|
Document: Robert L. Brown & Rosemary Browns' report Source: They Lie in Wait to Deceive II (1984, 92) Title-page (1992 ed.) Contents Preface (excerpt) Introduction (excerpt) Chapter 1 (excerpt) Chapter 2 (excerpt) Chapter 6 (excerpt) Appendix (excerpt) Comments: 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
Cowdrey, et al.: Who Really Wrote... The Spalding Enigma
Brown, R. & R.: download a free copy of TLIWTD#2
(revised): new download URL for the Browns' book
They Lie in Wait to Deceive II, copyright © 1984, 92
by Robert L. Brown
Because of copyright restrictions, only limited "fair use"
excerpts are presented here.
THEY LIE IN WAIT
|
|
||||||
|
view transcriber's comments
There are those who make it their profession to attack the religious beliefs of others... Such is the case with the subjects of this book -- Walter Martin, Wayne Cowdery, Howard Davis, Donald Scales and Dee Jay Nelson... Because of the success of the LDS Church, many alarmed ministers... apparently feel that ignorance is the best defense against Mormonism. Wayne Cowdery, Howard Davis, and Donald Scales go even further in their book, WHO REALLY WROTE THE BOOK OF MORMON? They added biased and false information designed to spread fear and prejudice among their listeners at the expense of the LDS Church... Note: Because the text from which the above extract was taken is under copyright protection, only a very limited portion is presented here. A free, on-line version of this part of the text may be downloaded at: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/liw/v2/V2P05f.pdf |
|
view transcriber's comments
That the Spaulding theory has not found its final resting place became clear when the Los Angeles Times on June 25, 1977, announced that three California researchers, Wayne Cowdery, Howard Davis, and Donald Scales, had found evidence that Solomon Spaulding had written a portion of the original Book of Mormon manuscript and that handwriting experts had substantiated their conclusion.... The three researchers have written a book based on this speculated Spaulding/Book of Mormon connection... On the top of the front cover of their book, WHO REALLY WROTE THE BOOK OF MORMON?, you read the words -- "A Startling New Discovery." ... Note: Because the text from which the above extract was taken is under copyright protection, only a very limited portion is presented here. A free, on-line version of this part of the text may be downloaded at: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/liw/v2/V2P05f.pdf |
|
view transcriber's comments
Henry Silver was hired first to see what his reaction would be toward identifying the handwriting ... Note: Because the text from which the above extract was taken is under copyright protection, only a very limited portion is presented here. A free, on-line version of this part of the text may be downloaded at: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/liw/v2/V2P05f.pdf
view transcriber's comments
CONVERSATION BETWEEN HENRY SILVER AND ROBERT L. BROWN 18 Sept. 1981 Silver: One of the three investigators (Cowdrey) wanted to know if I would be available to go to Utah to look at some questioned documents...
view transcriber's comments
... Later that evening this fellow (Cowdrey) called me and said he was taking me the next day to Salt Lake City... So we flew to Salt Lake City One of the Mormons asked Cowdrey where he got a copy of the original handwriting that was in the Church vaults. Cowdrey admitted that he used to belong to the Mormon Church and that he knew a fellow who had access...
view transcriber's comments
... Coming back [from Salt Lake City] in the plane Cowdrey told me that he was a former member of the Mormon Church, and that he was a descendant of Oliver Cowdery, one of Smith's scribes... then he asked me if I would go to Ohio to Oberlin College because they had the original of Spaldings manuscript...
view transcriber's comments
... I, Henry Silver, certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a conversation between Robert L. Brown and myself on the 18th of September 1981... Signed [Mr. Silver's signature] 3/30/82
view transcriber's comments
... Cowdrey doesn't miss a trick either. He is quick to impress people about his famous genealogy. He told Silver that he was a "descendant of Oliver Cowdery, one of the scribes of the Book of Mormon." ... Wayne Cowdrey is NOT a descendant of Oliver Cowdery! ... |
|
view transcriber's comments
On page three of the book WRWTBOM... Footnote "b," shown below, is included in their book to reassure the readers that. although the names are spelled differently, Wayne Cowdrey is still a descendant of Oliver Cowdery: b "Oliver's last name was spelled Cowdery, while many of his Note: Because the text from which the above extract was taken is under copyright protection, only a very limited portion is presented here. A free, on-line version of this part of the text may be downloaded at: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/liw/v2/V2P05f.pdf
view transcriber's comments
descendants today spell their last name Cowdrey, as does one of the co-authors of this book."On the back cover of their book (see p. 68), about the middle of the last paragraph, it refers to Wayne Cowdrey as a descendant of Oliver Cowdery: "In early 1975, Wayne Cowdrey, a descendant of one of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, contacted Davis with information he had begun to compile."On p. 166 of WRWTBOM (see p. 65), Wayne Cowdrey's relationship to Oliver Cowdery is mentioned again: "One of us, Wayne Cowdrey, is a former Mormon descended from Smith's scribe, Oliver Cowdery."It is very important to Wayne Cowdrey to be a descendant of Oliver Cowdery... Perhaps he feels that it gives him more credibility... Here is what Edward Plowman had to say in the magazine Christianity Today, July 8, 1977... "One of the three California researchers, Wayne Cowdrey, is a direct descendant of Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith's trusted aide. He left the church as a result of his researches into the origins of the Book of Mormon."From the Los Angeles Times, Metro Section, Thursday, June 30, 1977, by Russell Chandler (see p. 67), you read: "The three young researchers are Baptists, Cowdrey, a descendant of the Oliver Cowdery said to have been a scribe of Joseph Smith, was a Mormon for a short time, he said..."
view transcriber's comments
THE CHRISTIAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE NEWSLETTER, directed by Walter Ralston Martin, states: "... Wayne, Cowdrey, Orange, Calif., who studied social science in college and is a descendant of Oliver Cowdery,... Cowdrey, who was a Mormon, was searching for information on the founding of the Mormon Church to strengthen the bases for his belief when he began to discover inconsistencies and became concerned about the truth..."
OLIVER COWDREY HAD NO POSTERITY!!!
|
|
view transcriber's comments
In Dav,Cow,Sca's book, WRWTBM the Spaulding theory was resurrected again. They expended quite a bit of energy in attempting to prove that Sidney Rigdon stole a "second" manuscript from a printshop... they have no case at all in claiming that there was a second manuscript. Note: Because the text from which the above extract was taken is under copyright protection, only a very limited portion is presented here. A free, on-line version of this part of the text may be downloaded at: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/liw/v2/V2P05f.pdf
view transcriber's comments
WHERE WERE THE EIGHT WITNESSES WHEN [image not reproduced]
view transcriber's comments
This author checked the United States census records for Conneaut, Ashtabula County, Ohio, from 1810 to 1860, and 1880, in an effort to verify the existence of the eight witnesses in Conneaut. The U.S. census is taken every 10 years and is not considered to be 100% accurate because people can change residences between the census years, and it is possible to miss someone. However, census records for the most part have been quite accurate. This author finds it significant that only two of the eight witnesses can be found in Ashtabula County when they were supposed to be (see p, 225). Next, consider "one of the most important" testimonies by Henry Lake: ... I left the State of New York, late in the year 1810, and arrived at this place [Conneaut], about the first of January following...
view transcriber's comments
Hiram Lake, Henry Lake's son, provides his testimony to the truthfulness of what his father wrote. Among other things, Hiram Lake says, "I am sixty-nine years of age, and have lived all my life in Conneaut, Ashtabula Co., Ohio. My father, Henry Lake, was partner with Solomon Spalding, in 1811 and 1812, in a forge in Conneaut (then Salem)." This author found that neither Henry Lake nor any of his family is in the census for Ashtabula County for 1810 or 1820. He can be traced elsewhere in Ohio from 1830 on. Therefore, the testimonies of Henry Lake and his son, Hiram Lake, are suspect....
