Clark Braden's 1884 book: Part 3

SPALDING STUDIES LIBRARY -- SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

Sp. Col. Index | Mormon Classics | Bookshelf | Newspaper Articles | History Vault

Clark Braden (1831- c.1915)
Braden-Kelley Debate
(1st edition: Cincinnatti, 1884)
Part 3 of 7 pp. 078-112

Title Page Preface

Proposition 1:

pp. 003-035 pp. 078-112
pp. 113-174 pp. 175-219

Proposition 2: pp. 220-301

Proposition 3: pp. 302-381

Appendices: pp. 382-396

Rev. Clark Braden

Comments and Info on Clark Braden | Tabulated Links (in lieu of contents)

Proposition One Speeches: 1-3 | 4-7 | 8K 8B 9K 9B 10K 10B | 11-16 | 17-20

This e-text is still under construction.

go back to: page 77

78 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

MR. KELLEY'S EIGHTH SPEECH.

GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I know you have been entertained with the story and the gossip that has been brought forward. The wonderful amount of testimony, too, that you have heard from those fourteen witnesses! Have you not been anxiously waiting here, and listening, and watching to have something read in the shape of evidence? Yet, you have not heart one single affidavit read, one single statement read, one single thing read that could with any show of truth be properly called evidence. It is the first time I ever heard a man get up and state what he had culled from statements, or purported affidavits, to an audience and ask them to take it as evidence, without hearing the entire statement of the party read, or if it is printed, giving the reader the privilege of reading the entire evidence for himself. I will pick it out and select just what I want the audience to hear, and thus in fact stand as judge for the audience. That is the position if my friend before you. I will say, however, with regard to his story, (and he has made out his case he says,) he is done now; just understand that: -- that it is, with one exception, the most singular thing that I ever saw or heard. There is one gotten up that is a fair parallel to it, however, -- one just like it. I have it in a book in my house, and intended to have brought it over to-night and exhibited to you, but forgot it. It was published by Alexander Smythe in Chicago in 1880. Instead, however, of being against the Latter Day Saints, it is against the early, or former day saints. The author sets out by making the apostle Paul the hero of the Christian religion. He plays him as the master mind of the whole scheme transacted in Palestine. He concocted the plan in order to establish a church and found a new religion in the time in which he lived. As a starting point for the purpose of awakening the people to the scheme, this man says, that Paul procured a poor crazy fanatic called John the Baptist, and sent him into the wilderness of Judea and had him preach a while to tell them that one who was then standing in their midst would soon come, and he would be the Messiah and restore all things to them. After a while that one that was to be the Messiah is brought out to play his part, according to the tale. He was a relative of John the Baptist, he says. It happens, too, that the party mixed in a grain of truth here in order to deceive, as Christ was a relative. Then the story proceeds to the effect, that after a while when the apostle Paul thought that he had used John the Baptist all he wanted to, he puts up a job on John and has Herod behead him. Then he has John play the Messiah until the time that he thinks things are about ripe for to spring some great

excitement in the world. All the time this author cunningly represents the apostle as playing behind the scenes, until Jesus has made himself well known, then he foists some horrid stories upon the ears of the populace in Jerusalem against the Messiah, and just at a time when he is approaching the city, (Jesus not knowing anything about Paul's perfidity,) and the excited people rise and put him to death. The Apostle Paul then steals the body and makes away with it; so the story goes. And after he had done that he starts down to Damascus, and all of a sudden the apostle gets converted to the new religion by a great miracle, and goes back in order to make a great sensation in the world, telling his wonderful experience; and from that time becomes the "ringleader." You take that book, my friends, and read it, published in the nineteenth century, in the year 1880, and observe the things that it takes from the Bible, excerpting here and there, in order to make a show of truth, and notice the ingenuity with which the false statements are thrown in between, and then compare with the Spaulding story, and you will find that it is a far more plausible story than he has presented to you in trying to account for the origin of the Book of Mormon. But he has chosen in this discussion to rely upon as a defense, as I was just saying before my time was called, the Spaulding story, and character; either as a counter proof sufficient or as a means of prejudicing the people against an investigation of the facts. But whatever the object it matters not to me, for I shall canvass the story itself, and see what truth if any there is in it. Properly it does not belong to this question; as foreign to it in fact as were the stories and false charges of "deciever," "gluttonous man," "wine bibber," &c., to ascertaining of the mission of Jesus. Notwithstanding this, some want it examined, and I assure you it is but an easy task to drag it to the bottom.

How bad indeed according to my opponent's arraignment was this Smith crows. The old man, the old lady, the boys and the girls. One would gather from his talk that they had been under the general espionage of the secret service department all along down the previous century. Yet, no crime was ever charged against one of them, except in the old women's tales and gossip, spun by the pious (?) of the neighborhood. From before the time they left the State of Vermont they were thought to be squeamish. Yet the old lady brought with her to New York State, a certificate of good standing in the Presbyterian church. Were Presbyterians, and especially those of olf New England stock in those times immoral, impious, and Sabbath breakers? In New York, their sons Hyrum and Samuel

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 79

and their daughter Sophronia also joined the Presbyterian church and were in good standing in that church during this time; yet they were awful bad folks. They quietly remained members of this body, which was considered one of the straightest sects, up to the year 1827, when they deliberately withdrew from it themselves because of their conversion, as they claimed, to the restored gospel. Joseph, an attentive listener at the Methodist church, and he is just about to be taken in as a member, when he happens to think that he will go and pray; -- ask God what he shall do; for he is in a confusion of mind over what to do. My friends, have any of you ever been in such a state! and if so did you go to your heavenly Father to ask his advice?

Now this is the sum total of the crime of the fourteen-year-old boy at this time. He went and asked God for wisdom, and said the Lord spoke to him and told him what to do. It would never have been of note in the world about his asking, had he not stated that at the time he received an answer; and such an answer. What was it? "That the churches were not right." This was before Mr. Campbell ever left the Baptist church, sir, and while Charles and John Wesley were singing,

"Almighty God of love,
Set up the art active sign.
And summon whom thou dost approve
For messengers divine.
From Abram's favored seed,
The new apostles choose;
Go, spread throughout the earth around,
The dead reviving news." Was it any worse for young Joseph Smith to say these churches were wrong, and did not meet in full the measure of the Almighty than others? Ah! but he said God told him so, in answer to prayer. Well, did he never tell my friend anything in answer to prayer.

Answer me that, and do not forget it as you did at Wilber!! If Jesus or his messengers dif not tell him this, where did he get it? He was not the learned and scholarly man that you claim for Mr. Campbell; nor in a part of the world where he could gain from the wisdom of the Wesleys. Yet, he is the first of the age to come out boldly and frankly say, "none of them are right." Not that they were wrong in all things, for he recognized that there was some good in each and all of them. But that none were all right -- acknowledged of God. Sixty-three years have passed away and now who says it among the religious teachers? Mr. Campbell soon did; Walter Scott, Sidney Rigdon, Henry Ward Beecher, Dr. Thomas, Dr. Cheeny, Prof. Swing, W. H. H. Murry, and a host of others. And this, too, notwithstanding the great reformation wrought under Campbell. His might be termed the water reformation! Young Smith, as any young boy would have done under such circumstances, with confidence in his heart and faith in the justice of his cause, goes directly with his answer to his preacher, the pastor; states his case; and what would you have supposed

the reception under the circumstances, of a person of his age going to the pastor with the story, "The Lord showed me in the vision that the churches were all wrong." Now take the opposite view. Suppose the answer to Smith had been, You join the Methodist Church, (there was no Campbellite Church in the world to this time), as that is more acceptable to me than the Baptist or Presbyterian. Do you think the Methodist preacher would have called the boy a liar, and said he had no such vision? No, you all know, he would have put young Joseph at the head of the converts, and had him testify every night. It makes a big difference whose ox is gored sometimes.

Why I remember well last winter reading an account of a lady in the Methodist church in Coldwater Michigan, who claimed to be actually healed by the power of faith in that church, and the church accepted it. While the Saints at the same place for the last twenty years had been affirming that God so wrought with them and that they had had many instances of such blessings, yet they were looked upon as fanatical, unorthodox, superstitious, because of this belief. It is because it did not happen in our church that we are to say: -- "Oh, it is all stuff; they are a set of fanatics." But there is another thing that young Smith said the angel told him, that is more remarkable, if made up, than the other; it was a prophecy: -- "That his name should be both good and evil spoken of among all nations, kindreds, tongues and people." How did this young boy know that his name should be spoken of among all people, every nation; -- by his friends as being a good man and by his enemies as being an evil man? The prophecy is clear and distinct, the fulfillment is complete -- no one to gainsay it. The wonderful statement made by the then boy and subsequent fulfillment should also cause the most incredulous to stop and think before he condemns. How did he know this? Take the greatest villian on the earth or the most worthy man, are their names, even in this later times of the easy transmission of news, known among all nations, kindreds, tongues and peoples. Strike the heart of Africa and the Mohammetan country, and they have all heard of Smith, and they hold him in one relation or the other. But go to the heart of these same countries and they have not even heard of the terrible character that struck down our President, who it seems, in his iniquity, would have been known all over the world if any one possibly could by this means. And yet this young boy stated early in 1823 that the angel said to him that his "Name should be both good and evil spoken of among all nations, kindreds, tongues and people. Can you point me to a prophecy in the Bible that has been more literally fulfilled?

Now I propose to esamine my opponent's alibi, as he has rested his whole case upon that, and you watch and see if he is not driven from his "SPAULDING STORY" AND

80 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

CHARACTER!! I referred to the fact that this old falsehood was met and vanquished when it was first circulated in 1835 and 1836 and later in 1839 and 1840; but he replies that I must meet it here and not tell about what has been done. Very well, my affirmative arguments being in no way answered, I can well afford to meet it here; so now for the Spaulding story as a theory. Will you reply to my arguments upon this. We will see.

The following are the claims made for that:

First, That one Solomon Spaulding, a Presbyterian clergyman, about the year 1811, lived at Conneaut, Ohio, and being in poor health, for diversion in his invalid state, wrote a story and left it in manuscript form, which was like the present Book of Mormon, except as to errors. Second. That from Conneaut, Ohio, he removed to Pittsburg, Pa., in 1812, and while there handed the manuscript of this story to a publisher by the name of Robert Patterson for examination and publication.

Third. That the manuscript instead of being published was returned to Mr. Spaulding, and in the year 1814 he left Pittsburg and went to Amity, Pa., where he died in the year 1816, when his effects, including the manuscript, fell into the hands of his widow

Forth, That at the time the manuscript was in the office of publisher Patterson, one Sidney Rigdon was engaged at, or in some way connected with said printing office, and in some way got the manuscript and purloined the same.

That Sidney Rigdon at the time, knew of Joseph Smith and had opportunity to get this manuscript to him, and

Sixth, That Rigdon being a preacher at the time did this in order to start a new church and have a basis for his scheme.

Before, during this discussion, I showed by the illustration of "a chain of title" in property, if the chain was perfect in all its parts it would stand the test, but if faulty or disconnected by a single transfer it would not. In the examination of one's title, if you are able to show that one link in the chain is not a true one, forged, or obtained through fraud, the whole thing is void. But in this pretentious claim of the Spaulding Manuscript, which he has set up, I am not only able to prove that one link is at fault, but that the entire chain is bad, and every link at fault; from the inception by Philastus Hulburt, who had been twice, as I have before shown, excommunicated from the Latter Day Saints for immoralities, to the conclusion of it as published and completed by Howe of Painesville, who had the Spaulding manuscript destroyed while in his hands. I enter upon the investigation with the hope that I shall have your candid and unbiased judgment in the consideration of the evidence.

First, did Spaulding ever write such a manuscript? I claim that he did not; and for proof of this refer you first to their own witnesses.

1. The manuscript Spaulding is said to have written was too meager a thing to in any sense compare with a manuscript that would make a book the size of the Book of Mormon.

2. The character of the "Manuscript Found" which is the one all rely upon as the romance was entirely different from the Book of Mormon.

3. He was such an invalid at the time it is alleged he wrote his manuscript, that it would have been impossible for him, considering his circumstances in life, together with his broken constitution, to have written such a manuscript had it been possible for any man of his own knowledge to write such a one as the Book of Mormon, which I deny.

