[ 18 ]
AN EXAMINATION OF
"WHO REALLY WROTE THE BOOK OF MORMON?"
Added August 8, 1978
After publishing Did Spalding Write The Book Of Mormon? in July, 1977, we received a great deal of criticism
for not waiting until the California researchers finished their book before making an attack on the new theory. It
was felt that after we examined all their evidence we might change our minds about the matter.
The book was delayed
for some time but finally appeared in November. It is entitled, Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? After
reading this book carefully, we must report that our feelings have not changed. In fact, we are more convinced than
ever that we made the right decision. The evidence against the new Spalding theory now seems to be overwhelming,
and the California researchers' failure to come to grips with some of the basic criticisms leads us to the conclusion
that they have no real answers to the objections. Instead of publicly dealing with the issues, the researchers sent us a
drawing of a jackass which the reader will find on the next page.
When we first made our statement on the Spalding matter, we felt almost like we were alone. The researchers were
claiming that three noted handwriting experts had examined photocopies of the documents and all three agreed that
twelve pages of the Book of Mormon manuscript were actually written by Solomon Spalding. We felt better, however,
on July 9, 1977, when the Salt Lake Tribune reported that "One of three handwriting experts hired to check
authenticity of the Book of Mormon has withdrawn from the assignment....
"He said he decided to withsraw after published reports that he agreed 12 pages of the Book of Mormon were written
by... Solomon Spaulding,...
"'That is not true,' Mr. Silver said. 'I have told news representatives that I could not say that without examining
the original writings of Solomon Spaulding, not just the photocopies provided (by three California researchers.'..."
Christianity Today for Oct. 21, 1977, said that "analyst Henry Silver, 86, dropped out of the case without
offering a final opinion. He had examined the Mormon manuscript but withdrew without seeing the novel manuscript at
Oberland. Obviously disturbed by all the controversy surrounding the case, Silver claimed he had been misrepresented
in initial press accounts, that he had not been told at the outset that the Book of Mormon authorship was
involved, and that Walter Martin -- the person who had financed the research -- had 'a vendetta' against the Mormon
Church."
The California researchers say that "Due to ill health, Silver resigned the case before he examined all of the original documents." (Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? p. 231) On page 188 of the same book, we finf a letter from Silver's doctor which says that he advised him against making a trip to Ohio to examine the original Spaulding manuscript. Regardless
|
of the reasons for Mr. Silver's withdrawal from the case, we think that it is extremely unfortunate that he was unable to complete his investigation. We do not feel that misrepresentations in the press or the question of whether Walter Martin has a 'vendetta' against the Church should have anything to do with Mr. Silver's opinion. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, July 9, 1977, when Mr. Silver was asked if he would examine the Spaulding manuscript if it were brought to Los Angeles, he "replied tersely: 'I'm out of it.'" We feel that when an expert enters into a controversy like this he should complete his work.
Although the California researchers do not mention it in their book, on different occasions they have implied that Henry Silver withdrew from the case because he feared for his life. In a letter dated Jan. 12, 1978, Silver himself stayed: "As far as I am concerned I have never had any threat what-so-ever thrown at me in connection with the case, nor have I ever had a threat against me any time in my life. I never made at any time or place any statement or even suggested a fear of being killed, in connection with the case,..."
William Kaye, the second handwriting expert, examined the documents in the Church archives and the Spalding manuscript in Ohio, and in a letter dated Sept. 8, 1977, he stated:
"While a detailed report would require many more hours of writing and comparison studies... my present opinion stands on my hours of examination to this point. There are many similarities in regard to certain letters and words that are present in the Solomon Spalding manuscript and in the Book of Mormon manuscript.
"It is my considered opinion and conclusion and I believe that my examination to this point of the original documents concurs with my first report (which was based on photocopies originally provided me) and shows unquestionably that the questioned handwriting in the above named Mormon documents and the known handwriting in the above named Spalding documents undoubtedly have all been executed by the same person." Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? p. 187)
From Mr. Kaye's statement, it would appear that his examination was not complete at the time he wrote the letter, but it certainlt gives the impression that he is standing by his original statements.
One week after Mr. Kaye issued his statement, a big blow fell on the researcher's case. This was the final opinion of the third handwriting expert, Howard C. Doulder. In a letter dated Sept. 15, 1977, Mr. Doulder stated:
"Examination of the original documents in comparison to machine copies and photographs examined during February 1977
|
| 19 |
DID SPALDING WRITE THE BOOK OF MORMON? |
|
| |
DID SPALDING WRITE THE BOOK OF MORMON? |
20 |
now showed in detail pen-lifts, line quality, letter design, terminal spurs, connecting strokes, letter spacing and the alignment of writing, plus other features needed to determine identification.
"As I stated in my report dated March 4, 1977 of some writing similarities and letter characteristics appeared both in the manuscript and the Book of Mormon. I now contribute these similarities to the writing style of that century.
"I have found writing and letter dis-similarities that are variations of the same writer.
"it is my conclusion the handwriting in the name of Solomon Spalding is NOT the author of the unidentified pages, (listed as Q-l thru Q-9 in this report of the Book of Mormon." (Ibid., page 186)
It would appear that Mr. Doulder's report produced great consternation among the researchers. The Los Angeles Times, Sept. 24,1977, reported the following:
"A handwriting expert,... said Friday certain disputed pages in the Book of Mormon and a novel by a 19th-century minister-novelist were written by 'different authors.'...
"The four-page finding of Howard Doulder, submitted, Sept. 15 but made known only Friday, appears to throw doubt upon the claims of three Southern California researchers who hired the handwriting experts....
"Doulder, formerly supervisor of the U. S. Treasury Department's Crime Laboratory in Chicago, said he had since examined originals of the Spalding novel... and the Book of Mormon pages,...
"Doulder said he personally submitted his final report to researcher Cowdrey on Sept. 15.
"But Cowdrey, in a phone interview Friday, said he had not seen Doulder's report, He and Davis both deferred comment to Gretchen Passantino, secretary to Walter Martin, head of the Christian Research Institute. Martin helped finance the handwriting investigation....
"Davis, saying he had been told 'not to say anything now' about Doulder's report, added: 'I kind of expected he (Doulder) would go negative on the thing because there have been so many death threats.'
"Asked if his life had been threatened during his investigation of the Mormon manuscripts, Doulder replied: 'Not at all.'" (Los Angeles Times, Sept. 24, 1977)
When we first saw photographs of the documents before the discovery was announced, Sandra suggested that what the handwriting experts thought were similarities between the two manuscripts were probably just traits that were common to the writing of the time. Howard Doulder now seems to be of the same opinion:
"The findings of handwriting expert Howard Doulder directly contradict the final report submitted by expert William Kaye earlier this month.... Doulder's findings state that the two works could not have been written by the same person....
"The researchers remained unmoved by the opposing viewpoints also. 'Of course we stand behind Kaye's decision because it coincides with our research,' researcher Howard Davis said....
"In his study, Doulder noted differences in the Book of Mormon and the Spalding manuscript which he said led to his
|
conclusion. The letters 'k' weren't comparable, and he said the ampersands (&) were as different as 'black and white.'...
"Kaye based his study of the two manuscripts on similarities and dissimilarities of mannerisms and characteristics, including the comparison of hundreds of 'd's' from both works....
"Doulder said he found similarities also, in the letter 'g and the words 'the' and 'that.' But he attributed them to the writing style of the century rather than to the same hands." (Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, Oct. 1, 1977)
The researchers claim that Doulder's second opinion contradicted his own first report." (Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? p.175) Now, while it is true that at first Mr. Doulder gave an opinion supporting the Spalding theory, we must remember that he had only examined photocopies of the documents and he made it very plain that this was not a final verdict. In a report dated March 4, 1977, Doulder stated:
"Because I have examined machine copies and photographic enlargements and NOT the originals, I can only tender an qualified opinion....
"A positive conclusion can be rendered only after an examination of all the original documents." (Ibid. p. 180)
If a medical doctor were to tell a man he believed he might have a certain disease, but a biopsy and further examination revealed that this was incorrect, would the man rely upon the preliminary opinion? Certainly not, and we feel it would be wrong to rely on Doulder's preliminary opinion, based only upon photocopies, when his examination of the original documents revealed just the opposite.
