|
Document: Matthew B. Brown's Remarks on "Solomon Spaulding and the Book of Mormon" Source: "Ask the Apologist" at FAIR Web-site |
"Ask the Apologist" screen-shot from FAIR Web-site
Copyright © 2003 by The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research.
All Rights Reserved. No portion may be reproduced without express written
consent of FAIR. -- ("fair use" excerpts only provided here)
See also: R. & R. Brown: Downloadable free copy of TLIWTD#2
FAIR Guide: Spaulding Theory | What is the Manuscript Found?
|
Ask the Apologist Q. I have heard that Joseph Smith plagiarized the writings of Solomon Spaulding to produce the Book of Mormon. I know this has been refuted before, but can you help me understand this issue and get to the bottom of it? A. (by Matthew B. Brown) When the Book of Mormon was first published in March of 1830 its detractors believed that it did not have a divine origin as claimed, but was an impious fraud perpetrated solely by the Prophet Joseph Smith (who was listed on the title page of the book -- in accordance with federal copyright law -- as the "author and proprietor"). (See the FAIR web-site for remainder of text) |
|
Dale's Comments, Part 1:
As I was Going to the Fair... The interesting thing about visiting the F.A.I.R. web-site is that I never know what next I'll find there -- or how long what I do find there will remain on-line. That's why I just made the screen-shot of FAIR's latest "Ask the Apologist -- Solomon Spaulding and the Book of Mormon" addition and placed it at the top of this web-page. If history repeats itself and the page content suddenly changes (as it did with one of their Robert and Rosemary Brown pages -- see my old screen-shot), I want to be able to keep Matthew B. Brown's remarks, as originally posted, in front of me for future consultation. I am assuming this Matthew B. Brown is the author of the faith-promoting All Things Restored and the same "Matt Brown" whose work the Director of the Kirtland Temple Historic Center once spoke well of, and not, perhaps, some close relative of apologists Robert and Rosemary Brown. In reading Matthew's on-line remarks, I'm pleasantly surprised that he resisted any initial temptation to simply rehash a few paragraphs from his namesakes' dreadful descriptions, and say his questioner's query has been answered. Considering what has been written by some faithful Mormon defenders in the past, I must say that I feel Matthew has done a much "fairer" job than some, in giving us a modern reply to that nagging old question: "Did Joseph Smith plagiarize the writings of Solomon Spalding to produce the Book of Mormon?" First of all, let me say that I hope the quoted query was an actual question posed by a real person, and not just a self-serving statement with a question mark appended, written up to give our apologist an excuse to "get to the bottom" of "this issue." A little bird recently told me that a major publisher in Missouri is releasing a book about Spalding, etc., and it would be rather naughty of my LDS friends to fire a preemptive shot across the bow of an enemy boat before it leaves dry-dock. On the other hand, perhaps a critical review or two of Matthew's recent reflections can help him and others hone their skills (and supplement their sources) in combating that tenacious "Spalding theory" one more time. Secondly, I really should make note of the fact that Matthew's inquisitor only asked for help in understanding the issue -- he (or she) did not really ask our good apologist if Brother Joseph had been so mean as to appropriate material from poor old Mr. Spalding's manuscripts, way back before the truth sprang out of the ground and all of that latter day stuff. Not much overt "combat" in this approach, and I must say, I really do like FAIR's new "kinder and gentler" rejoinder to the Spalding-Rigdon claims; it leaves a few windows open, just in case the air gets too hot in the apologist's chambers this time around. Consulting the Feb. 2003 issue of the on-line Fair Journal, I see that Matthew's remarks on the Spalding-Rigdon claims are getting the same high level attention as are seminal subjects like "caffeinated beverages." Maybe that's progress, and the next thing we'll see from the scholarly dilettantes in Deseret will be an article on how to read "View of the Hebrews" without breaking the Word of Wisdom. But enough of my insipid introductory remarks -- let's get to some real "meat," the kind we can blamelessly chew upon during the famine of a frigid February. "Author and Proprietor?" Our well-meaning apologist sort of gets off on the wrong foot, at the very beginning, where he says that Bro. Joseph "was listed on the title page" of the 1830 Book of Mormon, as the "author and proprietor" of the work, "in accordance with federal copyright law." The Seer of Palmyra might have just as well signed off simply as "proprietor" when he submitted his title page facsimile to R. R. Lansing, in Utica, back in 1829. Had he done so, he could have saved all of us Latter Day Saint apologists (yes I still lay hold to that troublesome title) a great deal of embarrassment through the ages, as we've tried to tell confused readers that young Joe did not actually write that book 1 Fawn M. Brodie's assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. But, that's a minor lapse. We can excuse Matthew of that slight incongruity and move on to more interesting matters. Is it really true, as Matthew says, that "When the Book of Mormon was first published in March of 1830 its detractors believed that it... was an impious fraud perpetrated solely by the Prophet Joseph Smith"? I wonder... I won't pile up all the relevant citations here, but I do believe I recall reading a whole stack of very early periodical articles telling folks that Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery, or a secretive "lawyer" from round about Palmyra concocted the thing. Wasn't it Jonathan A. Hadley who wrote in 1829 that "it appears not a little strange... that a person like Smith (very illiterate) should have been gifted by inspiration" to bring forth the book? Hadley was a Palmyra editor who lived within walking distance of the Smith cabin and knew Martin Harris personally, yet he says nothing about any local rumors claiming young Joe as the book's author. A few years later Hadley clarified his position on the matter, by saying that "An old manuscript historical novel, the property of a deceased clergyman in Pennsylvania, had previously fallen into Jo' s possession... The "translator," whether Cowdery or some other person, dressed up this old manuscript, merely adding to it whatever the Book of Mormon can be said to contain of a religious cast, and adapting its general phraseology as far as possible to that of the bible; but preserving the general original narrative..." Well, that was one man's opinion, I suppose, but it seems that Hadley and most other attentive "locals" never considered blaming young Joe for creating the Nephite Record. By the way, if anybody is interested in consulting all those very early citations, I mentioned, you'll find a bunch of them, laid out more or less in chronological order, in my review of Dr. Terryl L. Givens' recent book. Yes, yes, there were folks who thought that young Joe wrote the text, but most of his neighbors knew him well enough to laugh at that kind of idea. Once the book was published and more people could read its title page (first printed in 1829), it was natural for editorial commentators (such as the reviewer in the Rochester paper of Apr. 2, 1830) to say things like "The 'author and proprietor' is one 'Joseph Smith, jr.'" But, even there, the reviewer places author and proprietor between quote marks, as though to say, "the ostensible author and proprietor." I see no railing here (or in other contemporary sources like the Sept. 2, 1829 Palmyra Reflector) against the young Seer for being the "sole" perpetrator of the so-called "impious fraud;" in fact, Abner Cole, editor of the Reflector, referred to Smith as "that spindle shanked ignoramus," not a title well bestowed upon the author of a 590 page history of ancient America! Knowledge of Smith's childlike illiteracy seems to have been widespread at an early day. Orsamus Turner (another local newspaperman who later had more to say about the subject) stated in 1831 that "the founder of Mormonism is Jo. Smith, an ignorant and nearly unlettered man living near the village of Palmyra." Again, Turner does not pin the blame on young Joe as the "sole" perpetrator of the "fraud." When he added to his assertions, in 1850, Turner, like Hadley before him, felt that whoever produced the Book of Mormon was substantially "aided by Oliver Cowdery," and he did not mean Cowdery served merely as a scribe. Still, it must be admitted that Turner received the impression that the book was "a production of the Smith family" and not the work "of an educated man or woman." Despite the book's literary shortcomings, Turner was probably wrong to dismiss it as "a strange medley of scripture, romance, and bad composition," crafted by Mother Smith, a few of her brood, and cousin Cowdery. If Matthew is seeking a little support for his notion that folks were pointing at young Joe being the book's "sole" perpetrator, Turner's accounts provide no aid and comfort for that notion. People who actually lived in the area and had some reason to monitor events thereabouts, knew that the Palmyra Seer could barely read during the 1820s, let alone write a coherent paragraph. Today we can buy the BYU Studies stack of documentary DVDs, spin the discs in our computers, and view examples of Bro. Joseph's horrible early penmanship for ourselves -- it's a scary experience. Obviously those people who accused our Seer of scripting the Nephite Record either were totally unaware of his limited literacy, or had heard tell he had a few educated scribes at his command. So, unless Bro. Matthew can come up with a few supportive sources, I think we must agree that when young Joe and his friends left New York for Ohio at the beginning of 1831, he departed under the cloud of having been the primary promoter of the so-called Gold Bible fraud -- not as having been the writer of the book. As Abner Cole said, on Feb. 28, 1831, when the Mormons were departing the Empire State: "There remains but little doubt, in the minds of those at all acquainted with these transactions, that Walters, who was sometimes called the conjurer... first suggested to Smith the idea of finding a book." Smith, the fraud-finder? Yeah, his neighbors could swallow that idea. Smith, the final editor of the golden plates? Perhaps. But Smith, the pseudo-scriptural author? No way! Even if young Joe (or one of his family or delinquent pals) did compose the thing, would that necessarily have made the coming forth of the "fulness of the gospel" an "impious fraud?" The Rev. Dr. William H. Whitsitt, for one, didn't think so. He no more believed in Nephites than he did in Neptunians, but Whitsitt was prepared to give the early Mormons the benefit of the doubt and he referred (in his biography of Sidney Rigdon) to the Gold Bible as a "pious fraud." Now there's a notion that Liahona LDS, Signature Books Saints, Cultural Churchgoers, and those Rebellious RLDS can cozy up to. Why, shucks! The Almighty just works in mysterious ways to confute the wisdom of "the learned" in these latter days -- that's all. If you want to read a reasonably intelligent early review of the Book of Mormon, consult the one written by Walt Whitman's brother, back in 1834. The reviewer writes under no illusion of the book being historically genuine -- he says it "is with some art adapted to the known prejudices of a portion of the community" as it existed in Jacksonian America. But Jason Whitman was sagacious enough not to charge Joseph Smith, Jr. with writing the Nephite Record; he leaves the authorship question an open one. Whitman's 1834 review beats the pants off of sour old Alexander Campbell's 1831 "Delusions" article, six ways to Sunday. Besides which, as Dr. Givens (and B. H. Roberts before him) perceptively realized, Rev. Campbell slowly evolved 2 in his published statements regarding the supposed authorship of the book. Once he realized he'd lost most of Sidney Rigdon's Campbellite parishioners for good, Rev. Alex came around to the Spalding-Rigdon explanations 3 for our first tome of latter day scripture. Fawn Brodie may have built an entire psycho-bio reputation by standing on the promises of Alex her mentor, but the good Reverend himself turned those 1831 "Smith alone" foundations to sand in his various subsequent pronouncements. Shame upon you, Alexander, for leading Sister Fawn astray from saintly Ogden and into the dens of apostasy with your baseless accusations! __________ 1 Had Joseph Smith, jr. understood copyright law just a little better in 1830, he probably would have not sent the Book of Mormon forth into the world with himself listed as "Author." However, this lapse in good judgment does not end with Joseph's lack of proper attention to the title page -- he also identifies himself as "The Author" at the end of his "Preface" (pp. iii-iv). That introduction accomplished little more than to "stir up the hearts of this generation, that they might not receive" his work as an honest effort. The self-serving "Preface" was dropped from LDS and RLDS editions of the book over a century ago. 2 If I must fault Matthew on any particular important point -- and I suppose that is my duty here, right? -- it would have to be for his failure to check out what several of his source-people had to say about Smith, Rigdon, Spalding, relevant texts, etc. later on in their information-giving careers. It's all good and well to tell the members down at the ward meeting house that Elder Benjamin Winchester said such-and-such on one fine day back in 1840; but if we really want to be honest about such things, we also need to admit that he (and several others) changed their tunes substantially as time went by, right? -- "Play it again, Ben." It certainly gets my attention when one of my LDS friends can quote Sister Emma Smith, chapter and verse, in her knowledgeable refutations of the Spalding-Rigdon claims. But I get just as attentive when one of my own co-religionists hands me certified Emma statements or excerpts from her long-suppressed diary, declaring that her husband never practiced polygamy. We all know that Emma lied about that no-polygamy stuff, so why should I (or anybody else) trust her too closely when she starts telling us about other parts of our mysterious Mormon past? Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Matthew B. Brown can't present Em's and Ben's testimony in his apologetics, that's a no-brainer. But, if he or any other Utah Elder decides to do that in order to demonstrate their polemical positions, I expect them to be honest enough with us all to clue us into the problematic side of their sources. FAIR enough? 3 The Rev. Alexander Campbell's public progression, from supporter of the "Smith alone" explanation to propounder of the Spalding-Rigdon explanation for Book of Mormon origins, is documented in the comments section accompanying excerpts from Dr. Terryl L. Givens' 2002 book, By the Hand of Mormon. |