Taking up the first reason it will at once be clear to you that a manuscript written in the English language, as they concede Spaulding's was, to contain the amount of matter that is included in the strictly historical part of the Book of Mormon, would cover at least fifteen hundred pages of foolscap paper. Was the "Manuscript Found" such? The statements of those who claim they saw the "Manuscript Found," place it beyond doubt that it was no such. Mrs. McKinstry, the daughter of Solomon Spaulding in her evidence says, that she, "Read the manuscript frequently when she was about twelve years of age, and that it was about one inch in thickness." She read it frequently, so it could not have been very large. Then their other trumped up witnesses all, or nearly all, say that they heard it read. Henry Lake heard it read. John N. Miller heard it read from the beginning to end. Aaron Wright heard Spaulding read it, etc. Mrs. Matilda Spaulding, wife of Solomon Spaulding states in her testimony published in the Illinois Quincy Whig, that it was about a third as large as the Book of Mormon and that her daughter (Mrs. McKinstry) read it frequently. Hulburt who was commissioned by Henry Lake, John Miller, Aaron Wright, et al. (Braden's witnesses), to go and get the Spaulding writing, went and got it he says, and the only one in Spaulding's hand writing which the widow had. That he delivered it to E. D. Howe of Painesville, who was writing the book to break down the Mormons, and Howe says, page 288, of his book in describing it, that, "The trunk referred to by the widow was subsequently examined and found to contain only a single manuscript book in Spaulding's hand writing, containing about one quire of paper."

Then according to the description of the manuscript itself by those who actually saw it, it must have been a very small affair indeed in comparison to the historical portion of the Book of Mormon. In fact there was no comparison of the one, to the other, whatever.

But Howe goes further with his description and shows the style, subject matter, history, a[re] all different. This brings us to notice that the second proposition in my statement is true. This agrees with Mrs.

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 81

Spaulding's description of the "Manuscript Found." In the letter to the Boston Recorder, she says: "He (Mr. Spaulding) was enabld (while writing this manuscript) from his acquaintance with the classics and ancient history, to introduce many singular names which were particularly noticed by people and could readily be recognized by them." Page 43, Smucker against the Mormons.

Then in the same letter she says: "Mr. Spaulding had a brother John Spaulding, residing in the place at the time, who was perfectly familiar with the work and repeatedly heard the whole of it read." What an easy thing my audience for a man to read repeatedly, a manuscript of two thousand pages; besides it must have been the most exciting novel ever written. Just to think of repeatedly reading such a manuscript! Now I hope the friends won't be backward again about giving me their names for a copy of this enticing book, that can be had for only one dollar and a quarter. And thrown in this letter is Braden's theory that Mr. Smith did all this copying, working, digging for money, traveling, studying, planning, delving, -- what a lazy boy! In order to start a church. Ridiculous! Did you ever hear of such a theory? For men to work for years and years, and labor and hire men, and dig holes, and mine and sweat in order to get an excuse for starting a new church? Did not Mr. Campbell start a new church without any such excuse? Did not Mr. Smith and Mr. Rigdon have as good a right to start a new church without all this as Mr. Campbell or Mr. Wesley or Mr. Luther or near a thousand others who have started new churches since the time of Christ? It seems to me that starting new churches is not confined simply to a few individuals; we have too many to admit of such an idea. And look everywhere you may and you cannot tell which is right unless you accept the doctrine which is taught in the New Testament, and abide by the rule, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him." But my friend does not accept that doctrine.

Then again, "the old neighbors were enabled to identify it by reason of the names taken from the classical authors and ancient history." Were enabled to identify it by reason of those historical and classical names! Here you have set out by Mrs. Spaulding herself how they were enabled to identify the work. What name have they got? Why he found one the other night, I believe it was "Mormon," It was a Greek word. Will you show me the word "Mormon" in Greek as used in the Book of Mormon?

Mr. Braden: Yes sir.

Mr. Kelley: You say you will but you will never do it

Mr. Braden: That is to be seen.

Mr. Kelley: There is no such a term as Mormo that they think the Greeks used just the same as we use the word "Mormon."

But to any person who will think a moment it is evident there is not and never was the slightest conection. The word Mormo was used to denote a hobgoblin, bug-bear, object of fright, etc. Mormon was simply a man's name as used in the Book of Mormon, the name of a place of pleasure, etc., and in no sense as the Greek word Mormo was used. The similarity of sound between the two when they are written in English argues nothing. I can show that words of similar sound, so far as that is concerned in different languages have no relation whatever either in derivation or meaning, and are never used by people to indicate the same or similar things. That idea about the Greek wird Mormo being the root of the word Mormon as found in the book is simply ridiculous. A thing gotten up by certain persons and tried to apply to the word as used in the Book of Mormon to deceive the ignorant. But I will see when Mr. Braden brings it.

But again: "Spaulding's manuscript represented an idolatrous people," they say. The Book of Mormon does not. The Spaulding "Manuscript Found" was delivered into the hands of this Dr. P. Hulburt who had got up all these lying affidavits about Smith and the Book of Mormon and he takes it to Howe of Painesville, Ohio, the very place where they are trying to destroy the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Howe because he was mad about his wife and sister joining the church, and Hulburt because he had been cut off from the church, -- they take the manuscript under promise to Mrs. Davidson that they would publish and send her a copy and divide proceeds; and when she gets no returns she writes them about it and they answer her. "It did not read like we expected and we did not use it." How about the manuscript now? Traced right into the hands of the bitterest opposers of the Book of Mormon by your own witnesses, and long after the publication of the Book of Mormon. This is the manuscript story which they are claiming was in the hand-writing of Solomon Spaulding who died before the publication of the Book of Mormon and whose hand writing could be identified by his manuscript sermons, as Mrs. Spaulding and Mrs. McKinstry testified: -- and from such a manuscript as this ten words preserved in Mr. Solomon Spaulding's hand-writing would have been sufficient to have identified the two, if the Book of Mormon was the same, beyond all dispute whatever -- and these opposers with their statements and affidavits in their hands, deliberately destroy the "Manuscript Found," which they got from Mrs. Spaulding (Davidson) and maliciously publish their statements. Here is "old come to pass," right in their own hands on the year 1834. Now who is the impostor; the deceiver? But further, when it is first published that Mrs. Spaulding (Davidson) claimed the Book of Mormon was a copy of the manuscript, a gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Jesse Harper, [sic] visits at once Mrs. (Spaulding) Davidson, Mrs.

82 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

McKinstry, and Dr. Ely, in Massachusetts, and interviews these persons, and writes his account to the Quincy (Ill.) Whig, a bitter anti-Mormon journal, stating that in the interview he asked and received answers to the following questions, to wit: --

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 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. Dr. P. Hurlburt came here and took it, said he would get it printed, and let me have one half the profits.
Q. Has Dr. Hurlburt got the manuscript printed?
A. I received a letter stating it did not read as they expected and they should not print it.
Q. How large was the manuscript?
A. about one-third as large as the Book of Mormon."
(To Mrs. McKinstry.) Q. "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 of age 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 ever read the Book of Mormon?
A. I have not."

Then the following interview with Mrs. McKinstry on April 4th, 1882, in Washington City: --
Q. Mrs. McKinstry, have you the Manuscript Found, Mr. Solomon Spaulding is said to have written, in your possession?
A. I have not.
Q. What became of it?
A. My mother delivered it up for publication to a Mr. Hulburt who came to our house in Mass. for it, bearing letters of introduction from my uncle, a Mr. Sabine, a lawyer in New York State.
Q. Why do you not get the manuscript again?
A. I have sent for it but Hulburt claims he did not get any.
Q. Does Hurlbut say he did not get any manuscript from your mother?
A. That is what he claims now.
Q. How do you account for the fact, Mrs. McKinstry, that your father, while being such a good man and a minister, should write such a bad book as the Book or Mormon?
A. Well, we never could account for that.

Q. Could you identify the manuscript, was it now produced?
A. I don't think I could.
Q. Have you any of the old writings and manuscripts of Mr. Spaulding?
A. Yes, I have some leaves of his sermons.
Q. And with these you think you could not identify the manuscript?
A. No, sir, I think not.
(Mrs. Col. Stanton, who is present at the interview):
Why yes, mother, if you have his writing you ought to identify it.
Mrs. McKinstry: Well, perhaps I could.
Q. Was it written on common foolscap paper or the clergymen note paper?
A. It must have been written on foolscap as they had no clergymen note paper in those days,
Q. How do you come to remember any of the names that were in that manuscript?
A. Well, I suppose I should not but Mr. Spaulding had a way of making a very fancy capital letter at the beginning of a chapter and I remembered the name Lehi, I think it was, from its being written this way."

That is the way she identified it -- on account of the word Lehi beginning with a very fancy capital letter. Suppose instead of being Lehi the word had been Levi. Would not the capital letter have been just the same and might there not have been the same fancy about it? And still a different thing altogether. Instead of being Levi, suppose it had been Lincoln. There would have been the same fancy capital letter. But perhaps I ought to read the evidence without comment, and make my comment afterwards, so I return to that. The question is asked: --

Q. When did you first think about the names in the Book of Mormon and the manuscript agreeing?
A. My attention was first called to it by some parties who asked me if I did not remember it, and then I remembered that they were."

These parties were the old neighbors; Aaron Wright, Miller, etc.

Did you ever have a case in court, my friends? If so, did you ever know the man on the other side to go to certain parties and say, "Now, see here, you are a good friend of mine and I am in a little trouble and I guess you know something to help me out. Don't you remember that a certain fellow upon a certain day said a certain thing? -- And I will tell you what it was now, and see if you don't remember it?" Why! there is so much evidence manufactured in this country in that way that corruption is beginning to rule insomuch that it is thought that never in the history of the world before, did so much evil creep into courts of justice, by reason of the manufactoring of testimony and suborning of witnesses.

I again call your attention to the thought: -- After her attention was called to it by three good, estimable, best citizens, etc., then she thought she remembered it.

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 83

Q. "Was you acquainted with Joseph Smith
A. No, I never heard tell of him till I heard of the Book of Mormon.
Q. Was Sidney Rigdon ever about your father's house?
A. No, I never saw him.

August, 1883, is another important interview.

I will give the evidence of Mr. Howe, but not claim it as evidence if my friend upon the other side of the question will put him on the stand here for cross-examination. It is as follows: --

Q. Mr. Howe, did Hulburt bring the manuscript to you he got of Mrs. (Spaulding) Davidson?
A. Yes, he brought one; but it was not the one we wanted; it only told about some tribes of Indians and their wars along the Lakes here and pretended to be the writings of some shipwrecked crew. It was the wars of the Winnebagoes, Chicagoes or Niagaries, I believe.
Q. Why did you not publish it?
A. Because it did not do us any good."

Now, who has got the stolen property that he has made such a parade over? These other parties who are seeking for evidence in order to show that Mr. Smith has stolen property in his possession go and get the original manuscript -- the manuscript in the handwriting of Solomon Spaulding -- in the penmanship of Solomon Spaulding, and they bring it here to Painsville, Ohio and it is traced into the hands of Mr. Howe and Mr. Hulburt, the ones that are determined to crush out the faith of the church: -- And what do they do? Publish it? Keep it? Preserve it? Oh no! "They did not use it." Why did they not use it? The reason is too evident to require naming. Ten words preserved in Mr. Spaulding's handwriting would have been sufficient to have identified the two if the Book of Mormon was the same. And these opposers, both sworn enemies of Mr. Smith and the Book of Mormon with their affidavits in their hands,

deliberately destroyed the "Manuscript Found," which they got from Mrs. (Spaulding) Davidson, and published their statements and affidavits, instead of the manuscript they got. Mind you they got the "Manuscript Found," and the only one ever so called in fact, and I will show that they did. I know that Mr. Howe tried to make a dodge afterwards and say that Spaulding had another manuscript called the "Roman Manuscript," so my opponent says; but Mr. Howe last summer did not give it as the Roman Manuscript, and I am prepared to prove that he said it treated of some Indian wars along the lakes here, too. And prepared to prove it with such testimony as will impeach him, so that if he will put himself under oath, I can send him to the penitentiary of Ohio for it. I have asked you (Mr. Braden) to put him on the stand here for examination and you dare not. I make these statements fearlessly, because I want the truth of this; one witness that heard him make such statement is upon the stand here now.

Now who is the impostor, the deceiver?

But now I will continue with Mr. Howe's statement of last summer: What do you know personally about the Book of Mormon and the Spaulding story being the same?
A. I don't know anything.
Q. Why did you publish a work claiming that the Book of Mormon was the Spaulding Romance?
A. Because I could better believe that Spaulding wrote it than that Joe Smith saw an angel.
Q. Are those your grounds?
A. Yes, sir, they are; and I want you to understand that you can't cram the Book of Mormon down me."

No, sir! Not down him. He is on Mr. Braden's side.

Q. Do you swallow the Bible?
A. That is my business.
Q. Have you not published a pamphlet which does not endorse the Bible?
A. Yes, I have." (Time expired.)

84 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

MR. BRADEN'S EIGHTH SPEECH.

GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: -- It is pretended that the plates were shown to three witnesses early in June, and shortly after to eight more. A contract is made with E. B. Grandin of Palmyra, to publish the book, Harris mortgages his farm to pay for printing, and in return has a monopoly of the new revelation, that is "the dullness of the gospel." He intends "to make money out of it even if it is a lie" he tells his wife.