view transcriber's comments
... Several testimonies gathered by Hurlburt verify the previous testimonies of other people. (This is why some anti-Mormons of today suspect Hurlburt of writing the testimonies.) Lorin Gould verifies what Hiram Lake said. Lorin Gould isn't in the census for Ashtabula County until 1840: then he is listed on every census thereafter until 1880. Missing out on three census records is stretching things too far -- this author doesn't believe he lived in Conneaut when he said he did. This testimony is certainly suspect!... A table showing the census records of the "eight witnesses at Conneaut," follows. Spaulding wrote his novel about 1809 - 1812. The Spaldings moved to Pittsburgh about 1812, so the witnesses at Conneaut would need to appear on the 1810 or 1820 census. The "eight Conneaut witnesses" are supposed to be very familiar with Spaulding's manuscript. Notice how few of them live anywhere near Spaulding. Do you suppose that Hurlburt made up most of them? view transcriber's comments
transcriber's comments for this page
This is the Austin-Davison letter... composed by Austin, it can be used to show that at this time [late 1830s] the current feeling was that there was only one Spaulding manuscript.... transcriber's comments for this page
The first time this Davison letter was published, the name D. R. Austin was not mentioned:
If you accept the previous undated, typed letter with the typed signature then you should give at least as much credibility to the following undated, unsigned conversation of Mrs. Spaulding Davison and her daughter Mrs. McKinstry. This article appeared in the QUINCY ILL. WHIG, shortly after the Davison article came out. This article exposes the Davison letter as a fabrication of D. Austin, of Monson, Mass. In 1840 a booklet was written by B. Winchester, entitled THE ORIGIN OF THE SPAULDING STORY, CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPT FOUND, published in Philadelphia. On pages 16-17, we find the WHIG letter in which Mrs. Davison explains how D. Austin took down some notes from her, and proceeded to devise a letter purportedly to be from her. She says she didn't ever see the letter until after it was published in The Boston Recorder, and that it was never brought to her to sign. Regardless, if it was written by Austin, it was his thoughts and ideas and read the way he wanted it to! The WHIG letter is typeset below so you can read it better; however, the original copy is in Winchester's booklet in the Appendix on p. 429. transcriber's comments for this page
This man was greatly annoyed at the loss of some of the best members of his congregation through the preaching of the everlasting gospel, and in his anger, published to the world what he asserted was the affidavit of the widow of Solomon Spaulding, but which she afterwards repudiated, as shown from the following article published in the Quincy (Illinois) Whig shortly after the appearance of the bogus affidavit: A CUNNING DEVICE DETECTED It will be recollected that a few months since an article appeared in several of the papers, purporting to give an account of the origin of the Book of Mormon. How far the writer of the piece has effected his purposes, or what his purposes were in pursuing the course he has, I shall not attempt to say at this time, but shall call upon every candid man to judge in this matter for himself, and shall content myself by presenting before the public the other side of the question in the form of a letter, as follows:"Copy of a letter written by Mr. John Haven, of Holliston, Middlesex Co., Massachusetts, to his daughter, Elizabeth Haven, of Quincy, Adams Co., Illinois. "Your brother Jesse passed through Monson, where he saw Mrs. Davison and her daughter, Mrs. McKinstry, and also Dr. Ely, and spent several hours with them, during which time he asked them the following questions, viz.: Question. -- 'Did you, Mrs. Davison, write a letter to John Storrs, giving an account of the, origin of, the Book of Mormon?' Answer. -- 'I did not.' Q. -- 'Did you sign your name to it?' A. -- 'I did not, neither did I ever see the letter until I saw it in the Boston Recorder, the letter was never brought to me to sign.' Q. -- What agency had you in 'having this letter sent to Mr. Storrs?' A. -- 'D. R. Austin came to my house and asked me some questions, took some minutes on paper, and from these minutes wrote that letter.' Q. -- 'Have you read the Book of Mormon?' A. -- 'I have read some in it.' Q. -- 'Does Mr. Spaulding's manuscript and the Book of Mormon agree?' A. -- 'I think some few of the names are alike.' Q. -- 'Does the manuscript, describe an idolatrous or a religious people?' A. -- 'An idolatrous people.' Q. -- 'Where is the manuscript?' A. -- 'D. P. Hurlburt came here and took it, said he would get it printed and let me have one half of the profits.' Q. -- 'Has D. P. Hurlburt got the manuscript printed?' A. -- 'I received a letter stating that it did not read as he expected, and he should not print it.' Q. -- 'How large is Mr. Spaulding's manuscript?' A. -- 'About one-third as large as the Book of Mormon.' Q. -- To Mrs. McKinstry: 'How old were you when your father wrote the manuscript?' A. -- 'About five years of age.' Q. -- 'Did you ever read the manuscript?' A. -- 'When I was about twelve years old I used to read it for diversion.' Q. -- 'Did the manuscript describe an idolatrous or a religious people?' A. -- 'An idolatrous people.' Q. -- 'Does the manuscript and the Book of Mormon agree?' A. -- 'I think some of the names agree.' Q. -- 'Are you certain that some of the names agree?' A.-- 'I am not.' Q. -- 'Have you read any in the Book of Mormon?' A. -- 'I have not.' Q. -- 'Was your name attached to that letter, which was sent to Mr. John Storrs, by your order?' A. -- 'No, I never meant that my name should be there.' 'You see by the above questions and answers, that Mr. Austin, in his great zeal to destroy the Latter-day Saints, has asked Mrs. Davison a few questions, then wrote a letter to Mr. Storrs in his own language. I do not say that the above questions and answers were given in the form that I have written them, but these questions were asked, and these answers given. Mrs. Davison is about seventy years of age, and somewhat broke.' transcriber's comments for this page
"This may certify that I am personally acquainted with Mr. Haven, his son and daughter, and am satisfied they are persons of truth. I have also read Mr. Haven's letter to his daughter which has induced me to copy it for publication, and I further say, the above is a correct copy of Mr. Haven's letter. A. Badlam." Notwithstanding the above refutation and expose the opponents of "Mormonism" have continually from the time of its publication, copied, re-published and harped upon this forged affidavit of Mrs. Davison. Their ears have been ever deaf and their eyes blind when the refutation of the slander has been presented to them. They did not then, and do not now want it; they prefer the lie which one of their number has concocted and spread broadcast through the world.The important details to emerge from the WHIG article are the following: Concerning the story in the Boston Recorder, Mrs. Spaulding Davison says "I did not (sign it), neither did I ever see the letter until I saw it in the Boston Recorder, the letter was never brought to me to sign." Austin interviewed her, took notes, and then he wrote the letter. She had read some of the Book of Mormon and "I think some few of the names are alike." The manuscript found was about an idolatrous people. (However the Book of Mormon is about a religious people.)... The Manuscript Found was about one-third the size of the Book of Mormon. This is the size of Spaulding's manuscript resting in Oberlin Ohio, today.... The above statements from Mrs. Spaulding Davison and Mrs. McKinstry have some support in an affidavit from Hurlburt that he did in fact receive the manuscript. In Scribner's Monthly, Vol. XXXII, May 1881 to Oct. 1881, New [ 234 ] York, The Century Company, 1881, Hurlbut testified that he obtained the Manuscript Found from Mrs. Spaulding Davison. He gave it to E. D. Howe to return... transcriber's comments for this page
AUTHOR'S NOTE: Solomon Spaulding's granddaughter, Mrs. Sonie E. Brittain, joined the LDS Church. Read her moving testimony on p. 455 in the Appendix. |
|
[ 389 ]
Note: Because the text from which the above extract was taken is under copyright protection, only a very limited portion is presented here. A free, on-line version of this part of the text may be downloaded at: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/liw/v2/V2P05f.pdf transcriber's comments for this page
transcriber's comments for this page
|
|
R. & R. Brown's They Lie in Wait to Deceive II Intro. Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 
The "Transcriber" (1999) A Personal Word from Dale R. Broadhurst In 1984, when I was in the Kingdom of Nepal, just beginning my decade and a half overseas mission, a correspondent informed me of Robert L. and Rosemary Brown's then newly published They Lie in Wait to Deceive II. The late Vernal Holley, a former Mormon living in Roy, Utah, suggested that I might wish to obtain a copy of this volume and read it at my leisure. Many years later, while on a stop-over in Salt Lake City, I had a few free moments to look up the Browns' book while visiting the LDS Historian's Library at Temple Square. The staff there were kind enough to make photocopies of what I felt might be interesting parts of the text and those pages were mailed to me a few weeks later. So it was that I had my first opportunity to read through lengthy sections this interesting publication, in San Vicente, Isle of Saipan, during the mid-1990s. In perusing this volume 2 in the Browns' series of They Lie in Wait to Deceive books, I was struck by the unshakable impression that the writers had gone to great lengths to discredit the reputations of several outspoken non-Mormons, but that they not researched the basic claims of what is commonly refered to as the "Spalding theory" for Book of Mormon authorship. It appears to me that this LDS couple from Mesa Arizona have expended far more effort on telling their "amazing story" of how "professional anti-Mormons work to obstruct and distort the truth" than they have in delving into the long-standing controversy over the Solomon Spalding authorship claims. Pardon me for saying so, but I cannot see how the Browns can possibly present a substantial book of purported facts regarding anti-Mormon "deceivers," when they themselves have little idea what it is that the "deceivers" are talking about. It is one thing for them to say that certain anti-Mormons have acted deceptively in presenting evidence for the Spalding authorship claims and certain related matters; it is quite another thing to regard some or all of those authorship claims as being fraudulent because of the actions and statements of modern "deceivers." Shooting the Messenger There are times when it is prudent to listen to a messenger, even if we do not like that message or the one who bears it. I once heard a story told of a British general in the Crimean War who refused to listen to critical military intelligence, because it was brought to him by what he called a "dishonorable" Russian officer, a man who had switched sides during the conflict. Needless to say, the British forces were soon after dealt a fatal (but likely avoidable) blow by their enemies in the field. You know folks, if even my own worst enemy, a known deceiver, happened to inform me that my dinner had been poisoned, I'd probably do better by taking his message seriously than by ignoring what he told me. So here I wonder aloud whether the two LDS authors of They Lie in Wait to Deceive II have not shot down several persons whom they see as being unsavory messengers, but while performing their marksmanship, have avoided taking the substance of the message seriously? Had Mr. and Mrs. Brown reversed their mode of operations, and put their rebuttal of the basic tenets of the Spalding authorship claims ahead of their reports regarding the arguably inequitable activities of certain people advocating those sorts of claims, I might have read their work as an effort "to expose many... untruths and deliberate misrepresentations" and as their sincere attempt to "answer charges" against the traditional, LDS-supported accounts regarding the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the origin of Mormonism. As it is, however, I read their book to be exactly what they say it is in the opening paragraph of their Preface: an exploration into the shadow world of "cunning craftiness" -- a craftiness, I might add, that is not necessarily limited to the ranks of those seeking to expose, overthrow, and destroy the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Only