|
Dale's Comments, Part 2:
The Real Author of Mormonism Unvailed? Well, at least Matthew spelled the title correctly. Word has it that round about 1828 an eastern printer did a knock-off of Bill Morgan's exposé, renaming the filched booklet "Masonry Unvailed" to hide the dirty deed. Anti-Masonic newspaper editor Eber Dudley Howe liked the catchy title so much that he kept the second half of it for Esek Rosa's 1834 book --- oops, I'm getting ahead of myself here! Bro. Matthew tells us that "in 1834 a new theory for the origin of the Book of Mormon was proposed by a man named Philastus Hurlbut." Now, what about that! They say that "close" counts in horseshoes, but I'm not sure that Matthew quite deserves a chalk mark on his side of the blackboard for this precarious pitch. He makes it sound like Hurlbut was some egghead theorist, contemplating hypothetical ways in which acrimonious anti-Mormons could account for the coming forth of the Book of Mormon without having to make any reference to the God of Israel. Matthew's pitch comes across about as well as my saying that I want to eat a cake, so I'll go out and invent sugar, flour and eggs in order to cook one up. However, since Matthew has here neatly side-stepped the entire problem of the troublesome "Conneaut witnesses," 1 I'll follow his lead and just talk about D. P. Hurlbut for a little while. We can begin by looking at his Dec. 20, 1833 press release: Doct. P. Hurlbert [sic], of Kirtland, Ohio... requests us to say, that he has succeeded in accomplishing the object of his mission, and that an authentic history of the whole affair will shortly be given to the public. The original manuscript of the Book [of Mormon] was written some thirty years since, by a respectable clergyman... The pretended religious character of the work has been superadded by some more modern hand -- believed to be the notorious Rigdon. These particulars have been derived by Dr. Hurlbert from the widow of the author of the original manuscript.So, it looks like we'll need to move the date of Hurlbut's supposed theorizing back to late 1833, at the very least. But, at this point, we need to ask Matthew, where exactly is the "theory" in all of this? The man says that "the widow" of "a respectable clergyman" told him that her late husband wrote the "original manuscript" for what became the Book of Mormon, and that she accused "the notorious Rigdon" of gaining access to that old story and adding to it some "religious character." Again I ask, where is the "theory" here? The only hypothesis I can see is the necessary guess that "the notorious Rigdon" was the same Sidney Rigdon who lived within walking distance of downtown Pittsburgh from birth up to 1817, and then returned to live right in "the burgh" between 1822 and 1826. If Matthew were to accuse me of obtaining a copy of his Master's thesis, adding a few things to give it a somewhat different "character," and then publishing that text under my own name, he would not be stating some "theory" he was working through in his imagination; he would instead be bringing charges against me for what he would assert to be facts. The only "theory" involved is that Matthew might speculate that I obtained my copy of his thesis from my favorite library or some such place. Luckily for us, Spalding's widow and other members of their extended family provided additional details for these 1833 accusations, and we need not rely totally upon what Hurlbut was saying in the papers for information on the matter. That is to say, enough of what he asserts can be demonstrated from other sources that we need not theorize that Hurlbut made up this whole story out of his own imagination. But let's back up a few months in time and figure out how it was that D. P. Hurlbut ever got to the point of wanting to place such a press release in a Palmyra, New York newspaper. 2 D. P. Hurlbut's lawyer relates this account of things: In the winter of 1833-'34 several gentlemen in Willoughby, Painesville, and Mentor formed themselves into a committee to inquire into the origin of the Mormon Bible. Of the members of the committee in Willoughby were Judge Allen, Dr. and Samuel Wilson, Jonathon Lapham, and myself. The committee held several meetings at the house of Mr. Corning, in Mentor. The place is now owned by Mr. Garfield. They employed a man by the name of [Hurlbut], who was once a Mormon, to help in the investigation.Although the lawyer, James A. Briggs, Esq., says that the "committee" that "employed" D. P. Hurlbut to do some "investigation" was meeting during "the winter of 1833-'34," my inspection of the dates affixed to various statements and documents gathered by Hurlbut tells me that he was first employed by the "committee" during the summer of 1833 -- primarily to travel to the east and there conduct research on Mormon origins. Probably that "committee" had its beginnings a few months before Briggs began attending its meetings. It seems likely that committee members living in Willoughby first called Mr. Briggs in to act as Hurlbut's lawyer, after the ex-Mormon returned to Kirtland from New York, on or about Dec. 18, 1833. Dale W Adams, who has studied Hurlbut's chronology, gives us this opinion: "Possibly during July, 1833 Hurlbut met with a group of anti-Mormons in the Kirtland/Mentor area and proposed soliciting financial support to travel east to gather evidence against Joseph Smith. Based on his earlier talks with John Spalding, Hurlbut knew that Solomon Spalding's wife might have a manuscript that would confirm the Spalding Myth. The former Mrs. Spalding, Matilda Sabine, was then living in Monson, Massachusetts with her daughter and John undoubtedly gave Hurlbut directions for contacting her, or at least how to contact her brother who lived near Syracuse, New York."Having looked into this chronology a little myself, I am inclined to agree with Bro. Adams, that D. P. Hurlbut met with a northern Ohio anti-Mormon "committee" in mid 1833 and presented to its members the rudiments of the Spalding authorship claims (probably without yet including the allegation that Sidney Rigdon edited Spalding's writings). He got financing from some of these anti-Mormons (including a few of the same men named by James A. Briggs) to chase down the damning evidence, and the rest, as they say, is history. At the risk of my beginning to sound repetitious, I say again that D. P. Hurlbut originated no "theory" at this point in time. If somebody had then told him that Joe Smith's dog was named Fido, and Hurlbut had reported that information, he would not have been "theorizing" about Smith's dog -- just passing along a purported eye-witness claim. Despite what some defenders of the Mormon point of view have sometimes said, Mr. Hurlbut got his pocketful of Spalding claims, fair and square, from folks who had known Spalding; from folks who had been saying essentially the same things Hurlbut reportedly relayed to the ant-Mormon committee and later summarized in that Palmyra press release. No "theory" here yet -- just eye-witness claims. Let's Make a Theory Now, it might reasonably be argued that when D. P. Hurlbut first added Sidney Rigdon's name to the original 1832-33 Spalding authorship claims, and published that amended allegation in the 1833 press release, that then and there he came up with a "theory" all of his own. After all, none of the "Conneaut witnesses" mention Sidney Rigdon, not even in the two supplementary statements (given by Aaron Wright and by John Spalding) not published by Howe. So, if the "Conneaut witnesses" didn't mention Rigdon, then the addition of his name to their accusations is a theoretical augmentation, right? I conceded this point to Dr. Givens when I reviewed his book, but only on technical grounds. That is, only if it was indeed D. P. Hurlbut who first attached Rigdon's name to the claims he brought before the anti-Mormon committee in mid 1833. At that point -- if he did such a thing -- the original Spalding authorship claims might have been transformed into the Spalding-Rigdon authorship "theory." However, that much admitted, I am not at all convinced that it was D. P. Hurlbut who first attached Rigdon's name to the authorship assertions and thus originated any such "theory" -- rather, I think it is very likely (as he himself declares in his press release) that he got the whole story: Nephites, manuscripts, Rigdon, et al. from Spalding's widow, when he went to visit her in Monson, Massachusetts during the late fall of 1833. I say this because the widow and other members of the extended Spalding family independently and early on associated Sidney Rigdon's name with the fate of the manuscript(s) of Solomon Spalding. 3 Matthew has not taken the trouble to cite that set of eye-witness evidence, so I'll not launch into an extended treatise on that issue, for the time being. As to when the actual "theorizing" began -- I'll admit that in the hands of Hurlbut and Howe the widow's 1833 accusations (that a young Sidney Rigdon played around with the text of her late husband's writings) became the 1834 "Spalding-Rigdon theory," after a few more bells and whistles got added on. That's why I'm willing to grant Matthew a "close" decision when he says that "in 1834 a new theory for the origin of the Book of Mormon was proposed by a man named Philastus Hurlbut." The trouble with Matthew's reconstruction of things is that it leaves out what happened in 1832-33. To my way of thinking we can't simply jump into the first part of the year 1834 and make it look like D. P. Hurlbut snatched his explanations out of thin air. I think it is very important that we do not lose sight of the fact that Solomon Spalding's old neighbors and family members did not give out their concerned accusations under the title of "theory." However, that much stated, I think that Howe truly was dependent upon Hurlbut for most of the elements he (Howe) articulated in his 1834 explanation on where the Book of Mormon came from. Whether or not D. P. Hurlbut was fully truthful with Mr. Howe is another question altogether. But probably Hurlbut can marginally be credited with supplying more to the 1834 theory than Howe did. To put it another way, Howe's book contains a couple of speculative details not voiced in any known statements provided by Spalding's associates and family. Whether or not D. P. Hurlbut propounded those same additional details in the lectures he conducted in and around Kirtland prior to his arrest at the beginning of January, 1834, I do not know. I firmly believe that the most we can say is that the Spalding-Rigdon "theory" was first published in November, 1834 when Howe issued his book and that, even then, practically the totality of that "theory" is comprised of assertions (not imaginative guesses) first voiced by Spalding's widow and other concerned persons during 1832-33. 4 If those assertions were all (or mostly all) fallacious, then perhaps Matthew and I could start reading from the same historical page from here on out. But he has not addressed the credibility of the old witnesses' testimony, so I'll not get into that stuff either, just yet. Clapp, Rosa, and Who? Now, on to that other interesting authorship question -- for $64, tell me who wrote Mormonism Unvailed. What, no takers? OK, I'll elucidate that obscure mystery for the reading pleasure of Matthew and others interested in such oddities. According to the Rev. Clark Braden, speaking in 1891, the answer is: "Dr. Roser wrote a history; Booth wrote his experience among the Mormons; Clapp made a criticism; Howe made the book, and three thousand of them were scattered all around." As I've pointed out in my review of Ronald W. Walker's recent book, the "Dr. Roser" referred to by Braden was Dr. Storm Rosa of Painesville, but probably his brother, Esek H. Rosa (1807-1882), an accountant in the same town, did most of the book's editing. Several presumably reliable old sources invoke Esek Rosa's name 5 as the book's main editor and I'm convinced that identification is the correct one. The input from the Campbellite Elder, Matthew S. Clapp of Mentor, consisted of little more than an expansion of his Feb., 1831 contribution, as first published in Howe's Painesville Telegraph. The reprints of Ezra Booth's 1831 letters, the addition of Father Isaac Hale's 1834 letter, and the insertion of other interesting bits and pieces of information into the 1834 text can mostly be credited to hands other than Hurlbut's. He is responsible for most of the statements (or affidavits), a few allegations concerning Spalding's widow and some folks in Pittsburgh, and very little else, I'd guess. The sum total of new (previously unpublished) material in Mormonism Unvailed cannot be more than two or three chapters worth of its entire text. Probably E. D. Howe wrote less than a dozen pages in the book that bears his name. __________ 1 The eight witnesses whose statements are published on pp. 278-86 of Howe's 1834 book are: John Spalding (Solomon's brother), Martha Spalding (Solomon's sister-in-law), Henry Lake (his business partner in a mill and forge), John N. Miller (his employee), Aaron Wright (his fellow mill operator), Oliver Smith (his friend), Nahum Howard (his friend and doctor), and Artemas Cunningham (one of his creditors). These eight "Conneaut witnesses" all lived, at one time or another, near the banks of Conneaut Creek, which crosses the Ohio-Pennsylvania border just south of the Lake Erie shore and empties into the lake at what is now Conneaut, Ohio. Two of the eight witnesses supplied additional testimony not published in the 1834 book. To this basic list of eight deponents might be added the following additional witnesses, who also left statements claiming to have had interactions with Solomon Spalding and to have known something about his writings: Matilda Spalding Davison (Solomon's widow), Matilda Spalding McKinstry (their foster daughter), Josiah Spalding (his brother), Lyman Jackson (his friend), Abner Jackson (son of his friend), William Leffingwell (his proor-reader), Daniel Spalding (his nephew), Dan M. Spencer (a visitor), Robert Harper (a visitor), Erastus Rudd (son of his friend), Nehemiah King (his surveyor and doctor), Robert Campbell (a visitor), and Robert Patterson, Sr. (his choice as a publisher). In addition to all of these, there are a number of persons who claimed to know something about the activities of one or more of the above witnesses, people who claimed to know something about D. P. Hurlbut or E. D. Howe, and people whose questionable claims to have known something about Spalding's writings cannot be well verified. 