The manuscript is carried to the printer with a great deal of tom foolery. Smith has two guards to protect his sacred person. The manuscript is to be seen only by the printer, and the elect. It is all to be taken out of the office each night by the elect.

Rigdon preaches more wildly than ever. Is absent from home much of his time. Some of his adherents in Kirtland adopt his community of goods, and organize a community, wash feet, etc.

1830

The Book of Mormon comes from the press in the latter part of the winter, with the name of Joseph Smith on it as "Author and Proprietor." April 6th the first Mormon church is organized at Smith's in Manchester, N. Y. In June the first Mormon conference is held in Fayette, N. Y.

Rigdon attends for the last time the Disciple Association of Mahoning, held in Austintown. Here he makes his last effort to engraft his hobbies on to the movement of the Disciples. Campbell exposes their extravagant unscriptural character. Rigdon preaches his famous sermon on "King Ahasuerus' horse" and leaves the Disciples forever, utterly soured and disappointed. He remarks to Mr. Austin of Warren: "I have done as much for the Reformation as Campbell or Scott, yet they get all the glory."

He goes back to Mentor, and sends for Pratt, who comes through Mentor in August, and goes from Rigdon straight to Smith, thirty miles off all public thoroughfares, travels a great distance, and reaches Smith's Saturday night, just as meeting begins, is converted, on the spot, and made a preacher of Mormonism the next day.

In October, Pratt, Cowdery and Whitmer come to Mentor. Rigdon pretends to be ignorant of the whole affair, and to oppose it for a day or so, then is miraculously converted by a silly vision. In December he goes to Smith in New York, preaches the first and only Mormon sermon ever preached in Palmyra. Is recognized as the "mysterious stranger" who has been visiting Smith during the last two years

Mrs. Davidson, Spaulding's wife and widow, goes to Munson. Massachusetts, to live with her daughter, Mrs. McKinstry. She left the trunk that contained her husband's papers, all that she had of them, in her possession, in the care of her brother-in-law [sic], Jerome Clark, of Hartwicke, New York.

1831

Joseph and Sidney fet a revelation that the Mormons should move to Kirtland, Ohio, which is to be theirs forever. May 17th the Elders were sent out by twos. June 7th the first endowment given. The Rigdonites all over the Western Reserve fall in with Mormonism, and the imposture is in full blast.

June 17th, in obedience to direct revelation, Joseph Smith and a party start for Western Missouri to locate "Zion." August 3rd Joseph locates the corner of the Temple of Zion, three hundred yards west of the Court House in Independence, Missouri. Floods of revelations are poured out. A city with golden streets, a Temple that never had been equalled, and other wonders were to spring up in that generation.

1832

February 16th, Rigdon and Smith have a sky-scraping revelation. Rigdon mounts "King Ahusuerus' horse" and cavorts miraculously and generally all over the universe. March 22, Rigdon and Smith are tarred and feathered in Hiram, Portage county, by persons that have been swindled by their lies and for Smith's amours.

Joseph Smith visits Missouri. It is high time. By their threats and boasts, the Mormons had aroused the Missourians. They were also in a general row among themselves, over Rigdon's pet idea -- community of goods.

1833

March 8th. In order to keep Sidney quiet, who finds that Joseph Smith, whom he expected to use as his tool, has gobbled all the results of their fraud, Rigdon is made councillor with root and herb quack, F. G. Williams, and the First Presidency is organized. July 23, Joseph Smith lays the foundation of the Kirtland Temple. Citizens of Missouri extort a promise from Mormons that half of them will leave before January 1st, 1834, the rest before April 1. October 30th Missourians destroy ten Mormon houses. Mormons kill two Missourians and shed the first blood in the war.

1834

Feb. 20. Joseph Smith starts on a fool's crusade, with a band of men to Missouri. They find a skeleton in a mound in Pike county, Ills. Joseph

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 85

Smith has a grand old time revelating over it. This crusade which negan and wascarried on amid a flood of revelations, so-called, and had been attended with suffering, sickness and death, ends in a fizzle in central Missouri. The fools that were not dead begged their way home.

Joseph Smith, whose head had been made giddy by his elevation from a loafing money hunter to that of a prophet, began to talk about the saints conquering the world, spoiling their enemies, ruling over the Gentiles, and announced that he would be the Mohammed of the century.

July 29th. Joseph Smith returns to Kirtland and finds the saints in a miscellaneous row. Sidney has just smashed things in his absence. He wanted the saints to build him as fine a house as the prophet had, and to give him a gold watch, and rig him up generally as fine as they had the prophet.

During this year a Mormon preacher had preached in Conneaut, Ohio, and read from the Book of Mormon. Solomon Spaulding's old acquaintances recognized his Manuscript Found. Squire Wright shouted out: "Old come to pass has come to life." There was great excitement over the discovery of the theft. D. P. Hurlbut who was getting up an expose of Mormonism, was sent by the citizens of Conneaut to Mrs. Davidson, to get the manuscript of her former husband, Solomon Spaulding. She gave Hurlbut an order authorizing him to go to Clark's, in Hartwicke, N. Y., where she left the trunk with her husband's papers, and get them.

Hurlbut gets a manuscript of the Manuscript Found, writes to Mrs. Davidson that he got it. He gives to those who sent him an entirely different manuscript. He sells the manuscript of Manuscript Found to Mormons for $400 and goes to western Ohio and buys a farm. Never answers the letters of Mrs. Davidson and her daughter in regard to the manuscript he obtained.

1835

Feb. 14. The first quorum of apostles were ordained in Kirtland, and Young and Kimball were among the holy number. Classes of instruction and schools of prophets were established. Orson Pratt invents a new celestial alphabet for the saints. Why did he not adopt reformed Egyptian from Smith's plates? Mormons have a craze of studying Hebrew. What need was there for that among people who had the gift of tongues? Rigdon delivers six lectures on faith. All their sense and the scriptural ideas in them are what he heard among the Disciples. They are about the only sensible thing in Mormonism -- that

is after Rigdon's Mormon stuff had been thrown out. Mormons have tried to rob Rigdon of the credit of being author of these lectures and give it to Joseph Smith. Rigdon did the lion's work in bringing down the game and Joseph took the lion's share, and scarcely left to Rigdon the bones that the lion leaves for the jackal.

1836

Kirtland Temple finished at a cost of $40,000, dedicated March 29. Smith pretends that he sees the house full of angels -- that a pillar of fire was seen on the temple -- that outsiders heard a great noise -- that caused them to flock to the Temple. That the Mormons spoke with tongues. That Jesus, Moses, Elias, -- who was he? -- and Elijah appeared to him, gave him keys of priesthood, which had been promised years before.

June 29. The Mormons in Clay county, Missouri, are requested to move to Davis, Jackson, and Caldwell counties, because they had been impudent, domineering, and had encroached on the rights of the rest of the citizens. They wisely decided to move and do so, and are kindly treated by the Missourians,

1837

In January, Orson Hyde and Kimball are sent to England as missionaries In the spring the Mormon Wild Cat Bank is started in violation of law without a charter. The Mormons have a big hotel, tannery, mill, factory, big stores and bif things generally. Smith and other leaders build fine houses, live like nabobs and dress like fops on other peoples' money and goods obtained by credit, fraud and rascality. Things are booming in Kirtland.

In November Joseph's Wild Cat Bank, his printing office, his big store, his mills, his big land speculation, blew up generally. Rigdon and Smith are fined one thousand dollars each for their swindling bank frauds. Printing office levied on and Smith declared insolcent with all his revelations.

The printing office sold. The Mormons burn the printing office and the Methodist church.

1838

January 12th, Smith and Rigdon light out in the night to escape the penitentiary for swindling and fraud. They arrive in Missouri in March. They scatter the saints over several colonies in order to obtain political ascendency. The Missourians begin to be alarmed, when they see that the Mormons elect none but Mormons, and that their property and rights are taken from them, and Mormons will give them no protection.

Smith who had tried to seduce a woman in Pennsylvania, and who had much trouble in Kirtland about his intrigues with beautiful sisters, now began to tell his confidents that he had received

86 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

This page has not been transcribed.

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 87

This page has not been transcribed.

88 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

1860 to 1884

The record is merely a record of Conferences and no important or startling events are to be recorded. Unless it be the visit of Joseph III to Utah and his discussion in his paper with the Brighamites over the issue "Was Joseph Smith Jr. the author of polygamy, and the revelation in favor of so called celestial marriage, dated July 12, 1843. In this discussion Joseph III comes out badly worsted. While one may sympathize with his desire to rescue his father's name from infamy, the facts of history are against him.

QUESTIONS FOR KELLEY

I. Do you deny the clear and positive declaration of Mrs. S. Spaulding, Miss Martha [sic] Spaulding, John Spaulding, Mrs. John Spaulding, Lake. J. N. Miller, Smith, Wright, Howard, Cunningham, Joseph Miller, McKee, Dr. Dodd, Jackson, and Sidney Rigdon to Dr. Winter, that Solomon Spaulding wrote a historical romance in the Bible style? If you do, on what ground do you deny it? Do you deny that the witnesses gave such testimony? Do you impeach the witnesses? Do you rebut the testimony?

II. Do you deny the statement of the witnesses concerning the plot of the romance? That it was precisely as they stated it, the plot in one other book, and only one other, the Book of Mormon?

III. Do you deny the positive statements of Mrs. S. Spaulding, Miss Spaulding, J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, J. N. Miller, Smith, Wright, Howard, Cunningham, Jas. Miller, McKee, Dr. Dodd, Jackson and Rigdon to Winter, that it purported to be a veritable history of the aborigines of America?

IV. Do you deny the positive statements of Mrs. S. Spaulding, Miss Spaulding, J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Wright, Howard, Smith, Cunningham, that it attempted to account for the construction of the antiquities of America, by giving a veritable history of their construction?

V. Do you deny the statements of J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, Smith, J. N. Miller, Wright, Cunningham, Jackson, that it attempted to prove that the Israelites were the aborigines of America, by giving the history of such aborigines?

VI. Do you deny the statement of J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, J. N. Miller, Wright, Smith, and Jackson, that Spaulding gave an account of their leaving Jerusalem, to start their migration?

VII. Do you deny the statement of J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, J. N. Miller, Smith, and Jackson, that he delineated their journey by land and sea, until they reached America?

VIII. Do you deny the statement of Miss Spaulding, J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Smith, Cunningham, and Jackson, that he represented Lehi and Nephi to be their leaders?

IX. Do you deny the statements of Mrs. J. Spaulding, J. Spaulding and Jackson,

that they quarreled and divided into two parties, the Nephites and Lamanites?

X. Do you deny the statements of J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding and Jackson, that in the wars between the Nephites and Lamanites and between the parties into which these nations divided, there were awful slaughters, such as are unprecedented in any other wars?

XI. Do you deny the statements of J. Spaulding and Mrs. J. Spaulding that they buried their dead after the awful slaughters in great heaps, which caused the mounds, found in America?

XII. Do you deny the statement of Mrs. S. Spaulding and Jackson that after these slaughters, persons who were sole survivors wrote a record of their people?

XIII. Do you deny the statement of Mrs. S. Spaulding, Lake, and Jackson that the survivors buried the records in the earth?

XIV. Do you deny the statement of Mrs. S. Spaulding, Lake and Cunningham, that this history was found in the earth, where it had been buried?

XV. Do you deny the statement of J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, J. N. Miller and Smith that it gave an account of the civilization, arts, sciences, laws and customs of the aborigines of America? XVI. Do you deny the statement of J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, Wright, and Rigdon to Winters, that these aborigines were the ancestors of our present Indians?

XVII. Do you deny the statements of Miss Spaulding, J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, Smith, Wright, J. N. Miller, Cunningham, and Jackson, that it contains the names Nephi, Lehi, Laban, Nephite, Lamanite, Mormon, Moroni, Zarahemla, etc.?

XVIII. Do you deny the statement that in every instance the names were the names of the same places and persons, with the same characteristics and history, as the names in the Book of Mormon?

XIX. Do you deny the statements of Mrs. S. Spaulding, J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Jas. Miller, Lake and Cunningham, that the manuscript was rendered absurd by its beginning nearly every sentence with: "And it came to pass," "Now it came to pass?"

XX. Do you deny the statements of Mrs. S. Spaulding, Miss Spaulding, J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, Jas. Miller, Smith, Cunningham, Jackson, and Rigdon to Winter, that it was written in scriptural style?

XXI. Do you deny the statement of Jackson, that Spaulding got the nick-name of "Old come to pass" from this absurdity?

XXII. Do you deny the statement of Smith that one party left Jerusalem to escape divine judgments about to fall on the Israelites?