a few days prior to my writing this, I saw the contents of the 1993 edition of the Browns' volume 2, offered as a no-charge, downloadable electronic text at the FAIR (Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research) website: http://www.fair-lds.org/Pubs/liw/liwv2.html and, for the first time, had the "leisure" to read through the entire book. Through the miracle of modern over-night express mail delivery, I have just received (on Dec. 20, 2001) a hard-copy of the same book and have it on my desk as I compose the first draft of this on-line exposition. In reading and re-reading They Lie in Wait to Deceive II, I find my original suspicions (regarding the purpose and value of the Browns' questionable scholarship) largely confirmed and feel obliged to pull together here several bits and pieces regarding the authors' work -- notes, comments, questions, and facts which I have previously posted piecemeal on several of my web-pages. The Matter of Copyright Protection My first concern, in compiling this on-line regurgitation of my previously posted notes, comments, etc., is that by drawing together onto a single web-page so much reference to (and electronic reproduction of) material from the Browns' book, that I might be infringing upon their copyright. While I have assiduously tried my best to limit my on-line extracts from their work to what I suppose is "fair use" reference under U. S. and international copyright law, I am aware that I may be charged with an "intellectual rights" violation in placing this piece on the web. Should the Browns, or their authorized representative, wish to challenge my use of their material, I am willing to pare down the quantity of quoted and reproduced copyrighted material to, say, about the same proportion the Browns themselves have taken and published therein (without the authors' permission) from the copyrighted 1977 book, Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon. A Clarification of My Intentions In posting to the web my sundry and occasionally critical comments regarding Mormon history and regarding the content of texts pertaining to Mormon history, I very rarely personalize those comments by writing in the first person or by expressing a preponderance of my own, purely subjective views. In the case of this on-line exposition I will make an exception to that general, self-imposed restraint, and will herein speak my own mind concerning several questionable things the Browns have placed before their readership. The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research is now making those same questionable things available to all interested parties at no cost, thus potentially expanding the Browns' readership several fold. It seems that now is the proper time to place on the web a reasoned response to some things the Browns have said and that is what I now intend to do. Those who know of my prior research and reporting will, I hope, vouchsafe the fact that I have no "bone to pick" with the organization or members commonly styled "Mormon" (i. e. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints). Individual members, officials, and scholars in this faith community have (almost without exception) been very helpful, respectful, and sometimes even supportive of my historical research. I owe several of them (beginning with Dr. Leonard Arrington, many years ago) a debt of gratitude that I will probably never be able to repay. I have no intention of offending sincere people simply on the basis of their personal religious beliefs and practices. If my brand of "wry humor" appears to rival even the rancorous rhetoric found in the Browns' books, I apologize and here promise to heed any suggestions sent my way on how to restate my views more effectively. At the very least, I also promise not to associate others (Saint or Gentile) with "the tactics used by the Adversary," as some apologists are wont to do. I'll also say, for the record, that I have interviewed, corresponded with, and exchanged "Mormon" historical information with a number of non-LDS and non-RLDS -- with all sorts of people, including some whose public avowals and reputations may well fall under the attributive cloud of "secularism" or even "anti-Mormonism." I have no bone to pick with these people and their organizations, either -- so long as the important "facts" which they purport to provide are not demonstrable fallacies. The Organization of this Web Document In the 1992 edition of TLIWTD-2 which I now have before me, the Browns have offered up nearly 500 pages of documentation, analysis, and opinion. It is currently not feasible for me to quote from, nor comment upon more than a very small portion of what I find in those pages. Nor am I inclined now to present an in-depth review of their entire book. Where I have presently chosen not to offer commentary, I either agree with what the Browns have said or am currently unprepared to offer any useful response. I am limiting my initial exposition to simply reviewing and discussing a few things they have said in parts of three chapters and on two appendix pages in TLIWTD-2. If the situation warrants, I will eventually post to this web-site a longer companion exposition, devoted to an in-depth exploration of the Brown's awkward attempt to refite the Solomon Spalding authorship claims for the Book of Mormon. I've structured my response to the Browns as an exposition divided into seven sections: this introduction and six different examinations of various sets of excerpts taken from that book. As I said above, I am not presenting my response to these few (and relatively short) selections from their book as totally typifying the Browns' overall reporting or as being especially representative of all the important items they have brought to the attention of the public. I am here merely responding to a few things which have caught my eye and things which I feel should be opened up for critical examination. As my time and energy permit, I'll add to this page several more links and various supplementary notes. I welcome readers' corrections, suggestions, and contributions for future updates of this webpage. Dale R. Broadhurst, Hilo, Hawaii, 12-20-01 (updated 1-3-02) |
|
Part One Intro. Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 
From the FAIR website: http://www.fair-lds.org/Pubs/liw/liwv2.html Words from the Past There's really no way to candy coat the fact that I do not like Robert L. and Rosemary Brown's They Lie in Wait to Deceive II. This is something I've been clear about for several years now. In my 1998 on-line paper, "Sciota Revisited," I had this to say: While this well-distributed 480 page book is generally attractive and contains some hilarious Solomon Spalding cartoons, it is, at the same time, one of the most error-ridden and least useful publications I have ever encountered in the realm of Spalding studies. The Browns manage to present a convincing but tediously "holier-than-thou" refutation of the Howard Davis "Spalding fiasco." They also should be credited with reprinting some rare old documents to which the Spalding researcher might not otherwise have easy access. Beyond these low-level contributions, the book has nothing to offer the serious student of the subject. The Browns' comments regarding any possible thematic parallels are unvarnished regurgitations from past negative reporting and provide absolutely no useful material whatever. Well, now, that seems clear enough. But are not my own words just another example of vacuous, holier-than-thou" refutation? Have I chosen not to like the book simply because the authors' conclusions, in regard to important events in Mormon history, etc., differ from my own -- or, is there some substantial reason why their book should be held up for critical scrutiny and possible censure? I'll try to get around to answering this rhetorical question as I lay out the first part of my exposition. I'll begin here in part one of my exposition by pointing out a few piddling inaccuracies I've discovered in their text and then, in parts four and five, I'll work my way through a consideration of some of the more problematical things I've found in TLIWTD-2. The Browns' "Introduction" The Browns (on page v of their Preface) begin by saying: "In the early days of the LDS Church, Solomon Spaulding (sometimes spelled Spalding), a congregational minister of the time of Joseph Smith who wrote a romance about the early Indians, had been suggested by the enemies of the LDS Church as the real author of the Book of Mormon." I'm reminded here of one of those cartoons frequently published on the "children's page" of the newspaper, in which the observer is invited to point out "what's wrong with this picture?" In looking at this opening salvo from the two authors it becomes immediately apparent to even the most casual of readers that they are not aiming their report at an informed audience -- at least not at an audience well informed about early Church History and non-LDS claims regarding the origin of the Book of Mormon. There is, of course, nothing wrong with their addressing such a audience -- after all, the Browns are better informed as to the readership of their books than most of the rest of us are, no doubt. But, in "dumbing-down" their reporting to the level of an uninformed reader, we can almost expect that fundamental errors will creep into their message from the start. And, sadly enough, this appears to be exactly what has happened. By speaking only of "enemies of the LDS Church," in reference to the Spalding authorship claims, the Browns make it appear that perhaps none but "enemies" ever put forth any of these claims -- that none but "enemies" ever supported the claims. This conveys the message that its was "the enemies of the LDS Church" who first initiated the allegations saying that the Book of Mormon was a human production of the nineteenth century. Is that really the case? Or, by simply disagreeing with the veracity of the traditional LDS assertions in such a matter, does the critic automatically become an "enemy?" I'll show elsewhere that there were numerous people involved in initiating, expounding, or promulgating the Spalding authorship claims who had little to say against the first principles of the LDS faith, or even against many of its peculiar practices. In short, the Solomon Spalding claims for Book of Mormon authorship are not a product of anti-Mormonism; they are a ready-made tool many non-Mormons have chosen to pick up and apply to understanding and explaining the origin of Latter Day Saintism itself. Among those critics there have been anti-Mormons, for sure -- even some rabid, unscrupulous anti-Mormons, I would suggest -- but any serious and really useful consideration of Solomon Spalding and his writings will best be carried out well apart from the "them and us" dichotomy of enemy vs. defender. Who was Solomon Spalding? Does anybody care to know that the "Solomon Spaulding" the Browns speak in their book, actually consistently spelled his last name: "Spalding" and not "Spaulding?" While this is a rather minor point, the Browns' adoption of the spelling the writer used in his own holographs (and which his relatives used in the title of their family's published genealogy) would serve as a point in favor of the Browns demonstrating some credible scholarship. Again, while Spalding was indeed licensed as a Congregational Evangelist after his graduation from college, he is only known to have occasionally served as a preacher -- in a pinch -- for the doctrinally akin Presbyterians. By the time most investigators picture him as writing his stories about the ancient inhabitants of the Americas, Solomon Spalding was no longer thought of by his friends and neighbors as a "minister." I wonder if the Browns have attached this hazy identification to him so as to lump the fellow in with the "alarmed ministers" they speak of in the second paragraph of their Preface. Today the black-coated minion of Satan, wearing the clerical collar, in the LDS temple endowment ceremony has disappeared, along with the old-time Mormon denunciations of "hireling priests" and "priestcrafters" from the "great and abominable church." Today well-known "men of the cloth" fly from Yale Divinity School to deliver lectures at BYU podiums and LDS scholars of the Dead Sea Scrolls rub shoulders with renowned clerical scholars. I cannot help but guess that the Browns' verbal digs at "alarmed ministers" betray a throw-back mentality more at home in the days of Jeddediah M. Grant and Orson Hyde than in the contemporary "latter day work." The Browns speak of the Rev. Spalding (since they term him a "minister," I'll extend him the same courtesy) having written "a romance about the early Indians." I cannot help but be puzzled as to where they have read this Spalding story? Certainly it cannot be