, 7:267). Rigdon was excommunicated on 8 September 1844. Before returning to Pittsburgh on 15 October 1844, he went to St. Louis. Apparently, Rigdon also attempted to obtain the manuscript of Joseph's translation of the Bible from Emma Smith. Robert J. Matthews records this entry in the Journal History of the Church, citing a statement written by Orson Hyde in St. Louis on 12 September 1844: "He [Sidney Rigdon] said . . . that Emma came to him on the morning of his leaving [Nauvoo] and told him that it was her intention . . . that the new translation and other important and sacred things, she should deliver up to him" (Matthews 1975, 48). Since Rigdon's leadership had been rejected by the church and he was trying to obtain documents from Emma, he might very well have made the statement to Jeffries, fulfilling his threat to expose the secrets of the church. In order to discredit Jeffries, we must believe both that he was a friend of Rigdon and that forty years later, for no apparent reason, he made up a malicious lie about Rigdon's confession. It is significant that Rigdon did not allege that Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon, but confirmed that Spalding was the author and admitted his own role in obtaining the manuscript.

R. W. Alderman stated that, while snowbound in a hotel in Mentor, Ohio, in February 1852, he had a conversation with Martin Harris, who told him: "Rigdon had stolen a manuscript from a printing office in Pittsburgh, Pa., which Spaulding, who had written it in the early part of the century, had left there to be printed, but the printers refused to publish it, but Jo and Rigdon did, as the 'Book of Mormon'" (Davis, Scales, and Cowdrey 1977, 145). John C. Bennett also wrote in his History of the Saints that he had been told "that the Book of Mormon was originally written by the Rev. Solomon Spalding . . . ." (Bennett 1842, 123).

Fawn Brodie offered a further objection to the Spalding theory: "Protagonists of the theory do not explain why, if Rigdon wrote the Book of Mormon, he was content to let Joseph Smith found the Mormon Church and hold absolute dominion over it throughout the years, so secure in his position that he several times threatened Rigdon with excommunication when Rigdon opposed his policies" (Brodie 1971, 442). The founding of a church by Joseph may not have been part of the original intention of either Sidney or Joseph. But once Sidney had handed over Spalding's manuscript and Joseph had assumed the mantle of a prophet, there was little that Sidney could do, without revealing his own involvement. In any case there is evidence that Sidney did much more than oppose Joseph's policies. In 1842 Joseph accused Rigdon of secretly plotting with John C. Bennett and Governor Carlin to have Joseph arrested. Rigdon had in fact received a rather incriminating letter from Bennett, which Orson Pratt handed over to Joseph. Rigdon denied any involvement in the plot, and Carlin seemed to absolve him of any responsibility, but Rigdon was adamantly opposed to Joseph's introduction of the practice of polygamy. For various reasons, both Joseph and Sidney reached the conclusion that it was best for Rigdon to move his family to Pittsburgh, not long before Joseph's death. After Joseph's murder, Rigdon rushed back to Nauvoo to proclaim himself as guardian of the church. It is apparent that Rigdon wanted to head the church, but could not dislodge Joseph. And Brodie might well have asked, if Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon without Rigdon's involvement, why did he keep Rigdon at his side, even after accusing Sidney of treachery?

Brodie gave another reason for identifying Joseph Smith as the author of the Book of Mormon. She thought that the Gadianton band, with their secret oaths, revealed an anti-Masonic strain in the book. Since anti-Masonic feeling was aroused in 1827 by the disappearance of William Morgan, who was writing an exposé of Freemasonry, it seemed natural to assume that the Gadianton band was a caricature of Masonry. However, I have shown that the Gadianton band has other historical precedents, for example, the robber bands described by Josephus, such as the Sicarii and Zealots, as well as the conspiracy of Catiline. In any case, E. D. Howe also thought that he saw anti-Masonry in the Gadianton band and reported that Solomon's widow had said "that Mr. Spalding, while living, entertained a strong antipathy to the Masonic Institution, which may account for its being so frequently mentioned in the Book of Mormon" (Howe 1834, 288).

The testimony of the eight Conneaut witnesses does pose one problem. Five of the witnesses specifically said that they did not remember the religious matter contained in the Book of Mormon. For example, John Miller said, "I have recently examined the Book of Mormon, and find in it the writings of Solomon Spalding, from beginning to end, but mixed up with scripture and other religious matter, which I did not meet with in the 'Manuscript Found.' Many of the passages in the Mormon Book are verbatim from Spalding, and others in part" (Howe 1834, 283). Fawn Brodie believed that this proved that the witnesses were really remembering the "Manuscript Story," which according to Brodie "had no religious matter whatever" (Brodie 1971, 449). And if they were confused on this point, they were probably wrong in claiming that there was a second story called the "Manuscript Found."