The researchers have used the statements of the handwriting experts in a very clever way. They have photographically printed both the preliminary statements and the later statements. To the uncritical reader it would appear that they have five statements supporting their conclusion and only one against it. Actually, what they have is four preliminary statements (Henry Silver gave two preliminary opinions) and only two later opinions by those who have examined the original documents. What it boils down to, then, is that they have only one favorable statement by a handwriting expert made after he had seen all the documents. Two of the three handwriting experts no longer support their conclusions, yet in the face of this the researchers boldly assert: "What is the verdict on the handwriting? The overwhelming weight of evidence shows that the unidentified section of The Book of Mormon is in the actual handwriting of Solomon Spalding." (Ibid., p. 176)
Although we do not profess to be handwriting experts, we certainly cannot agree with the researchers on this matter. We feel that the evidence is strongly against their theory.
Dean C. Jessee, a Mormon scholar who has done a great deal of handwriting research in the Church Historical Department, has written an excellent article showing that Spalding could not possibly be the author of twelve pages of the Book of Mormon (see Deseret News, Church Section, August 20, 1977, pp. 3-5). The researchers, however, dismiss Jessee's article by saying: "if Kaye could find similarities among 2500 letter 't's,' then we need not take Jesse's small study seriously. Handwriting examination should be left to the experts." (Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon, pages 229-230)
|
| 21 |
DID SPALDING WRITE THE BOOK OF MORMON? |
|
The researchers do devote Appendix 5 to Jessee's study, but they fail to respond to some of his best arguments on the handwriting. According to The New Messenger & Advocate, "Ronald Jackson, a Utah handwriting expert and paleographer, examined the writing and concluded that Spaulding was not the author of the twelve pages. Jackson points out that Spaulding used the German 'S' (which looks like an f) while the Book of Mormon manuscript does not. Also the characters r, p, t, g, m and c differ in the two manuscripts, as does the use of capital letters, punctuation and abbreviation." (The New Messenger & Advocate, Sept. 1977, p. 18.
We presume that Mr. Jackson worked from photocopies, and therefore his work would not carry as much weight as that done by Mr. Kaye and Mr. Doulder.
Martin's Support
Although Wayne L. Cowdrey, Howard Davis and Donald R. Scales did the research for Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? we feel that the moving force in getting national publicity for the book has been Dr. Walter Martin, Director of the Christian Research Institute. Dr. Martin has even written a Forward for this book in which he states:
"After extensive research into the 'foundation stones' of the Mormon Church 25 years ago, I was convinced that I knew the true source of The Book of Mormon,... Although some agreed with me, most thought that my assertion of Spalding's part in the mystery of Mormonism was the assertion of one naive of the facts. For 25 years I have known that the Spalding source could be proved if one only had the time and the dedication to ferret it out. Wayne Cowdery, Don Scales and Howard Davis have had that dedication, and this book it the result."
On page 152 of this book, the researchers pay this tribute to Dr. Martin:
"Walter Martin, one of America's most knowledgeable comparative religion professors, investigated the roots of Mormonism 25 years ago and was convinced by much of the same evidence already presented in this book that Spalding was the original source of The Book of Mormon,... It was always his contention that if someone had the necessary time and determination, all of the missing pieces would be found, including all or part of Spalding's original manuscript. Martin's conviction has been publicly stated in all of his books that deal with Mormonism (see especially The Kingdom of the Cults), and it was his conviction that first aroused our interest in the Spalding/Rigdon thesis and solidified our determination to find the missing pieces of the whole picture."
In a speech given August 20, 1977, Walter Martin made this statement: "... we are subsidizing and have subsidized and will continue to subsidize what these guys are doing... I believe that it is worth while putting an investment in the lives of these boys.... we have invested thousands of dollars already and we are going to go right on doing it."
In a speech given July 10, 1977, Dr. Martin went so far as to say that those who opposed the researchers would have to answer to God:
"... the whole Mormon religion rests on the validity of
|
the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. If Smith lied, and all the evidence now says he did; if the documents were Solomon Spalding's, and they most certainly are, then the only possible conclusion is that there was no Angel Moroni... there was only Joseph in quest of a quick buck.... I'm not concerned to be right. I'm concerned that if they can bury this, and buy it and frighten people out of it, then nobody is safe with any information anymore, anyplace. And I say it publicly, the Mormon Church has more power than the president of the United States.... Somebody with a lot of money and a lot of position manipulates. Mr. Silver is a classic illustration... these young men have taken on a massive organizational structure and system... I am going to stay with them and back them and stand against this evil because if they are snuffed out in terms of presenting the truth, nobodys going to be able to present the truth anymore.... if Christians don't think it is important enough to stand with these guys, then they are to stand before the Lord for it.... Where do you stand? That's the question. Do you stand with the Lord against evil or do you say well let's not rock the boat? I mean, why get involved in this? Let's just love everybody, be positive and preach Jesus. God will take care of everything. Hypocrite! God never said that. God said put up a good fight for the faith... Do we care about the Mormon people so that they will know the truth and come to the Lord Jesus?... the only way we can do it is by standing with these fellows.... I'm glad Wayne Cowdrey... Don Scales and Howard Davis are willing to carry the ball for the Christian church. My plea is that we get on the line with them... Pray for Time magazine. They are going to be under tremendous pressure. Pray for Christianity Today. All the might of the Mormon conglomerate empire and all the angles that can be played will be played."
As we listen to Walter Martin's plea for support and his warning that those who oppose it are working against the Lord, we cannot help but think of another plan he had to bring the Mormon Church to its knees. A few years ago Walter Martin filed a "multi-million dollar civil suit" against the Mormon Church because a member of the Church had made false statements about him which had subsequently been printed on Church equipment. Through this suit, Dr. Martin hoped to gain access to many of the historical records suppressed by the Mormon Church. When he asked us if we would give testimony concerning the documents for him, we had to decline, stating that we did not agree with the suit. Dr. Martin argued that his suit was the plan God was going to use to bring the truth about Mormonism to light. He claimed that one of the most famous lawyers in the United States would eventually take over the case and that it would receive a great deal of publicity throughout the nation. Our response was that we still could not agree with the plan and didn't want to be involved in it.
We have no idea how many thousands of dollars have been spent on this law suit, but it must amount to a considerable sum. For all this investment little seems to have been accomplished, and it now appears that the suit is in serious trouble. The San Jose Mercury News for July 30, 1977, reported: "Martin filed a $11 million suit against the Mormon Church and individual Mormons in Orange County last year, claiming slander, libel and defamation of character. The suit against the church (but not the individuals) was tossed out by the court, action he is appealing."
The identification of Spalding handwriting in the Book
|
| |
DID SPALDING WRITE THE BOOK OF MORMON? |
22 |
of Mormon pages was to be brought to light during the suit, and it was supposed to deal a devastating blow to the Mormon Church. When the plans for the suit did not go as expected, the information was given to the press. We are sorry to see so much time and money used for such a futile pursuit.
The Great Document Switch?
The fact that the California researchers have a tendency to jump to wild conclusions without carefully examining the evidence is clearly demonstrated by what happened after William Kaye examined the Book of Mormon manuscript in Salt Lake City. Before leaving Salt Lake City, Mr. Kaye was very disturbed because the researchers or Walter Martin had set up a press conference to be held as soon as he returned to Los Angeles. He claimed that he could not make a meaningful statement until he made a thorough study of the matter, which might take weeks to complete. Mr. Kaye's inability to make an immediate decision confirming the theory together with his statement that the documents he had seen were not laminated apparently led the researchers to the erroneous conclusion that the Mormon leaders held switched the documents to confuse the investigation. One would think that since Mr. Kaye had been "accompanied by one of Mormonism's long time critics, Jerald Tanner" when he made his examination of the documents (Salt Lake Tribune, July 9,1977), the researchers would have checked here before making any accusation. Instead, however, they went immediately to the press with a completely irresponsible statement. In an article entitled, "RESEARCHERS OF MORMONS CRY 'TRICKERY'," we find the following:
"Researchers challenging the authenticity of the Mormon Church' s founding scriptures have charged that a handwriting expert was tricked into looking at the wrong documents during his visit to the Salt Lake City archives....
"The three were anxiously awaiting the arrival Thursday afternoon of examiner William Kaye before a press conference at Los Angeles International Airport where details of Kaye's trip were to be announced.
"That anticipation flared into anger when the handwriting expert claimed he had been shown a stack of fragile and antique papers rather than the laminated documents viewed by examiner Henry Silver and Cowdery.....
"He was deliberately tricked,' Davis said....