the manuscript cataloged under his name in the Library of Congress. I do not recall the earliest promulgators of the authorship claims speaking of his having written such a tale, unless, perhaps, the Browns have fixed upon some half-baked recollection expressed by Eber D. Howe. So far as I can tell, the earliest testimony (from his friends, neighbors, and family) speaks of his writing a story about the Lost Tribes of Israel. But, on second thought, I presume the Browns are here speaking of the "Deliwan" Indians mentioned in the Spalding manuscript at Oberlin College. Had they taken the time to read that production very closely, they might have noticed the story is also about migrants from the classical Old World, an extinct olive-skinned people well differentiated from the American Indians, and about a light-skinned religious leader from some distant land. Less than ten percent of the Oberlin story is about "the early Indians." By speaking in such terms the Browns no doubt hope to separate the story elements of Spalding's Oberlin holograph from those many of us have learned from childhood out of the Book of Mormon. The net effect of their choice of words here is the obscurement of Spalding's writings, not their elucidation. The Severe Set Back of 1834 Going on to the second sentence of the "Introduction" the Browns say there that the "argument" for Spalding having been the real author of some portion of the Book of Mormon text "suffered a severe setback when in 1834 the original Spaulding manuscript was found in an old trunk." I am again left in the dark as to where the Browns are getting their information at this point. If they are speaking of D. P. Hurlbut's collecting some of Spalding's writings from Mr. Jerome Clark of Hartwick, Otsego county, New York, that occurred in 1833, not in 1834. In fact, Mr. Hurlbut was thoughtful enough to subsequently document the find in a newspaper notice published in Joseph Smith, Jr.'s old stomping grounds of Palmyra: "Doct. P. Hurlbert... who has been engaged... in the pursuit of facts and information concerning the origin and design of the Book of Mormon... 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." If this marks the "severe setback" spoken of by Mr. and Mrs. Brown, they read their history far differently than I do. My reading of the sources and testimony on this point tells me that D. P. Hurlbut recovered some of Spalding's writings on about Nov. 25 1833, announced his success "in accomplishing the object of his mission," wrote the same back to Spalding's widow in Massachusetts, and then returned to Kirtland before the end of December, where he repeatedly held lectures in which he exhibited writings he attributed to Solomon Spalding -- writings, the content of which, well matched parts of the Book of Mormon. I know by now not to trust the statements of D. P, Hurlbut at face value, but I cannot, for the life of me, see how there is anything in all of this resembling "a severe setback" for anybody other than Joseph Smith, Jr. at Kirtland. But, I must admit that the tale is not yet told and that there was indeed a "severe setback" for D. P. Hurlbut in 1834. Even after repeatedly exhibiting the writings he claimed were Spalding's, the ex-Mormon investigator failed to turn over any such documents to his financial backers in the Kirtland area. Hurlbut lost out in both a pre-trail hearing and in the county court in a civil case brought against him by Joseph Smith, Jr. and subsequently pretty much disappeared from the pages of history. Next the Browns say: "... it was then suggested that since Spaulding's Manuscript Found was obviously not like the Book of Mormon in any way, perhaps there was another manuscript -- a second manuscript -- somewhere that is the real basis of the Book of Mormon. It was pure speculation again." The authors again managed to lose me in the tangle of their hazy reporting and hopeless chronology. Who was it who made such suggestions? When were the suggestions made? I presume that the Browns are here speaking of the testimony of the Hon. Aaron Wright of Conneaut, Ohio, taken down on the last day of 1833. In this document Solomon Spalding's old friend says: "Hurlbut is now at my store [in Conneaut] I have examined the writings which he has obtained from said [Solomon] Spaldings widowe I recognise them to be the handwriting of said Spalding but not the manuscript I had refferance to in my statement before alluded to as he informed me he wrote in the first place for his own amusement and then altered his plan and commenced writing a history of the first settlement of America..." What are we to make of all of this? What kind of a "severe setback" are we talking about here and who was "set back?" I have already cautioned against accepting anything in which Mr. D. P, Hurlbut was involved at its face value. There may still be much here to unravel from the web of history, but it appears to me that the "setback" came when D. P. Hurlbut was unable or unwilling to offer up for publication the "object of his mission" he had gloated over in the Palmyra newspaper and in his meetings and lectures in Kirtland at the end of 1833. About a year later Eber D. Howe finally got around to publishing the first book ever offered on the history of Mormonism, and in that book he reported much the same thing that Aaron Wright had said at the end of 1833: "The trunk referred to by the widow, was subsequently examined, and found to contain only a single M. S. book, in Spalding's hand-writing... This old M. S. has been shown to several of the foregoing [Conneaut] witnesses, who recognise it as Spalding's, he having told them that he had altered his first plan of writing, by going farther back with dates, and writing in the old scripture style, in order that it might appear more ancient. They say that it bears no resemblance to the "Manuscript Found." Now, I do not expect Mr. and Mrs. Brown to accept, at first glance, any of the testimony stating that Solomon Spalding wrote two manuscripts, and that only one of them ended up in Mr. Howe's hands at the end of the Hurlbut investigations. That is a point for possible discussion, disagreement, and even dispute -- but it does offer a second possible perspective on what actually happened back in 1833 and 1834, and I sincerely suggest that they not treat the evidence too lightly. There is more. Much more. But we have plenty of time in the future to get into that, if people like the Browns care to take a look at the other side of the historical coin.
Death of the Spalding Claims? Continuing on with our convinced writers, we hear them saying this: "When a second manuscript failed to appear, real attempts to make a connection between Spaulding and the Book of Mormon died from lack of interest." What in tarnation is any reader supposed to make of this nebulous notification? If anything, the pile of news articles, pamphlets, books, long forgotten sermons and lost lecture notes on the topic, as compiled and put before the inquiring public between 1834 and 1884, would probably reach from floor to ceiling. And no small part of that pile would be artifacts of countless hours spent by Mormon apologists, historians, and even a few top leaders, in attempting to quench the raging fire of claims against the alleged Nephite authorship of the Book of Mormon. But perhaps the key word in the Brownian sentence given above is "real." I suspect that in the authors' eyes nothing in that possible pile I have referred to would be seen as evidence of "real attempts to make a connection between Spalding and the Book of Mormon." Moving on to the Browns' second paragraph, we learn there that "the Spaulding theory has not found its final resting place" and that this startling fact "became clear when the Los Angeles Times on June 25, 1977, announced that three California researchers, Wayne Cowdery, Howard Davis, and Donald Scales, had found evidence that Solomon Spaulding had written a portion of the original Book of Mormon manuscript and that handwriting experts had substantiated their conclusion." Well, indeed, this would have been interesting news in 1977 or even as late as 1978, but the story had gone stale long before the Browns saw their book published in 1984. Perhaps it took them that long to track down and compile all the bits and pieces of evidence so as to convince their readers that Walter Martin and Dee Jay Nelson were indeed despicable characters. I do not pretend to be any authority on these persons and I have yet to discover anything the Browns say about them that I care to spend my time in refuting. The case that the writers of They Lie in Wait to Deceive II have prepared against Messrs. Cowdery, Davis, and Scales does intrigue me, however. There are things presented here which I'd like to get to the bottom of. I remain skeptical, however, that the Browns have proven their charges against these three men, and against Mr. Wayne L. Cowdrey in particular. I have no disagreement with the Browns over the clear probability that not even one word from Solomon Spalding's own hand appears in the extant Book of Mormon manuscript pages. If this were all the two writers had to say about the "three researchers," I could end this section of my exposition here and now. What I find strange is that Robert and Rosemary Brown seem to have made the assumption that the "three researchers" knowingly set out to publicize a lie, hoping that the lie would discourage people from joining the LDS Church. Perhaps I am blind to what they see, but the "three researchers" do not come across to me as deceivers, so much as they do as being deceived themselves. It must be a heady feeling to believe that you have made a major historical discovery -- one that might shake up the world somewhat. I imagine that the first persons who felt they had firm evidence that the ancient "Donation of Constantine" was a forgery were both elated and fearful over their discovery. Perhaps they even imagined that exposure of the fraud would bring the Roman Catholic Church crumbling down into dust at their feet. When people operate under the notion that they possess uniquely important and thoroughly damning evidence of duplicity in high places they may tend to act a bit crazily. This, at least, is my "take" upon Cowdrey and Davis. Mr. Scales I do not know and can say nothing substantial about, but the other two men I've met, spoken with at length and come to know over the years. Unless my memory is playing tricks upon me nowadays, I believe I was in correspondence with Mr. Howard Davis well before the 1977 book came out. At any rate, from my own experience with these people, I have a difficult time in picturing them as dedicated falsifiers, bent upon "lying (or lieing) in wait to deceive." The Browns continue their "Introduction" by saying: "The three researchers have written a book based on this speculated Spaulding/Book of Mormon connection... On the top of the front cover of their book, WHO REALLY WROTE THE BOOK OF MORMON?, you read the words -- 'A Startling New Discovery....'" As I've already said, I can see no "startling new discovery" in any of this, and the story was dead by the time the Browns' book came out. All I can guess is that the two writers have taken the time to revive the thing in order to protect the Latter Day Saints from any new literary permutations from the authors of Who Really Wrote...? In doing this Mr. and Mrs. Brown have indeed demonstrated some prescience. I have upon my desk in Hawaii the unpublished 1978 manuscript of Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? Part II and have been wondering whether or not anybody would be interested in seeing its contents posted to the web. This was the "forthcoming book" promised on page 254 of the "three researchers'" 1977 literary venture. But apologists like the Browns may wish to take notice of something other than this old and yellowing textual relic in my possession. In the last days of 1999 Howard Davis, Wayne Cowdrey and two of their associates came out with a massive book entitled, The Spalding Enigma. So far, after the passage of a year's time, only the initial press run of 300 review copies has been completed. These were offered primarily on CD-ROM disks -- only a handful of bound hard copy prints were ever distributed. I would suppose, however, that the period for "review" is drawing to a close and that the LDS apologists will soon have a larger and more complex rendition of the Spalding claims rearing up its challenging head at them. Because of all of this it may be a good thing that FAIR has decided to make the Browns' book available to all, free of charge. At least the Mormon faithful will have one resource at hand when faced with a whole new set of "Spalding theory challenges" in the not too distant future. The question remains, however, just how useful is the Browns' book in refuting the Solomon Spalding claims for Book of Mormon authorship? To my way of thinking, darn little. The new The Spalding Enigma text stands the Spalding explanation upon its own two historical feet, without depending upon the wobbly crutch of handwriting accusations or resorting to attacks upon the Book of Abraham. About the only LDS researcher I know of who seems to have read one of the review copies is Wade Englund of Seattle. His on-line articles feature the sort of commendable investigation and commentary I have searched for in vain among the Browns' many pages devoted to the "three researchers," etc. There is also another factor that the Browns and their crowd will wish to take into consideration in dealing with The Spalding Enigma and that is the appearance of two new faces on the old "Who Really Wrote?" authorship team. There may indeed be many readers of the Browns' book who feel that the characters of Davis and Cowdrey have been so thoroughly shot to pieces that there is no reason to ever listen to that pair "cry wolf" again. If that is a common perception among the past and future readers of They Lie in Wait to Deceive II, I have no qualms about passing along the opinion that it will be a weak mental shield against The Spalding Enigma. Character assassination of the messenger(s), whether justifiable or not under certain circumstances, will not hold back the message in this instance, believe me. Dale R. Broadhurst, Hilo, Hawaii (12-20-01) |