2 The timing of Hurlbut's press release, in the Dec. 20, 1833 issue of the Palmyra Wayne Sentinel, is best understood in the context of dates appearing on the various statements he solicited in the Palmyra area between the beginning of November and the middle of December. Assuming that the dates affixed to these statements (as published by E. D. Howe) are the correct ones, Hurlbut was absent from the Palmyra area between Nov. 16th and Nov. 27th (when he evidently traveled to eastern New York and Massachussetts) and then he returned to take more statements in and around Palmyra between Nov. 27th and Dec. 13th. On Dec. 6, 1833 the Wayne Sentinel published an article which mentioned that Hurlbut was in the area "in behalf of the people of Kirtland for the purpose of investigating the origin of the Mormon sect." He probably left New York on his return to Kirtland a few days before his Dec. 20, 1833 press release appeared in that same paper. 3 Spalding's widow was quoted in 1839 as saying: "Sidney Rigdon, who has figured so largely in the history of the Mormons, was at this time [c. 1812-16] connected with the printing office of Mr. Patterson, as is well known in that region, and as Rigdon himself has frequently stated. Here he had ample opportunity to become acquainted with Mr. Spaulding's manuscript and to copy it if he chose. It was a matter of notoriety and interest to all who were connected with the printing establishment." There is one extraneous error that has slipped into this quotation -- that Rigdon frequently stated he was connected with a Pittsburgh print-shop. What was reported of Rigdon, in Howe's 1834 book, is that "about the year 1823 or '24... Sidney Rigdon located himself in that city [Pittsburgh]. We have been credibly informed that he was on terms of intimacy with Lambdin, being seen frequently in his shop. Rigdon resided in Pittsburgh about three years, and during the whole of that time, as he has since frequently asserted, abandoned preaching and all other employment, for the purpose of studying the bible." As for Rigdon being a printer or a print-shop employee, there is no evidence for that statement. Elizabeth Haven reported in 1843 that Rigdon informed her that "He studied for the ministry in his youth, then was employed in a newspaper office." This journalistic employment might have been anywhere (including for the Mormons) following his ministerial studies, but that was evidently after Spalding died. The stronger possible "connection" of Rigdon to Pittsburgh printers and publishers would have been in his role as a tanner and currier (a preparer of leather for book-bindings, etc.). Rigdon himself admits to working "in the humble capacity of a journeyman tanner" in Pittsburgh after mid 1823. He engaged in this humble leather-working occupation in partnership with his wife's brother -- their establishment closed on Sept. 25, 1825. Following closure of "the old stand" on Penn Street, Sidney Rigdon was relieved of his guardianship of a child, David Ferguson, by the local court. This happened on Nov. 11, 1825, freeing Sidney to move his family out of Allegheny County. Rigdon nowhere reveals where and when he served the apprenticeship necessary for his becoming a journeyman -- presumably he completed that training near his home, just south of Pittsburgh, before he began his studies for the ministry with the Baptist Rev. Andrew Clark at North Sewickley, Beaver County, Pennsylvania, during the fall of 1818. Sidney may have served his apprenticeship on a part-time basis, working mostly during the winter months, when his obligation to labor on his parents' farm was not so demanding. There were then several tanneries located within walking distance of his home, south of Pittsburgh. An example of a later advertisement for such a tannery was published in the Nov. 20, 1822 issue of the Pittsburgh Mercury by Thomas M. Henry, who was seeking "an apprentice" between "sixteen to seventeen years of age" to help him in his "tanning and currying." Mr. Henry's business was located in St. Clair township, Allegheny Co., very near Rigdon's home. Postulating Rigdon's own tanning apprenticeship to have begun at about this same age, he may have been working in the "tanning and currying" trade as early as 1810. Working only seasonally (when he could break away from farm-work), Rigdon might have taken 4 to 5 years to finish his apprenticeship and earn journeyman's status. In the meanwhile (1810-1815?) it is not unreasonable to supposed that young Sidney was employed by his master to occasionally take "curried leather" into nearby Pittsburgh, for sale to the Patterson book-bindery. See the Aug. 10, 1814 ad of Robert and Joseph Patterson, for some idea of when and how they operated their bindery and sub-contracted labor for other regional binderies. See also the Oct. 14, 1882 letter of Isaac Craig for a reference to Rigdon's c. 1823-26 "tannery on Penn street" where he made "book-binders sheep-skins," by the sale of which he came into connection "with Engles," a printer and co-worker with J. Harrison Lambdin. See also the 1879 recollection of a Pittsburgh old-timer who recalled "Sidney Rigdon, tanner and currier" who ran a "shop on Penn street," where it is "likely that, in the business transactions between book-binder [Robert Patterson, employer of Lambdin] and tanner, Sidney Rigdon took the Spaulding manuscript." For confirmation of Rigdon's occupation as a local tanner and his occasional presence in Pittsburgh, in the company of J. H. Lambdin, see Rebecca J. Eichbaum's statement of Sept. 18, 1879 and the Pittsburgh Commonwealth letter-lists for July 9, 1816 and other dates of that period. 4 Another interesting source (from outside the Spalding-Sabine extended family) is the 1880 statement of Ann Treadwell Redfield, who says she was the "principal of the Onondaga Valley Academy," on the outskirts of what is now Syracuse, "in the year 1818." At that time this lady headmaster "resided in the house of William H. Sabine, Esq.," the brother of Spalding's widow. The widow and her foster daughter were then also living in the same house. According to Redfield, she recalled "the family talk of a manuscript" then in the possession of "Mr. Sabine's sister... which her husband, the Rev. Mr. Spaulding, had written somewhere in the West.... I remember also to have heard Mr. Sabine talk of the romance... Mrs. Spaulding believed that Sidney Rigdon 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." If Spalding's widow was speaking of Sidney Rigdon's involvement with the "Manuscript Found" as early as 1818, that is somewhat remarkable, as Rigdon was then practically unknown outside of Pittsburgh and the Baptist congregations of that region. However, in Josiah Spalding's 1855 testimony, he says that his sister-in-law, the widow, "informed me that soon after they [the Spalding couple] arrived at Pittsburg a man followed them, I do not recollect his name, but he was afterwards known to be a leading Mormon. He got into the employment of a printer, and he told the printer about my brother's composition." Exactly who this "man" was, Josiah Spalding does not say, nor does he make it very clear, from whence and to whence, the unnamed man "followed them." Perhaps all he means to say is that the widow recalled her husband being followed around, in the Pittsburgh area, by this "man" who "was afterwards known to be a leading Mormon," and that the man took a special interest in Solomon's writings. This sounds to me like yet another indication that Spalding's widow believed the young Sidney Rigdon was known to her husband and that she believed (at some point prior to 1834) that he had tried to inject himself into her husband's attempts at publishing the "Manuscript Found." Just how closely Solomon Spalding's wife monitored her husband's literary output and attempts at publishing his writings remains unclear. If what is related of her in E. D. Howe's book is to be believed, she was very detached from those activities. It seems more likely that, once their family moved to the hamlet of Amity in 1814, she would have not been in a position to know much about young Sidney Rigdon. It is more probable, however, that she would have been acquainted with the Rigdons who lived just down the street from the "temperance tavern" she and her husband managed in Amity. This was the family of Sidney's aunt, the widow Mary Rigdon and her children. Mary was living in Amity in 1810 (see the actual census report, but ignore the problematical index for Amwell township) but had departed by 1820. It is possible that Spalding's widow later confused one of these Rigdons with a Rigdon "afterwards known to be a leading Mormon," which could have included Sidney Rigdon, Sidney's mother, Sidney's brother Carvil Rigdon, later Patriarch of the church at Pittsburgh, etc. Ellen E. Dickinson, Spalding's great-niece, blows this old family tradition of the "man" who "followed" Solomon, out of all its original proportions by stating in her 1884 book: "A young printer named Sidney Rigdon, was in Mr. Patterson's printing house; he had been there but a short time, and, from many indisputable facts, it is believed he had followed Mr. Spaulding from Conneaut, or its immediate neighborhood, and having heard him read "The Manuscript Found," and announce his plans for its publication, devised a treachery toward both author and publisher, which the world has reason to remember. This same Sidney Rigdon figured prominently twenty years later as a preacher among the Mormons." Like so many of Mrs. Dickinson's imaginative interpretations of past events in her family, this account is totally ludicrous. Mrs. McKinstry's son John relayed an equally laughable and muddled account, in 1877 where he says: "Rev. Mr. Spaulding was prevailed upon to read his production to his neighbors as it progressed... Among the attentive listeners at these readings were Joe Smith and Sidney Rigdon, the same who founded Mormonism. Not only did Smith hear the manuscript read, but on one occasion, as Mrs. Davison frequently testified before her death, he borrowed it for a week or so." John provided a somewhat more believeable story when he said, in 1879: "the 'MS.' was not delivered in person to Hurlbut, but that Grandmother... gave Hurlbut a letter to this Mrs. Clark requesting her to deliver the 'MS.' to him... had the 'MS.' not been in said trunk, she, Grandmother never would have written that letter... she had let Hurlbut have the 'MS.' -- upon his solemn promise to return the same after it had been compared with the book of Mormon... It is altogether probable that the subject must have been referred to on Grandmothers meeting Mrs Clark again, and it is equally probable that she had no occasion to think that Mrs Clark failed to deliver the 'MS.' to Hurlbut." 5 Two of the more easily accessible sources crediting Esek or Storm Rosa with the editing of Howe's 1834 book are "Reply to Chicago Inter-Ocean" in the Feb. 15, 1877 issue of the Saints' Herald and K. A. Bell's statement in the Jan. 1888 issue of Naked Truths About Mormonism. |
|
Dale's Comments, Part 3:
Who Wrote Those "More History Parts"? Matthew next tells us, "This theory postulated that Joseph Smith was too illiterate to have produced the Book of Mormon by himself and therefore must have received some assistance." What can I say? None of us can go back to 1834 and ascertain what a "theory postulated," correct? I think Matthew knows this, and that is why he does not name a "postulator" for this notion of Smith's illiteracy. As I've already said, the local folks in and around Manchester and Palmyra already knew that much. So who was doing all this "postulating" of a known fact? All I can do is guess -- perhaps interested parties who lived at such a distance from Palmyra that they knew little or nothing about young Joe -- perhaps a handful of early 19th century religious figures like Alexander Campbell, La Roy Sunderland, and Origen Bacheler. But those people did not devise the original "theory," now did they? Sure, I suppose that now and then, in the smoke-filled editorial offices of New York City newspapers, there were a few wags with nothing better to do than cook up ways to persecute my Mormon ancestors at Kirtland, Far West and Nauvoo. But those journalists did not devise the original "theory" either. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that is where the Spalding-Rigdon authorship claims came from, friends. Ain't so. Despite the fact that the likes of Hurlbut or Howe tacked on an explanation or two, now and then, the original authorship claims came from the friends, associates, and family members of Solomon Spalding himself. That much can and must be admitted. Scholarship and personal integrity demand as much, even if some of us do believe that the martyred Prophet Joseph, Jr. -- honored and blest be his ever-great name -- really does hold the keys to the dispensation of the fulness of times. No matter that, it's still OK to admit the truth -- doing just that much is not going to make the "latter day work" crumble to dust; honest Lamanite, it won't. But enough of my virtuous verbosity; let's get back to what Bro. Matthew was saying -- he tells us: "This theory claimed that Sidney Rigdon wrote the religious parts of the Book of Mormon while the historical parts were plagiarized from an unpublished manuscript written in 1812 by Solomon Spaulding -- Rigdon having secretly acquired the Spaulding document from a Pittsburgh printer named Jonathan H. Lambdin." Sounds like an interesting explanation to me. Now, just which parts of that explanation did not originate with Spalding's friends and family? I need to know that before I begin to conduct some useful research into this rhetorical relic of the Restoration. I mean, it's alright for a few of us Latter Day Saints to actually check out what Bro. Matthew has said here, isn't it? Well, I'm assuming that it is allowable, and so that's just what I intend to do. So then, which parts of the Spalding-Rigdon explanation did not originate with Solomon Spalding's family and acquaintances? Maybe it was the part that alleges Spalding wrote pseudo-historical stories in archaic English? Nope. We have too much documentation of that fact to cast it into the lake of fire. Well, maybe the part about his taking those writings to Pittsburgh in the fall of 1812? Nope again -- I think that part is also pretty well established. Maybe the part of the explanation that says Spalding's writings had "religious parts" and "historical parts" is a lie? Sorry, nope again. Just read the manuscript of his now on file at Oberlin College to see that he was prone to write such things. 1 Matthew says that the "theory claimed that Sidney Rigdon wrote the religious parts of the Book of Mormon," but that is less than half true. As I've documented elsewhere, 2 people who knew Rigdon or knew his checkered reputation, were accusing him of writing the book several months before the first Spalding authorship claims were first circulated. So Rigdon was a major "suspect" practically from the beginning. What happened is that Spalding's widow suspected Rigdon's surreptitious involvement since the days when they all lived in Pittsburgh (or on its outskirts) and she said as much to D. P. Hurlbut, who then publicized her suspicions in his Dec. 20, 1833 press release. The widow reiterated her suspicions in her Apr. 1, 1839 statement, and other people claiming to have personal knowledge of the matter added their corroboration as time passed. 3 Good scholarship tells us that both young Sid Rigdon and Solomon Spalding were in Pittsburgh at about the same time (at least often enough to pick up their mail) before Spalding died in 1816. True, Sidney had a couple of hours' walk into town, from the family farm, but on a lucky day he could catch a boat down the creek, ride the current of the river to "the point," and be in the "burgh" before lunch, with nary a bead of sweat on his youthful brow. Did he occassionally consort with printer J. Harrison Lambdin in Pittsburgh? Howe's book said he did -- the postal clerk in that iron city said he did -- and Rigdon never denied knowing Lambdin, whether in the days before 1817, when Sidney went off to his preacher's studies, or in the days after he was "busted" by the Baptists as a pernicious pastor, back in the "burgh" in 1823. Word has it that young Sidney learned the tanning trade and peddled leather book-covers to publishers like the Patterson brothers. 4 In his May 27, 1839 letter to the Quincy Whig, Rigdon specifically admits to knowing Robert Patterson, Sr. (the legal guardian, employer, and later business partner of J. Harrison Lambdin). Rigdon's co-pastor with the proto-Cambellite congregation in Pittsburgh, the Rev. Walter Scott, says: "That Rigdon was ever connected with the printing office of Mr. Patterson or that this gentleman ever possessed a printing office in Pittsburgh, is unknown to me, although I lived there, and also know Mr. Patterson very well, who is a bookseller. But Rigdon was a Baptist minister in Pittsburgh, and I knew him to be perfectly known to Mr. Robert Patterson." Rev. Scott speaks correctly: Robert Patterson, Sr. was a book-seller and occasional publisher who contracted his work out to his cousin, Silas Engles, who at one time employed J. Harrison Lambdin. Thus, the Patterson brothers, Robert and Joseph, had no printing office of their own. But Scott knew that Sidney Rigdon was "perfectly known to Mr. Robert Patterson." One more example, the Mormon Elder William Small visited Robert Patterson, Sr. at an early day and says Patterson told him: "that Sidney Rigdon was not connected with the office for several years [after]" Solomon Spalding died. Probably what Patterson was trying to say is that Rigdon never worked for him, or was directly connected with the book shop he and Lambdin operated, but that once their firm split up in Feb. 1823, that Rigdon had some direct connection with Lambdin's own short-lived book business. Finally, in 1842, Robert Patterson, Sr. signed a statement saying that "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." The publisher of this statement also says: "Mr. Patterson firmly believes also, from what he has heard of the Mormon Bible, that it is the same thing he examined at that time." The pamphlet in which these statements occur was published, advertised, and sold in Pittsburgh while Patterson was still living there -- he never denied that published testimony. When Matthew tells us that the "theory claimed that Sidney Rigdon... secretly acquired the Spaulding document from a Pittsburgh printer named Jonathan H. Lambdin," I ask, is he saying anything so terribly preposterous? Did Rigdon know and associate with Lambdin? Almost certainly he did. Was Rigdon "connected" with Lambdin's book business, in 1823-25, when Rigdon was a book-covering maker, operating a leather shop only a few blocks from Lambdin's office? Did Lambdin "inherit" a printer's copy of one of Spalding's unpublished manuscripts, after he and Patterson split up their business in 1823? Did Rigdon have access to such a document ("secretly" or otherwise) through Lambdin? I agree with Matthew, that at this point we are knee-deep in theorizing, but is it useless and delusional theorizing -- or, do all of these possible historical connections warrant a little further investigation? Is it OK if I person like myself investigates just a bit deeper into this matter? I hope so, because that is what I intend to do. Matthew tells us that "Hurlbut's theory asserts that, in order to create robust book sales, Lambdin "placed the 'Manuscript Found' of Spalding, in the hands of Rigdon, to be embellished, altered, and added to as he might think expedient." Is that so? Actually, Howe's book doesn't say that Lambdin gave his friend Rigdon Spalding's manuscript, to edit, "in order to create robust book sales." What is said there is that "Lambdin, after having failed in business, had recourse to the old manuscripts then in his possession, in order to raise the wind, by a book speculation." This does not necessarily mean that Lambdin intended to publish all the abandoned manuscripts that had fallen into his possession, or that he even had the funds to print up a few of them. I think that it means he was ready to make use of the unpublished texts in any way he could -- by selling them outright, extracting printable material from a few and selling that, or perhaps allowing a friend to embellish a couple of the cast-off stories and give him a cut of the profits if the polished-up stuff could be sold to a publisher. I wasn't there and I don't know, but by the time Howe's book got published, Lambdin wasn't around to spill the beans either way -- he was six feet under the Pittsburgh clay. Could have Lambdin possessed a copy of a Spalding story as late as Aug. 1, 1825, when he died and his book business ended for good? Yes, I suppose so. Could have Rigdon taken such a story -- perhaps a printers' copy he himself had penned for Silas Engles a decade earlier -- and "embellished" it? Again, I think that's entirely possible. Does that prove he turned Solomon Spalding's "Manuscript Found" into the Book of Mormon? Not at all. That, as Matthew says, is only a theory. The question is -- should such a theory be investigated any further, or should it be consigned to the dustbin of history and forgotten forthwith? At this point I'm inclined to agree with Bro. Matthew, that all this theorizing is leading us nowhere fast. The evidence is no doubt "disputed" (what evidence is not, when non-Mormons and Mormons sort through the same stacks for proof?) so I'll leave it alone for a while. __________ 1 In Solomon Spalding's Oberlin manuscript story, his fictional ancient Americans keep their religious records separate from their civil records -- which perhaps doesn't mean much in a fictional culture that was set up as a virtual theocracy, with heritary kingship and high-priestship retained by the same elite family. Those writers who assert that Solomon Spalding, the pious Calvinist (??), would have been incapable of concocting pseudo-scripture, ought to read his extracts from the "Sacred Roll" (not to be confused with the similarly named Shaker scriptures) as set down upon the pages of his Oberlin manuscript. On the other hand, don't expect the American Christians of 170 years ago to have acknowledged stuff like his fictional "Sacred Roll" to have been particularly "religious." In their narrow interpretation of things, even the rigid monotheism of Islam was in those days mistakenly termed "idolatrous," rather than truly "religious." Although Solomon Spalding reportedly wrote about ancient Israelites and cast his narrative in biblical English, several early witnesses affirm that they heard or saw a fictional history and not a purported revelation from God. Redick McKee, who had an opportunity of reading some of Spalding's later literary creations at Amity, described them as "what purported to be a veritable history of the nations or tribes who inhabited Canaan... His style was flowing and grammatical, though gaunt and abrupt -- very like the stories of the Maccabees and other apocryphal books, in the old bibles." It is easily seen how an early 19th century Christian might have read such a biblical-sounding story, and not thought of it as being "religious," unless it contained specific references to Christian theology and practices. On the other hand, it is not totally unimaginable to guess that the cynical Deist Solomon Spalding might have injected some subtle parodies of contemporary religion into one or more of his stories -- covering them over with ancient dates or foreign scenery, in much the same way Jonathan Swift clothed his satires of contemporary politics in similar thin disguises. The devout Presbyterian, Rev. Robert Patterson, sr., is unlikely to have ever published a book containing explicit parodies of Christianity, but he might have considered publishing a fictional history in which implicit jabs at camp-meeting religion or nascent Campbellism were disguised by a supposedly ancient setting. See Vernal Holley's Book of Mormon Authorship. pp. 23-34 for more on Spalding's probable contact with early Campbellism in Washington Co., Pennsylvania, c. 1812-1814. Holley remarks: "Washington, Pennsylvania, was the birthplace of [American] Campbellism in 1809... Amity was less than ten miles from Washington where Campbellism originated. Living in the area and being a trained minister, Spaulding would likely have had more than a casual interest in the recent revival activities and local news of the then evolving Campbellite movement... [and] would have been knowledgeable, and capable of incorporating interesting early Campbellite concepts into his sometimes satirical and subtly anti-religious writings." Holley adds this note: "Solomon Spalding may have spent the winter of 1813 or 1814 among the Campbellites of Washington, PA, see Gerald Langford's The Richard Harding Davis Years (NY, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1961), p. 4." Langford recounts the reminiscence of Rebecca Blaine Harding's mother Rachel Leet Wilson, who grew up in Washington, Pennsylvania. Langford says that: "Rachael... had been educated by her father's good friend Alexander Campbell, founder of the Disciples of Christ and that "her devout Baptist father threw open to all impoverished strangers, especially Baptist preachers down on their luck. One of these latter whom the girl [Rachel Leet Wilson] always remembered vividly, was a pale young Mr. Spalding, who while too ill to preach, spent a whole winter in her home writing a long story which he read aloud in the evenings. It was, according to Rebecca's later report, 'a fictitious story which Joseph Smith published afterwards as the Book of Mormon.'" Whether or not this old, twice-told recollection is an accurate one, it does demonstrate how Solomon Spalding could have encountered and reflected upon incipient Campbellism in or near Washington town, Washington Co., Pennsylvania, during his residence in that county. 