"The researches contend that Kaye was shown the wrong documents in an effort to destroy his credibility and confuse his results when copies of the alleged scriptures are forwarded in the next 10 days." (Torrence, Calif. S. Bay Breeze, July 8, 1977)
In a speech given July 10. 1977, Walter Martin emphatically affirmed that the Mormon Church had switched documents:
"Mr. Kaye... went to Salt Lake to look at the same documents Mt. Silver did. When he got there, they didn't show him the document. They showed him another one and they lied to him, point-blank, outright, till Mr. Kaye refused to discuss it with them any further and left. We hope to get Mr. Kaye back in there again... This is how desperate it has become. You switch documents on an expert and make a fool of yourself, because the expert had five copies of the original documents in his brief case, and he knew they gave him the wrong documents.
|
That is a very important point.... What we have to see is this, and I hope we can, that you are going to run square into people putting documents in front of you and saying this is it and lying through their teeth. Somebody says, 'Do you have to say that?' Yes,... here is a church knowing what they have got and now lying to cover it up. Now, of course it's a beautiful lawsuit for the Mormons unless I'm telling the truth, and I'm willing to wager legally, of course, that I'm telling
the truth,..."
Because of Walter Martin's statements made in this speech we feel that a second statement is necessary to clarify the issue.
SECOND STATEMENT BY JERALD TANNER. In my first statement (see page 5 of this book) I explained that it would have been impossible for the Mormon Church to have switched documents as I was familiar with the writing of the "unknown scribe." In fact, we had published a photograph of his writing in Mormonism -- Shadow or Reality? p. 166. It was this very photograph which first gave the researchers the idea that Spalding's handwriting was in the Book of Mormon manuscript.
At any rate, the speech Dr. Martin gave on July 10, 1977, would lead a person to believe that Mt. Kaye knew immediately that the documents had been switched: "You switch documents on an expert and make a fool of yourself, because the expert had five copies of the original documents in his brief case, and he knew they gave him the wrong document." Now, if Mr. Kaye knew that the documents had been switched, he certainly said nothing to me about the matter. In fact, everything he said both during and after our visit to the Mormon archives indicated just the opposite -- i. e., that he was well satisfied that he had examined the original documents. Walter Martin gives the impression that Mr. Kaye left the Historical Department because of a dispute over the documents being switched: "... Mr. Kaye refused to discuss it with them any further and left." Actually, we examined the documents for about an hour and a half, and after we left Mr. Kaye commented about the fine treatment he had received. If he knew he had been "lied to," he gave no indication of this to me. Everything he said led me to believe that he felt he had examined the original documents.
In any case, Mr. Kaye was sent back to Salt Lake City, and, after examining the Book of Mormon manuscript for the second time, it was apparently decided that the documents had not been switched after all. In their book Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? p.176, the researchers indicate that Mr. Kaye "made two trips to the Mormon originals in Utah," but they tell nothing about the reason he made the second trip nor do they mention their charge that the documents had been switched. Some may argue that it is best to forget this whole tragic affair, but I think it sheds a great deal of light on the atmosphere in which Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? was produced.
Jerald Tanner [signature]
It seems ironical that in proclaiming there was another (forged) copy of the Book of Mormon manuscript pages the researchers should provide us with an example of exactly the type of thing Fawn Brodie believes happened at the time the Spalding theory was born. She says that when Spalding's manuscript was finally located by Hurlbut, it seems likely that these witnesses had so come to identify the Book of Mormon
|
| 23 |
DID SPALDING WRITE THE BOOK OF MORMON? |
|
with the Spaulding manuscript that they could not concede having made an error without admitting to a case of memory substitution which they did not themselves recognize." (No Man Knows My History, pp. 447-48) Mrs. Brodie believes that because of their inability to admit they held made a mistake they put forth the idea that Spalding had written a second manuscript.
The California researchers likewise became so zealous to establish their theory that they put forth the idea that there was another copy of the Book of Mormon manuscript which had been forged by the Mormon Church. There was, of course, not evidence to support such a charge and the researchers did not even mention the matter in Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?
Ignoring the 1831 Revelation
On page 5 of this book we indicated that a manuscript copy of a revelation given in June, 1831, provides devastating evidence against the idea that Solomon Spalding wrote twelve pages of the Book of Mormon. This revelation appears in the Doctrine and Covenants as Section 56, Fortunately, we have now been able to obtain photocopies of this revelation which we have included in this book, The reader will notice that the handwriting in this revelation looks more like the writing in the Book of Mormon manuscript than the handwriting of Solomon Spalding. It would appear that the researchers are unable to deal with this objection, and therefore they have almost completely ignored it. According to Sandi Weisel, "one of the researchers" has gone so far as to suggest "that Section 56 could be [a] forgery." (Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, Sept. 17, 1977)
We do not think there is the slightest possibility that this document is a forgery, and such a suggestion seems just as fantastic as the idea that the Mormon Church forged another copy of the Book of Mormon pages. Since the researchers did not even come up with the theory concerning handwriting until February, l976, this would mean that any forgery would have to hove been made after that time, The paper the revelation was written on, however has the appearance of being very old, and it was given to the researchers own handwriting expert, William Kaye, for examination. Mr. Kaye is supposed to an expert in detecting forgeries. Also, it is interesting to note that a number of years before the researchers came up with their idea, Earl Olson wrote an article which stated that the handwriting in Section 56 had been written by an unknown hand. (Brigham Young University Studies, Summer 1971, page 332)
In their book Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? the researchers are almost totally silent concerning the 1831 revelation. Although they do not suggest it is a forgery in their book, they brush it aside in one paragraph of less than 100 words. We do not see how it is possible to skirt around this important issue in such a manner.
The researchers claim that the spelling in Spalding's Manuscript Story and in the 12 pages of the Book of Mormon manuscript proves that one author wrote both documents. In a tape entitled, "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?" Howard Davis said that they made a study of the way the unidentified scribe spelled words and then "tabulated all of the misspelled words in the known production of Solomon Spalding, The Manuscript Story, and they were identical." In another speech given July 10. 1977, Dr. Davis boldly asserted: "Even the spelling errors are the same in both productions. Any fool can see that after about two hours of study."
|
We certainly cannot agree with Dr. Davis on this matter. There may be a few cases where the same errors are made, but to say that "all of the misspelled words... were identical" is certainly an overstatement. For instance, Dean C. Jessee points out that the word were is spelled "ware" by the unidentified scribe in the Book of Mormon, whereas it is correctly spelled in Spalding's manuscript. Actually, we feel that an extremely strong case can be made against the claim that Solomon Spalding wrote the Book of Mormon pages by comparing misspellings in these pages with there found in the 1831 revelation. Below is a comparison of six words which are misspelled in both the 1831 revelation and the Book of Mormon pages written by the unidentified scribe.
1 -- Both make the error of leaving the final letter l off the word shall.
BOOK OF MORMON MANUSCRIPT: "... We shal obtain the land of promise and ye shal know... (Printed with spelling corrected as I Nephi 7:13)
1831 REVELATION MANUSCRIPT: " And his reward shal be with him & he shal reward everyone..." (Printed with spelling corrected as Doctrine and Covenants 56:19)
2 -- Both add an extra p in the word upon.
BOOK OF MORMON MANUSCRIPT: "...they did lay their hands uppon me..." (I Nephi 7=16)
1831 REVELATION MANUSCRIPT: "...the day of visitation & of wrath uppon the nations..." (Doctrine and Covenants 56:1)
3 -- Both omit the final f in the word off.
BOOK OF MORMON MANUSCRIPT: "... the bands
ware loosd from of my hands..." (I Nephi 7:18)
1831 REVELATION MANUSCRIPT: "...shal be cut of out of my church..." (Doctrine and Covenants 56:10)
4 -- Both spell the word many as menny.
BOOK OF MORMON MANUSCRIPT: "... and i saw menny that they did tumble to the earth,..." (I Nephi 12:4)
1831 REVELATION MANUSCRIPT: "... as menny as will go..." (Doctrine and Covenants 54:7)
5 -- Both spell concerning as conserning.
BOOK OF MORMON MANUSCRIPT: " .. he Spake unto me conserning the elders..." (I Nephi 4:22)
1831 REVELATION MANUSCRIPT: " ... which i have given him conserning the place..." (Doctrine and Covenants 56:8)
6 -- Both omit the letter a in heaven:
BOOK OF MORMON MANUSCRIPT: "... out of heven came & he came down..." (I Nephi 12:6)
|
| |
DID SPALDING WRITE THE BOOK OF
MORMON? |
24 |
A PHOTOGRAPH OF A REVELATION GIVEN BY JOSEPH SMITH ON JUNE 15, 1831 (PUBLISHED IN THE DOCTRINE AND
COVENANTS AS SECTION 56). SINCE THIS REVELATION APPEARS TO BE IN THE SAME HAND AS THE CONTESTED PAGES
OF THE BOOK OF MORMON, IT CASTS SERIOUS DOUBT ON THE CALIFORNIA RESEARCHERS THEORY.
|
| 25 |
DID SPALDING WRITE THE BOOK OF MORMON? |
|
1831 REVELATION MANUSCRIPT: "... though the heven & earth pass away..." (Doctrine and Covenants 56:11)
If the researchers could provide evidence like this in support of their theory we would be very impressed. Instead, they are on the defensive. For example, in the paragraph in which they mention the 1831 revelation we find this statement "... Spalding often spells 'dwel' without the final 'l' as 'dwel'. The twelve pages and the 1831 document spell 'shall' as 'shal', again dropping the final l." (Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon, p. 229)
We feel this is a very poor argument. The researchers seem to be unable to find any place where Spalding omits the last letter of the word "shall," and therefore they turn to the word "dwell." We have checked the Book of Mormon manuscript and found that in the section written by the unidentified scribe the word "dwell" appears only once (I Nephi 10:21) and it is spelled correctly. It appears, then, that in trying to produce evidence to support their argument the researchers have only succeeded in weakening it.