XXIII. Do you deny the statement of J. N. Miller that one party landed at the Isthmus of Darien, and called the land Zarahemla, and traveled across the continent to the northeast?

XXIV. Do you deny the statement of Jas

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 89

Miller and McKee, that in a battle between the Amilicites and Lamanites the Amilicites marked their foreheads with red crosses to distinguish them from their enemies?

This page is not fully transcribed.

90 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

MR. KELLEY'S NINTH SPEECH.

GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: -- In the concluding speech of my opponent on last evening he undertook to show you that he had been fair in reading from his papers as I have been in my argument. I claim that he ought to present in full his important statements and affidavits, especially so, since they ought to be in the argument if published, as they are not accessible to but a few people; and that if the statements in full are presented I claim they bear the stamp of condemnation upon their face. To permit him to read a small portion here, and then run the entire thing in the book would not be fair either, as that would give him an undue advantage of space, (and time consequently), in the discussion. Besides, it would not be his matter in fact and I would have no opportunity of reviewing it here, and a statement or affidavit which he relies upon and wishes his hearers to, in making his affirmative statements good, I claim he ought to introduce in full.

He turns around and says: "Kelley has done that all the time. Hasn't he read a bit here and another bit there from the Bible?" Now if I did that, without reading or introducing sometime the full connection, I did not do right. But I deny that I have scrapped in this manner. When I have read to you from the Bible I have read to you the full connection. But this is different from his affidavits or statements in more ways than one. A;; persons have a Bible at hand so that when a passage is cited they can turn and read for themselves. Again there is no contest on the Bible here. We have agreed that it is the standard of investigation, and I abide by it as heartily as he. Not so with his purported statements and affidavits.

They are not admitted, but absolutely denied, and to come then and stand the test as evidence they must appear in full, with time, place, circumstances, and reasons for making, etc. At best, they are such a doubtful class of proofs that the rules of evidence regard them with grave suspicion from any standpoint, and courts pay very little if any regard to them. They are not in their character to be considered in the nature of reliable evidence. Then we ought to have in this discussion a full, fair look at them. Last evening in my introduction of evidence I read several full statements. They were one or two statements of witnesses that I merely referred to, but not those upon any very important matter. I wish to state another thing before entering upon the argument. I have objected throughout this discussion to his manner of misrepresenting my views to the audience under the cloak of pretending to tell what I believe. Some of you may have thought that I was particular

about this and that it was simply because I claimed the right to represent my own belief and views and those of the Latter Day Saints that I have so strenuously objected. But this is not the fact. The real reason is, because I see my opponent is laboring under a mania. It is an old habit I find of Mr. Braden of misstating or at least misunderstanding the views of others. He evidently misjudges others from reading their views. I have before me A. Wilford Hall's Microcosm, one of the ablest journals that is published in the United States; and the editor, A. Wilford Hall, Ph. B., in reviewing an article of Mr. Braden in the January number, 1884, says: --

"We simply state for President Braden's information, that we never taught or thought of teaching any such doctrine as he has attributed to us. We never once intimated or even thought that matter was made out of spirit. We never thought of teaching that God took a portion of his spirit and condensed it into a material world. We never dreamt of teaching that there are but two substances in the universe, much less one, and that these two substances are spirit and matter. We hold, on the contrary, and distinctly teach that there are many essentially different substances in the universe under the general classification of material and immaterial entities, and that spirit essence belongs among the immaterial substances of nature. How President Braden could deliberately assert and repeat it in different forms of expression about twenty times that we teach but one substance, -- spirit, -- and that matter came into existence by condensation of spirit, is a mystery we leave the reader to solve.

Now, I read this to show you that sometimes he misrepresents and misstates other men's meaning, and I want him to be more careful when he undertakes to give my views to the audience, or be patient till I give them myself. If he does not, I shall bring some very serious things against him here, too.

When my time was called upon last evening I had just finished reading the statement of Mrs. Solomon Spaulding, her daughter Mrs. McKinstry, Mr. Howe, and a second account of Mrs. McKinstry, the only persons whom we have any account of who ever had knowledge sufficient to testify as to the character of the manuscript Mr. Spaulding wrote except Hulburt; -- reading from the statements of the witnesses to show what kind of a manuscript, if any, Spaulding ever wrote. What do these witnesses' statements show us as thus read, giving them full credit, -- and they are all bitterly partizan and prejudiced against the Saints?

1. That the manuscript they claim Solomon Spaulding wrote was about one-third as large as the Book of Mormon.

2. That this manuscript contained many singular names from the classics and ancient history not one of which is common to the Book of Mormon, or in any way similar.

3. That the Spaulding manuscript treated of an idolatrous and not a religious people.

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 91

4. That it was a speculation as to the "ten tribes" having come to this country.
5. That neither of the persons who actually saw the Spaulding manuscript could identify a single word in it as being like the Book of Mormon.
6. That the manuscript, whatever it contained, they gave to Mr. Hulburt who gave it to Howe, these being the two who were trying to get up a work against the Mormons.
7. That afterwards Hulburt and Howe wrote back word, that they did not use it because it did not read as they expected.

Now I will introduce Hulburt's statement as published by another enemy of the book, Mr. Patterson of Pittsburg. Hulburt writes:
"GIBSONBURG, OHIO, Aug. 19. 1879.
"I visited Mrs. Matilda (Spaulding) Davidson at Monson, Mass., in 1834, and never saw her afterwards. I then received from her a manuscript of her husband's, which I did not read but brought home with me and immediately gave it to Mr. E. D. Howe, of Painesville, Ohio, who was then engaged in preparing his book, 'Mormonism Unveiled.' I do not know whether or not the document I received from Mrs. Davidson was Spaulding's 'Manuscript Found,' as I never read it; but whatever it was, Mr. Howe received it under the condition on which I took it from Mrs. Davidson, to compare it with the Book of Mormon and then to return it to her. I never received any other manuscript of Spaulding's from Mrs. Davidson, or any one else. Of that manuscript I made no other use than to give it, with all my other documents connected with Mormonism, to Mr. Howe. I did not destroy the manuscript nor dispose of it to Joe Smith nor to any other person. No promise was made by me to Mrs. Davidson that she should receive any portion of the profits arising from the publication of the manuscript if it should be published. All the affidavits procured by me for Mr. Howe's book, including all those from Palmyra, N.Y., were certainly genuine.
D. P. HULBURT."

With this I refer you to the statement of Mr. Howe, Hurlbut's partner in the business of publishing the story, as made by himself, see Mormonism Unveiled, page 288, as follows
"The trunk referred to by the widow was subsequently examined, and found to contain only a single manuscript book, in Spaulding's handwriting, containing about one quire of paper. This is a romance purporting to have been translated from the Latin, found on 24 rolls of parchment in a cave, on the banks of Conneaut creek, but written in modern style, and giving a fabulous account of a ship's being driven upon the American coast while proceeding from Rome to Britain, a short time previous to the Christian era. This country then being inhabited by the Indians. This old manuscript has been shown to several of the foregoing witnesses who recognize it as Spaulding'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.'"

It was never taken back to Mrs. Spaulding, the widow, or to Mrs. McKinstry, the daughter, from whom it was obtained, and the only persons in existence competent of identifying the 'Manuscript Found,' but carried up to a few of the 'old neighbors,' who were at war with the Saints, and who said they heard the 'Manuscript Found,' ready twenty-three years before, for identification.

They say, says Howe, it bears no resemblance to the manuscript. But it is evident that they lied, if they said so, for Howe, who read it says:
"This is a Romance, purporting to have been translated from the Latin, found on 24 rolls of parchment in a cave on the banks of Conneaut Creek, but written in modern

style, and giving a fabulous account of a ship's crew being driven upon the American coast while proceeding from Rome to Britain a short time previous to the Christian era, this country then being inhabited by the Indians."

"Found in a cave." This is the very manuscript remember, that they have claimed all the time that Spaulding wrote, traced right into Mr. Howe's hands -- the one that was "found in a cave," so said. It proves itself to be the Manuscript Found, the very one they got, and the very one they made way with, as I will show you, lest it should spoil their little game.

Hulburt and Howe in their madness had before this, skulked down to Conneaut for a few of these ready witnesses who were embittered against the Saints (for a large number of people had accepted the faith about Conneaut, Mantua and other places, and thus made the sects rage), got the parties to sign their stuff which they had garbled from the Book of Mormon, and afterwards when they got the Spaulding manuscript they went back to see what the trouble was, -- it did not read right. As might have been supposed the witnesses were caught; they could not deny that it was Spaulding's manuscript, too clear a case for that: Hulburt had been and got it right from the Mrs. Solomon Spaulding Davidson herself: What do they do? Invent another lie to get out of the first, by saying: "Spaulding 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." Did you ever!! Right out of the book Braden fatts on!!! Spaulding is made to go to each one of these witnesses, or they come to him, that he may tell them he altered his first plan of writing and he a stranger to them as it were, for all the time he was in that part of the country was but two years. Well, had they known his first style? If so, why did they not state something about it before they were caught? And how came it that they never struck upon this modern style while they read the Spaulding manuscript so much, which they try to foist upon the world? A man that will take up and believe this contradictory and abominable stuff gotten up by a set of conspiring fanatics and tools more than three years after the publication and sale of a work they are trying by this very means to break down, and with that work right in their hands to draw their names from as admitted in their statements; see Wright's, Miller's, Lake's, etc., is doomed to hopelessly fall in with the class of people the apostle speaks of, as living in the last times when such a message of truth as the Book of Mormon contains should be presented to the people, who would oppose the work, the truth: --

"With all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish: because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thess. 2:10, 11, 12.

92 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

Men must examine a message from the true standpoint, God's standpoint: "He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." Don't break God's law by speaking mean and slanderous things against those who differ from you in religion; there is neither sense nor argument in it. "Speak evil of no one." "Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them;" and know assuredly, that "whoever transgresseth (this law) and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, he hath not God." So says the Apostle John, and so say I. The Book of Mormon is presented to the world and claims to be the truth; it is presented to the people as such and demands a fair investigation. As in every age of the world when God has sent a message, Satan can't stand to see the word, the truth, take root in the heart; so he begins on stories, and character, manufacturing and multiplying scheme after scheme, falsehood after falsehood, until in this instance the Spaulding "Romance," came along, not even claiming to be a thing of truth, but a speculative lie, -- theory; and the people who are too self-righteous and fanatical to believe the truth, at once drink in the theory of the "Romance."

The evidence from their own witnesses are complete in showing one thing, that is, that Spaulding never wrote an article of any kind that would in size, character, style, sense, taste, sentiment, or in any manner compare with the Book of Mormon. But how about "old come to pass," says one. Like the pretended remembrance of the names Lehi and Nephi, the false story of it was put into these witnesses' mouths and they thought it a smart thing to say; that is evident to a man who will think. Why should they so persistently call Spaulding "old come to pass?" Turn to the Bible in almost every part it abounds with the expression. In some parts of Luke's gospel it is as frequent as in the Book of Mormon. How could it receive the title of "old come to pass," from a singularity, when the expression was already a familiar one? Such a statement is only equaled by the brazen;y one put into the mouth of Henry Lake of the Laban account. I pointed out to him what I considered an inconsistency, which he promised to correct; but by referring to the Book of Mormon, I find to my surprise that it stands there just as read to me then." Where is the inconsistency this wise man pointed out, who although he had not seen or heard anything in the Spaulding Romance in twenty years, pretended in twenty minutes reading to detect it by the same passages which Mr. Spaulding had read to him; only think, just read to him, more than twenty-three years before. Take another of Braden's witnesses, John N. Miller, the fellow who worked for Lake, another of their holy crowd. Twenty-two years passed away with no word from the manuscript, and then he remembers the names

Nephi, Lehi, Moroni, Zarahemla, (the entire book they have here; the first part, middle and last part where the name Moroni is found) and he has the history so well that Braden says, "the average Mormon preacher," and I suppose he refers to me by this, "could not to day give it better," No sir! But this smart John Miller can give it from having read it in the old manuscript twenty years before. And Braden drinks it down! What a wonderful Miller this was! Can't you give us a further clue to his life and service to his country? But stop, my friends! He further testifies, let me read:-- "He (Spaulding) said that he designed it as a historical novel, and that in after years it would be believed by many people as much as the history of England," There! Can you beat that? And yet there is to be no more prophets! This is Braden's prophet. I might take up and show the duplicity, cheek, falsehood and spuriousness of every one of these, said to be statements, but I shall not so dispose of my time. They are effectually, fully and completely set out and accounted for beyond a doubt by any man who wants the truth, in another manner, and which I shall soon present you. I am asked to answer the question, How will you dispose of them? "Attack their character?" What! Don't he yet know me well enough to know, that I will not make of myself a bird of carrion to pass over all proper and respectable ways of testing a matter, to gather from the sepulchre of the dead and rotten? I too highly respect the Bible and Christian religion, as well as myself, for this. If character is to be the test and that proven by one's enemies, our Bible is not worth a straw; the entire list of writers will go down in the mire. And should we test the issue of Bible writers on character by the admission of friends, one half of the inspired men of the Bible would go down. No sir; I have from the first taken such grounds, that I could maintain my faith clear through, in the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon. Consistency is a jewel to be admired. Who is so ideal as to not see that if character is to be the test, that is to try the faith of the Saints, and that character proven by their enemies, the same role must be followed in trying others also. The position is more desperate than was entertained by ancient heathens. "The good that men do" says Mark Anthony over the dead body of Caesar, "lives after them, the evil is oft interred with their bones; so let it be with Caesar."