|
Part Two Intro. Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 To Be or Not to Be -- Isn't That the Question? (See the end of this section for important update) Part Two of my exposition deals with family ties, if we might call them that. Unfortunately such ties may turn to knots when things are not kept "straight." I might take my own ancestry as an example. I am proud of my Mormon forebearers, in all but a few instances -- this is not the place to talk about the Danites, I suppose. In citing the adventures of those hardy souls I sometimes speak of my "great-grandfather" so-and-so, when I should really say my "great-great-grandfather." I'd guess that such slips of the tongue are forgivable, as are my occasional lapses in recalling how many generations I must count back from Lucy Mack Smith to find our common ancestor. Was that three or four? Dangnab it! I've forgotten again, and just when people are watching and taking notes, too! One of the things I appreciated when I first read The Spalding Enigma is that the authors went to some pains in setting out the genealogy of one branch of the Cowdery family -- one to which that Mormon notable Oliver Cowdery was related more in shirt-tail fashion than as a main-liner. Since I web-host a domain called OliverCowdery.com, I should probably take note of such things and sooner or later tuck the information into my neglected Cowdery Genealogy section. We cannot read past the front cover of They Lie in Wait to Deceive II without seeing the name "Cowdrey" in close juxtaposition with "obstruct and distort the truth." These are not the excommunication charges leveled against "Second Elder" Oliver H. P. Cowdery at Far West in 1838, however -- these are the sorts of words Mr. and Mrs. Brown are pleased to used in connection with Wayne L. Cowdrey (note the difference in spelling) of Who Really Wrote...? repute. I've wondered for some time what it is that the Browns have against the guy, so I went back and re-read a few of their statements from Chapters One and Two of the book. No -- let me back up on that -- after being directed there by the FAIR Webmaster, Allen Wyatt, I went back to take another look today. Here's what I found. On page ten of They Lie in Wait to Deceive II the authors reproduce one of the pages in a statement taken from handwriting expert Henry Silver in 1981. After detailing his experiences in Salt Lake City, looking at old Mormon documents, Robert L. Brown has Mr. Silver say: "Coming back [from Salt Lake City] in the plane [Wayne L.] Cowdrey told me that he was a former member of the Mormon Church, and that he was a descendant of Oliver Cowdery, one of Smith's scribes..." Well then, the Browns tell us, that shows Wayne is a liar, because Oliver Cowdery had no grandchildren, and thus no descendants beyond his own children. Do we really know that to be the case? What came of that "transgression" Oliver got into near Cleveland during his 1830 mission? And what about those stories saying that he made some dishonorable attempts to jump into polygamy back in the Kirtland days? Doesn't the published record of the old "Temple Lot Case" connect more than one bastard child to the Second Elder of the Church? A Friendly Talk with Wayne L. Cowdrey These were the sorts of questions I had in my mind when I went to visit Wayne L. Cowdrey in the greater Los Angeles area during October 2001. My questions were sparked not from any recent encounter with the Browns' book, or even with the 1977 production that bears Wayne's name, among its three authors. In fact, my curiosity had been tweaked by reading all that Cowdery stuff in The Spalding Enigma and I wanted to hear his story. I'd met the fellow in the past, so we were not strangers. His talking about his ancestral family came interwoven amongst a long series of anecdotes, jokes, and flights of fancy, more than one of which, I must admit, were rendered at the Saints' expense. "Did you hear about the Irishman who joined the Mormons..." Best save that for another essay, I suppose. At any rate I twice or thrice asked the pointed question of Wayne about his blood relation to Oliver Cowdery. He admitted an ancestral relationship, back at the time of his own great-great-grandfather Cowdery (or so I recorded the number of "greats") but he also said something surprising. Wayne told me that he was not a direct descendant of the notable Oliver and that he had never claimed in public or in private that he was. There was also some talk, on his part, that years back he had not been certain of the exact relationship and had speculated on just what it may have been -- there being a family remembrance of some sort of a blood tie with the nineteenth century Mormon. Later that same day, after Wayne had gone elsewhere, I had an opportunity of talking with his genealogist and took some notes on Cowdery/Cowdrey family history, part of which never made it back to Hawaii with me. When I say "genealogist," I mean that as an avocation not a vocation -- they guy was a writer by trade, but one who dabbled in family tree-making. Being thus assured (at least to my own satisfaction) that Mr. Wayne L. Cowdrey was not pulling the wool over my eyes, I asked him about the blurb on the back cover of the 1977 book, the one mentioned by the Browns on page 52 of their book, by the way. I will not attempt to reproduce every word of his answer, because a third person in the room interjected a few sentences and part of Wayne's reply was head-nodding at this supplementary information. The gist of what he told me, I recently relayed to FAIR Webmaster, Allen Wyatt, thusly: The basis for the allegation that Mr. Cowdrey claimed descent from Oliver is apparently a notice placed on the back cover of his 1977 book, at the last moment before printing and without his permission. By the time Mr. Cowdrey became aware of this false attribution, made by the art design people who produced the cover for the publisher, the press run was completed. When the 1978 second printing was made by the publisher (mainly to restore to their stock a large number of the books which were lost in the theft of a truck carrying newly printed books) the error was retained on the back cover, despite what were by then the public denials of Wayne Cowdrey of that particular sentence on the back cover.Well and good, so far -- but, as the Browns also point out on pp. 51-52, the "three researchers" had placed a strangely worded "b" footnote on page 3 of their 1977 book: b "Oliver's last name was spelled Cowdery, while many of his descendants today spell their last name Cowdrey, as does one of the co-authors of this book."What, exactly, did the authors mean by the term "descendants" here -- were they speaking of the lineage of the bastard children credited to Oliver during the delivery of testimony in the Temple Lot Case, or of something else? Certainly here was a handy escape door for Wayne and his amateur genealogist. All they had to say was that Wayne once thought he was a descendant of just such a "Cowdery" male, he would be home free -- out of reach of the Browns. The genealogist didn't take my bait, however. Yes, he was aware of the Temple Lot Case testimony, but, no, Wayne had never claimed descent through that dubious and ephemeral lineage. Whether or not these were the source of "many of his descendants today," however, nobody available for consultation could recall. I came away from that inquiry satisfied that the two authors from Who Really Wrote...? who stayed on with the "Enigma" team honestly did not recall how that footnote crept into the text. So far, so good. I was aware of the statement the Browns' had solicited from Mr. Silver in 1981, but with Silver passed on to his eternal reward, that bit of Brownian evidence did not look very convincing. I supposed that my quest had ended and that I could open-heartedly (if not open-mindedly) challenge the words I'd recently found on-line at the FAIR website -- (revised URL): The Spaulding theory is completely discredited and the deceit of its advocates is exposed, namely... Wayne Cowdrey [and others] ... Wayne Cowdrey falsely claimed to be a descendant of Oliver Cowdery. False credentials such as being a descendant of an early leader in the Church... are often used by professional anti-Mormons to lend authority to false claims... documentation is included for the mostdiscerning [sic] reader.OK -- I certainly thought of myself as being a "mostdiscerning reader," if nothing less -- so I was ready to ask the FAIR folk to tone down the rhetoric. Perhaps, I thought, they might at least insert a "the Browns allege" or two, somewhere into all that True Blue LDS verve. And so I said, more or less, in an e-mail message to them. The answer came back (from Bro. Wyatt, no less) saying that I'd missed a couple more points the Browns had pounded home. On pp. 52-53 of the book they also report: "Edward Plowman had to say...'One of the three California researchers, Wayne Cowdrey, is a direct descendant of Oliver Cowdery... [from] Russell Chandler... you read: "The three young researchers are Baptists, Cowdrey, a descendant of the Oliver Cowdery... was a Mormon for a short time, he said..." [the newsletter of] Walter Ralston Martin, states: "... Wayne, Cowdrey, Orange, Calif., who studied social science in college and is a descendant of Oliver Cowdery..." I must say that I was about as underwhelmed with all of this second-hand reporting as I was with what Mr. Silver had to say to the Browns. I'd been told by more than one reliable source that Walter Martin had initiated and carried forth a media blitz for the "three young researchers" with all the finesse of a steamroller operator. Wasn't it likely that he was the source of the published assertions of lineal descent? Could the rap be pinned on the late Dr(?). Martin? Bit of a Sticky Wicket, I'm Afraid (See the end of this section for important update) I was feeling pretty good about my string of rationalizations (always a pitfall for us Saints) when I saw one thing Allen Wyatt had written back that just didn't fit in with all the rest: > were the extent of their foundation, it would be > shaky, indeed. However, the Browns cite... > > Mr. Cowdrey claimed within his book -- in the text, not > just on the back cover -- that he is descended from Oliver > Cowdery himself (see page 52). Oh oh -- Consulting my battered old copy of Who Really Wrote...? I see that this was among the very points I'd checked with a faint mark, way back in 1978, but had neglected to highlight with my yellow pen when sorting out what I saw as problems in the researchers' book. This wasn't something I could automatically blame on puzzling wordage or Walter Martin -- though perhaps Martin's secretary had something to do with it (see below). When all is said and done, however, if the first man listed among the three authors on that 1977 book's front cover allowed this bogus genealogical assertion to be made -- no matter how it got into the book in the first place -- something was obviously askew in Denmark (or at least in Orange county). So it is that I am left with far more questions than answers. If Wayne intended to "lie in wait to deceive," why hadn't the two man remnant of the 1977 bunch seized the bait, said they honestly thought Wayne was descended through Oliver's bastard, Joseph Smith Cowdery, and thus elegantly left the Browns in the