E. D. Howe incorrectly stated that the Fabius story takes place "a short time previous to the Christian era" (Howe 1834, 288). Amazingly, Brodie repeats this error: "It was an adventure story of some Romans sailing to Britain before the Christian era" (Brodie 1971, 447). In his article, Lester Bush states twice that Howe's description of the "Manuscript Story" is "accurate" (Bush 1977, 46, 53). Apparently, neither Brodie nor Bush recognized Howe's blatant error. In reality, the story takes place in the reign of Constantine, and Fabius and his companions were already Christians. And the story does contain religious matter, contrary to Brodie's assertion that it "had no religious matter whatever." On page five, a mariner acting as a prophet, delivers a divine prediction, saying, "A voice from on high hath penetrated my soul & the inspiration of the Almighty hath bid me proclaim . . . ." On page eight, after landing in America, Fabius states, "As we all professed to believe in the religion of Jesus Christ we unanimously chose Trojanus the mate of the Ship, a pious good man, to be our minister, to lead our devotions morning & evening & on the Lords day." They also built a church. On page ten, a seaman vows to make an Indian maiden "as good hearted a christian as any of your white damsels." Chapter III states that a tribe called the Deliwans believed in "the great & good Spirit, who resides in the Sun, who is the father of all living creatures . . . ." They also believed in a great, malignant Spirit and in a dark, miry swamp, into which the wicked would be cast. In addition, the chapter describes a sacred Indian ceremony, in which a holy sacrifice involving black and white dogs symbolized the cleansing of sin. On page nineteen, a man named Crito says that the Delawans had been so kind and generous that they had "fulfilled the law of Christian charity." Chapter VII is wholly devoted to expounding the theology of the Ohons, which the narrator learned by reading their Sacred Roll. Page forty-four describes the institution of the hereditary office of high priest, with four assistant priests.

This is sufficient to prove that the "Manuscript Story" does contain religious matter. Therefore, if the witnesses were claiming that there was absolutely no religious matter in the "Manuscript Found," they could not have been thinking of the "Manuscript Story" instead. Henry Lake did not object to the religious matter in the Book of Mormon and specifically remembered the "tragic account of Laban." According to the Book of Mormon, Lehi was instructed by the Lord in a dream to send his sons back to Jerusalem to obtain from Laban the plates of brass, which contained a history of the Jews, prophecies, and genealogies. When Nephi found Laban, the Spirit told him to kill Laban. Thus, the account of Laban itself contains religious matter. Martha Spalding and Artemas Cunningham also did not object to the religious matter in the Book of Mormon, and all three of these witnesses asserted that Spalding wrote in a scriptural style.

Those witnesses who said that they did not remember the religious parts in the Book of Mormon probably did not mean to say that there was no religious matter at all in the "Manuscript Found," and it is difficult to believe that Spalding would have written a story with no religious content. The witnesses probably meant merely that they did not remember Solomon quoting chapter after chapter of Isaiah, as the Book of Mormon does. The chapters of Isaiah are found in the first part of the Book of Mormon, comprising the "small plates of Nephi," which was the last part of the book to be written. Joseph and Oliver had to revise the beginning, because Martin Harris had lost the first 116 pages of manuscript. Therefore, it is likely that the chapters of Isaiah were inserted as filler. John Miller acknowledged that Spalding's manuscript had been altered. Inserting scripture into the first section of the book could have been part of the revision. In addition, Solomon had a period of three or four years after moving from Conneaut to Pennsylvania, in which he could have added material to his manuscript, which people in Conneaut might not have known about. None of the witnesses who knew Spalding in Amity objected to the religious matter.

Critics of the Spalding theory have made misleading statements, suggesting that Spalding wrote the Fabius story, recovered by Hurlbut, in one distinct style and that since the Book of Mormon was written in a different style, Spalding was not the author. Brodie stated: "Spaulding was heir to all the florid sentiment and grandiose rhetoric of the English Gothic romance. He used all the stereotyped patterns -- villainy versus innocent maidenhood, thwarted love, and heroic valor -- thickly encrusted with the tradition of the noble savage" (Brodie 1971, 450). Certainly, this florid style is found in the "Manuscript Story," but it comprises only a fraction of the book. Many sections of the manuscript are written in a simple, straightforward style, in the manner of an observer recording the customs of a foreign culture. Spalding went into great detail, describing the physical traits of groups of people, the type of clothing they wore, the crops they cultivated, the animals they raised, their pottery, houses, writing, religion, government, military training, fortifications, athletic competition, games, and courtship and marriage customs. Consider the style of this passage, describing the houses of the Ohons:

Their houses were generally but one story high -- built of wood, being framed & covered with split clapboards or shingles & in the inside the walls were formed of clay, which was plastered over with a thin coat of lime. Their houses seldom consisted of more than three apartments. As to their chimnies, they construt a wall of stone about five feet hight against which they build their fire -- from the top of this wall they construct their chimney with thin pieces of split timber on the inside of which they plaister wet, dirt or clay -- which compleatly covers & adheres to the timber & prevents the fire from having any operation upon it. The inside of their houses, as the women generally practiss neetness makes a much better appearance than the outside. (Spalding 1910, 23-24)

There is nothing gothic or florid about the style of this description. But, of course, Spalding varied his style according to his subject matter. Some sections of his manuscript reproduce the speeches of military leaders in councils of war, much like the rhetorical speeches which Greek and Roman writers preserved in their histories. When recording the conversation of mariners, Spalding even imitates the salty language of seamen. Incidentally, it should be noted that Spalding's story fits more closely than does the Book of Mormon Lucy Smith's description of the information which Joseph related to his family about the customs of the Nephites. Spalding covered many of the topics which Lucy listed, which suggests that the Book of Mormon originally included such detailed accounts.

What Brodie identifies as Spalding's florid style is really only one of a number of different styles which Solomon used in the "Manuscript Story." Therefore, it is not impossible to believe that Spalding might have adopted a different style in writing the "Manuscript Found," upon which the Book of Mormon is based. After all, the "Manuscript Story" takes place in the time of Constantine in the fourth century A.D., and Spalding was not attempting to write a Nephite bible, in imitation of the Hebrew Bible. If Spalding used the very same style in writing both books, critics would be able to complain, but they should not object, if Spalding adapted his style to the story.

Witnesses testified that Solomon wrote the "Manuscript Found" in a scriptural style. John Spalding said, "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" (Howe 1834, 280). Henry Lake stated, "I well recollect telling Mr. Spalding, that the so frequent use of the words 'And it came to pass,' 'Now it came to pass' rendered it ridiculous" (Howe 1834, 282). In 1880 Abner Jackson said that when the Book of Mormon "was brought to Conneaut and read there in public, old Esq. Wright heard it, and exclaimed, 'Old Come to Pass has come to life again'" (Davis, Scales, and Cowdrey 1977, 64). In 1882 Joseph Miller wrote: "The words 'Moreover,' 'And it came to pass,' occurred so often that the boys about the village called him 'Old Came to Pass'" (Davis, Scales, and Cowdrey 1977, 72). Since the Fabius story does not contain the repetition of "And it came to pass," it does not seem possible that these witnesses could have confused this story with the "Manuscript Found," written in a scriptural style. Therefore, the "Manuscript Found" must have been a separate and distinct book.

The argument from style is a two-edged sword. Here is an example of the florid style used by Spalding in his Fabius story:

Amazement & terror seized the minds of the whole multitude of citizens; [they] were unprepared to defend the fort against such a formidable force. Lamock however placed himself at the head of about one thousand warriors & attempted to beat them back from the walls & prevent their making a breach. But it was imposible with his small band to withstand the strength of such a mighty army -- They broke down part of the palasadoes & entered the fort thro' the break -- & immediately began the massacre of the defenceless multitude without regard to age or sex -- Sambal being anxious to find Lamesa rushed forward with a small band & surrounded a block house -- He then broke down the door & entered -- Here he beheld all the Ladies of the imperial family & many other Ladies of distinction -- He instantly sprang towards Lamesa in order to seize her -- but was prevented by Heliza who steped between them & falling upon her knees implored him to spare the life of Lamesa -- Scarce had she spoken when the cruel monster buried his sword in her bosom & she fell lifeless before the eyes of her dearest friend -- Lamesa gave a scream, & looking fiercely on Sambal she exclaimed. Thou monster of vilany and cruelty, could nothing saciate your revenge but the death of my dear friend, -- the amiable, the innocent Heliza Here is my heart -- I am prepared for your next victim. (Spalding 1910, 107)

Now let us compare a passage from Oliver Cowdery's history, which appeared in the Messenger and Advocate. Oliver is describing the scene of the great battle of Cumorah:

Here may be seen where once sunk to nought the pride and strength of two mighty nations; and here may be contemplated, in solitude, while nothing but the faithful record of Mormon and Moroni is now extant to inform us of the fact, scenes of misery and distress -- the aged, whose silver locks in other places and at other times would command reverence; the mother, who in other circumstances would be spared from violence; the infant, whose tender cries would be regarded and listened to with a feeling of compassion and tenderness; and the virgin, whose grace, beauty and modesty, would be esteemed and held inviolate by all good men and enlightened and civilized nations, alike disregarded and treated with scorn! -- In vain did the hoary head and man of gray hairs ask for mercy; in vain did the mother plead for compassion; in vain did the helpless and harmless infant weep for very anguish, and in vain did the virgin seek to escape the ruthless hand of revengeful foes and demons in human form -- all alike were trampled down by the feet of the strong, and crushed beneath the rage of battle and war! (Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate, July 1835)

The ideas and sentiments in this passage and the style in which they are expressed are very similar to those of Spalding. Was Oliver utilizing material from Solomon's manuscript? The Book of Mormon is strangely sanitized of all but a few female characters, but there is one passage in one of Mormon's epistles which resembles the accounts given by Solomon and Oliver. Mormon is describing atrocities which occurred at the tower of Sherrizah and at the city of Moriantum: "For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue -- and after they had done this thing, they did murder them in a most cruel manner, torturing their bodies even unto death" (Moroni 9:9-10). After the battle of Cumorah, Mormon also laments: "And my soul was rent with anguish, because of the slain of my people, and I cried: O ye fair ones, how could ye have departed from the ways of the Lord! O ye fair ones, how could ye have rejected that Jesus, who stood with open arms to receive you! Behold, if ye had not done this, ye would not have fallen. But behold, ye are fallen, and I mourn your loss. O ye fair sons and daughters, ye fathers and mothers, ye husbands and wives, ye fair ones, how is it that ye could have fallen! But behold, ye are gone, and my sorrows cannot bring your return" (Mormon 6:16-20). Such melodramatic sentiment could have been written by Spalding. And there are other passages which could be cited, such as the scenes of religious conversion in the Book of Mormon.

The "Manuscript Story" could not have been the book which Spalding took to Patterson's print shop, because it certainly was not ready to be published. For example, Spalding began chapter eight using Baska as the name of the mythical founder of the Ohons' religion and government. Baska is said to have two little sons. Spalding stopped in mid-sentence and started chapter eight over again, this time stating that the character's name was Lobaska and that he had four sons, the eldest being about eighteen years old. In fact Spalding frequently changed the spelling of names in his manuscript: Siota becomes Sciota, Hambock is changed to Rambock, Bombal becomes Bambo, Galanga is also called Talanga, Hamkien becomes Hamkoo, and Mammoons are designated as Mammouths. Furthermore, the "Manuscript Story" is unfinished, ending just before a confrontation between the Sciotan and Kentuck armies. Spalding could not have intended to print the "Manuscript Story" in this condition.

Lester Bush provided one new bit of evidence in the Spalding debate. He stated that Dean Jessee informed him that page 135 of Spalding's manuscript was written on the back of an unfinished letter which Solomon wrote to his parents, "referring to correspondence dated January 1812 -- almost certainly penned prior to the narrative text on the other side of the same sheet" (Bush 1977, 55). Since the manuscript continues for another thirty-six pages, Spalding must have still been working on his story after January 1812, but he had supposedly set it aside at least two years earlier to work on the "Manuscript Found." Unfortunately, Bush did not reproduce the text of the letter, and in fact did not even say that he saw it himself. The text of the letter has since been made public and reads as follows:

Fond Parents
I have receivd 2 letters [--] jun 1812. the last mentiond Mr Kings dismision from you -- wich no doubt is great trial to you -- Christian Minnister is great loss to any [to any] people -- teaches us the uncertainty of all Sublinary enjoyments & where to place our better trust & happiness

The supporters of the Spalding theory have been criticized for proposing that there were two copies of the "Manuscript Found." The critics insist that there was only one copy, the copy which Hurlbut found, the Fabius story, which is clearly unfinished. But if the critics maintain that the Fabius story was the only one which Spalding wrote, they must also believe that he polished it up and provided it with an ending. It follows then that there must have been a second copy of the manuscript which Spalding took to the printer. However, since Hurlbut did not find the finished copy in the trunk, the printer must not have returned it to Spalding. Thus, by the logic of their own argument, the critics are forced to admit what they deny to the supporters of the Spalding theory.