2 See my Role of Sidney Rigdon comments section accompanying excerpts from Dr. Terryl L. Givens' 2002 book, By the Hand of Mormon, where I document some very early reports identifying Rigdon as the probable author of the Book of Mormon. When Ohio editor Warren Isham labeled that book "Campbellism Improved," in his Nov. 18, 1830 report he was implicitly saying much the same as was more clearly spelled out in the Cleveland Advertiser on Feb. 15, 1831, where Rigdon is portrayed as a maverick, knavish Campbellite attempting to "operate on his own capital" in the realm of religious doctrine. The article even suggesting that it was Rigdon's previous activities as a Campbellite preacher that led him "to test the validity of the doctrine contained in the Book of Mormon," not just as a basis for his own conversion, but as the work of a conniving baptizer, preparing proselytes to accept the same "restored" doctrines. These were the first known publications of what soon became a popular assumption -- that Rigdon had secretly contributed to the founding of the Mormon sect and the writing of its first scriptures. As the editor of the Advertiser puts it: "a noted mountebank by the name of Elder Rigdon" was "believed" by him and others to be the author of the Book of Mormon. Parley P. Pratt, one of Sidney's early, pre-Mormon, "Rigdonite" disciples, said in 1838 that "Early in 1831, Mr. Rigdon having been ordained, under our hands, visited elder J. Smith, Jr., in the state of New-York, for the first time; and from that time forth, rumor began to circulate, that he (Rigdon) was the author of the Book of Mormon." But probably the first specimens of this "rumor" were in circulation near Rigdon's Mentor-Kirtland "home base" even before he left to publicly visit with Seer Smith for the first time. Mormonism and Rigdon's special development of Campbellism were so much alike that some of those who knew the man and his preaching just naturally viewed the Book of Mormon as "Campbellism Improved." Several early writers on Mormonism developed the view that Sidney Rigdon had injected a great deal of unique "Rigdonite" religious tenets and practices into the new religion and its book. These views are summed up in 1914 by Charles A. Shook, who says: "The "Doctrine and Covenants" (34:2) throws out a hint of Rigdon's former connection with Mormonism in these words: "Behold, verily, verily I say unto my servant Sidney, I have looked upon thee and thy works... thou wast sent forth even as John, to prepare the way... and thou knew it not." Nearly all Gentiles will agree with the Mormons that Sidney prepared the way before the Mormon delusion, but when it comes to the statement that he knew it not, it is quite another thing." 3 Some of the more interesting accusations linking Rigdon with Solomon Spalding's writings came from one of his Amity, PA neighbors, Joseph Miller. The earliest Miller statements are probably lost to history; his first known testimony mentioning Solomon Spalding is from Mar. 26, 1869, where he briefly outlines his recollections. A more detailed statement was solicited from Miller ten years later, in which he says that Spalding "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, and in the mean time the transcript was spirited away and could not be found. 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 provided a couple of additional statements in which he said practically the same thing -- that a young Sidney Rigdon gained access to a "transcript" of Spalding's manuscript, while it was in the keeping of "Mr. Patterson of Pittsburgh." Miller neglects to say which "Mr. Patterson" this was, but his testimony sets the date for this incident before Spalding's death on Oct. 20, 1816. The firm of Robert and Joseph Patterson began operation in Pittsburgh about Nov. 5, 1812, and continued until Jan. 6, 1818, when it was reconstituted under the name of "R. Patterson & Lambdin." However, during the winter of 1814-15, Joseph's name disappeared from the from the firm's advertising and Robert probably took over most of its operations on his own. Since Robert Patterson says he employed (or contracted with) his cousin "Silas Engles" as the "general superintendent of the printing business... to him was entrusted the entire concerns of the office," and that he "supposed" that "Mr. Engles returned the manuscript" to Spalding, "after it had been some weeks," it would seem that any access Rigdon might have gained to Solomon Spalding's writings in Pittsburgh, during Spalding's lifetime, would have been through Mr. Engles (or through Engles' employees) and not directly from either of the Patterson brothers. Also, since practically all reports of this matter say that the "Manuscript Found" was eventually returned to Mr. Spalding, Rigdon (if he did gain access to the story during Spalding's lifetime) certainly did not steal the original "Manuscript Found." All that Spalding's widow says in this regard is that "Sidney Rigdon, who has figured so largely in the history of the Mormons, was at this time [c. 1812-16] connected with the printing office of Mr. Patterson... he had ample opportunity to become acquainted with Mr. Spaulding's manuscript and to copy it if he chose. It was a matter of notoriety and interest to all who were connected with the printing establishment." But, as has been demonstrated, the Patterson brothers did not operate Engles' "printing office" directly and they probably did not always know when Engles selected proffered manuscripts for editing and pre-publication work. No record remains saying whether or not Engles had a clean "printer's copy" of Spalding's manuscript written up, pending prepayment of its publication expenses. Finally, any formal "connection" between "tanner" Rigdon and "printer" Engles probably would have amounted to little more than the apprentice tanner occasionally dropping off some leather book-bindings, and reference to a formal "connection" (prior to Rigdon's opening his own leather shop in about 1823) remains speculative, requiring further investigation and documentation. The one piece of extant testimony (Eichbaum's statement) firmly placing Sidney in Engles' print-shop prior to Spalding's death does not claim any formal "connection" between Rigdon and Engles. So, once again, our attempts to reconstruct the slender supply of "facts" at this point have already turned to theorizing. My suggestion is that this purported early "connection" should be investigated more closely, through the application of our careful research and scholarship. 4 Besides operating a paper mill, a book bindery, and a book sales office, all in Pittsburgh, the Patterson Brothers did some occasional publishing, evidently making use of the printing press of their cousin, Silas Engles for most of that work. It seems likely that Joseph Patterson was the brother who supplied most of the capital to the firm. Mrs. Matilda S. McKinstry, the foster daughter of Solomon Spalding, provides practically the only known glimpse into the operations of the Pattersons, in a reminiscence she shared with her friend Redick McKee, in 1882 of "remembering to have heard her mother say that, before they left Pittsburgh, she accompanied her husband to the store of Mr. Patterson and heard a conversation in relation to the publication of the 'Manuscript.' There were two Mr. Pattersons present, one... had read several chapters of the 'Manuscript' and was struck favorably with its curious descriptions and its likeness to the ancient style of the Old Testament Scriptures. He thought it would be well to publish it, as it would attract attention and meet with a ready sale. He suggested, however, that Mr. Spaulding should write a brief preface" etc." The girl's own recollection of the Patterson's book-shop (which she calls a library) was more or less a vague one. She said in 1880: "I distinctly recollect visiting a library with my father which my mother told me was `Mr Patterson's;" the building was a large one, and over the door was a bust of what seemed to me at that time, as a beautiful lady, & impressed my childish fancy. I distinctly remember seeing in a chair in the center of the room, a large, heavy built man of florid complexion There was an other person in the room, and my father had a long conversation with him." In a recollection of Redick McKee, dated Jan. 25, 1886, Mr. McKee contributes some additional details: "Mr. Spaulding told me that at Pittsburg he became acquainted with the Rev. Robert Patterson who... thought favorably of the printing [of his story], but his manager of the publishing department -- a Mr. Engles or English -- had doubts... and thought the author should... pay the expenses... and the manuscript was laid aside in the office... 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... He had read parts of the manuscript... [then] the manuscript could not then be found... This excited Mr. Spaulding's suspicions that Rigdon had taken it home. In a week or two it was found... The circumstance of this finding increased Mr. S.'s suspicions that Rigdon had taken the manuscript and made a copy of it." While this elaboration upon past events generally agrees with the assertions of Joseph Miller and Spalding's widow, McKee's allegations cannot be conclusively confirmed. However, in a letter written on Jan. 2, 1880, Spalding's foster daughter tells her cousin, Mrs. Ellen E. Dickinson, "While my father resided at Pittsburg the Manuscript was borrowed by one Patterson who owned a large book establishment and printing office. Sidney Rigdon was at that time [c. 1812-16] employed at this office and we have always believed that he copied it then and there." |
|
Dale's Comments, Part 4:
The Jacksons Tell Their "Stories" Matthew is not one to leave us hanging in the lurch, as we wonder just how that Hurlbut guy got hold of the Spalding claims in the first place. He says, "He first heard about the Solomon Spaulding manuscript from the Jackson family (who knew Spaulding personally) while he was lecturing against Mormonism in Pennsylvania. 1 But when Hurlbut asked Mr. Jackson to sign an affidavit stating that there were similarities between Spaulding's manuscript and the Book of Mormon Jackson refused, insisting that "there was no agreement between them." It sounds to me like Matthew has hung his hat, coat, tie, and shirt on Elder Benjamin Winchester's rack and may well have to grab them all back before we proceed much farther. For one thing, I'd feel a whole lot better about his quoting Winchester if Matthew could show me where Winchester got hold of "Mr. Jackson's" testimony in the first place. We Saints have long been prepared to perform innumerable mental somersaults in order to "prove" that D. P. Hurlbut fabricated part or all of the Conneaut witnesses' testimony -- but now we are asked to swallow Ben Winchester's hearsay evidence with nary a hand raised in objection? Sorry, but as Byron Marchant once said in the Tabernacle at Conference: "I cannot sustain this particular Elder of the Church at this time." Oh yes, I know whom Elder Ben is talking about, when he says "Mr. Jackson" this, and "Mr. Jackson" that -- you see Ben's folks and my folks (four generations back) all got baptized together in Erie Co., Pennsylvania at be beginning of 1833. My saintly Winegar ancestors lived practically within spitting distance of old man Lyman Jackson's place -- "Albion" they call it nowadays, but back then it was "Jacksonville" -- and it was just a hop, skip and a jump from the LDS Elk Creek branch's "Marmun Run," where all that "Marmun" baptising was done. So, to crack this particular nut, I barely need consult those nasty old anti-Mormon books at all; I can get most of what I need out of my family's "Book of Remembrance" and five-generation family group sheets. Benjamin Winchester, Sr., son of Stephen and Nancy Case Winchester, was born Aug. 6, 1818, in Pennsylvania. Ben (along with his parents) were baptized by Elders Evan M. Green and John F. Boynton, at Elk Creek, Erie Co., Pennsylvania, on Jan. 27, 1833, at the tender age of 14 years and 6 months. Lyman Jackson, Stephen Winchester's Gentile neighbor, was born Feb. 29, 1756, married Deidama Dunham on Jan. 3, 1782; moved to Otsego Co., NY in 1791; moved to Erie Co., Pennsylvania in 1806; and died there at the age of 79 on Mar. 20, 1835. Now, given all of this information, when and where did little feisty Ben interview decrepit old man Jackson and record that man's statement for posterity? According to his own report, in November, 1833 young Ben moved to Kirtland and took up his residence there with Elder Sidney Rigdon. The following year the lad accompanied Joseph Smith, Jr. on the "Zion's Camp" military expedition to Missouri, returning to Kirtland that fall, a few weeks before E. D. Howe published his infamous book in nearby Painesville. If the publication of Mormonism Unvailed spurred Sidney Rigdon to get young Ben (then 15 years and 6 months old) "deputed" to "hunt up the Hulbert case" 2 and interview folks like sick old Lyman Jackson (then nearly 79 years of age), it must have been an experience well worth recording. The trouble is that Ben Winchester nowhere tells when, where, or how he received this account of Lyman Jackson's. I do not think that little Ben got this account from old man Jackson at all -- there is a much more plausible explanation for the relaying of Jackson's profession. You see, Lyman Jackson had a daughter by the name of Rosanna, who, about February, 1801, married John Rudd, Jr., an early pioneer of the Conneaut Creek country, both in Ohio (where he was Salem's first postmaster) and in adjacent Springfield, Erie Co., Pennsylvania (where he built the first liquor still). This John Rudd, along with his mother Chloe and brothers Anson and Erastus, all became Mormons in Erie Co., in 1832. Erastus Rudd accompanied Benjamin Winchester on the "Zion's Camp" military expedition and died just before General Joe's troops reached Liberty, Missouri. I think it is very likely that young Ben got his version of Lyman Jackson's profession by way of Rosanna Jackson Rudd, who told her husband John, who told his brother Erastus, who told his young friend Ben from Erie, who wrote it into his 1840 pamphlet, where Matthew found the useful story. If I'm correct in my surmise, Ben Winchester's authoritative (?) quotation of old man Jackson is second-hand hearsay, uncorroborated by any other source, sounding nothing more nor less than like a conscious rehash of what Howe said about the Oberlan story back in 1834 (and not published by the Mormons until five years after the death of the purported deponent). We should, of course, give Ben Winchester's telling of the story all the confidence that it deserves -- and not one iota more. On the other hand, Matthew might wish to argue that Ben's knowledge of what old Man Jackson had to say about Spalding came straight from the trustworthy (?) source of D. P. Hurlbut himself. As Ben says elsewhere: "I was deputed by them [the top LDS leaders] to hunt up the Hulbert [sic] case. It was Hulbert, (A relative of mine) that got up the Spaulding story... He seduced a girl named Barns. We as the church, to cover up the matter, urged him to marry her. He refused and then we expelled him. Spaulding's novel pretended to give a history of the origin of the Indians from four nations who were the first navagators... Hulbert expected to make something by claiming it was Smith's book of