But Braden says, let us find some evil and perpetuate that. Character! What would he accept as good under his rule? Nobody ever lived of prominence in God's work who has not been slandered and berated. Doubtless many things, too, were true against the early Christians; they were true in part; so admitted in the Bible. But I am not a teacher of the doctrine of infallibility in mankind. I believe with Jesus that none are good, (except God). "no, not one." Now his long abuse and misrepresentation

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 93

of the characters of Mr. Smith, Rigdon and others last evening is entirely foreign to the question under discussion. Suppose that they did do wrong and many absurd and foolish things! what weight can that have in determining whether the part God is said to have done is wrong? Try this matter upon its merits. I do not, nor does the church of which Mr. Smith was under divine Providence the founder, claim for these men perfection. Many of the things that he stated about these men and what they did may be true; but as to the majority I am satisfied they are as false as hell itself. And the list which he calls "Mormon Chronology," is dotted about occasionally with a fact, that he may thereby hide the deformity of a hydra-head, which he hopes to force upon the people. But his chronology as a whole is a brazen piece of deception and of false statements, drawn from such works as Howe, Tucker, &c. Suppose I take up Mitchell's history of the United States and read the infamous story recorded against the character of John Wesley in Georgia, charging a crime against that religious teacher more heinous than any ever made against Smith, how would it affect the Methodist religion? Suppose I take John Calvin who permitted one of his own adherents to be burned at the stake because he differed with him on religion. Suppose I take the case of the great reformer Luther, and the noble Melancthon, and show that they consented to one of their members entering into polygamy, the great Luther actually performing the marriage ceremony! Shall I thrust it in the face of the Lutheran Church upon a trial of their faith? I know this was done by certain parties this last Fall upon the return of the 400th anniversary of the "Pious monk," but how despicably mean and spiteful it seemed to thinking men and women! The rule is wrong. We must get upon a higher plane. Who wants to take the office of "the accuser of the brethren?" -- Gathering and sowing the evils spoken against men. Enter the mission of Satan in the world! No, sir; not I. Don't need to ask me, if I will try to hunt up your witnesses' character, unless I had those same witnesses where they could face the ones they are accusing, and they in turn could face their accusers. This is demanded in decency. Why! do you suppose if I was debating with an infidel I would rake up the past life of Col. Ingersoll? Is that what you call impeaching character? To go and rake up all you can find about a man and peddle it -- send it forth -- publish it. That is the way they slander men, but not the way they impeach them. Suppose an infidel should attack the character of the writers in the Bible in the same way, and they often do, would I then resort to such a course? No, sir. Such a contest would be decided upon the ground of who could get hold of and tell the biggest falsehood, and I would engage in no such littleness. But I have already devoted more time to this than it deserves. It has been because I

did not know but possibly some on present might think there was a little argument in such a tirade as we heard from the negative last night, and for that reason only, I have noticed it. As for myself I could not listen for weeks at such abuse and vilification if necessary with simply a sense of pity and shame for the one who spins it. But I shall now finish my review of the "Spaulding Romance," and every one of his witnesses' testimony, and then each evening I shall have new matters of evidence on the question under discussion, and many that have never been presented to any audience. Here I might ask the question, Do you want proof that Spaulding never wrote a manuscript like the Book of Mormon, in any sense or feature? The total basis for all their huge stories and false statements about "Spaulding's manuscript," was this one thing: -- Spaulding, who came to New Salem, now Conneaut, Ohio, and remained for about two years, first representing himself as a preacher, then a dealer in real estate, and thirdly undertook to erect a "forge," (in all of which he failed, and suddenly left, leaving his debts unpaid, so stated by their own witnesses), at one time during his stay at New Salem, told some parties that he had found an old manuscript in a cave on Conneaut creek, which gave an account of a long lost shipwrecked crew on the American coast, and it would be greatly interesting when published, and he would be able to make a raise of enough money to pay all his debts and be independent. He wanted a little more money out of them so he could go to Pittsburg and have it published. He roped in a few and left, but instead of getting up a startling publication, he stayed but a short time in Pittsburg and went to Washington county, Pennsylvania, where he died in 1816. He never, however, reported to his creditors and they were left in the suds, waiting for a check from the broken-down clergyman. Twenty-one years pass away, and no tidings. In the meantime the Book of Mormon is published and is making a great excitement in the world, and these duped creditors of Spaulding's begin to think of the startling shipwreck tale, of which Spaulding had told them he would make his fortune; and they got hold of a copy of the Book of Mormon and the base Hulburt who had been cut off from the Church of the Latter Day Saints; got out their statements and sent Hulburt after the Spaulding manuscript. This they found carefully laid away in the trunk of Spaulding's widow, and it is brought back by them and put into the hands of Editor Howe, of Painesville, Ohio, who reads it and finds no resemblance whatever to the Book of Mormon. Howe says, page 288 of his book entitled "Mormonism Unveiled:" "This is a romance, purporting to have been translated from the Latin, found on twenty-four rolls of parchment, in a cave, on the banks of Conneaut creek, but written in modern style, and giving a fabulous account of a ship's being driven upon the American

94 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

coast while proceeding from Rome to Britain a short while previous to the Christian era, this country then being inhabited by the Indians."

Here is the Spaulding tale in a nutshell! The whole thing entirely different from the Book of Mormon; the style, dates, names, peoples, and all. The whole thing as foreign to the Book of Mormon as heaven to hades, but it is the little nit from which the enemies of Mr. Smith hatched this terrible "Spaulding Story."

This is his alibi. How I ask you, does his evidence stand upon the first point? Did Solomon Spaulding ever write a manuscript like the manuscript of the Book of Mormon in any sense? I say the evidence from his own witnesses is against him and ask him to now meet the issue he has made.

But he does not only have to show this, but to show also:
2nd. That Rigdon and Smith in some way stole it and that Smith used it.
3d. That Rigdon knew of Smith and the Book of Mormon before the book was published in 1830, and was connected with the two in some way.
4th. That Parley P. Pratt did not bring a copy of this book and present it to Rigdon while Rigdon was a Disciple Preacher and then and there in 1830, Rigdon first knew the contents of said book.

In beginning upon the second proposition, I am reminded of the story that is told of the absent juror. He had been subpoenaed to attend a session of court; but when the day arrived and court was called, he was not there; and the judge abruptly demanded to know the reason. The juror's friend arose and said there were several reasons. And proceeded to give them. The first, he said, that the man is dead. There! that is enough, said the judge, you need not give any more.

Now it seems to me that if I have shown you clearly that Spaulding never wrote such a manuscript as the Book of Mormon, or one that had any resemblance to it, from their own witnesses, that ought to be enough on this; but lest some one may yet have a doubt I will produce some further evidence. First a letter from Sidney Rigdon to the editors of the Boston Journal.
Commerce, May 27, 1839.
Messrs. Bartlett and Sulivan: --
There was no man by the name of Patterson, during my residence at Pittsburg, who had a printing office; what might have been before I lived there I know not. Mr. Robert Patterson, I was told, had owned a printing office before I lived in that city, but had been unfortunate in business and failed before my residence there. This Mr. Patterson, who was a Presbyterian Preacher, I had a very slight acquaintance with during my residence in Pittsburg: he was then acting under an agency in the book and stationery business and was the owner of no property of any kind, printing office or anything else, during the time I resided in the city. If I were to say that I ever heard of the Rev. Solomon Spaulding and his wife until Dr. P. Hulburt wrote his lie about me, I should be a liar like unto themselves."

Rigdon is emphatic, when he talks, you know, because many of you used to hear him talk.

"Why was not the testimony of Mr. Patterson obtained to give force to this shameful tale of lies? The only reason is, that he was not a fit tool for them to work with: he would not lie for them; for, if he were called on, he would testify to what I have here said. This Hulburt once belonged to the Methodist Church, but excluded for immoralities. He afterwards imposed himself on the church of Latter Day Saints, and was excluded for using obscene language to a young lady, a member of said church, who resented his insult with indignation, which became both her character and profession. After his exclusion he swore -- for he was vilely profane -- that he would have revenge, and commenced his work. He soon found assistance; a pious old deacon of the Campbellite church, by the name, of Onis [sic] Clapp, and his two sons, Thomas W. Clapp and Matthew S. Clapp, both Campbellite preachers, abetted and assisted by another Campbellite preacher, by the name of Adamson Bentley. Hulburt went to work, catering lies for the company. Before he got through, his conduct became so scandalous that the company utterly refused to let his name go out with the lies he had collected, and he and his associates had made, and they substituted the name of E. D. Howe. The change, however, was not much better.

Then he refers in terms to Mrs. Matilda Davidson, but it is not material and I have not copied it here. I will read it if necessary.

A man of character would never have put his name to a work which Hulburt was concerned in. The tale in your paper is one hatched up by this gang from the time of their explosion."

Respectfully, S. RIGDON.

From the strong language of this letter it is easy to see that Mr. Rigdon had been maligned by the Campbellites, the people with whom he had formerly been connected -- to such an extent that it was almost impossible to bear it any longer; and the reason of this was simply because he saw fit in the honesty of his heart, to step out and embrace what he believed to be a better and higher religion than was to be had by remaining with his Campbellite brethren. Hence it is, that when he speaks, it is with a sternness and force, that was a terror to his malingers.

Heretofore they have generally told about Rigdon working for Patterson, but Braden has seen this go to the wall once, as he did also his "woman preacher story," at Wilber, Neb., so he has deftly yclept it this time; that is better than no fairness; when you are driven clear to the wall, drop it; and if he was not so eager to grab at something else he would improve in the world much better.

This letter of Rigdon's effectually shows that he never worked in a printing office in Pittsburg; that Patterson had no such office when he was there to his knowledge,, and was not engaged in the business of printing; and referring to Mr. Patterson, who was at the time a Presbyterian preacher, as a man who would corroborate this statement. Afterwards Patterson does corroborate it. Rigdon says, the first he ever knew of the Book of Mormon was in the year 1830, when a copy was handed him by a minister of the Latter Day Saints by the name of P. P. Pratt.
(Time called.)

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 95

MR. BRADEN'S NINTH SPEECH.

GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: -- Mr. Kelley told you last night that Mrs. Smith, the mother of Joe Smith, and some other members of the family brought letters from a Presbyterian church in Vermont and joined the Presbyterian church in Manchester, New York. In the life of Joseph Smith by his mother she says she allowed herself to be baptized in Vermont, but refused to join any church; that she rejoiced when the Mormon church was started, that she then found a church that she could join. Not a Smith ever belonged to a church in Palmyra. Not a Smith ever belonged to the Presbyterian church in Manchester, for there was no Presbyterian church in Manchester until 31 years after the Smiths left Manchester; not one of the Smith family ever belonged to any church until Mormonism was started, for although very superstitious, they were noted for their neglect and disregard of the church and all things connected with religion. That statement of my opponent is one of those statements sometimes said to be made out of whole cloth. My opponent forgets that his talk here will be stereotyped into a book and will stand for generations when he makes such reckless misstatements as he did last night

The reader will read in my argument that I introduced Priest's "Wonders" to show that the idea that the aborigines of America were Israelites was hundreds of years older than the Book of Mormon, and a widely believed theory, and that I said not a word on "mounds" or "antiquities" in connection with that book. He will then read Kelley's argument that I indroduced it to off-set his argument on antiquities and ask himself, "What does the fellow mean by such reckless assertions?"

He will read my statement that if the Nephites were circumcised Israelites they belonged to the same fold as those Jesus was addressing and could not be the other sheep not of that fold; or if they had abandoned circumcision they were no longer Israelites and the prophecies Kelley quoted could not apply to them, and then read with amazement that I said or hinted that they were not circumcised. I never said so for there never were any Nephites to be circumcised. The reader will read Kelley's assertion that I introduced no witnesses, read no testimony, and then turn back and see in different type from my speeches the testimony of 29 witnesses -- see that I read the testimony of some witnesses two or more times: that I had read more of Mrs. Davidson's testimony than he did: longer portions from several witnesses than he did from any that he introduced; I introduced and read testimony just as he did, and exclaim: "What can the fellow mean by such falsehoods?" He will read Kelley's assertion

that I said that Rigdon worked in Patterson's printing office at Pittsburg and turn back and read my statement that he did not work there but was in Pittsburg learning the tanners' trade and was in Patterson's office as a crony of Lambdin, one of the printers, and in that way learned of the existence of the Spaulding manuscript, which was attracting much notice in the office, and became much interested in it, and stole it, as is proved by witnesses, and exclaim: "Why, what does that fellow by such reckless falsehoods?"