After obtaining photocopies of the 1831 revelation, we made a careful study of it and became even more convinced that our original statement concerning its importance was correct. We were surprised at the number of times the ampersand (&) was used in the revelation (the word "and" is only written out twice), but, as we indicated before, it is "identical to the one found occasionally in the Book of Mormon manuscript." The ampersand found in Spalding's manuscript is completely different from that found in either of these two documents,
Like the Book of Mormon manuscript, the 1831 revelation lacks capitalization on many of the names and proper nouns. The reader may remember that the Book of Mormon manuscript speaks of "the god of abraham and the god of isaac And the god of jacob" (see page 6 of this book). In the 1831 revelation (lines 13-15) we read: "...i revoke the commandment which was given unto my servant seely griffen & newal Knights in consequence of the stifneckedness of my people which are in thompson..."
The capital letters which do appear in the Book of Mormon manuscript and the 1831 revelation resemble each other, but they differ greatly from those found in Spalding's manuscript.
The reader will notice also, that in both the Book of Mormon manuscript and the 1831 revelation the word "I" is not capitalized in most cases. Spalding, on the other hand, used the capital "I" in his manuscript.
It is very interesting to note that the Book of Mormon manuscript and the 1831 revelation are written without punctuation, whereas Spalding's manuscript contains punctuation. The reader should especially note Spalding's use of dashes to separate thoughts.
Taken all together, the evidence provided by the 1831 revelation makes a devastating case against the idea that Solomon Spalding wrote 12 pages of the Book of Mormon manuscript.
John L. Smith, who has written a great deal against the Mormon Church, has examined the documents in the Mormon archives and has come out against the new theory:
".... a new effort has been made to associate the BOOK OF MORMON with the reputed work of one Solomon Spaulding...
"In my thinking their effort only adds more confusion to
|
the circumstantial evidence supporting this theory.... I visited the LDS Historical Department and was shown the documents in question. I must confess that I am convinced that the current claim that Spaulding was the writer of the contested twelve pages of the BOOK OF MORMON is in error. Even an amateur such as I could see that the specimen of Spaulding's handwriting and the twelve pages did not match." (The Utah Evangel, October-November 1977, p. 1)
In his new book The Mormon Papers, the non-Mormon writer Harry L. Ropp tells that the revelation and the Book of Mormon pages appear "remarkably similar":
"I have examined firsthand the pages of the manuscripts In question ... in Salt Lake City. ... Though I am not a specialist in handwriting analysis, even to the untrained eye the Book of Mormon manuscript and the 1831 Doctrine and Covenants manuscript are remarkably similar! If the manuscript of Doctrine and Covenants 56 was in fact written in 1831 (after Spaulding's death) and if it and the Book of Mormon manuscript are found to be in the same handwriting, then the new theory of Davis, Cowdrey and Scales could not be supported.
"Because this 1831 document has not yet been examined by the experts, we urge Christians to suspend judgment until all the evidence is in. Making claims that could later be proven false by the LDS Church could be very detrimental to Christian witnessing. On the other hand, if the 1831 document is not genuine or is shown to be in another hand, this new evidence would be a very powerful argument against the credibility of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's claim to be a prophet of God." (The Mormon Papers, 1977, Appendix D)
Edward E. Plowman, the man who wrote the article for Christianity Today which brought world-wide attention to the new Spalding theory, came back to Salt Lake City and was permitted to see the 1831 revelation. After his examination, Mr. Plowman told us that he believed the 1831 revelation was in the same hand as the 12 pages of Book of Mormon manuscript. In an attempt to counteract the favorable publicity that the researchers were receiving, Mr. Plowman wrote another article in which he stated:
"Three California researchers have suffered some setbacks ... analyst Henry Silver, 86, dropped out of the case without offering a final opinion....
"Silver is involved in another handwriting case involving the Mormon church. He is one of several analysts who have ruled that the so-coiled Mormon will of Howard E, Hughes was indeed written by Hughes.
"Several other experts disagree with Silver on the will. One of them is William Kaye, the second of the three analysts hired by Martin and the three researchers. Kaye studied handwriting samples of the minister-novelist -- Solomon Spalding... and the twelve Book of Mormon manuscript pages... Early last month he reported that the comparison he made 'shows unquestionably' that the written materials 'have all been executed by the same person.'
"Two weeks later, the third expert Howard C. Doulder, arrived at an opposite conclusion.... that Spalding 'is not the author' of the disputed Book of Mormon pages,...
"Meanwhile, Mormon archivists have assembled a large amount of evidence -- some of it impressive -- to rebut the
|
| |
DID SPALDING WRITE THE BOOK OF MORMON? |
26 |
A PHOTOGRAPH OF DEAN C. JESSEE'S HANDWRITING COMPARISON AS IT APPEARED IN THE CHURCH SECTION OF THE
DESERET NEWS, AUGUST 20, 1977. WE FEEL THAT THIS COMPARISON SHOWS THAT SPALDING DID NOT WRITE
12 PAGES OF THE BOOK OF MORMON.
|
| 27 |
DID SPALDING WRITE THE BOOK OF MORMON? |
|
Spalding theory. They scored a coup of sorts when they discovered that a manuscript page from another Mormon book, Doctrine and Covenants, is apparently in the same handwriting as that of the 'unidentified scribe' in the Book of Mormon manuscript, It is dated June, 1831 -- fifteen years after Spalding's death.... The average layman can readily note the striking dissimilarities between Spalding's specimens and the others....
"Among Mormonism's critics are Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ex-Mormons who now operate a Salt Lake City publishing firm that specializes in anti-Mormon research. Tanner made a fresh study of the Spalding theory after the researchers' claims were publicized, managed to accompany Kaye to the Mormon archives to examine manuscript pages and produced a book, Did Spalding write the Book of Mormon? The volume's answer: no. Adding insult to injury, it contains some of the same photocopy reproductions of handwriting samples as the Cowdrey-Davis-Scales book to make its point, and it came on the market earlier.
"Why do handwriting experts differ among themselves? And why do they sometimes reach conclusions that are contrary to what seems obvious to an ordinary person? Observers point out that 'experts' can be found on both sides in most important court cases involving handwriting analysis. Often it is a case of one analyst emphasizing similarities and the other pointing out dissimilarities.... everyone seems to agree that handwriting analysis is not an exact science." (Christianity Today, Oct. 21, 1977 pp. 38-39)
We thought that the mounting evidence against the new theory might cause the researchers to abandon their project. Instead, however, they have gone ahead with their book and have continued to assert that twelve pages of the Book of Mormon were actually written by Solomon Spalding:
"... to our knowledge no one has previously compiled the volume or weight of evidence that we have, and no one has previously produced this added proof: The Book of Mormon (or Manuscript Found) in Solomon Spalding's own hand- writing." (Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? page 27)
"Our thesis, on the basis of overwhelming evidence, has traveled from hypothesis to substantiated history. The Book of Mormon was not translated from golden plates through miraculous power but was the revised edition of Solomon Spalding's second novel, Manuscript Found...
"Much of this evidence has been available before, but to our knowledge it has never before been fully analyzed or integrated evidence which provides a clear look into the actual roots of Mormonism.