lurch? Or, if he had truly once believed Oliver was below Wayne in growth of his family tree, why hadn't Wayne taken that excusable route to defending his reputation? Had I misheard things during my interview? Had the passing of 24 years clouded the memories of all? Could've the Browns (gasp!) actually gotten this one nailed down right? I've asked for clarification from Wayne. When I get it, I promise to post the answer here. Wayne L. Cowdrey Statement of 12-26-2001 (this section added between Dec. 27-31, 2001) I have received an answer to my recent solicitation for a current statement from Mr. Wayne L. Cowdrey of Orange Co., California. I insert his statement, along with my own remarks, in red highlight; the remainder of the text in this section remains as it was. > Greetings Dale, > Let me make this short letter clear to everyone who reads it! > After Dr. Martin's secretary Gretchen Passantino typed up > the final draft of "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon," > I did NOT see that claim on page 166 until AFTER the book was printed. > It may also interesting to note that the Church Archivist Donald Schmidt > asked me that question when I made the 1977 trip to Salt Lake City, Utah. > To his question: "was I a direct descendant of Oliver Cowdery?" I answered > "NO I'M NOT, that was misquote." I do hope this clears this "nuisance > mystery" up. > I'm not the liar, Sidney Rigdon is! > Sincerely, > Wayne L. Cowdrey Assuming that folks accept Wayne at his word on this matter, I believe I can say at this point that I was correct (see below) in tracing the "direct descendant" claims to Walter Martin and his staff, and to their having misapplied Wayne's ambiguous assertion (about Oliver being "among my ancestors") when finalizing, packaging and promoting the 1977 book. Wayne may still be open to hostile criticism for not having nipped this problem in the bud, back in 1977, but I believe him when he says he is not fibbing here. It would be well for Robert L. and Rosemary Brown to take notice -- along with their FAIR web-publishers. For those of you who are interested, the genealogy of Wayne's grandfather, Clyde Edgar Cowdrey (1884-1943) is on-line. Clyde traced his descent from a John Cowdrey, born near the beginning of the 19th century in Ohio. Presumably this was John Cowdrey, Jr. (1814-1895) the son of John Cowdrey (1799-1866). See Wiliam L. Moore's recent article, "The Curious Ancestry of Wayne L. Cowdrey," for more details. When is an Ancestral Relative Not an Ancestor? While waiting for a clarification from Wayne L. Cowdrey on why the book he co-authored wrongly calls him a descendant of Oliver Cowdery, I must add here one other thought that comes to my mind. In my first conversation with Mr. Cowdrey, held in Los Angeles during the fall of 2000, he several times referred to Oliver as "one of my ancestors," or, as "an ancestor in my family." We had other things to talk about then, so I did not press the matter. But I recall thinking at the time that Mr. Cowdrey was obviously using that term, "ancestor," rather loosely. If we look up in the dictionary the strict meaning of "ancestor," we find that the term is almost always used to designate a "progenitor," that is, a person from whom one is descended. But, looking in a thesaurus, among the words approximating the meaning of "ancestor," we find most of those general terms grouped together under two different primary headings: (1) Paternity; (2) Continuity. The second group of meanings includes words like "pedigree, genealogy, lineage, race; ancestry, descent, family, house; line, strain," etc. From my fall 2000 conversation with Mr. Cowdrey, I know he was then using the word "ancestor" more in the sense of meaning "family" or "house," than in the sense of meaning "progenitor" or "forefather." When I was last in England, I visited West Sussex and there spent some time photographing Broadhurst Manor, a Tudor era "ancestral home," as they call them in that neck of the woods. I fully well know that I am not descended directly from the people of built and lived in Broadhurst Manor. It appears, however, that my progenitors were at a very early date closely associated with the owners of that beautiful old house. Can I claim it as my family's "ancestral home," knowing that only distant relatives of my Broadhurst forefathers actually owned the joint? I'm not sure. But I do know that I can speak of my "ancestors, the Broadhursts" and not have to limit that bunch to only the men and women who were my direct progenitors. This is exactly the way I several times heard Wayne L. Cowdrey speak of "the Cowderies" when I met with him in 2000. In the Nov.-Dec., 1977 issue of Sunstone Review, David Merrill has this to say: Howard Davis... met Scales and Cowdrey in 1974... According to Gretchen Passantino, spokesman for the group... Cowdrey "decided he ought to have some kind of religion, and he went back to investigate his ancestor's religion first." (Cowdrey is descended from Oliver Cowdrey, the Book of Mormon witness.) Cowdrey was baptized in December 1975, but Scales and some other evangelical Christians began arguing with him... began studying together, and Cowdrey soon asked to be excommunicated. Notice that David Merrill's source for the words "his ancestor's religion" was Gretchen Passantino, a lady whom Merrill himself reveals was "also senior research consultant for [Walter Martin's] Christian Research Institute and personal secretary to Martin." That is the second -- or perhaps the third or fourth -- allegation of Wayne L. Cowdrey's descent which I have come across, incorrectly given out by the late Walter Martin and his organization, the same people who packaged the "three researchers'" 1977 book for publication and distribution. When Wayne L. Cowdrey spoke to me in 2000, he used terms describing his relationship with Mormon Cowderies in ways consistent with the meaning "my ancestors' religion," but not with the meaning "my ancestor's religion." While it may appear that I am here splitting hairs a bit too finely, I just wish to say that Wayne's speaking of his "ancestors' religion" did not automatically imply that he was a descendant of Oliver Cowdrey. Had he used a term like "my ancestor's religion," and spoken of Oliver Cowdery in the same breath, that would have been more problematic. It is not my task to second guess the meanings and intentions of people three decades in the past. All I know personally is what I heard from Mr. Wayne L. Cowdrey during my visits with him in 2000 and 2001. He said that Oliver was one of "his ancestors" -- but he also denied ever having said that he was Oliver's direct descendant. Could it be that Walter Martin, hearing Wayne repeatedly speak of Oliver Cowdrey as "an ancestor," conveniently chose to understand the meaning of the word in the most narrow sense, and subsequently began to publicize Wayne as Oliver's "descendant?" Did Martin's secretary, while working in the position of spokesperson for the "three researchers," fail to grasp the subtle difference between "ancestors'" being a generalized plural possessive and "ancestor's" being a claim to direct descent through the bloodline of Oliver Cowdery? I do not know. But that explanation jibes well with what Wayne has thus far told me, with what Walter Martin was saying back in 1977, and with the fact that his private secretary, Gretchen Passantino, helped edit and type up the final draft of the 1977 book. None of this excuses Wayne L. Cowdrey from having allowed the 1977 book to be published with false allegations made in its pages, of course. Since I did not set out to villainize or extol anybody in particular or in general, I do not feel I've either lost or gained ground on this point. However, since Wayne has denied his direct descent from Oliver Cowdery, perhaps it would not be asking too much of the folks at FAIR to make a note of that somewhere within their multitudinous set of webpages. All's FAIR in Religion and Politics (Updated Jan. 2, 2002) Well, well, well! -- perhaps I spoke too soon about nothing changing at the FAIR web-site. Since my initial posting of this on-line exposition (just before Christmas) I now see that the content of their advertisement (revised URL) for the Browns' TLIWTD-2 has been surreptitiously effaced. Below I provide an excerpt from the late December boilerplate -- followed by its January "second edition." Words changed by the FAIRites in producing their "second edition" are underlined in the respective excerpts: FAIR On-line Advertisement Content on December 25, 2001: Also included to prove their case were scare stories about threats supposedly made by the LDS Church to the handwriting experts-- threats which were denied by the handwriting experts, claims of false genealogies in which Walter Martin falsely claimed to be a descendant of Brigham young and Wayne Cowdrey falsely claimed to be a descendant of Oliver Cowdery. The genealogies of Walter Martin and Brigham Young were presented to show Martin that he was not a descendant of Brigham Young, and the genealogy of Oliver Cowdery was presented to show that Cowdery had only one daughter that lived to maturity and she died childless... Also included to prove their case were scare stories about threats supposedly made by the LDS Church to the handwriting experts -- threats which were denied by the handwriting experts. Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon also presents false claims that Wayne Cowdrey is a descendant of Oliver Cowdery -- claims that are effectively addressed and countered in this volume. In addition, the volume addresses false claims by Walter Martin that he is a descendant of Brigham Young.... So, as the sun sinks slowly into the west, we bid "aloha and FAIR-well" to this enchanted island of ethical and ethereal effacement. The natives are closing up their souvenir shops as the last vacillating visitor finally lumbers back onto the tour bus. Ya'all come back now, hear? |
|
Part Three Intro. Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6
Now, The Important Part If a someone is mistaken, muddled, or just plain wrong in one part of their argument, the listener has reason to suspect that they may be wrong in something else. That's just an exercise of common sense. It takes no genius to postulate that the Browns may be wrong at some point in their thick book, They Lie in Wait to Deceive II, but where, why, and to what effect? The place I look to find a budget of errors is in the Browns' Chapter Six. President Sidney Rigdon might have said a "budget of lies, but I'll give Mr. and Mrs. Brown the benefit of the doubt until this examination has proceeded a bit farther. I have been called a "Spalding Theory Advocate," but more accurately, I think, I advocate chopping out the deadwood and get to the truth, let the chips fall where they may. So then, where to begin? On page 217 of their Chapter Six, Robert and Rosemary Brown say: "Solomon Spaulding wrote a romance between 1809-1812 about the Indians of Kentucky and Ohio. He died in 1816. His widow and daughter picked up all their belongings and went to visit Mrs. Spaulding's relatives. Spaulding's manuscript never was on display to the public after he died until it reached its final resting place at Oberlin College in Oberlin, Ohio." How accurate is this summary they provide their readers? I've already pointed out that the Spalding story first published by the RLDS Church in 1885 (and reproduced on pages 293-428 of the Brown's book) is largely unconcerned with Indians -- it tells mostly about "those people who far exceeded the present Indians in works of art and ingenuity... great and powerful nations, considerably civilized..." These are not the Aztecs, but a people whose "complexion it was bordering on an olive tho' of a lighter shade." Stand them alongside a few Nephites, and who could tell the difference. But this is a minor matter. The Browns are correct in saying that Solomon Spalding died in 1816. They are probably more or less correct in saying that his widow "picked up all their belongings and went to visit" her "relatives" not long after his death -- though the purpose of that "visit" to her brother, William Harvey Sabine of Onondaga Hollow, New York, was more to keep body and soul together than renew old family affections. But why are the Browns so careful to say that Mrs. Spalding and her youngster (an adopted girl or foster child, not her own daughter, by the bye) "picked up all their belongings?" Well, as we shall see, the Browns are not very comfortable with the thought of there having been any stray Solomon Spalding writings left lying forgotten on some shelf in the area of Pittsburgh as early as 1817. According to the early Mormon, Elder William Small, a former publisher in Pittsburgh, the Rev. Robert Patterson, Sr., told him: "the Solomon Spaulding manuscript