He will read my clear proof that Spaulding wrote several manuscripts of his Manuscript Found and then read with amazement Kelley's reckless assertion that he wrote but one. The manuscript described by Mrs. Spaulding was his first brief draft. It was this that John Spaulding read through; it was this that Mrs. McKinstry read. The reader will read with amazement the objection that Spaulding's Manuscript Found represented the aborigines of America as idolaters, and the Book of Mormon represents them to be worshippers of the one God: when he remembers that I showed that Rigdon changed the manuscripts when remodeling it to use as a pretended revelation. He will read with amazement Kelley's assertion that Hulburt obtained from Mrs. Davidson the manuscript of the Manuscript Found when she says she only gave him an order to examine a trunk hundreds of miles away in Hartwick, N.Y., to see if it was in the trunk. The reader will read with amazement Kelley's fabrication that Howe said that he received from Hurlbut a manuscript of the Manuscript Found. Howe distinctly and pointedly declares that he did not receive a manuscript of the Manuscript Found but the beginning pages of an entirely different manuscript -- the manuscript of the first romance written by Spaulding, written before he began the Manuscript Found. In that first romance Spaulding assumed that the Indians round the Great Lakes were descendants of ship-wrecked Romans. He abandoned this theory and began the Manuscript Found, in which he assumed the aborigines of America and the ancestors of all Indians were Israelites. Howe does not say that he received the Manuscript Found and that the Manuscript Found was not what he expected it to be, as Kelley falsely asserts he says. He says that he did not receive the Manuscript Found but the manuscript of an earlier and entirely different story and the manuscript that he received was not what he expected, for it was not the manuscript of the Manuscript Found, which was what he expected to receive. Why did not he receive the manuscript of the Manuscript Found? "We will a tale unfold" that will explain that. In a letter written to J. E.

96 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

Gaston in 1842, Mrs. Davidson says that shortly after Hurlbut left Munson with the order from her to get the manuscript of the "Manuscript Found" from the trunk at Mr. Clark's at Hartwicke, N. Y., she received a letter from Hurlbut, in which he told her that he had obtained from the trunk what he had come for, the manuscript of "Manuscript Found," and that when he had taken it to the parties that sent him, and it had been used for the purpose for which they wanted it, that is published to expose the plagiarism of the Book of Mormon from it, he would return it to her.

Hurlbut came to the people at Conneaut and Howe, and lied, and said that the only manuscript he found was the part of the manuscript we have described above [the Roman MS]. Up to this time he had been very active in getting up the book Howe published; he had spent months and much money in collecting the evidence used in it; now he suddenly abandons all, takes no further part or interest in it and goes to Western Ohio and buys a farm; when, before he had not money enough to pay his traveling expenses. Mrs. Davidson, on reading Howe's book and Hurlbut's statement as given in it, was amazed and wrote to him reminding him of what he had written to her and that the Clark's had written that he had got the manuscript of "Manuscript Found." She demanded that he return the manuscript to her. Her daughter also wrote repeatedly. The letters were sent to persons who wrote that they handed them to Hurlbut. He never answered one of them. The Rev. J. A. Clark published in the "Episcopal Recorder" that the Mormons in Missouri said they paid Howe $400.00 for the manuscript. The Rev. Storrs in a letter published in "Gleanings by the Way" states that he made $400.00 out of the manuscript. He sold it to the Mormons in Kirtland. These charges Hurlbut never met, but laid under them till his death. This answers the demand why the Spauldings did not publish the manuscript of the "Manuscript Found" and expose the fraud. That is the very thing they tried to do, but the agent by whom they sent the manuscript to Howe, the publisher, betrayed them and sold it to the Mormons. Hurlbut's false and contradictory statements and absurd stories to Mr. Patterson in 1880 proved that he was guilty of what he was charged with and was trying to lie out of it.

The reader will read with amazement if not too much disgusted at its stillness the attacks on Hurlbut's character by Kelley and ask what has the character of the scribe who collected the evidence to do with the truthfulness of the statements of the witnesses? He will read in the same way the statements over which Kelley so idiotically makes such great eyes and mouths that Howe said the personally he knew nothing about the facts stated by the witnesses whose testimony he published and ask what odds does it make if the lawyer does not know personally the facts his witnesses state? Kelley asks why is not Zebulon

Rudolph here? Kelley has quoted Howe, Mrs. McKinstry and several others, why are they not here? Why does he not have them here instead of telling us what he says they told him and by the way Mr. Howe contradicts flatly Mr. Kelley's statement in his case. The silly objection puts out of court all his own witnesses. Has not Kelley sense enough to see that in such objections he puts a club in my hands with which I can beat out his own brains if he has any? He asks what is the connection between Mrs. Dunlap's statement that Rigdon spent so much time over a certain manuscript, and Rigdon's authorship of the Book of Mormon? The intelligent reader will see the connection when he reads evidence that Rigdon stole the Spaulding manuscript: that he had it in his possession before this time and that he also stated to two witnesses that he also obtained the Spaulding manuscript from the printing office and told one of them that he gave it to Smith to publish as the book of Mormon. Placed between such evidence Mrs. Dunlap's evidence is another link in a chain Mormons cannot break. He asks what relevance in the statement of Zebulon Rudolph and old citizens of Mentor that Rigdon was absent from home for weeks at a time and no one knew where during the three years that preceded the appearance of the Book of Mormon? When taken in connection with the testimony that he was seen at Smith's during the same time as stated by [Chase]. Saunders, Tucker, McAuley and Mrs. Eaton the reader will see the force of the evidence.

I have presented the evidence of 29 witnesses. Has he attempted to prove that they did not testify? No. That they are wanting in truthfulness? No. Has he attempted to rebut their evidence? No. Has he falsified their statements, misrepresented them, fabricated rebutting evidence, playing false witness and pettyfogger at the same time. Such is the great Mormon Champion's attacks on the Spaulding story. If my opponent would present one quarter of the evidence I have presented to prove his right to an estate it would be given him.

Kelley denies that there is such a Greek word as "Mormon." Donnegan gives the following Mormon (anglicized Mormon) "A female spectre, a phantom." Other lexicons give the word and define it "a hobgobblin, a bugbear." Spaulding from his knowledge of Greek used the word as significant of the character of his fabrication. Smith and Rigdon were too ignorant to know the irony there was in the word and published to the world their new translation as the "Book

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 97

This page is still under construction

98 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

This page is still under construction

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 99

This page is still under construction

100 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

MR. KELLEY'S TENTH SPEECH.

GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: -- When my time was called I had just read the statement from their own history with regard to Mr. Rigdon, and made a few hurried comments upon the same and passed to a review of his work as a minister to the time when Mr. Pratt called upon him with the Book of Mormon.

Up to this time Rigdon had been an enthusiastic and constant laborer in the "Reform Movement," as it was then called, as is fully set out in the history of the Disciples themselves, and his time so occupied in his ministerial labors that it was not possible for him to have left his work and duties to visit Smith who at this time lived, by the nearest way of travel, 250 miles distant in the uncultivated interior of the State of New York, and when there were no pleasant and easy lines of travel as now. The Disciple, (Campbellite) history sets forth that Rigdon was their (Disciples') standing minister for the year 1825 at Bainbridge; Ohio for the year 1826 at Mentor and Bainbridge; for the year 1827 at Mantua; for the year 1828 at Mentor, and this year is the time he met Alexander Campbell at Warren Ohio, at their assembly, where the famous passage at arms took place between Campbell and Rigdon of which so much has been said. The next year, 1829, Rigdon continued the work in Mentor, and at Euclid, and founded the church at Perry, Ohio, Aug. 7th. The next year, 1830, he continued as their minister, (and the ablest of them all.) at Mentor, Euclid, Kirtland, and occasionally at Hiram, Mantua, Perry and Painesville, and using the words of their own history, which shows a disposition to bemean him all possible, because he made up his mind the Disciples did not have the truth, he is shown to be the leader of them. It says:

"Sidney Rigdon was an orator of no inconsiderable ability. In person, he was full medium height, rotund in form, of countenance, while speaking, open and winning, with a little cast of melancholy. His action was graceful, his language copious, fluent in utterance, with articulation clear and musical."

Oh! This the pompous old Rigdon that Braden is talking about is it? This is the fellow from whose crown Bro. Scott plucked a feather, and pulled off of Ahasueras' horse. Here Rigdon is traced by their own history till October, 1830, where he is found as a live worker for the "Reform Movement," as they called it, when three of our missionaries upon meeting in the district of Rigdon's charge and for the first time he meets the expounders of the gospel of Christ in its fullness, and also has an opportunity of reading that same gospel as contained in the Book of Mormon.

What does he do? Like my friend Mr. Braden here, he makes opposition, with all his great eloquence and powers, contesting the "New religion," as they called it, at every

step, till every argument was taken from him, when from the honesty of his heart and desire for truth rather than error, he accepted the faith, was publicly with his wife, then and there, baptised, preferring to endure the reproaches of Christ for a season by accepting the full and complete gospel, rather than to reject and retain his popularity in the world. Was he the "ignoramus," my audience, Braden has made him out to be? Many of you knew him! After this he ceases preaching and goes to work, and in a few months he goes to New York State and for the first time in his life sees and makes the acquaintance of Joseph Smith. In this connection I introduce the affidavit of Mrs. Katherine Salisbury:

STATE OF ILLINOIS |
Kendall County |
I, Katherine Salisbury, being duly sworn, depose and say, that I am a resident of the state of Illinois, and have been for forty years last past; that I will be sixty-eight years of age, July 28th, 1881.

That I am a daughter of Joseph Smith, Senior, and sister to Joseph Smith, Jr. the translator of the Book of Mormon. That at the time the said book was published, I was seventeen years of age; that at the time of the publication of said book, my brother, Joseph Smith, Jr., lived in the family of my father, in the town of Manchester, Ohio county, New York, and that he had, all of his life to this time made his home with the family.

That at the time, and for years prior thereto, I lived in and was a member of such family, and personally, knowing to the things transacted in said family, and those who visited at my father's house, and the friends of the family, and the friends and acquaintances of my brother, Joseph Smith, Jr., who visited at or came to my father's house.

That prior to the latter part of the year A.D. 1830, there was no person who visited with, or was an acquaintance of, or called upon the said family, or any member thereof to my knowledge, by the name of Sidney Rigdon; nor was such person known to the family, or any member thereof, to my knowledge, until the last part of the year A.D. 1830, or the first part of the year 1831, and some time after the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ, by Joseph Smith, Jr., and several months after the publication of the Book of Mormon.

That I remember the time when Sidney Rigdon came to my father's place, and that it was after the removal of my father from Waterloo, N.Y., to Kirtland, Ohio. That this was in the year 1831, and some months after the publication of the Book of Mormon, and fully one year after the Church was organized, as before stated herein .

That I make this statement not on account of fear, favor, or hope of reward of any kind, but simply that the truth may be known

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 101

with reference to sais matter, and that the foregoing statements made by me are true as I verily believe.
Katherine Salisbury

Sworn before me, and subscribed in my presence, by said Catherine Salisbury, this 15th day of April, A.D. 1881.
J. H. Jenks, Notary Public."

P. P Pratt, in the city of New York, at the time this Spaulding story first came out, gives his testimony and knowledge of the matter for publication in a letter to the New Era, N. Y. He says:

"I myself, had the happiness to present it" (the Book of Mormon), "to him" (Rigdon), " in person. He was much surprised, and it was with much persuasion and argument, that he was prevailed upon to read it, and after he had read it, he had a great struggle of mind, before he fully believed and embraced it."

The idea has been thrown out to the wrld that Sidney Rigdon drank right into the faith of the Saints, without an effort to disprove it. This is far from the truth, as the witnesses upon both sides testify. There is absolutely no contradiction of this by any reliable testimony upon either side. Does not this evidence then completely break away every link in the cunning device gotten up and peddled out as the "Spaulding romance?"

1. The only witness well enough conversant with the manuscript to testify, show[s] it was entirely different from and not sufficient by hundreds of pages to make the Book of Mormon.

2. It was not in Pittsburg when Rigdon was there, and Rigdon never got or saw it.
3. Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon never met until near two years after the book was in press and a year after publication.
4. The persons who had the manuscript in their possession and claimed that their affidavits were true, were the very ones who destroyed the manuscript lest it destroy their affidavits.