"However, during the past three years we have uncovered still more evidence that confirms our thesis. We have actually found part of Spalding's novel, in his own handwriting, paralleling The Book of Mormon word for word!" (Ibid., pages 147-148)
"... we have actually found twelve pages of the original Book of Mormon rendered in Solomon Spalding's own handwriting!" (Ibid., p.167)
Although the researchers maintain that they have "actually found twelve pages of the original Book of Mormon" in Spalding's own hand, they try very hard to convince the reader
|
that they have proven the Spalding theory even without the handwriting evidence: "Even if there were no evidence that the handwriting in The Book of Mormon was that of Spalding, our thesis would still be proved from the abundant amount of evidence presented in the first six chapters of this book and its appendixes." (Ibid., p. 230)
We feel that the researchers are subtly preparing the public so that credence will still be placed in their book even if the case for the handwriting completely fails. According to Edward Plowman, after the handwriting expert Howard Doulder came out in opposition to the theory, Donald Scales "pointed out that he and his colleagues had concluded that Spalding was 'the true author of the majority of the Book of Mormon fully two years before we had any handwriting evidence, and our case is neither made nor broken on the basis of the handwriting question.'" (Christianity Today, Oct. 21,1977, p.38)
David Merrill claims that "Davis tends to downplay the importance of the handwriting samples to the Spalding thesis. 'The handwriting experts are just the icing on the cake,' he said." (Sunstone, November-December, 1977, p. 29)
The researchers would have us believe that the handwriting is only the "icing on the cake," but we cannot help but remember that publicity which brought world-wide attention to their book was based on the handwriting issue. The Los Angeles Times for June 25, 1977, pointed out that the idea that Spalding wrote the Book of Mormon only "rested on circumstantial evidence" until the researchers made the claim that twelve pages of the Book of Mormon were actually penned by Spalding. If the handwriting case fails, we are left with only what we had before the researchers came on the scene -- i.e., "similarities of style, subject matter and testimonies of perhaps biased persons" (Ibid.)
It is very interesting to note that in a speech given July 10,1977, Dr. Walter Martin, the chief supporter of the California researchers, frankly admitted that the only way the researchers could prove their case was on the basis of the handwriting:
"Solomon Spalding was a Congregationalist minister who liked to write religious novels in Biblical language. We ready know he wrote one called 'Manuscript Story.'... He wrote another one called Manuscript Found.' That was the one that became the basis for the Book of Mormon. The Mormons deny this. The only way to prove it is to get hold of Solomon Spalding's handwriting and to contrast it with the Book of Mormon manuscripts. Howard Davis did that."
In a newspaper advertisement for a lecture to be given at Melodyland, we read that "FOR THE FIRST TIME ANYWHERE, DR. MARTIN WILL TELL THE INCREDIBLE STORY OF HOW THREE FOREMOST HANDWRITING EXPERTS AND TWO LAW FIRMS THIS PAST WEEK DEVELOPED INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT THE BOOK OF MORMON WAS COPIED."
The same advertisement says that this is "THE MOST IMPORTANT DISCOVERY IN 20th CENTURY CHURCH HISTORY."
Now that the handwriting case seems to be disintegrating, the researchers are trying desperately to save it by providing a great deal of circumstantial evidence. Most of this material comes from the writings of Howe, Deming, Shook, Patterson, Wyl and Dickinson. The book Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? is actually just a rehash of old material. A statement on the cover of the book says that it contains
|
| |
DID SPALDING WRITE THE BOOK OF MORMON? |
28 |
"A Startling New Discovery." If the handwriting analyses had checked out, this statement would certainly be true.
As it is, however, we are left with little more than a reorganization of material which was printed widely and
widely circulated during the 19th century.
More Old Testimony
On page 68 of her book, No Man Knows My History,
Fawn Brodie says that "Through the years the 'Spaulding theory' collected supporting affidavits as a ship does barnacles,
until it became so laden with evidence that the casual reader was overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of the
accumulation."
The California researchers have gathered a large number of these statements and arranged them in such a manner that
it will be very impressive to the uncritical reader. The researchers claim that "The weight of such testimony is too
much for the thin foundation of The Book of Mormon. Even if no portion of Spalding's second manuscript still existed
today, the objective student of history must acknowledge that Joseph Smith derived The Book of Mormon from Spalding's
second novel." (Who Really Wrote the Book Of Mormon?
p. 165)
We do not agree with this conclusion at all. The statements printed by Howe in Mormonism Unvailed in 1834
(see pages 8-14 of this book) remain the strongest evidence for the Spalding theory, but even these describe events
that had happened about twenty years before, Most of the affidavits and statements which the researchers add to this
collection are much further removed from the events they describe. For instance, one of the statements was written by
Abner Jackson. The researchers claim that "Rev. Jackson's statement is one of the most complete, lengthy, and
well-documented among the many similar affidavits concerning the Spalding/Rigdon thesis. On the strength of his testimony
alone, the probable truth of the thesis is truly astounding." (Ibid., p. 65)
An examination of this statement reveals that it was not written until "December 20, 1880," which is over sixty years
after the events described. For affidavits and statements which were written at least 50 to 70 years after the events
described see Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? pp. 69-73, 76, 78, 86,104,121,125,127,130,134,136,156,158
and 218.
The researchers rely heavily on statements made by Spalding's daughter, Mrs. M. S. McKinstry in the 1880's
(see pp. 51-55, 158-159). Besides being many years removed from the incidents she describes, it should be noticed that
Mrs. McKinstry was a very young girl at the time she heard her father read the manuscript. Fawn Brodie has already
pointed out this problem:
"When Spaulding's daughter was seventy-four years old, she was interviewed, and stated that she remembered vividly
hearing her father read his manuscript aloud, although she was only six years old at the time. 'Some of the names
that he mentioned while reading to these people I have never forgotten. They are as fresh to me as though I heard
them yesterday. They were 'Mormon,' 'Maroni,' Lamenite,' 'Nephi!' One is led to doubt the reliability of this memory,
however, by another statement in this interview: 'In that city {Pittsburgh} my father had an intimate friend named
Patterson, and I frequently visited Mr. Patterson's library with him, and heard my father talk about books with him.'
Patterson, it will be remembered, denied knowing Spaulding at all.
"Spaulding's daughter remembered seeing the manuscript
|
in her father's trunk after his death, and stated that she had handled it and seen the names she had heard read to
her at the age of six. She admitted, however, that she had not read it."
(No Man Knows My History, p. 451)
The California researchers try to show that Sidney Rigdon stole Spalding's manuscript from Patterson's Print Shop
in Pittsburgh and that Rigdon visited Joseph Smith in Palmyra, New York, before the Book of Mormon was printed. Fawn
Brodie gives this information about a possible connection between Smith and Rigdon:
"The tenuous chain of evidence accumulated to support the Spaulding-Rigdon theory breaks altogether when it tries to
prove that Rigdon met Joseph Smith before 1830. There are ambiguous references to a 'mysterious stranger' said to
have visited the Smiths between 1827 and 1830. But only two men ever claimed that this was actually Rigdon. Abel Chase
on May 2, 1879 (fifty-two years after the event) stated that in 1827 -- 'as near as I can recollect' -- when he was
a boy of twelve or thirteen, he saw a stranger at the Smith home who was said to be Rigdon. And Lorenzo Saunders
on January 28, 1885 (fifty-eight years after the event) stated that he had seen him in the spring of 1827 and again
in the summer of 1828. Yet Saunders himself admitted his recollection came only after thirty years of puzzling over
the matter and hunting for evidence. And it is highly probable that both men were actually remembering Rigdon's first
appearance in Palmyra in late 1830. No other of Joseph's neighbors ever made any effort to connect the Ohio preacher
with the Book of Mormon events. And an early historian of western New York, writing in 1851, said: 'It is believed
by all those best acquainted with the Smith family and most conversant with all the Gold Bible movements, that there
is no foundation for the statement that the original manuscript was written by a Mr. Spaulding of Ohio.'"
(No Man Knows My History, p. 453)
The researchers have produced other witnesses who claim that Rigdon visited Smith at Palmyra, but their statements
are far removed in time from the events they relate. For instance, Mrs. S. F. Anderick's affidavit is dated June
24, 1887. We would ask the researchers why the affidavits collected by Hurlbut in Palmyra in 1833 do not mention
Rigdon being with Joseph Smith before the Book of Mormon appeared? Since these early affidavits by Joseph Smith's
neighbors are silent regarding this, we can only conclude that they knew nothing about the matter. Any statements
given at a later date, therefore, carry very little weight.
On page 119 of Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? we find a very surprising assertion:
"1829 (June/July) Gap in Rigdon's o. i.
David Whitmer (founding Mormon)
testifies that Smith and Rigdon were
together."