Morman.... I asked him why he did not publish it. He said shrewdly that he could do better without publishing it yet. Spaulding's story was well written and good language."There is another bit of interesting hearsay that came out of the Mormon Rudd family, and this morsel was provided in 1878 by my g-g-g-g-grandfather's nephew, Daniel Tyler, the noted historian of the Mormon Battalion. Daniel says: "Solomon Spauldin... [wrote] a romance on a few mounds... pretending that the ten tribes crossed from the eastern hemisphere via the Behring Straits to this continent, and that said mounds were built by a portion of them, to bury the dead after some hard fighting. The novel, as I was told by those who heard it read, referred to them as idolaters and not otherwise religious.... In 1832 Elders Orson Hyde and Samuel H. Smith preached a few times in our neighborhood and baptized three persons, among them Erastus Rudd, in whose house much of the romance was formerly written, and from whom I received much of my information."I submit the surmise that Elder Erastus Rudd's hearsay evidence is just about as reliable in the above recollection as is the undated, undocumented hearsay evidence Ben Winchester has given us concerning Lyman Jackson and what "Mr. Jackson" knew of Spalding's fictional stories. Erastus reportedly said the Spalding story was about "the ten tribes," while Erastus' sister-in-law's father reportedly said it contained "not one word about the children of Israel, but professed to give an account of a race of people who originated from the Romans." How might we account for such divergent testimony? I think that the answer is a rather simple one -- that is, numerous early witnesses testified that Solomon Spalding wrote a story about "lost tribes" from Israel migrating to ancient America, but one of Solomon's brothers, who came to visit with him in Ohio for a while, testified in 1855 that the story he saw while at his brother's house, was a fictional account, whose fictional "author" Solomon brought "from the Old World... I think not a Jew... He went to sea, lost his point of compass, and finally landed on the American shore." If we lay out, side-by-side, the purported account of Lyman Jackson, the recollections of Josiah Spalding, the brief report in Howe's book, and the Oberlin Spalding manuscript, I think it will be apparent to any observer that the content of these four items overlap oneanother almost to the point of perfect identity. If, on the other hand, the purported account of Erastus Rudd is laid down next to the many other early items of testimony describing the "Manuscript Found," it will be seen that Rudd's account fits far better into that set of testimony than it does into descriptions of the Oberlin document. If we accept the hearsay credited to Lyman Jackson, we should also consider the hearsay credited to his son-in-law's brother and hold open the possibility that Solomon Spalding wrote more than just the Oberlin story. Also, we might notice that the cumulative testimony for a "lost tribes" Spalding story in no way produces a perfect match for the contents of the Book of Mormon. This reported "lost tribes" story, written in archaic English, merits more study -- it may turn out to be something other than the Book of Mormon, after all. 3 Sister Rosanna Jackson Rudd was not the only child Lyman and Deidama Jackson brought into the world, but she seems to have been the only Mormon convert in that staunchly Methodist family. Her brother, the Rev. Abner Jackson, was born Sept. 17, 1795 in Richfield, Otsego Co., New York, the town where Solomon Spalding was then living. Abner was about 10 years old when his father moved the family to Erie Co., Pennsylvania (onto land obtained from Spalding), and he was about 17 when Spalding left their Conneaut Creek region and moved to Pittsburgh. Here is an extract from what Abner had to say in 1881: Shortly after my father moved, Spaulding sold his store in Richfield, and moved to Conneaut... about the beginning of the year 1812, [he] commenced to write his famous romance called by him "The Manuscript Found." This romance, Mr. Spaulding brought with him on a visit to my father... purporting to be a history of the lost tribes of Israel. He begins with their departure from Palestine or Judea, then up through Asia... passing over the Straits... They soon quarreled, and then commenced war... All the Righteous were slain, except one, and he was Chief Prophet and Recorder... Spaulding frequently read his manuscript to the neighbors and amused them as he progressed with his work. He wrote it in Bible style.Either Abner did not state the facts correctly, or his father Lyman did not state the facts fully, or -- most likely -- Lyman saw both Spalding's "Roman story" and his "lost tribes story," but only his encounter with the first of these pseudo-historical stories got passed down to young Ben Winchester. E. D. Howe did not print all the statements taken by D. P. Hurlbut in the Conneaut region, so I do not think it can be stated, with absolute certainty, that Lyman Jackson never submitted an affidavit of any kind to Mr. Hurlbut. What I find interesting is the substantial amount of story plot overlap in the description of "Manuscript Found" provided by Elder Erastus Rudd and the description provided by his brother's brother-in-law, Abner Jackson. At least two members of the Jackson-Rudd extended family seem to have agreed in general, if not in every detail, what plot elements comprised Spalding's "Manuscript Found." If we are dealing with a common family tradition here (reported one way by that family's Mormons and another way by its non-Mormons), then perhaps it would be worthwhile for somebody to search out any other writings left by members of that extended family, and report on how they described the manuscript(s) in question. I think that it is also important that we keep in mind the fact, that when Winchester wrote and published his pamphlet in 1840, he was writing LDS apologetics and not objective history. He may have left out certain facts, if they were potentially embarrassing to the Mormon Church. Elder Winchester himself, in later years, said he thought that Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. As Winchester puts it: "He [Smith] carried what he called a 'Peep stone' through which he claimed to see hidden treasure & etc. This is what he afterwards called his 'Urim and Thummem.' Finally he took the notion to get up a book.... I am satisfied that it originated with Smith and Cowdery and possibly Harris contributed some to it." This was certainly not the sort of thing an LDS apologist was going to admit in a book written to defend the Church under the Presidency of Joseph Smith, jr., any more than an apologist like Matthew would today admit that Solomon Spalding may have written more than a single pseudo-historical manuscript. At any rate, not many months after Ben published his booklet he got called a liar and a slanderer 4 by just about all the bigwigs in Nauvoo. The top leaders threw this "liar and slanderer" out of the Church, but Bro. Joe kept a tight grip on Ben's sister -- who was one of his spiritual wives. 5 __________ 1 Hurlbut's biographer, Dale W Adams, states this opinion: "Winchester reports that Hurlbut made several converts in Crawford County [PA]... it is likely that while in the area he interviewed John Spalding and his wife who lived a mile Northeast of Linesville. John was 59 in 1833, operated a small farm, and was also a fervent, closed-communion Baptist... Winchester states that soon after Hurlbut began his mission he exhibited the spirit of big I and little u, possibly a smug attitude he assumed after uncovering what he thought was a secret that would expose fraud by Joseph Smith Jr." I concur with Bro. Adams' educated surmise and believe that Elder Hurlbut was still a loyal member of the LDS Church until about the time he returned from Crawford Co. to Erie Co. He may have heard bits and pieces of the Spalding claims throughout western Erie Co. while serving his mission there (including something from the Jackson family), but I think it was his encounter with John and Martha Spalding, in adjacent Crawford Co., that convinced him to begin his struggle with/against Joseph Smith, jr. Spalding's widow retells, in her statement of Apr. 1, 1839, the strange story of John Spalding arising during a Mormon preaching meeting and expressing his outrage at hearing his dead brothers words being read from the Book of Mormon. The widow says: "His grief found vent in a flood of tears, and he arose on the spot, and expressed to the meeting his deep sorrow and regret, that the writings of his sainted brother should be used for a purpose so vile and shocking." It at first seems unbelieveable that the "fervent, closed-communion Baptist" would have called his late Deist brother "sainted." After all, John's son Daniel stated: "my father said he was a scoundrel and used to cheat the people out of their money and property." But, when we remember that in those days "sainted" was a euphemism for "dead," our disbelief may fade a little. Another allegation strains my imagination even more -- to imagine that John Spalding just happened to have been present on the cold January evening in 1832 when Elders Hyde and Smith preached from the Book of Mormon at Salem Center, Ohio (a half-day's horseback ride from John's home village in adjacent Pennsylvania). It seems much more likely to me that John's emotional outburst occurred while he was listening to Mormon Elder D. P. Hurlbut's missionary preaching in or near John's home hamlet in Crawford Co. in May, 1833. The widow, in her retelling an event which she did not witness personally, may have accidentally conflated John's experience in hearing the Book of Mormon preached from in May, 1833, with the similar, but less ardent experience of Dr. Nehemiah King at Salem, in January, 1832. 2 Winchester, in 1900, said: "I was deputed by them [the top LDS leaders] to hunt up the Hulbert [sic] case." But he evidently means to place this "deputizing" in the context of his publishing A History of the Priesthood (written in 1841-42 and published in 1843) and his editing the Philadelphia Gospel Reflector for the Church (in 1841). A likely time for the "deputizing" was during the last weeks of 1839 and the first weeks of 1840, when Sidney Rigdon, Joseph Smith, Parley P. Pratt, and other LDS notables were in Philadelphia and were hosted there by Elder Winchester, at a "special conference" held on Jan. 13, 1840. According to the recollection of Smith's personal physician, Dr. Robert D. Foster, the Rev. George C. Cookman, of Washington, D. C., was at that time preaching to his congregation, telling them that Joseph Smith's "new" Bible (the Book of Mormon) had been "dug up in Palmyra, New York; and that it was nothing but an irreligious romance, and that Smith had obtained it from the widow of one Spaulding, who wrote it for his own amusement." Presumably this happened on or about Jan. 5, 1840, in Rev. Cookman's first Sunday sermon of the new year. Foster visited with Rev. Cookman, but was unable to get him to stop his harmful preaching (the U. S. Senate was then considering the Mormon's petition for redress against the State of Missouri) in that important city. According to Foster, he "reported this to Mr. Rigdon, and wrote to Philadelphia to Mr. [Joseph] Smith." Just prior to the gathering of the Elders at Philadelphia, Parley P. Pratt had been battling a deleterious outbreak of the Spalding-Rigdon claims in New England and New York (see his letter of Nov. 27, 1839 to the New York New Era). Thus, when Winchester hosted the Jan. 13, 1840 "special conference" at Philadelphia, it is almost certain that the "Spalding problem" was discussed among the high level Mormon leaders assembled there. I believe that this was the time that Winchester was "deputed by them to hunt up" and compile some useful negative publicity on Hurlbut, Spalding, and related matters. If this is what happened, Winchester may have written up his material on Lyman Jackson's statement from memory, five years after the old man had passed away. 3 Inspired by my reading of Elder Elias L. T. Harrison's 1857 article, I once began to write a paper, based upon the possibility that Solomon Spalding wrote a "lost tribes" story, the content of which was something other than what we now read in the Oberlin document or in the Book of Mormon. While in the process of compiling my data for this paper, I received some negative feedback from a few of my LDS friends, suggesting that my idea was untenable, so I never completed the work. The portion that I had typed up when I aborted the writing project can be found on-line, as Part 1 of my Spalding Research Paper No. 13. 4 The writers of the 2000 CD-ROM book, The Spalding Enigma try to make a major point, documenting how the LDS leadership cast out Benjamin Winchester, accusing him of making slanderous reports, etc. I do not think that the charges brought against him then and the vicious (?) accusations made leading up to his excommunication are worth much historical consideration. The Church leaders of those days typically defamed and demonized all Saints cast out from the fold. For example, read what the 1838 issues of Joseph Smith, jr.'s Elders' Journal had to say about former members like Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, the Whitmers, etc. Despite the terrible things said in the Church's official publications about the character and conduct of those early members, their portraits today hang respectably in the LDS office building in Salt Lake City. Perhaps Winchester's painting is there somewhere also, and I have just never noticed it. 5 Does anybody (besides myself) appreciate the subtle irony of Benjamin Winchester having one relative (through the marriage of his aunt, Sarah Winchester Hurlbut) who tried to destroy the Church, and another relative (through the marriage of his sister, Nancy Winchester Smith) who tried to build it up? Joseph reportedly later employed D. P. Hurlbut's jilted sweetheart, Sister Huldah Barnes, as a maid in his home at Kirtland, where she is rumored to have been one of his "plurals," before eventually being passed down to wifely status in Heber C. Kimball's harem. If these shirttail relatives-by-marriage (Joe and D. P.) enjoyed the same quasi-connubial delights, in this particular case, then that mutual intimacy did not assuage Smith's enmity for the anti-Mormon Hurlbut. Just about the last thing Smith ever had to say regarding "Doctor" Philastus Hurlbut is the prophecy thusly recorded in the Choice Seer's personal journal: "the Lord shall destroy him who has lifted his heel against me even that wicked man Docter P. [Hurlbut] he [will] deliver him to the fowls of heaven and his bones shall be cast to the blast of the wind [for] he lifted his [arm] against the Almity [sic] therefore the Lord shall destroy him" -- (entry for April 1, 1834). Forty-nine years later, on June 18, 1883, "Doctor" Philastus Hurlbut died from the infirmities of old age, in his bed at Gibsonburg, Ohio. His bones are still resting, safe and secure, in the town cemetery. |