was brought to him [Patterson] by the widow of Solomon Spaulding to be published, and that she offered to give him half the profits for his pay, if he would publish it; but after it had laid there for some time, and after he had due time to consider it, he determined not to publish it. She then came and received the manuscript from his hands, and took it away." If that is what really happened, then we can know that at least one item from "all their belongings" left Pittsburgh with the Widow Spalding; what rubbish she may left behind, intentionally or otherwise, is left unaccounted for, of course. Manuscript? What Manuscript? For the life of me, I cannot understand what the Browns mean to say in their next, emboldened statement, to wit: "Spaulding's manuscript never was on display to the public after he died until it reached its final resting place at Oberlin College in Oberlin, Ohio." There is much fat to be chewed upon here, but far too little lean. To begin with, what manuscript are they speaking of? Is this the manuscript to one of the children's stories Matilda Spalding McKinstry says that the old man used to write for her reading pleasure? But no, this is not "The Frogs of Wyndham," for the Browns tell me to look for its final repose in Oberlin, Ohio and I find no such childrens stories there. Perhaps I might look for this previously never-displayed piece of Spaldingania amongst the "leaves of his sermons" also once in the possession of Matilda Spalding McKinstry and reported to Elder Edmund L. Kelley. But no again, for the Browns tell me they are talking about "a romance" written "between 1809-1812." No matter how much my Latter Day Saint wit may be tempted to call the antique productions of Protestant ministers nothing but "romance," I cannot reasonably credit the ex-clergyman with writing sermons as late as 1809. If I am to look for a Solomon Spalding "romance," then, what might that be? Could I consider the lengthy and imaginative manuscript tale cataloged under his name in the Library of Congress -- the strange but highly religious "Romance of Celes?" No, I think not, for it is not in his handwriting and, to my knowledge, was never in Oberlin, Ohio, beyond just a single page now resting in the James H. Fairchild papers there. I must continue my searching. What about the "Lost Tribes" Solomon Spalding manuscript reported by the son of Minor Deming, that valiant Hancock county Sheriff so trusted by the Nauvoo Mormons back in 1845 or so? Sheriff Deming's son passes on an account of this manuscript having been written by Spalding "probably while he preached in Middletown, Vermont." But again, no -- for this lost tribes tale was reportedly available for viewing in the home of Middletown's "Town Clerk" as late as 1871; and besides that, I cannot find it in the Oberlin College Library. Mormon writer Elias L. T. Harrison once spilled a considerable quantity of printer's ink in telling us how the "ten lost tribes" story attributed to Spalding pen by so many testifiers could not possibly have been the basis for the Book of Mormon -- which speaks so little of those same tribes. Elder Harrison makes a good point, but I cannot locate the Rev. Spaldings's "lost tribes" story, search as I may. I think that the grandson of the Rev. Ethan Smith was trying to provide a clue to the unraveling of this mystery when he said "Rev. Dr. Smith wrote a work... Taking as its foundation the migration of the lost tribes of Israel to the western continent... Solomon Spaulding... became interested in his theories regarding the settlement of America, and in return Dr. Smith... granted him a perusal of his unpublished book. Spaulding was deeply impressed... Taking the latter's views as expressed in his book Spaulding some years later wrote his famous 'Manuscript Found'..." So, perhaps I should look to see whether Solomon Spalding's purported "lost tribes" story was sent off to Ethan Smith and secreted by him among his belongings when he resided in Middletown (oops, I mean Poultney, a couple of miles to the west) Vermont. Having exhausted my search for all of these other reported Spalding manuscripts, I am compelled to narrow down my search to whatever it is at Oberlin College the Browns are talking about. But is the document on file there the "Manuscript Found" which Elder Harrison mentally compared to the Book of Mormon and found wanting? I'll digress for a moment back into the realm of the ten lost tribes and see what a fellow by the name of James A. Briggs has to say: "Joseph Smith of Lamoni, Ia., has sent me a copy of the "manuscript" found by Mr. L. L. Rice of Honolulu... This is not a copy of the "Manuscript Found" of Solomon Spaulding... At the meeting at Mr. J. Corning's in Mentor, in 1834, I have no doubt we had this very identical "manuscript" now published, among the papers submitted by Dr. Hurlburt. We also had a copy of the "Manuscript Found," that was compared with the Mormon Bible and satisfied the committee that it was the basis of the Mormon Bible. I have said and believed since 1834 that I had seen and examined the original "Manuscript Found" of Solomon Spaulding, out of which Sidney Rigdon got up the Mormon Bible." But enough of all this searching. The Browns tell me to look only at the Spalding manuscript now at Oberlin, and they tell me it "never was on display to the public after he died until it reached its final resting place" in that College's Library. No matter that the Rev. Clark Braden wrote to the son of one of Brigham Young's wives: "I have six affidavits of persons who were present at lectures of Hurlbut after his return from [his] visit to Mrs. Davidson. They say he held up a MS -- said it was Spaulding's M. S. Found that he obtained from Mrs. Davidson -- that he read from the Book of Mormon showing identity..." No matter that Braden's research assistant subsequently published several of those statements. No matter that the LDS-sanctioned Sheriff of Kirtland testified to the same thing. And no matter that the prestigious International Review once ran an article in which a correspondent reported: "In the winter of 1833-34, a self-constituted committee... met a number of times at... Mentor... At one of the meetings we had before us the original manuscript of the Rev. Solomon Spaulding... It was obtained from... a publisher of Pittsburg... From this work of the Rev. Mr. Spaulding the Mormon Bible was constructed. I do not think there can be any doubt of this. It was the opinion of the committee after comparing the Mormon Bible with the manuscript. The style of composition, the names, etc., were the same." No matter any of the above, for the Browns tell me only to look for a Spalding manuscript never exhibited to the public, after his death, until it came to rest at Oberlin, Ohio. I confess that I cannot find such a manuscript. For even the Spalding holograph on file at Oberlin was available for inspection by many persons (including President Joseph F. Smith of the Mormon Church and his missionary friends, incidentally) months before it was ever shipped off to Oberlin from its discovery place in Hawaii. Sidney Rigdon? What Sidney Rigdon? I'd best move on now. I've spent half an hour writing the last few paragraphs and have barely gotten beyond looking at the first three sentences the Browns have to offer their readers in Chapter Six. The next thing they say is: "In 1830, when the Book of Mormon appeared, stories were circulated all around that area that it was similar to the "Manuscript Found" written by Spaulding some 14 years previously." Counting back "14 years" from 1830 leaves me with the year 1816. Are the Browns trying to say here that Solomon Spalding continued working on his stories of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas right up to the time of his death? Several early witnesses say the same, but just a few lines above, the Browns tell me that the particular story they are interested in was composed "between "1809 -1812." Which then is it, 1812 or 1816? I am very interested in sitting down with the Browns one day and having them relate in detail all the "stories" that were "circulated" in 1830, saying that the Book of Mormon was " similar to the 'Manuscript Found' written by Spaulding..." Now, it may well be true that people like Spalding's widow and her brother William sat down and compared some of her late husband's writings with the Book of Mormon even before D. P. Hurlbut uninvitedly rang the doorbell at the widow's residence in Monson in November 1834, but I can't imagine that it was the Widow Spalding who set such rumors a-flying. What are the Browns talking about here? I think they are relaying their foggy memory, from reading in the old LDS literature, that Sidney Rigdon was accused of writing the Book of Mormon, even as early as 1830. Parley P. Pratt tells us: "Early in 1831, Mr. Rigdon... visited elder J. Smith, Jr., in the state of New-York... and from that time forth, rumor began to circulate, that he (Rigdon) was the author of the Book of Mormon. The Spaulding story never was dreamed of until several years afterward..." Actually, Elder Pratt is just a smidgen late with his date here, the "rumor began to circulate" as early as November 1830, when the first copies of the Book of Mormon became available among Rigdon's associates in Ohio. In an article published Nov. 18, 1830, Warren Isham speaks of Rigdon as "the famous Campbellite leader" just then baptized a Mormon. Isham also speaks of "The Golden Bible" being "Campbellism Improved," implying that Rigdon had a hand in its production. But the first clearly stated charge against Rigdon in this regard was published a few miles away from Kirtland, on Feb. 15, 1831, in which the writer stated: "Rigdon was formerly a disciple of Campbell's and who it is said was sent out to make proselytes, but is probable he thought he should find it more advantageous to operate on his own capital, and therefore wrote, as it is believed, the Book of Mormon..." Benjamin Shattuck (who was an ex-Mormon living near Rigdon) in April 1831, spoke of "Elder Rigdon, who is believed by many to be the author of Mormonism..." Still, all of these early "rumors" come from Rigdon's home area of Ohio. Elder Pratt seems to imply that the "rumors" began to circulate in the Palmyra area or the Fayette region shortly after Rigdon's first documented visit with the Mormon Smiths. Is there anything available to back up what Pratt says? Probably so, for in 1831 a New York City journalist took a tour of the western part of the state and reported back that: A few years ago... Old Smith [senior] had... picked up many stories of men getting rich... by digging... and stumbling upon chests of money. The fellow excited the imagination of his few auditors... As yet no fanatical or religious character had been assumed by the Smith's. They exhibited the simple and ordinary desire of getting rich... commenced digging, in the numerous hills... in the town of Manchester.... some person who joined them spoke of a person in Ohio near Painesville, who had... much experience in money digging... After the lapse of some weeks... the famous Ohio man made his appearance... a preacher of almost every religion... His name I believe is Henry Rangdon or Ringdon, or some such word... It was [then] ... the money diggers of Ontario county, by the suggestions of the Ex-Preacher from Ohio, thought of turning their digging concern into a religious plot... It was given out that visions had appeared to Joe Smith -- that a set of golden plates on which was engraved the "Book of Mormon," ... was deposited somewhere in the hill... People laughed... but the Smiths and Rangdon persisted in its truth.... There is no doubt but the ex-parson from Ohio is the author of the book which was recently printed and published in Palmyra and passes for the new Bible. It appears that Parley was telling us the truth; "from that time forth, rumor began to circulate, that he (Rigdon) was the author of the Book of Mormon." But, as Apostle Pratt goes on to say: "The Spaulding story never was dreamed of until several years afterward..." The Browns have not done their homework and they have given a D-minus book report before the class, I'm afraid. Still reading from the first page of their Chapter Six, the writers tell us that those objectionable three Gentiles, back in 1977, "expended quite a bit of energy in attempting to prove that Sidney Rigdon stole a 'second' manuscript from a printshop... they have no case at all in claiming that there was a second manuscript. That's good to know; I can now rest easy at night, knowing that there is "no case at all" for President Rigdon ever having stolen such a manuscript. But wait a minute, the Browns do not say that Rigdon was not operating in close proximity to any Spalding manuscripts left lying about in the Pittsburgh area, nor do