5. In the very places where they say Spaulding's manuscript was best known is where the Saints gathered many converts and were the most successful in disproving these stories.

But he says, "what about the evidences of John Spaulding, where he arose after the reading of the book in the meeting and denounced it." This is what I say about it. It bears the stamp of falsehood upon its face and in this: -- It was the statement in a meeting held by a Mormon woman preacher, who read the book they say. The church in the first place never had a woman preacher. I deny that there ever was such a preacher. Yet this is the basis for the story that they arose and denounced it. See Smucker page 43, History of the Mormons.

2. John Spaulding, nor no other Spaulding, ever arose in any meeting of the Saints and made any such claim. It would never have been done without the Minister reporting it to the society and none was ever

made. John Spaulding never placed himself where he could be cross-examined on this matter, and none of their other pretended witnesses, not one. But Mr. Braden has already taken a course in which he abandons his claim of Rigdon's connection at Pittsburg, and wants to show that Smith stole the manuscript and went to Ohio, and roped Rigdon in.

Smith, he says, worked for Sabine in 1823 or 1824, and this is when the second revelation came out. He had access to the Spaulding story. Ah! but he is caught here again. Mrs. Spaulding and her daughter were at Sabine's till 1820, when Mrs. Spaulding got married to Davidson.

Then they leave and order their trunk sent to Jerome Clark, New York, for safe keeping, from which place she afterwards got it and the contents were all right so she says, including the manuscript.

What is the insinuation here -- that Smith either stole the manuscript and copied it himself, or else during the time he was working for Sabine he went to Ohio and gave it to Rigdon. But Smith was no scribe so that would not do and there was no chance for him to get it to Ohio, if he worked for Sabine. Why! a man who can believe such a yarn as that, it seems to me, ought to believe most anything. Gulliver's travels, Robinson Crusoe and all. They have not the first fact to base the story upon, Smith did not work for Sabine as they claim in 1823 or 1824. He was then a boy in Wayne County, New York, at least 50 miles from where Sabine lived. Then canvass for a moment the weight there is in the claim that the Histories, Encyclopedias, Theological Dictionaries, etc. state it was the Spaulding Romance.

This is like his testimony on the Polygamy question over at Wllber. Most of these works give both sides of the question -- set out Smith's claim, and then set out his enemies' claim. Now if the fact that one being in these works makes it true, it will equally follow with the other. None of them claim that there are sufficient facts to sustain the Spaulding romance as to justify them in refusing a word from the friends of the Book of Mormon. If these works have found facts to settle it for the side of the romance, what is the use of our debating? Why not send this audience a book that will settle the question and let them read for themselves! Don't forget also, that in the most of those same works there is such a prejudiced account as to many of the different religious bodies, that very few of the denominations are satisfied that they have justice done them, the Disciples with the others.

I will now call your attention to some proofs with regard to this matter of what Smith did, how these stories were started about him and Rigdon, etc. Also to some things that have been referred to by my opponent. Taking up the testimony of Mr. Saunders first. I read you a published interview of March 5th, 1881, Saints' Herald. page 165, as follows:

102 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

Entering upon conversation with reference to our business, Mr. Saunders at once said: "Well, you have come to a poor place to find out anything. I don't know anything against these men, myself." (Evidently judging that we wanted to get something against them, only.)

Q. Were you acquainted with them, Mr. Saunders?
A. Yes, sir; I knew all of the Smith family well; there were six boys: Alvin, Hyrum, Joseph, Harrison, William, and Carlos, and there were two girls; the old man was a cooper; they have all worked for me many a day; they were very good people; Young Joe, (as we called him then), has worked for me, and he was a good worker; they all were. I did not consider them good managers about business, but they were poor people; the old man had a large family.

Q. In what respect did they differ from other people, if at all?
A. I never noticed that they were different from other neighbors; they were the best family in the neighborhood in case of sickness; one was at my house nearly all the time when my father died; I always thought them honest; they were owing me some money when they left here; that is, the old man and Hyrum did, and Martin Harris. One of them came back in about a year and paid me.

Q. How were they as to habits of drinking and getting drunk?"
A. Everybody drank a little in those days, and the Smiths with the rest; they never got drunk to my knowledge.

Q. What kind of a man was Martin Harris?
A. He was an honorable man. Martin Harris was one of the first men in the town.

Q. How well did you know young Joseph Smith?
A. Oh! just as well as one could very well; he has worked for me many- a-time, and been about my place a great deal. He stopped with me many a time, when through here, after they went west to Kirtland; he was always a gentleman when about my place.

Q. What did you know about his finding that book, or the plates in the hill over here?
A. He always claimed that he saw the angel and received the book; but I don't know anything about it. Have seen it, but never read it as I know of; didn't care anything about it."

Q. Well; you seem to differ a little from a good many of the stories told about these people.
A. I have told you just what I know about them, and you will have to go somewhere else for a different story."

I claim your attention next while I read the statements of J. H. Gilbert taken down as he made them and afterwards published and furnished him. He is asked first the question: "What did you know about the Smiths, Mr. Gilbert?" and answers:

"I knew nothing myself; have seen Joseph Smith a few times, but not acquainted with

him. Saw Hyrum quite often. I am the party that set the type from the original manuscript for the Book of Mormon.

Q. Did you change any part of it when you were setting the type?
A. No, sir; we never changed it at all.

Q. Why did you not change it and correct it?
A. Because they would not allow us to; they were very particular about that. We never changed it in the least. Oh well, there might have been one or two words that I changed the spelling of; I believe I did change the spelling of one, and perhaps two; but no more.

Q. Did you set all of the type, or did someone help you?
A. I did the whole of it myself, and helped to read the proof, too; there was no one who worked at that but myself. Did you ever see one of the first copies? I have one here that was never bound. Mr. Grandin the printer gave it to me. If you ever saw a Book of Mormon you will see that they changed it afterwards."

Q. They did! Well, let us see your copy; that is a good point. How is it changed now?
A. I will show you, (bringing out his copy). Here on the title page it says," (reading) "Joseph Smith, Jr., author and proprietor." Afterwards they left that out and only claimed that Joseph Smith translated it.

Q. Well, did they claim anything else than that he was the translator when they brought the manuscript to you?
A. Oh, no; they claimed that he was translating it by means of some instruments that he got at the same time he did the plates, and that the Lord helped him.

Q. Was he educated, do you know?
A. Oh, not at all then; but I understand that afterwards he made great advancement, and was quite a scholar and orator."

Q. How do you account for the production of the Book of Mormon, Mr. Gilbert, then, if Joseph Smith was so illiterate?
A. Well, that is the difficult question. It must have been from the Spaulding romance -- you have heard of that, I suppose. The parties here, then, never could have been the authors of it, certainly. I have been for the last forty-five or fifty years trying to get the key to that thing; but we have never been able to make the connection yet. For some years past I have been corresponding with a person in Salt Lake, by the name of Cobb, who is getting out a work against the Mormons; but we have never been able to find what we wanted.

Q. If you could connect Sidney Rigdon with Smith some way you could get up a theory?
A. Yes; that is just where the trouble lies; the manuscript was put in our hands in August 1829, and all printed by March 1830, and we cannot find that Rigdon was ever about here or in this State, until sometime in the fall of 1830. But I think I have got a way out of the difficulty now. A fellow that used to be here, by the name of

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 103

Saunders, Lorenzo Saunders, was back here some time ago, and I was asking him about it. At first he said he did not remember of ever seeing Rigdon until after 1830 sometime; but after studying it over awhile, he said it seemed to him that one time he was over to Smith's and that there was a stranger there he never saw before, and that they said it was Rigdon. I told him about Cobb, of Utah, and asked him if he would send Cobb his affidavit that he saw Rigdon before the book was published, if he (Cobb), would write to him; he finally said he would, and I wrote to Cobb about it, and gave Saunders' address, and after a long time, I got a letter from him, saying he had written three letters to Saunders, and could get no answer. I then sat down and wrote Saunders a letter myself, reminding him of his promise, and wrote to Cobb also about it; and after a long time Cobb wrote me again, that Saunders had written to him; but I have never learned how satisfactory it was, or whether he made the affidavit or not.

Q. Is that Saunders a brother of the Saunders living down here, Orlando Saunders?
A. Yes, sir: they are brothers.

Q. Is he older or younger?
A. Younger; about fifteen years younger."

Q. Then he must have been quite young before the Book of Mormon was published?
A. Yes, he was young.

Q. This Saunders down here don't talk like a great many people; he seems to think the Smiths were very good people; we have been there to-day.
A. Oh, I don't think the Smiths were as bad as people let on for. Now Tucker, in his work told too many big things; nobody could believe his stories.

Q. What kind of a man was Martin Harris?
A. He was a very honest farmer, but very superstitious."

Q. What was he before his name was connected with the Book of Mormon?
A. Not anything, I believe; he was a kind of skeptic.

Q. What do you mean by his being superstitious? Was he religious?
A. Well, I don't know about that; but he pretended to see things.

Q. What do you think of the Book of Mormon, as a book; you are well posted in it?
A. Oh, there is nothing taught in the book but what is good; there is no denying that; it is the claim of being from God that I strike at.

Q. Well, is it any more wonderful than that God gave the Bible?
A. No, not a bit; and there is a good deal more evidence to show that that is divine than there is for some of the books in the Bible. Why, it is all nonsense to think that Moses wrote some of the books attributed to him, in the Bible.

Q. Then you don't believe the "fish story," either, Mr. Gilbert?
A. No; nor that Jonah swallowed the whale.

Q. How about Sampson catching the three hundred foxes, and the firebrands?
A. Yes, that is a good one; you fellows will do.

Q. Much obliged, Mr. Gilbert.
A. You are quite welcome. I wish I could give you more than I have.

Next I refer you to the statements made by three of the Jackaways at Palmyra, especially to show you about the stories of money digging, how they started, &c., and that they had no foundation in fact. The following among other questions were asked these parties:

Q. Where was Joe when he was translating his book?
A. At home; it was translated in the farm house.

Mr. Gilbert, across here, said it was done in a cave; now you don't agree? Q. What does Tucker say? (reading Tucker).
A. They all differ. Now, Tucker has a statement from Willard Chase in his book, and Chase said Tucker never called on him at all to find out what he knew.

Lady. -- Yes; I have heard Willard Chase say Tucker never even asked him for what he knew, and Chase lived next door to him, too. Chase is now dead now.

Q. Well; did you ever see Hulburt or Howe, who published a work against the Mormons?
A. Yes; Hulburt came around first, I believe, soon after the thing started, and they had gone to Kirtland, Ohio, trying to find things against them; and there have been a good many around trying to connect Sidney Rigdon with them.

Q. How far did you live from town when the Smiths were in this country?
A. One-half mile south of Palmyra."

Q. Were you acquainted with Joseph Smith and his early followers?
A. Yes, I knew them; seen them a many a time -- old Joe and young Joe.

Q. How far did you live from them?
A. It was about a mile.

Q. You know about their digging for money, so Mr. Gilbert said; he sent us to you?
A. Oh, yes. I can show you the places now; there are three places over there where they dug.

Q. Well, we want to see them. Did you help them dig?
A. No, I never helped them.

Q. Well, you saw them digging?
A. No, I never saw them digging.

Q. How do you know they dug the holes you refer to?
A. I don't know they dug them; but the holes are there.

Q. Did anybody else dig for money at that time there?
A. I believe there were some others that dug; but I did not see them.

Q. Do you know any of them?
A. I only know one now; he lives up at Canandaigua.

I next introduce the evidence of Dr. John Stafford, of Rochester, N. Y., son of William Stafford, made so conspicuous by

104 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

Tucker in his work against the Mormons. In answer to a question as to the character of Joseph Smith, Dr. Stafford said:

"He was a real clever, jovial boy. What Tucker said about them was false, absolutely.

Q. What about that black sheep your father let them have?
A. I have heard that story, but don't think my father was there at the time they say Smith got the sheep. I don't know anything about it.

Q. You were living at home at the time, and it seems you ought to know if they got a sheep, or stole one, from your father?
A. They never stole one, I am sure; they may have got one some time.

Q. Well, doctor, you know pretty well whether that story is true or not, that Tucker tells. What do you think of it?
A. I don't think it is true. I would have heard more about it, that is true. I lived a mile from Smiths; am 76 years old. They were peaceable among themselves. The old woman had a great deal of faith that their children were going to do something great. Joe was illiterate. After they began to have school at their house, he improved greatly.

Q. Did they have school in their house?
A. Yes, sir; they had school in their house, and studied the Bible.

Q. Who was their teacher?
A. They did not have any teacher; they taught themselves.

Q. Did you know Oliver Cowdery?
A. Yes; he taught school on the Canandaigua road, where the stone schoolhouse now stands; just three and a half miles south of Palmyra. Cowdery was a man of good character."