|
Dale's Comments, Part 5:
We're Off to See the Widow! I hope Matthew got paid for all his apologizing, because he's sure done a good job of it. He goes on to tell us that "Philastus Hurlbut paid a visit to Spaulding's [sic] widow and after being shown her husband's unpublished document he took it with him to Eber D. Howe's print shop in Painesville, Ohio -- with a promise to the widow of future publication and a share in the profits." That sounds like a useful explanation of things, put forth in defending the LDS Church's traditional "party line" -- but is it really what happened? I think that the set of events Matthew has here blithely glided over was a bit more complex and significant than he has tried to make us believe. First of all, we should ask ourselves the question, Why did D. P. Hurlbut go to all the trouble and expense, to travel from Palmyra, New York (were he had been collecting statements useful to the anti-Mormons) to Monson, Massachusetts (where Spalding's widow lived)? The traditional Mormon response has generally been that, after fabricating the "Spalding theory," Hurlbut "paid a visit to Spaulding's widow" in order to obtain and destroy any evidence contrary to the bogus "theory" he had cooked up against the Latter Day Saints. My thoughts on the situation are somewhat different. Hurlbut's wife Maria said that her husband "spent about six months time and a good deal of money looking up the Spaulding manuscript and other evidence." In 1885 Maria divulged the following recollection concerning her late husband: "He was employed by leading citizens of Mentor and Geauga Co. to investigate the character of the Mormon Smith Family and the Origin of the Book of Mormon. He went to Palmyra NY by stage and at Conneaut learned... that Spaulding had taken his Manuscript Found to Pittsburgh Pa... Mr. H. lectured on Mormonism while collecting evidence against them in NY and Ohio. In the spring of 1834 he sold E. D. Howe editor of the Painesville Telegraph his Manuscripts."I believe that, about the end of August, 1833, Mr. Hurlbut left Gauga Co., Ohio by stagecoach, with a wad of money collected from the anti-Mormons in his pocket, bound for Palmyra, New York. Along the way he stopped off at Salem (since 1834 called Conneaut) Ohio, "lectured on Mormonism," and collected a few more donations to help finance his evidence collecting. At that time, after soliciting letters of recommendation and conducting more interviews among Solomon Spalding's old associates in that neighborhood, it became clear to him that Spalding "had taken his 'Manuscript Found' to Pittsburgh" near the end of 1812. In his 1885 statement Eber D. Howe says: "John Spaulding, a brother of Solomon directed him [Hurlbut] to Pittsburgh Pa., where Solomon had taken his manuscript to have it printed." According to Elder Daniel Tyler: "Previous to the publication of E. D. Howe's book... the said Doctor [Hurlbut]... went to Pittsburg with the avowed intention of obtaining the romance." The trustworthy (?) Ben Winchester tells the story a little differently: "Mr. H. while in conversation with Mrs. Davieson, learned that Mr. S. removed from New Salem to Pittsburgh, Pa., in the year 1812... and no sooner had Mr. H. returned to New Salem, than it was thought best that he should immediately repair to Pittsburgh, and see if Mr. S.'s manuscript had ever been left there.... After Mr. H. returned from Pittsburgh, he went to Kirtland, Ohio."While I agree that D. P. Hurlbut traveled from the Conneaut region, south to Pittsburgh on an investigative side-trip, I seriously doubt this occurred during frigid, snowy end of December 1833, between the time that he submitted his Dec. 20th "press release" to the Wayne Sentinel and Dec. 27th, when Justice of the Peace John C. Dowen says he recorded Joseph Smith, jr.'s civil complaint against Mr. Hurlbut in his docket book. There simply wasn't sufficient time available for Hurlbut to travel from New York to Ohio; backtrack to Pittsburgh; make useful discoveries there; and then return to the Kirtland area and there hold a number of his anti-Mormon lectures, before Judge Dowen issued the writ which led to his arrest at Painesville on Jan. 3rd or 4th. Besides which, his lawyer says Hurlbut, prior to his arrest, had exhibited in Mentor a Spalding document he obtained in Pittsburgh. Mr Briggs says: "In the winter of 1833-34, a self-constituted committee of citizens of Willoughby, Mentor, and Painesville met a number of times at the house of the late Mr. Warren Corning, of Mentor, to investigate the Mormon humbug. At one of the meetings we had before us the original manuscript of the Rev. Solomon Spaulding... The 'Manuscript Found.' It was obtained from Mr. Patterson, or Peterson, a publisher of Pittsburg, Pa., with whom negotiations had once been made towards its publication."In another place, Mr. Briggs says practically the same thing: "In the winter of 1833-'34 several gentlemen in Willoughby, Painesville, and Mentor formed themselves into a committee to inquire into the origin of the Mormon Bible... They employed a man by the name of Hurlbut, who was once a Mormon, to help in the investigation. He went to Pittsburgh and found a printer there for the manuscript of the book written by the Rev. Solomon Spalding, 'The Manuscript Found.' We compared it with the Mormon Bible, and the names and language and style of the Bible were so like the manuscript that all were convinced that the "Mormon Bible" was made out of this manuscript of Spalding."Mr. Briggs, along with the rest of the anti-Mormon "committee" members, was largely dependent upon what Hurlbut told him in obtaining this information. The results of that communication are not to be relied upon for any exemplary accuracy, but I think Briggs' account of things does help demonstrate that D. P. Hurlbut made a side-trip to Pittsburgh, in the course of his 1833 investigative travels to the east. Undocumented assertions made in the final pages of Howe's book, regarding Lambdin, Patterson, etc. also indicate that somebody had been to Pittsburgh, and there solicited and received at least some minimal information and material relating to Spalding's "Manuscript Found." Whatever it was that D. P. Hurlbut discovered in Pittsburgh, in about September of 1833, it was not enough to cause him to cancel his plans to visit Palmyra and gather useful statements from the residents of the area. Evidently the Geauga Co. anti-Mormons had paid him to go and gather information in New York, no matter what supplementary material he might uncover along the way relating to Spalding. Solomon Spalding's widow had this to say in her Apr. 1, 1839 statement: "The excitement in New Salem became so great, that the inhabitants had a meeting and deputed Dr. Philastus Hurlbut, one of their number to repair to this place and to obtain from me the original manuscript of Mr. Spaulding, for the purpose of comparing it with the Mormon Bible... Dr. Hurlbut brought with him an introduction and request for the manuscript, signed by Messrs. Henry Lake, Aaron Wright and others, with all whom I was acquainted, as they were my neighbors when I resided in New Salem."Although D. P. Hurlbut was probably never called "one of their number" by the inhabitants of the Conneaut area, several of its people, when he passed through and lectured there at about the end of August, were no doubt happy to supply him with letters of introduction, etc. But were these certifications and a "request for the manuscript" necessarily addressed to Mrs. Matilda Spalding Davison, the widow of Solomon Spalding? I doubt it. Solomon Spalding's foster daughter, Mrs. Matilda S. McKinstry, in 1880, gave her recollection of what Matthew calls Hurlbut's "visit": "I believe it was in 1834 [sic, Nov., 1833] that a man named Hurlburt [sic] came to my house at Monson to see my mother, who told us that he had been sent by a committee to procure the 'Manuscript Found' written by the Rev. Solomon Spalding so as to compare it with the Mormon Bible. He presented a letter to my mother from my uncle, Wm. H. Sabine, of Onondaga Valley, in which he requested her to loan this manuscript to Hurlburt... On the repeated promise of Hurlburt to return the manuscript to us, she gave him a letter to Mr. Clark to open the trunk and deliver it to him. We afterwards heard that he had received it from Mr. Clark at Hartwicks, but from that time we have never had it in our possession."Two years later Mrs. McKinstry provided some information in which she says essentially the same thing: "My mother delivered it [the "Manuscript Found"] up for publication to a Mr. Hulburt who came to our house in Mass. for it, bearing letters of introduction from my uncle, a Mr. Sabine, a lawyer in New York State." 1 From all of this testimony I am led to believe that D. P. Hurlbut learned of the location of William H. Sabine's home on the outskirts of Syracuse -- probably from John and Martha Spalding -- and first went there, hoping to obtain a view of Spalding's old writings. Upon his arrival at Sabines' residence, the brother-in-law of the late Solomon Spalding would have informed Hurlbut that, yes, at one time Spalding's trunk full of papers and fictional writings had been stored in his house, but that the the trunk had been moved from there, by order of the widow herself, a decade before. In his 1885 statement Eber D. Howe says that D. P. Hurlbut "learned Mrs. Spaulding was in Mass and went there," but Howe neglects to tell from whom Hurlbut learned this information. If D. P. knew that the widow was living in Monson, Massachusetts before he went to see Mr. Sabine, I can only wonder why Hurlbut even bothered to stop and consult with him; he might have just as easily saved that interview for his return trip. At any rate, D. P. Hurlbut, once he realized the Spalding writings had been moved out of Mr. Sabine's keeping, took the oportunity to cajole Sabine into writing a letter to his sister, requesting her to loan the late author's scribblings to the investigator from Ohio. Without that personal advisory from her brother, it is unlikely that the widow would have given up those old papers to a stranger -- even if, as her foster daughter says, he "spent a day at my house," engaging in ingratiating chitchat with the two very distrustful ladies. The irony of the whole affair is that Solomon Spalding's writings were not with the widow in far off Monson, Massachusetts, but were, all the while, in the nearby county of Otsego. It is highly unlikely, however, that Hurlbut was aware of this fact, as he proceeded on his journey from Syracuse, through Utica, past Otsego and Albany, to Massachusetts. For all of these reasons I am unconvinced that D. P. Hurlbut was certain of the location of Spalding's manuscripts when he left the Conneaut country, on his way east. Nor do I think that he just happened to stop by the McKinstry home in Monson, Massachusetts, for a friendly "visit." Given the primitive state of transportation in those days, the lateness of the season, and the expense involved in his going to Monson, I do not believe that Hurlbut would have undertaken the trip, just to pass some pleasantries with Spalding's widow. He was acting like a man with a driving passion, and that passion was to locate and read the fictional creations of Solomon Spalding, to see if they were indeed the source from which the Book of Mormon was derived. Having served for several weeks as a Mormon missionary, D. P. Hurlbut was well aware of the characters, plot, and language of the Mormon scriptures -- it would have taken little more than a couple of moments' glance at Spalding's papers for Hurlbut to have ascertained whether or not he had found his literary "holy grail." If, on the other hand, as some Mormon defenders have suggested, Hurlbut went to all this 1833 travel and trouble just to destroy evidence, he certainly did a very poor job of that nefarious work. The one Solomon Spalding story that he eventually turned over to E. D. Howe was precisely the sort of non-Nephite stuff he should have been destroying, if he wished to maintain the concocted illusion that the dead writer had produced something very much like the Book of Mormon. This is why I maintain that Hurlbut's trip east was indeed an investigative quest, and not simply a way in which to enhance the credibility of a contrived explanation for the Saints' holy writ. Manuscript, Manuscript, Who's Got the Manuscript? When last we looked in upon our pernicious ex-Mormon protagonist, he was on his way from Monson, Massachusetts to Hartwick, New York, to obtain the loan of Solomon Spalding's "Manuscript Found," along with any other useful items he might turn up, in support of the claims for the author being the originator of the Book of Mormon. Having walked the silent streets of Hartwick hamlet myself, I can only hope that Hurlbut was able to find a place to sleep and eat before he caught a farmer's wagon ride back to the stage road. Once he had shown his authorization from Spalding's widow, her relatives, the Clarks, probably let their unexpected guest paw through the dead man's trunk to his heart's content. So, once he had the "old hair trunk" open and its contents at his disposal, up in the Clarks' unheated attic, what did he find inside? Hold that question in mind, while I fast-forward the story to a few weeks later, when E. D. Howe realized that D. P. Hurlbut