they say anything about Elder Rigdon having possibly obtained the text from such a manuscript quite honestly and legally -- from his associate, Jonathan Harrison Lambdin, a Pittsburgh printer whom Rigdon pointedly refused to deny knowing and chumming about the town with, perhaps even as early as 1812. On second thought, maybe I cannot yet rest so easily in my Hawaiian bed and in my Latter Day Saint faith as the Browns would have me think. Finally -- Some Real "Meat" On page 220 the redoubtable writers (or perhaps just one of them) asks: "This author wonders why the original letters [of E. D. Howe's "eight Conneaut witnesses"] aren't ever shown so we could compare the signatures. Perhaps there aren't any originals." An excellent point, I must say. Three cheers for Elder Brown, for he has finally struck paydirt -- that is, the dirt that pays in sales at Deseret Books. But, I must curb my tongue and get down to brass plates -- err... brass tacks here. Way back in 1878 Joseph F. Smith and Orson Pratt finally summoned up the courage and the cash to go and visit Elder David Whitmer in Richmond, Missouri, and ask to see his original manuscript of the Book of Mormon. The old apostate (or is that "apostle"?) showed them the sacred pages, penned by none other than Oliver Cowdery himself. Then the visitors from Utah asked an embarrassing question -- why weren't the signatures of the witnesses to the divine origin of the "Nephite Record" not in their own handwriting. Honest old David assured his company that he and the others, back in 1829, had indeed affixed their own john-henries to the respective affidavits, but that all he could find with his carefully-guarded original manuscript was Cowdrey's copy of the same. Well, Oliver had at least re-written his own signature on the paper, and one out of eleven may not be bad when it comes to documenting testimony in early Mormon history. But the Utahans had a point to make -- they realized that the pages in David's possession were only Oliver's "printer's copy" of the original "dictated manuscript." David did not realize that there was a second manuscript. He may have even forgotten that there was once a manuscript made for even a different story, at least as different as the lost "Book of Lehi" may have been from the preserved "small plates" of Nephi. Although David didn't know it, there may have then been as many as three separate Book of Mormon manuscripts on earth, one of which told a rather different story from the other two. The Browns ask -- where are the signed statements of the eight "Conneaut Witnesses?" And I, along with Elders Pratt and Smith, ask -- where are the signed statements of the Book of Mormon witnesses? I might also add, that since even David Whitmer did not know that there were several "Nephite Record" translations to be had, the Browns demonstrate remarkable discernment in knowing of an assurity that there was only one manuscript ever penned by Solomon Spalding. And, as a matter of fact, one of the reasons that I enjoy living in Hawaii these days is that it affords me an opportunity to consult the textual flotsam and jetsam which has washed up here over the course of two centuries. The Oberlin Spalding manuscript was discovered not many miles from where I now sit writing this exposition, back in 1884, as I recall. And with it was found a letter of Solomon's, a legal agreement he drafted, and a statement from the pen of arch-apostate D. P. Hurlbut himself. It may just be worth my time to search through the various archival troves here in the islands and see what became of the papers of Mr. Lewis L. Rice (among which the Oberlin Spalding documents were found). If I can fulfill the Browns' desire to see the original eight statements they speak of, will they then grant me a footnote in the next printing of their book? I think not -- the image of Mark Hofmann still hovers over any new and remarkable document discoveries among us Saints. Conneaut Witnesses? What Conneaut Witnesses? Continuing to read along with the Browns on their page 220, they tell us: "D. P. Hurlburt provided eight witnesses to verify that they were familiar with Spaulding's manuscript... You would assume, wouldn't you, that these witnesses were not just casual visitors to Spaulding's house... Surely it would be somebody that lived as a neighbor or at least within a reasonable vicinity of Solomon Spaulding's residence in Conneaut, Ashtabula County..." That's an interesting notion, I think, that in order to function as a reliable witness a person would have to be more than just an occasional visitor to Spalding's "residence in Conneaut." Actually, Solomon Spaulding lived in Conneaut township, not in Conneaut village. In fact, there was no such Conneaut village when he lived in the area in 1809-12. He lived in what was called "Salem" or "New Salem." Years after his residence there a post office was set up for the township and it was called "Conneaut Post Office." Gradually the old name faded away, and in 1834 the village was incorporated as "Conneaut." When we speak of the "Conneaut witnesses" we are speaking of those persons who once resided on or near the banks of Conneaut Creek, a watercourse which meanders through both Erie County Pennsylvania and the adjacent county of Ashtabula, across the Ohio border to the west. Indeed, the Conneaut region might well be extended all the way down to Conneaut Lake, in the county immediately south of Erie. Solomon Spalding's brother John lived down there for about three decades, by the way. If we set the requirement that any reliable witness to the content of Spalding's writings must have been his near neighbor, there in that Conneaut region, what are we to make of the testimony of his brother, Josiah Spalding? Josiah provides us with a remarkably exact description of the Oberlin manuscript story, told many years after his having read it only once or twice, going far beyond anything else entered into the contemporary literary record, in terms of accuracy and detail, all the way down to the recovery of that document here in Hawaii in 1884. Josiah tells us: I... give you a sketch of my brother Solomon's life.... In 1795 he married. I went to Cherry Valley and commenced merchandising... He followed... We soon after went into a large speculation in new land in Pennsylvania and Ohio, and after a few years he moved out there with his wife; she never had any children... The war [of 1812]... broke out with England... I went to see my brother and staid with him some time... He began to compose his novel... The author of it he [Solomon] brings from the Old World... I think not a Jew... He was a man of superior learning suited to that day. He went to sea, lost his point of compass, and finally landed on the American shore; I think near the mouth of the Mississippi River. There he reflects most feelingly on what he suffered, his present condition and future prospects; he likewise makes some lengthy remarks on astronomy and philosophy, which I should think would agree in sentiment and style with very ancient writings. He then started and traveled a great distance through a wilderness country inhabited by savages, until he came to a country where the inhabitants were civilized, cultivated their land, and had a regular form of government, which was at war with the savages... Except for Josiah's mistaking his brother's Delaware River setting for "the mouth of the Mississippi," he gives an excellent summary of the first half of the Oberlin Spalding manuscript. Josiah even thinks that this story was called the "Manuscript Found," or some such name. His account seems to provide perfect fodder for a Mormon "faith-promoting" volume. Why then do the Browns pass over an opportunity to tell us what Josiah remembered after all those years? I can only guess that to do so would put the Browns in the awkward situation of having to admit that even a person who was not a near neighbor (albeit one who visited for many days at a stretch) might be able to recall rather well the contents of Spalding stories he had not seen in forty years. That admission might not be especially helpful to the mission of these Mesa Mormons. Because the Browns have decided that only Spalding's near neighbors qualify as reliable witnesses, they next set out to convince [I could abbreviate that word as "con." but I won't] us into believing that most of the eight Conneaut witnesses seemingly lived nowhere near old Solomon, back around 1810. On pages 220-21 "this author" (Brother Brown?) tells us, first of all: "This author checked the United States census records for Conneaut, Ashtabula County, Ohio, from 1810 to 1860, and 1880, in an effort to verify the existence of the eight witnesses in Conneaut... This author finds it significant that only two of the eight witnesses can be found in Ashtabula County when they were supposed to be..." At this point it is useful to take a quick glance at the table the Browns so graciously provide us on page 225 of their book. Notice the entries in the column for 1810, alongside the names of seven of the eight witnesses (Artemus Cunningham they are pleased not to list here; heaven alone knows why not). Even the most ignorant of readers can quickly see that NO CONNEAUT WITNESSES were living anywhere near Solomon Spalding in 1810. The official U. S. Census report for the Sate of Ohio for 1810 clearly shows that fact! Why, good golly, Miss Molly! The jig's up; we Marmons have been bamboozled by them thar deceivin' Gentiles agin! Get me down my shootin' iron! Where in thunderation is that thar lyin' Eber D. Howe anyways!! But, as Charlie Chan might say, "Not so fast, Number One Son; something is amiss here." Were I to consult my handy dandy official U. S. Census report for the State of Ohio for 1810, I would not find Solomon Spalding's name listed there either -- I would not find anybody from what is now Ashtabula County listed. And why not? Because there never was such a Census report. No, Virginia, there isn't a Santa Claus -- not even a Mormon Kris Kringle down in Mesa. The United States Government did not carry out a census in sparsely populated frontier "New Connecticut" in 1810, as every "Temple Mormon" who has done much genealogical sifting and sorting in the Census records well knows. So, scratch column one, from the table, Bob and Rosie -- and shame on you, and in a volume sold at Deseret Books, too! Lying in Wait to Deceive? No, despite the sub-title, I'm not accusing Brother and Sister Brown of telling fibs here. I simply wish to point out that any of us can construct a tabulation and say that it proves something, the "three researchers" of 1977 and myself not excluded. Before we jump to hasty conclusions about who was living near Solomon Spalding back in 1810, let's stop and get our knickers on straight. If there was no census report for that year, is there anything down at the Family History Library that might help us sort things out at this point? How about an index to land sales? How about voters' lists? Or maybe, an index to tax-payers? In fact, there is an index to Ohio tax-payers for 1810 and its is the sort of "census surrogate record" that the "Temple Mormons" consult regularly in their quest for new names to add to their proxy baptism lists. Bob and Rosie, bless their hearts, know all about that sort of thing; they were just a-funnin' us here, right? Before we go digging through the old tax duplicate microfilms over on the ward microfilm reader (isn't that inter-library loan service from Salt Lake City a wonderful thing!), I might add that I do find a "John N. Miller" on the 1810 Census report for Erie county -- "just across the river" in Pennsylvania, the Browns kindly inform us. But they still place a "NO" in the 1810 box beside his name. If the Browns are unable to read through the Census indices and microfilms at the local Family History Center or the Mesa Temple Library, they may find a picture of the entry on-line at ancestry.com (1810 PA Census, Erie co., roll M252_48, page 126, image 133). Should the Browns wish to reevaluate their decision in placing a "NO" next to the name of John Spalding, for the year 1820, they may wish to take a look at the Cussewago township enumeration in the 1820 Census report for Crawford co., PA -- handily on-line at http://www.alltel.net/~yoset/CCo/census/1820/63A.html. But, oh no!, you say? There's no John Spalding there -- just a "John Spaldin," and that couldn't possibly be the same "John Spalding" living a few miles to the south, in the Sadsbury township enumeration in the 1830 Census report (the one that the Browns did fess up to seeing there): http://www.toolcity.net/~cvahs/1830/cccen3.html But what shall we do with the names we find in the old records that are just slightly different from the ones we are looking for? If I go searching for "Dale R. Broadhurst," and can only fi |