As soon as we read this statement we became suspicious that the researchers had nothing to back it up. When an
inquiry was made, one of the researchers claimed that this statement had appeared in the book by mistake and that
it would be corrected in the next printing. David Whitmer had not actually said Rigdon was present, but in a
book by Preston Nibley, Whitmer had described a stranger and the description
|
| 29 |
DID SPALDING WRITE THE BOOK OF MORMON? |
|
seemed to fit Rigdon! This story is found in The Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, pp. 70-71:
"When I was returning to Fayette, with Joseph and Oliver, all of us riding in the wagon,... a very pleasant,
nice-looking old man suddenly appeared by the side of our wagon and saluted us with, 'Good morning, it is very warm,'
at the same time wiping his face or forehead with his hand. We returned the salutation, and, by a sign from Joseph,
I invited him to ride if he was going our way. But he said very pleasantly, 'No, I am going to Cumorah.'... as I
looked around inquiringly of Joseph, the old man instantly disappeared, so that I did not see him again.
"J. F. S. Did you notice his appearance?
"D. W. I should think I did. He was, I should think, about 5 feet 8 or 9 inches tall and heavy set, about such a man
as James Vancleave, here, but heavier; his face was as large, he was dressed in a suit of brown woolen clothes, his
hair and beard were white, like Brother Pratt's, but his beard was not so heavy. I also remember that he had on his
back a sort of knapsack with something in, shaped like a book. It was the messenger who had the plates, who had taken
them from Joseph just prior to our starting from Harmony."
Since Sidney Rigdon was only 36 years old at the time, we do not think that he could be described as an "old man." At
any rate, David Whitmer (one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon) would never have testified that Smith and
Rigdon were together in 1829. In his booklet, An Address To All Believers in Christ, p, II, David Whitmer
plainly stated:
"Neither Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris or myself ever met Sydney Rigdon until after the Book of
Mormon was in print. I know this of my own personal knowledge being with Joseph Smith, in Seneca County, N. Y.,
in the winter of 1830, when Sydney Rigdon and Edward Partridge came from Kirtland, Ohio, to see Joseph Smith, and
where Rigdon and Partridge saw Joseph Smith for the first time in their lives.
"The Spaulding manuscript story is a myth; there being no direct testimony on record in regard to Rigdon's connection
with the manuscript of Solomon Spaulding."
If the researchers had been able to back up their assertion that David Whitmer testified Smith and Rigdon were together
in 1829, we would have been very impressed. As it is, however, we are only left with statements which were made by
other people many years after the events described. We do not think that this testimony is of any real value.
The reader will remember that A. B. Deming once boasted that he had "taken statements from fifteen persons" who I
claimed Hurlbut had Spalding's "Manuscript Found" -- i.e., the manuscript that was supposed to resemble the Book of
Mormon. The California researchers claim, however, that "Further evidence has convinced us that, in reality, Hurlbut
never received the copy of the manuscript {i. e., the "Manuscript Found"} from the trunk in Harwick,...
(Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? p. 55)
We feel that the researchers are right about this matter, but, then, how do they explain the fact that "fifteen
persons" made statements that Hurlbut had the manuscript. They would have to admit that these people had a faulty
memory concerning the matter. We think that this is correct, and that this also explains the other affidavits and
statements which the researchers
|
put so much stock in. It is interesting to note that the statements claiming that Hurlbut had the "Manuscript Found"
are about twenty years closer to the event than some of the statements which the researchers rely on.
On page 155 of their book, the researchers claim that there is an affidavit which shows that Spalding wrote a second
manuscript and that this affidavit was published by Howe in 1834:
"One affidavit which clearly shows that Spalding abandoned his first attempt and began his second novel, Manuscript
Found, reads as follows: '... 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'."
The reference given is to page 288 of Mormonism Unvailed. A photograph of this is found on page 13 of this book.
The reader will note that this is not an affidavit -- i. e., a sworn statement -- but only a statement by the
author of the book. This is made clear when we include the first part of the sentence: "This old M. S. has been shown
to several of the foregoing witnesses, who recognize it as Spalding's, he having told them that he had altered his
first plan of writing, by going farther back with dates, and writing in the old scripture style, in order that it
might appear more ancient."
After quoting this statement from Howe's book, Fawn Brodie remarked: "This surmise may have been true, though
there was no signed statement swearing to it. But it seems more likely that these witnesses had so come to
identify the Book of Mormon with the Spaulding manuscript that they could not concede having made an error without
admitting to a case of memory substitution which they did not themselves recognize."
(No Man Knows My History, pp. 447-448)
Actually, even the eight statements about Spalding which appear in Mormonism Unvailed are probably not
affidavits. Both Mormon and anti-Mormon writers have referred to these statements as affidavits, and we are guilty
of the same mistake. An examination of them, however, shows that they do not purport to be sworn statements. Some of
them are undated, and the others only mention the month and year they were given (see pages 8-13 of this book). The
fact that many affidavits concerning Joseph Smith's money-digging activities appeared in Mormonism Unvailed
seems to have led scholars to the erroneous conclusion that the Spalding statements are also affidavits.
Other Problems
Almost all writers who have espoused the Spalding theory claim that there were two manuscripts that Spalding wrote
concerning the ancient inhabitants of America -- i.e., "Manuscript Story" and "Manuscript Found." The California
researchers feel that there were three manuscripts -- one copy of Manuscript Story" and two copies "Manuscript Found."
The reason that they are forced to this conclusion is that some of the witnesses they use claim they saw "Manuscript
Found" after Rigdon was supposed to have stolen it from the printing office. Some anti-Mormon writers free themselves
from this snare by claiming that Rigdon did not actually steal the manuscript, but only made a copy. The California
researchers, however, cannot escape the dilemma in this manner because they claim that pages of Spalding's manuscript
which are in his own handwriting showed up in the Mormon Church archives. Their theory makes it absolutely essential
that Rigdon stole the actual pages of the manuscript. To get around this they propose
|
| |
DID SPALDING WRITE THE BOOK OF MORMON? |
30 |
that there was a "second copy" of "Manuscript Found." Although the researchers put a great deal of stock in statements
reported to have been made by Spalding's widow and his daughter, they claim that these two women "were mistaken in
thinking that the manuscript was returned by Mr. Patterson. Spalding had a second copy in his own possession in
addition to the copy lost at the print shop in Pittsburgh. It was this second copy that Mrs. Davison and
Mrs. McKinstry were familiar with." (Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? p. 56)
We have a difficult time accepting that here was more than one manuscript, but the researchers find no problem in
increasing the number to three. They believe that one was stolen by Rigdon. The second one was lost sometime "before
Hurlbut's trip in 1834,.." (Ibid., p. 55) The third manuscript was given to Hurlbut and is the manuscript we
reproduce as Part 2 of this book. We feel that it is much more reasonable to believe there was only one manuscript.
Solomon Spalding may have written manuscripts on other subjects -- his daughter claimed he wrote one entitled "The
Frogs of Wyndham'." -- but since the manuscript we published purports to be a translation of "twenty eight sheets of
parchment" found near Conneaut, Ohio, we conclude that it is the long lost "Manuscript Found."
Van Hale, a scholar who has done a great deal of research on the teachings of Joseph Smith, pointed out a very serious
problem in the researchers' use of a statement made by Redick McKee in 1886. Although indicating it with ellipses marks,
the researchers have omitted a portion of McKee's statement that is very damaging to their argument that Rigdon actually
stole and retained Spalding's manuscript. In Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? p. 83, we find McKee quoted
as follows:
"Mr. Spaulding told me that while at Pittsburg he frequently met a young man named Sidney Rigdon at Mr. Patterson's
bookstore and printing-office, and concluded that he was at least an occasional employee. He was said to be a good
English and Latin scholar and was studying Hebrew and Greek with a view to a professorship in some college. He had
read parts of the manuscript and expressed the opinion that it would sell readily. While the question of printing
was in abeyance Mr. S. wrote to Mr. P. that if the document was not already in the hands of the printer he wished it
to be sent out to him in order that he might amend it by the addition of a chapter on the discovery of valuable relics
in a mound recently opened near Conneaut. In reply Mr. P. wrote him that the manuscript could not then be found, but
that further search would be made for it. This excited Mr. Spaulding's suspicions that Rigdon had taken it home...."
An examination of photographs of the original document, located in the Chicago Historical Society, reveals that
immediately following the statement that Spalding was suspicious "that Rigdon had taken it home," Mr. McKee plainly
says the manuscript was later discovered and sent to Spalding:
In a week or two it was found in the place where it had originally been deposited, and sent out to him. The
circumstances of this finding increased Mr. S's suspicions that Rigdon had taken the manuscript and made a copy
of it with a view to ultimately publishing the story as the product of his own brain."