had not handed over the celebrated "Manuscript Found." Perhaps the better question would be, why didn't Mr. Howe, or Mr. Sabine, or the Geauga Co. anti-Mormons, or Hurlbut's lawyer, or Spalding's widow, or anybody else contact the Clark family in Hartwick and ask what they had allowed D. P. Hurlbut to walk away with in his satchel, from his scroungings about in that dark cold attic? Don't expect to find any more of an answer to this question than to my previous query. There is no answer, just an omenious silence meets our 170 years-too-late questioning. According to the Rev. Clark Braden, his fellow Disciples of Christ minister, the Rev. J. E. Gaston, wrote to Spalding's widow in 1842 and received this reply: "shortly after Hurlbut left Munson [sic] with the order from her to get the manuscript of the 'Manuscript Found' from the trunk at Mr. Clark's at Hartwicke, N. Y., she received a letter from Hurlbut, in which he told her that he had obtained from the trunk what he had come for, the manuscript of 'Manuscript Found,' and that when he had taken it to the parties that sent him, and it had been used for the purpose for which they wanted it, that is published to expose the plagiarism of the Book of Mormon from it, he would return it to her." That second-hand hearsay is perhaps as close as any modern investigator will ever get to an explanation of what happen in the Clark garret in November 1833. The first part of the lady's reply resonates with what Mr. Hurlbut himself had published in the Wayne Sentinel of Dec. 20, 1833 -- that he had "succeeded in accomplishing the object of his mission" to retrieve the "Manuscript Found," and that "an authentic history of the whole affair" would "shortly be given to the public." According to the reported reply of the widow herself, this information came to her as "a letter from Hurlbut" himself, written "shortly after" she last saw him. My chronology places D. P. Hurlbut in Monson on or about Nov. 22, 1833; at the Clark residence on or about Nov. 25th; back in the Palmyra area on or about Nov. 27th; and all the way back to Kirtland on or about Dec. 18th. If he wrote to the widow "shortly after" he left her in Monson, that might mean anywhere from a week to three or four weeks -- but I suppose it to mean that he sent her a positive sounding letter at about the same time he wrote up his positive sounding press release in Palmyra, that is, perhaps about the 13th of December. Still following Rev. Gaston's report, this date fits the scenario of being before "he had taken it ["Manuscript Found"] to the parties that sent him. Beyond this tiny window into Hurlbut's accomplishments at Hartwick, all else is darkness. Mr. Jerome Clark is not known to have ever specified what he allowed D. P. Hurlbut to take with him and Hurlbut is not known to have left a receipt with the Clarks. Matthew, in writing his admittedly good LDS apologetics, of course blissfully bypasses all of this confusing historical stuff and cuts directly to the chase: "But when Hurlbut made a closer examination of the Spaulding manuscript he did not find the parallels to the Book of Mormon that he had hoped for and so he asserted that there must have been another manuscript written by Spaulding that was now 'lost.'" Excuse me for a moment, while I remedy my nausea over this asinine explanation. Thank you for your patience, I'm back and I feel better now. Let's continue to play out our parts in this theatre of the absurd. Perhaps we can call the performance "Following after Matthew," since the title "Waiting for Godot" has already been taken. Following after Bro. Matthew, we come to his footnote to his previous explanation of things: "Either Hurlbut or Howe wrote a letter to Spaulding's widow informing her that her husband's manuscript "did not read as they expected" and they therefore decided against publishing it." Don't bother asking for his citation, we can all easily guess that Matthew is still riding happily along on Ben Winchester's joy-ride at this point in the narrative. "But hold on thar!" I hear my LDS comrades crying out, "Eber D. Howe says the same thing! and so does that widdow woman!" Howe's account ("The trunk... was subsequently examined, and found to contain only a single M. S. book, in Spalding's hand-writing... purporting to have been translated from the Latin") I can partially excuse, as being nothing more than his repetition of what trustworthy (?) D. P. Hurlbut told him. The widow's reported statement ("I received a letter stating it did not read as they expected, and they should not print it.") is a little more problematic. If Spalding's widow informed Rev. Gaston in 1842, that D. P. Hurlbut "told her that he had obtained from the trunk what he had come for, the manuscript of 'Manuscript Found,'" then why did she tell Elder Jesse Haven that "it did not read as they expected?" Perhaps a hint at an answer may be found in Elder Alexander Badlam suffix to the 1839 Haven report, that Ben Winchester helpfully reproduces: "I do not say that the above Questions and Answers were given in the form that I have written them..." Apparently Elder Badlam was quoting Elder Haven at this point, and was trying to cover both their heads, in case the widow should ever see the published report of Brigham Young's cousin, 2 and object to how he had worded her replies to his questions. In other words, she may have told Elder Haven that she received two letters, but he only elected to mention the second communication from D. P. Hurlbut. 3 As for D. P. Hurlbut (who knew well the story of the Book of Mormon) never taking the trouble to look at the content of the manuscript he obtained from Mr. Jerome Clark, that is preposterous. Imagine Mr. Clark, opening the "old hair trunk" and asking D. P. Hurlbut just what the manuscript he was seeking looked like or contained. "Oh, that doesn't matter," says Hurlbut in this imaginary farce, "I'll just take the top one on the stack and read it once I get back to Ohio." So Mr. Clark says, "There's one here called 'The Frogs of Wyndham,' will that one do?" It is too painful for me to contemplate the continuation of such a scene. Even if there was only a single scrap of paper, sitting on the bottom of an otherwise empty trunk, we can all bet the farm on the fact that D. P. Hurlbut would have scrutinized every line written on it, before he conceded he did not have something worth bringing back to the anti-Mormons in Ohio. It may serve Matthew's purposes to believe that Hurlbut never took a look-see -- just as it may have served the trusty (?) D. P. Hurlbut's inscrutable purposes, at some point later on, to say the same thing -- but I declare, "that dog won't hunt a flea!" 4 But the son of the Spalding's foster daughter, Dr. John A. McKinstry, sums up the absurdity better than I can, in a Sept. 1, 1879 letter to Robert Patterson, jr., of Pittsburgh: "Hurlbut's statement does not alter my belief that he did have 'Manuscript Found' in his possession and disposed of it to his own advantage.... His statement that he did not know the contents of the paper he passed over to Mr. Howe seems to me perfectly ridiculous. I can hardly realize that a man interested in the publication of a work, and having in his possession what he must have supposed under the circumstances was of the greatest importance to the value of that work, could have manifested so little interest -- or at least curiosity -- as not to have given it at least a passing notice. Neither can I believe that any man who has the least claim to common sense would accept blindly, without even looking at its contents, a worthless package in place of a valuable MS.... I hardly know what further can be done to unravel the mystery. If Hurlbut disposed of the MS, he of course did not do it openly"John's mother, Mrs. Matilda Spalding McKinstry, gives her explanation for what probably happened at the Clark house, in a statement dated Aug. 31, 1880: "Hurlbut may have received in addition to "Manuscript Found" some fragment. tied up with the bundle, which fragment he passed over to Mr. Howe, retaining the one of real importance for personal use... I feel that any communication from my self to 'Mr H.' -- would be of no avail. If he stole the papers, he would not criminate himself by owning it."If our good apologist Matthew is feeling a bit shaky in his overzealous reliance upon Ben Winchester for historical information, I'll do him a small favor and provide another, corraborative source -- nothing less than the dependable (?) Testimony of D. P. Hurlbut himself. On Aug. 19, 1879, he said: "I visited Mrs. Matilda (Spaulding) Davison at Monson, Mass., in 1834, and... received from her a manuscript of her husband's, which I did not read, but brought home with me, and immediately gave it to Mr. E. D. Howe, of Painesville, Ohio... I do not know whether or not the document I received from Mrs. Davison was Spaulding's "Manuscript Found," as I never read it entire, and it convinced me that it was not the Spaulding manuscript... I never received any other manuscript of Spaulding's from Mrs. Davison... I did not destroy the manuscript nor dispose of it to Joe Smith, or to any other person."Well, I suppose that ends the controversy -- we can all go home now that we have such reliable testimony before our eyes! Oh, but wait one moment -- while I'm giving away the ultimate testimony against that nasty old "myth of the Manucript Found," I might as well double its destructive power. Here's Hurlbut's 1881 reaffirmation of his prior testimony: "I went... to Munson, Hampden Co., Mass., where I found Mrs. Davison... I obtained a manuscript, supposing it to be... 'The Manuscript Found,' which was reported to he the foundation of the Book of Mormon. I did not examine the manuscript until I got home, when, upon examination, I found it to contain nothing of the kind." Of all the things D. P. Hurlbut might have testified to, it seems he was especially keen on absolving himself from ever having laid eyes upon a Spalding manuscript story that resembled the narrative given in the Book of Mormon. 5 As the Prince of Denmark once said, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." The Hurlbut-Smith Brawl Our friend Matthew quietly passes over the old Mormon claim that said D. P. Hurlbut tried to assassinate Joseph Smith, Jr., at Kirtland during the last days of 1833. No doubt this is nasty stuff to contemplate, but I wonder if his avoiding the subject marks a new turn in 21st century LDS apologetics? Although past Mormon writings on the Kirtland era generally make mention of D. P. Hurlbut's 1833 threat to harm Smith, LDS writers who were personally involved during that period in Kirtland provide us with very little information on the alleged assassination threat. Benjamin Winchester is strangely economical with explanations in his account: "he [Hurlbut, returning from his travels] went to Kirtland, Ohio, and stopped in that region of country, as he said, to learn other particulars, and finish writing his book. Mr. H. had not been there long, before he threatened to murder Joseph Smith, Jun." Ben Winchester's relatives, the Elders Joseph and Benjamin Johnson, are not much more helpful in supplying the missing pieces of this story. Joseph says: "Hurlbut went east and was absent some two or three months -- and on his return publicly declared that he could not obtain it... the Manuscript Found, and the only conclusion that can be reasonable is, that finding it would spoil his case and ruin his purposes, that manuscript was destroyed or suppressed." Benjamin adds: "[Hurlbut] soon collected around him the congregations of our enemies, and in pert and pompous style told them the tale he had concocted of the 'Manuscript Found'... Soon afterward by them all he was most cordially despised." George A. Smith arrived in Kirtland about the time that D. P. Hurlbut was giving the Mormons so much trouble, but his recollections supply only the sketchiest of additional information. He says: "[D. P. Hurlbut] went to work and got up the Spaulding story -- that famous yarn about the 'Manuscript Found.' When about to publish this lying fabrication, in several of his exciting speeches having threatened the life of Joseph Smith, he was required to... keep the peace." George later expanded his reminiscence: "Hurlburt was the author of... 'The Spaulding story,' a book which he intended to publish; and in delivering lectures he had said he would wash his hands in Joseph Smith's blood. He was taken before the court and required to give bonds to keep the peace towards all men, and especially towards Joseph Smith." Given the serious nature of the charge that Apostle George A. Smith makes against Hurlbut ("in delivering lectures he had said he would wash his hands in Joseph Smith's blood"), it seems strange to me that Mormon historians have never taken the trouble to supply some details for this obscure episode in Kirtland history. Perhaps Matthew B. Brown will one day turn historical researcher, update the Kirtland investigations of Max Parkin and Milton V. Backman, and present the full story of this murderous incident for our edification. 6 __________ 1 The editor of the RLDS Saints' Herald makes an interesting claim in the Mar. 21, 1885 issue: "Mr. Jerome Clark stated that when he attempted to honor the order for the delivery of the 'Manuscript Found,' brought to him from Mrs. Davison, formerly Mrs. Spaulding, by Mr. Sabine, and P. Hurlbut, he found but one; and that one he gave to Mr. Hurlbut when Mr. Sabine was present." The source for this remarkable assertion is left unstated, and, as it is encountered nowhere else in Mormon apologetics, it must have been an extremely obscure one. It is possible that Jerome Clark, prior to his death in 1850, provided some hitherto uncited recollection of Hurlbut's visit to his Hartwick home in 1833. An extensive search of the Otsego Co. and Onondaga Co. newspapers has not, so far, turned up such an account from him. According to Ellen E. Dickinson, "Joseph Sabine, Esq., of Syracuse, son of William H. Sabine, now deceased, twice wrote his recollections for New York newspapers of the family traditions in relation to Mr. Spaulding, his romance, its being in his father's house, and of Joe Smith's residence at Onondaga Valley." U |