Thomas Taylor at Manchester said when interrogated about Mr. Smith and family as follows:

"Yes; I knew them very well; they were very nice men, too; the only trouble was they were ahead of the people; and the people, as in every such case turned out to abuse them, because they had the manhood to stand for their own convictions.

Q. What did the Smiths do that the people abused them so?
A. They did not do anything. Why! these rascals at one time took Joseph Smith and ducked him in the pond that you see over there, just because he preached what he believed and for nothing else. And if Jesus Christ had been there, they would have done the same to him. Now I don't believe like he did; but every man has a right to his religious opinions, and to advocate his views, too; if people don't like it, let them come out and meet him on the stand, and shew his error. Smith was always ready to exchange views with the best men they had."

Q. Why didn't they like Smith?
A. To tell the truth, there was something about him they could not understand; someway he knew more than they did, and it made them mad.

Q. But a good many tell terrible stories

about them being low people, rogues, and liars, and such things. How is that?
A. Oh! they are a set of liars. I have had a home here, and been here, except when on business, all my life -- ever since I came to this country, and I know these fellows; they make these lies on Smith because they love a lie better than the truth. I can take you to a great many old settlers here who will substantiate what I say, and if you want to go, just come around to my place across the street there, and I'll go with you.

Q. Well, that is very kind, Mr. Taylor, and fair; but we are first going to see these fellows who, so rumor says, know so much against them.
A. All right; but you will find they don't know anything against those men when you put them down to it; they could never sustain anything against Smith."

I have read you the foregoing interviews for the reason that they were taken down as they came from the lips of the parties and may be relied upon, To my knowledge there has never been a single contradiction of one of these statements by a single one of the parties whose testimony I have just read except Gilbert, and at the proper time if the question is raised I will examine his.

This thing they got up about the Saints is an entire fraud, and I will prove it by comparing the work, that from which my opponent draws his testimony, this Howe and Hulburt history, with our works, and show you that they have deliberately garbled and falsified, and most mischievously perverted our works,

page 104 is still under construction

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 105

page 105 is still under construction

106 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

page 106 is still under construction

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 107

MR. BRADEN'S TENTH SPEECH.

GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: -- The books of the Bible were written on papyrus, parchment, perishable material; and they had to be copied and resvised to preserve them; and this was done by uninspired men liable to err...

page 107 is still under construction

108 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

page 108 is still under construction

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 109

the books it mentions that were used in writing the Books of Kings and Chronicles. All the works of the prophets mentioned in the Book of Mormon, but not mentioned in the Bible. Doubtless many prophetical writings never mentioned. (D) Genealogical tables from Joseph to Laban. All this voluminous literature, which would have made a wagon-load if on parchment, was engraved on plates and not on papyrus, the only material then in use, and was carried off by five men, who were dodging round to save their lives, when it must have required a caravan of teams to have hauled it. This rigmarole represents copies of the Pentateuch and the Scriptures as being common, well known, in open use with their tables of genealogy. Not a hundred years before they were almost unknown; and in the days of Zedekiah's father so little were they known that reading a copy found by accident revolutionized the nation. This enormous load of plates was carried by Lehi in all his journeyings. Laban's sword was steel, when it is a notorious fact that the Israelites knew nothing of steel for hundreds of years afterwards. Who but as ignorant a person as Rigdon would have perpetrated all these blunders? When Lehi saw that caravan-load of plates, gotten by making the owner drunk, by murder, robbery and lying, he revelates and prophecies that these plates of Laban shall go forth to all nations. As not a single plate of Laban has ever gone forth to anybody, the Mormon God was mistaken when he inspired Lehi with that prophecy.

On page 14 we have a beginning of a series of violations of the most positive requirements of the law of God. Manassehites begin offering sacrifices in flagrant violation of the law of God. On page 16 the Mormon God commands Nephi to make plates to receive the record of the ministry of his people. Although Lehi had brought with them only tents and provisions, Nephi digs ore, smelts it, casts plates, makes tools to do all this, and engraves on them in a wilderness where a dozen persons are alone with only tents and provisions. From page 17 to page 32 Rigdon makes Nephi; and Lehi talk like preachers of the nineteenth century. They foretell the history of John the Baptist, Mary the mother of Jesus, and the ministry of Jesus, giving names of persons and places with great minuteness: also what they should do and say. The prophets of Israel never did any such prophecying. They rarely give names of persons or places, and never foretell the exact language persons will use. Rigdon makes Nephi and Lehi discourse like Disciple preachers. They discuss all the leading topics of the gospel as Disciple preachers do, and discuss many themes of modern theology. They plagiarize Paul's parable of the olive tree. Lehi declares he has the Holy Spirit in the name of Christ and through faith in Christ 800 years before Christ came. Rigdon airs one of his hobbies that he retained from the Baptists and in which he differed from the Disciples. John tells us

that the Holy Spirit was not given in that way till after Jesus was glorified. Jesus declares that the Holy Spirit would not be given in his name till after his ascension, but Lehi knew better than Paul and Jesus. Paul declares that these gospel themes were mysteries until the apostles of Jesus revealed them. Paul was mistaken, for Rigdon tells us that Lehi and Nephi knew all about them 600 years before Paul lived. Not only so, but God revealed to Lehi and Nephi far more than he ever did to the apostles of Jesus. He revealed to them all about the Romish Apostacy, its errors and crimes, the peculiar doctrine[s] of Luther's reformation, settles several questions of modern theology, and always in harmony with Rigdon's ideas.

One of the most monstrous absurdities in the Book of Mormon is the Liahona, Lehi's brass director or compass. We are told that Lehi had given to him by miracle, direct from the workshop of the Mormon God doubtless --a brass ball of curious workmanship. The reader will admit that it was of most curious workmanship when he hears it described, "and it was of fine brass, and within the ball were two spindles, and one pointed out the way we should go in the wilderness." How could they see the two spindles inside of a hollow brass globe? "One pointed the way they should go." Of what use was the other? It pointed the way they should not go, I suppose. Page 86: "These spindles (inside of a brass globe) worked according to the faith of the possessor." If they worked as the possessor wanted them to point, of what use were they? How did they see how they pointed if they were inside of a brass globe? By faith and the power of God I suppose, as Impostor Joe saw the translation of the Book of Mormon in the crown of his old hat as he was peering into his stolen peep-stone; but as the possessor knew they pointed the direction he wanted them to point, it did not make any odds whether he saw them or not. "On these spindles was written" -- on two fine spindles inside of a brass globe where nobody could see -- "a new writing." It must have been an extensive writing that was all on two fine spindles. "Plain to be read." Yes it must have been very plain on two fine spindles and inside of a brass globe where nobody could see, "and it gave us instructions concerning the ways of the Lord," all on two fine spindles and inside of a brass globe where nobody could see; "and it was written and changed from time to time" -- yes all on two fine spindles or needles inside of a brass globe where nobody could see it. Then Sidney remarks with exceeding unction, "Thus we see that the Lord accomplishes great things by small means." Yes, verily, Sidney; and when the Lord gave the fulness of the gospel to the world through such a lying, extravagant ignoramus as you, in such balderdash as the above, he accomplished the greatest work with the smallest means ever tried.

Next Nephi is told to build a ship and

110 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

page 110 is still under construction

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 111

page 111 is still under construction

After asserting that they kept the commandments of God, according to the law of Moses, Nephi cooly tells us that they erected a temple in America instead of at Jerusalem -- consecrated priests out of the tribe of Manasseh instead of Levi. And these usurper priests offered sacrifices in the

wilderness of America instead of at Jerusalem in a temple built in violation of God's law. God blessed these sacrilegious violators of his law far above the most favorite obedient Israelites in Palestine, revealed to them the Gospel and conferred on them its blessings as fully as on the most favored apostles of Christ 600 years before Christ came. God terribly punished Korah, Dathan and Abiram for violating his law, though they did not violate it as flagrantly as did these Nephites, and placed far above all mankind these sacrilegious Nephites who trampled nearly every precept under foot. These Nephites preached the Gospel of Christ as clearly as Sidney Rigdon could preach it, and as he preached it; and enjoyed every blessing of the Gospel as fully as Rigdon could, yet Nephi declares that "notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we obey the laws of Moses. What a falsehood, for he tells us they violated all its great principles and "look steadfastly unto Christ until the law be fulfilled." The law was to prepare a way for the knowledge of Christ, and then became useless having fulfilled its purpose. The Nephites obeyed the law for 600 years after they knew all about the Gospel, and obeyed it when the law was useless to them, and they could not obey it for they were obeying the Gospel. This blundering, unscriptural introduction of the Gospel 600 years before Christ who alone was to reveal and introduce it, is in flat contradiction of every idea of God's word. But Rigdon was bound to have his Nephites far greater fellows than their brethren in Palestine, even if he did contradict God's word in doing it.

The Nephites who violate God's law far excel Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel in prophesying. They quote whole chapters of the Old Testament, whole paragraphs and sentences of the New, quoting the exact language hundreds of years before the ones who uttered it lived. "They that are filthy are filthy still. They shall go away into everlasting punishment. He commandeth all men that they must repent. Where there is no law there is no punishment, and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation." These are a few of scores of instances that could be cited. Who is such a sodden idiot as to believe that men in America preached all the doctrine of Christ and his apostles 600 years before they uttered it, in the exact words in which they uttered it, rather than that Sidney Rigdon interpolated these quotations into the manuscript he had stolen from Spaulding when he was remodeling it to make a "big thing of it" as a new revelation?

It is perhaps necessary that we repeat our answer to our opponent's endless talk about American antiquities. We will concede that if he can prove that Joseph Smith gave to the world a single fact or truth regarding American antiquities or archaeology or the history of the aborigines of America that was not known before his day, or that scientific research has discovered since his

112 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

day, that he was inspired and the Book of Mormon is of Divine origin. Our opponent cannot ask more than that of us. Will he meet the issue and prove that Joseph Smith has done so? We have proved that from the days of Cortez and Pizarro until Solomon Spaulding, scores of writers had published every idea in regard to American antiquities to be found in the Book of Mormon -- that more than a score of such publications were issued during the lifetime of Solomon Spaulding in the United States -- that Spaulding was well versed in these theories and an earnest advocate of them -- that where the works of his day were correct his ideas in the Book of Mormon are correct -- where they were in error, his ideas in the Book of Mormon are erroneous.

My opponent tries hard to make something out of the fact that Priest published his works after Spaulding's death, and the last work after the Book of Mormon was published. Unfortunaely for his effort, the authorities that Priest quotes in both works were published before Spaulding died and some of them before Smith was born. I defy my opponent to name a single idea in the Book of Mormon in regard to American antiquities that was not published before Spaulding wrote his Manuscript Found and most of them before Spaulding was born. They had been published in the United States and were the belief of most preachers in New England and the Middle States when Spaulding wrote his Manuscript Found. Sir Walter Scott wrote his historical novels and incorporated into them certain facts of Scotch antiquities, archaeology and Scotch history. His novels agree with the results of scientific research into Scotch antiquities to a vastly greater extent than the Book of Mormon agrees with the results of scientific research into American antiquities. Not only so but they contain innumerable facts of Scotch History, many accurate pictures of persons well known in Scotch History and innumerable incidents in their

lives. The Book of Mormon does nothing of the kind: not a historic incident or character in it can be found outside of the Book of Mormon except what it plagiarizes from the Bible. Now to argue as Mr. Kelley does that the Book of Mormon is true, a veritable history, and of Divine origin because it harmonizes with certain ideas in regard to American antiquities that had been current in the United States before its author was born is infinitely more absurd than it would be to claim that all of Scott's historical novels were true, veritable histories, and of Divine origin, for they contain vastly more concerning Scotch antiquities that is true than the Book of Mormon contained concerning American Antiquities; and they contain almost innumerable facts of Scotish history, accurate descriptions of them and innumerable facts from their lives, while the Book of Mormon does not contain a single historical fact or character or incident. All that part of it is pure fabrication. Its history is as pure fabrication as Gulliver's Travels or Baron Munchausen's Tales. The truth is simply this, that as Scott incorporated certain facts of Scotch antiquities that were known in his day into his historic romances, so Spaulding incorporated into his historic romance the Manuscript Found, certain ideas in regard to American antiquities that were current in his day. But Spaulding was not nearly as accurate as Scott and did not incorporate into his romance one hundreth part as much truth as Scott did. If Spaulding was inspired and the Book of Mormon stolen from him a revelation, Scott was an hundred-fold more inspired. Until my opponent clearly proves that there is a single fact or truth in the Book of Mormon that was not well known before it appeared, his archaeological argument for its divine origin is collosal in its impudence and absurdity.

go to: page 113: Kelley's 11th speech

Return to top of the page

Return to: Special Collections Index | New Spalding Studies Library

last revised: Aug. 23, 2006