(Letter of Redick McKee to A. B. Deming, dated
Jan. 25, 1886)
|
If the researchers had included McKee's statement that the manuscript was later "found" and "sent out" to Spalding,
it would have tended to weaken their theory that Rigdon actually gave Joseph Smith Spalding's original manuscript
and that part of it later turned up in the Historical Department of the Mormon Church. In any case, Mr. McKee's
statement is probably not too reliable anyway. It was written over seventy years after the events it describes. A
statement which McKee wrote in 1869 -- seventeen years before the 1886 statement -- mentions nothing about Spalding
being acquainted with Rigdon in Pittsburg; in fact, it doesn't even mention Rigdon. This statement is reproduced on
pages 76-78 of Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?
After we first published Did Spalding Write the Book of Mormon? in July, 1977, we hoped the researchers would
respond to some of the criticism we put forward. Instead, there has been complete silence. The researchers were
probably referring to us when they wrote: "There are other amateurs who have tried their hands at identifying this
handwriting who ore no better qualified than Jessee. Both Jessee and these other self-styled experts are not experts
at all, and their opinions are just that -- opinions. They are worth nothing in a court of law." (Who Really Wrote
the Book of Mormon? p. 229)
The absence of any reference to Did Spalding Write the Book of Mormon? is especially interesting in light of
the fact that five of the six footnotes used in Chapter 2 of Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? are to our
book Mormonism -- Shadow or Reality? The quotations which the researchers use deal with matters which they
agree with and are, of course, in no way related to the Spalding theory. While we are happy that they used this
material, we feel that they should have at least referred to the criticism of their work which we published in
Did Spalding Write the Book of Mormon? Sending a picture of a jackass does not solve the problems.
One serious problem that the researchers completely ignore is that mentioned on page 7 of this book: "...Wesley P.
Walters... pointed out a very important item. The handwriting just before and just after the 'unknown' hand has
been identified as that of Joseph Smith's scribes, and since Spalding died in 1816, it is rather difficult to believe
that his handwriting would appear in the middle."
On page 7 of this book, we offer the following criticism of the researcher's theory: "Another serious problem
confronting those who believe that Spalding actually wrote 12 pages of the manuscript of the Book of Mormon is
that it would make him responsible for all the words that appear on these pages. Since the style is completely different
than that found in Spalding's extant manuscript (see Part 2 of this book), we are inclined to feel that he could not
be the author."
Dean Jessee has also commented concerning this matter. The researchers admit the style is different but claim that
Spalding deliberately changed his style:
"13. Although Jessee is right in stating that the style in Manuscript Story is different from that in The Book
of Mormon, he does not mention, as we have, that the witnesses (not removed from the scene by 147 years, as
Jessee is) declared that Spalding altered his first plan (Manuscript Story), and changed his style (Manuscript
Found)." (Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? p. 230)
|
| 31 |
DID SPALDING WRITE THE BOOK OF MORMON? |
|
We find it hard to believe that Spalding could have altered his style to such an extent.
Another criticism which we offer on page 7 of our book has to do with the religious material in the Book of Mormon:
"The 12 pages of the Book of Mormon in the "unknown" hand present a serious problem for those who accept the affidavits
of Solomon Spalding's brother and some of his friends. Most of these affidavits claim that Spalding's work did NOT
contain the religious material found in the Book of Mormon."
The researchers try to explain this problem away on page 288 of their book:
"10. The eight witnesses' declaration the Manuscript Found was The Book of Mormon 'except for the religious matter'
does not preclude numerous references to religion in Manuscript Found, since some changes in religious matters were
undoubtedly made to Spalding's manuscript after it was taken from Patterson's print Shop."
We do not feel that this is an adequate answer to such a serious weakness in their thesis. As we pointed out before,
the twelve pages of the Book of Mormon manuscript which the researchers claim are in Spalding's hand are just filled
with religious material such as Lehi's dream of the Tree of Life (see I Nephi 4:20 to I Nephi 12:8). In the past,
advocates of the Spalding theory said that the religious material was added by Rigdon or Smith. The California
researchers, however, cannot legitimately make such a claim because the pages' which they attribute to the hand of
Solomon Spalding are filled with religious material. The researchers seem to be oblivious to the fact that in stating
the religious material might have been added after the manuscript was stolen they are undermining their entire theory
on the handwriting.
In Appendix 8 of their book, the researchers list a number of parallels "between The Book of Mormon and Manuscript
Story," and on page 254 they state: "in this brief appendix we have listed only a few of the parallels we found, but
a forthcoming book will fully detail the similarities."
There are, of course, some interesting parallels between "Manuscript Story" and the Book of Mormon.
In 1958, James D. Bales listed 75 parallels between
the two manuscripts (see The Book of Mormon? pp. 142-146).
A. Dean Wengree[n] informs us that "There is in 'special collections' at Brigham Young University
Library a paper written by M. D. Bown... the paper
contains a presentation of 100 similarities between the 'Manuscript Story' and the Book of Mormon."
("An Analysis Of 'One Hundred Similarities Between The Book of Mormon And The Spaulding Manuscript',"
unpublished paper by A. Dean Wengreen, p. 1)
Mr. Wengreen lists the 100 parallels, gives a brief criticism and then concludes that "As one reads the two books,
the great differences become very apparent. They just don't convey the same message or reflect the same tone or
atmosphere. I felt this -- in spite of the many apparent parallels between the two works... a non-Mormon, or someone
not too familiar with the Book of Mormon itself, may be lead [sic] to believe that the parallels indicate a
close association, or that one was influenced by the other, but it seems impossible to me that one at all familiar
with the Book of Mormon could take that point of view." (Ibid., pp. 10-11)
We tend to agree with Mr. Wengreen, and believe the parallels between View of the Hebrews (published in 1825)
and the Book of Mormon are more significant. In Mormonism --
|
Shadow or Reality? pp. 82-84 we show that even the Mormon historian B. H. Roberts was concerned about the
similarities and prepared a list of 18 parallels between the two books, Recently same new evidence concerning
B. H. Roberts' interest in View of the Hebrews has came to light, It has been discovered that Roberts wrote
a manuscript of 291 pages entitled, "A Book of Mormon Study." In this manuscript 176 pages were devoted to the
relationship of View of the Hebrews to Book of Mormon. The manuscript was never published and remained in
the family after his death. Only a few scholars have been allowed access to it. Michael Marquardt was given the
privilege of reading the manuscript and has told us of its contents. In this manuscript Roberts conceded that a man
with Joseph Smith's imagination could have used View of the Hebrews to produce the Book of Mormon.
While we believe View of the Hebrews may have had an influence on Joseph Smith, we are convinced that there
is another book which played a far more important role -- i. e., the King James Version of the Bible
(see Mormonism -- Shadow or Reality? pp. 72-81)
In a letter dated May 27, 1978, we received the following criticism: "I am greatly concerned about your rejection of
Solomon Spaulding as being the true source for the Book of Mormon.... it is Satan that has divided you and the three
California researchers.... Satan is letting this disputed 12 pages by the unidentified scribe be the deciding factor
in whether or not Spaulding is the true author of the Book of Mormon. This should not be the case because regardless
of whether or not it is Spaulding's writing, there are lust too many evidences elsewhere which already prove Spaulding
to be the true author.
"In your book... you quote from two sources which state that there is no similarity or resemblance in names or
persons between Manuscript Story and Book of Merman. I have found this to be incorrect. Please look over the
following names very carefully: M. S. p. 110 HELICON -- HELAMAN in B. M.; M. S. p. 111 SAMBAL -- SAM in B. M.; M. S.
p. 105 COMO -- COM in B. M.; M. S. p. 111 LAMESA -- LEMUEL in B. M.; M. S. p. 108 HEMOCKS -- HEM in B. M.; M. S.
p. 93 HAMELICH -- AMALICKIAH in B. M.; M. S. p. 92 LABANKO -- LABAN in B. M,; M. S. p. 39 HADORAM --
HELORUM in B. M.; M. S. p. 67 LIMNER -- LIMHER in B. M.; M. S. p. 71 RAMBOCK -- RAMAH in B. M.; M. S. p. 91
RAMOFF -- RAMATH in B. M.; M. S. p. 95 HAMBOON -- HAMATH in B. M.; M. S. p. 100 LAMOCK - LAMAH in B. M.; M. S. p. 100
MOONROD -- NIMROD in B. M.;
"Now those similarities are going to have to be explained if Spaulding is not the true author of the historical
portion of the Book of Mormon...."
Although some of the names listed above are somewhat similar, we do not find any that are spelled exactly the same.
When we turn to the Bible, however, we find exact equivalents for six of the names: LEMUEL (Proverbs 31:1),
LABAN (Genesis 24:29), RAMAH (Joshua 18:25), RAMATH (Joshua 19:8), HAMATH (Numbers 13:21),
NIMROD (Genesis 10:8). It would appear, then, that it is far more likely that Joseph Smith borrowed his names
from the Bible than from Manuscript Story.
On pages 190-199 of their book, Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon, the California researchers use Dee Jay
Nelson and Wesley P. Walters as witnesses against the truthfulness of Mormonism. It is interesting to note, however,
that
|
| |
DID SPALDING WRITE THE BOOK OF MORMON? |
32 |
both these scholars reject the idea that Spalding actually penned 12 pages of the book of Mormon manuscript. In fact,
Wesley P. Walters, one of the mast noted researchers on Mormonism, has come out with a very critical review of
Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? He has provided us with a copy (a version of which is published in
Contemporary Christianity, Winter 1977-78) from which we extract the following:
"This work brings together a great deal of painstaking research, collecting evidence from hard-to-find books
and old newspapers to build a circumstantial case far the 140 year old theory that the Book of Mormon is traceable
to a now-missing manuscript written by a Congregational minister named Solomon Spalding.... The case is built
entirely upon circumstantial evidence from testimonies of persons who had knowledge of events at various stages
in the proposed chain linking Spalding to Rigdon to Smith. In general, the later the testimony, the more detailed
and specific it becomes in affirming these connections, the witnesses' memory apparently improving with age.
"A new feature in the research team's presentation of the theory is that there were two lost manuscripts
of Spalding's novel instead of one. According to the older theory it was thought that Rigdon had simply copied
the manuscript left by Spalding at the printer's and that it had subsequently been returned to the Spalding
household where his wife and daughter reported seeing it in the family trunk after his death in 1816. On the basis
of a very late testimony... the authors of this book maintain that there was a second copy of Spalding's work, one
which had been prepared for the printer and which, according to Miller, needed only a title page and a possible preface
to ready it for publication. They further maintain that Rigdon actually stole this copy from the printer's
office and gave it to Joseph Smith...
"This theory seems apparently confirmed with the sensational discovery by the researchers that twelve pages of the
Book of Mormon manuscript appear to be in the handwriting of Spalding himself.... When looked at carefully, however,
this discovery raises so many knotty problems and conflicts in regard to the theoretical reconstruction in the first
part of I their book, that it actually tends to discredit it.
"In the first place the handwriting experts themselves are now divided on the matter of whether it is really Spalding's
handwriting. Of the three experts employed, Howard Doulder has reversed his preliminary judgment after careful
examination of the original documents; Mr. Henry Silver has withdrawn from the case without rendering a final opinion;
and only Dr. William Kaye has issued a final report affirming the handwriting as that of Spalding. While the
handwriting appears quite similar to Spalding's there seem to be some obvious differences to anyone who looks at it
carefully. Furthermore, the manuscript of one of Joseph's revelations is in the handwriting of a scribe whose writing,
to the layman's eye, looks more like the Book of Mormon portion attributed to Spalding than the undisputed samples
of Spalding's handwriting itself. This shows that someone whose handwriting was very much like Spalding's was one of
Joseph's scribes in the 1830 period...
"According to the older Spalding theory, based on the extant testimony, while Spalding's novel may have had same
religious content, it is Rigdon who is credited with adding most of the religious material. If one looks at the
content of the alleged Spalding portion [of the Book of Mormon], however,
|
he notices that nearly the entire material is religious in nature. It speaks of there being a 'church' at Jerusalem
about 600 B. C., writes approving of being a 'visionary man', portrays New Testament Christianity as being well known
in the Old Testament period, and even depicts Christianity as being established in America before the arrival of
Europeans. These are some of the main features of early Mormonism, and if regarded as Spalding's work it would make
Spalding rather than Smith or Rigdon the originator of the religious aspects of Mormonism. This is not the impression
one gets from reading the early descriptions by witnesses who claimed to have heard Spalding's alleged manuscript
read.
"More significant yet is a major problem the authors fail to mention in their book. If the book of Merman manuscript
does contain the actual handwriting of Spalding, then the facts preclude identifying that manuscript with the printer's
copy stolen by Rigdon. This is evident from the fact that the twelve manuscript pages attributed to Spalding are part
of twenty pages on identical paper stock. The four pages that precede the 'Spalding' block of material and the four
that follow are in the known handwriting of identified scribes of Joseph Smith, Jr. This would mean that at least eight
pages without text were sent to the printer by Spalding along with his manuscript. What is even more
inexplicable is that two of the four pages immediately before the twelve 'Spalding' pages have page-titles,
summarizing the page's content, in the same apparent Spalding hand, while the content of the pages themselves is
written in the known handwriting of those serving as Joseph's scribes in 1829. Why would Spalding send a printer
blank pages with page-titles at the top of two of these, followed by twelve pages of manuscript, the first page of
which starts in the middle of a sentence (viz., 'and i commanded him in the voice of Laban...' = I Ne. 4:20c)? This
makes no sense at all and can hardly be regarded as a printer's copy. Moreover, Joseph Smith must be regarded as
having composed and dictated the material on the blank pages sent by Spalding, and as having done this in the same
vocabulary and style as the 'Spalding' portion. Furthermore he succeeded in filling these blank pages with no
indication of either crowding or coming up short and even connected smoothly into the incomplete sentence of Spalding
without a hint of discontinuity. Anyone that clever could just as easily have composed the entire content himself.
In any event, the fragmentary nature of the alleged Spalding material makes it impossible to connect this with any
printer's copy that might have been stolen by Rigdon.
"There is one final consideration that is really fatal to the identification of the twelve pages of the Book of
Mormon manuscript as being the actual writings of Spalding himself. When Joseph was producing the Book of Mormon he
met with a very disastrous event. Mrs. Harris, the wife of his financial backer, managed to get hold of 116 pages of
the opening portion of the Book of Mormon manuscript and never returned them to Joseph Smith. Had Joseph been
dictating from a manuscript provided for him by Rigdon, it should have been easy for him simply to have read off the
same portion again. Likewise, even if he had read his translation from the words God had caused to appear on his Seer
Stone (as the early Book of Mormon witnesses described his translating process), it should also have been no problem
far God to restore the lost pages in identical words However, it seems more likely that Joseph had simply dictated his
material as it came to his mind. This meant that he could not reproduce word-for-word what
|
| 33 |
DID SPALDING WRITE THE BOOK OF MORMON? |
|
he had already dictated on those missing 116 pages. The way out of this embarrassing predicament was given in a
'revelation' in which he was informed that there was a second set at plates and that the Lord knew that those who
had taken the 116 pages had altered the words so that, even if Joseph had been able to give the identical wording,
they now would not agree with his original copy (it is not explained how such changes could be made on a pen and ink
page of that period without being detected). Therefore, the Lord instructed him to take the second set of plates that
had been provided for just that situation and translate the material covering the same period from them. References
to that second set of plates appear, therefore, in the part of the book of Mormon which replaced the purloined
manuscript, explaining that it was for 'a wise purpose' that this second set was being made, One of the passages
mentioning this second set of plates that rescues Smith from his problem occurs right in the middle of the section
said to be in the handwriting of Spalding (=I Ne. 9).This makes sense if Smith dictated it, but there is no explanation
why Spalding should introduce a second set of plates into his story where it serves no purpose.
"The writers have failed to explain how these facts correlate with the theory they present in the first part of their
book. How can the preoccupation with religious topics in these twelve pages be explained when Spalding's novel was
said by the earliest witnesses to have had little religious content? How can twelve manuscript pages preceded by blank
|
pages with only page-titles over two of them be considered a part of a completed printer's copy?... Why should
Spalding introduce, with no apparent need for it in the plot, a second set of plates, just where Joseph would need
so badly a second set of plates to avoid being discredited by his inability to reproduce the identical wards of the
missing 116 pages? Until the researchers can provide same reasonable and satisfying correlations, backed by some
kind of dependable evidence, their book will continue to make interesting reading but their proof must be regarded
as highly questionable."
We feel that Wesley Walters' arguments against the new Spalding theory are irrefutable, and we cannot understand how
the California researchers can continue to cling to their idea in the face of Walters' criticism and the evidence we
present in this book. Although we have received some sharp criticism because of our stand on the Spalding matter, we
feel that it is based an very strong evidence and that it would be dishonest far us to compromise our position just to
discredit the Mormons. We firmly believe that all work against Mormonism should be based an reliable evidence which will
meet the test of time. In the end, anything less than this only tends to strengthen the Mormon position and makes it more
difficult to deal with Church members. Bringing out the truth should be our objective. Jesus himself said: "And ye shall
know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:22)
|
|
BOOK OF MORMON
SPALDING
BOOK OF MORMON
SPALDING
