DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY

[_avanick]

Marg,
As I suggested in my reply, you may need to more thoroughly read what is said in our book, especially in the endnotes at the end of each chapter. Also, we didn't base our opiniion of Briggs just one that one statement about Garfield, but also upon what he said about he and the committe reading Manuscript Found and other things. Obviously we aren't trying to claim he was some lunatic, but he was at the very least mistaken about Garfield, as he was also, in our opinion, wrong about Manuscript Found. Someone else in that committe was a General Payne, whom Kennedy quoted in his 1888 book, "Early Days of Mormonism". Payne never mentioned that meeting wherein Briggs apparently read from Manuscript Found. Why is it that he never made any mention of it, nor any of the rest of that committee?

Art

Read Chapter Two's endnote #35 for our comment on Briggs' credibility and the fact that he seems to have been a bit daft late in his life, which is when he made the statements in question. Anyone who thought Garfield was still alive three years after his assassination can't have been entirely all there.

I've briefly read your post Art, today I don't want to spend much time on this board but I just want to comment on one point you raise. Have you asked any neurologists what they think about someone's memory later in life? I don't think you can conclude Briggs was daft, because he forgot Garfield was still alive having died 3 years previous. My mom who is about 80 years old, had a marvelous memory most of her life. She could rattle off long poems she had heard from her childhood only once or twice. Any trivial pursuit game she'd win hands down. In the last 10 years her short term memory has become extremely poor. She will forget within a few minutes something told her..and will keep forgetting even though reminded. And anything within the last 10 years is suspect whether she will remember or not. But her long term memory is in tact. She still can rattle off poems from childhood. And other indications reveal that her long term memory is still excellent.

So it's not inconceivable, I don't think even all that unusual that Brigg's long term memory may have been intact while his short term memory may have been failing him. The brain is a complex organ and how it works should be taken into account before you consider the possibility of someone being daft.

by the way, let's look at your statement. You've been studying this issue very thoroughly, yet you said the following:

"As to Dowen ,who knows? He seems credible otherwise, but on this matter, he seems misinformed. One thing he did say later was that he wouldn't have been surprised if Howe had possessed Manuscript Found and sold it to the Mormons. This does not say Howe had it, but only shows that Dowen didn't trust Howe very much."

Am I daft or are you, wasn't it Hurlbut not Howe who was suspected of perhaps giving the Mormons the Manuscript Found? I realize it's not the same sort of memory error displayed by Briggs but one should be careful about drawing conclusions regarding memory mistakes and lapses, unless one has a good appreciation of how the brain operates.

[_marg]

Also, we didn't base our opiniion of Briggs just one that one statement about Garfield, but also upon what he said about he and the committe reading Manuscript Found and other things. [/b]

Art,

There was a committee that's not in dispute, so what do statements from other committee members say, as far as an agreed to resolution and conclusion of their meetings?

[_Uncle Dale]

The compact version of the same words in Spalding's statement would tend to point to Oliver Smith's being
the first. However, one should be skeptical of the credibility of Smith's 24-year-old memory of two specific
names being linked in the same story. As a missionary, I might recount the storyline of the Book of Mormon to prospective
converts, or even show them a slide presentation on the Book of Mormon, but could any of them remember the unusual
names a week later? None that I can recall. How about 24 years later? Not a chance. And so many people?
The best explanation of the phenomenon I think is false memory syndrome. Apparently, none could remember
names in areas of the Book of Mormon that they had not read.

You seem to dwell upon the quality and quantity of unique Book of Mormon names appearing in the Conneaut witnesses'
statements as your primary reason for rejecting them, Dan. Over and over you point to the probability that Mr.
D. P. Hurlbut implanted all of those false memories into the minds of these people. If that is your conclusion, then I
suppose there is absolutely no profit in anybody attempting to reason with you on the matter.

Had the witnesses not recalled any unique names from Spalding's periodic story readings and manuscript exhibitions
of twenty years past -- then I suppose you would today be dismissing their evidence, based upon the fact that they
could recall none of the innumerably repeated names in the Mormon book.

You complain that the witness statements are too much alike -- but if they were much different, then I suppose you
would be upset that they did not better agree upon all the recollected details. There is a practically finite number of ways
for anybody to summarize the storyline of the Book of Mormon, and I would expect any group of people in the world who attempted
to describe that story in sparse language would come out sounding much like one another --- and especially so if it was
a topic that those same people had been discussing among themselves for weeks or months, before you asked for their
sundry descriptions.

Dan, you seem to think that Hurlbut originated most of the Spalding authorship claims, and that he implanted those
memories into several different persons' minds -- but that he and they were also so stupid as to never realize that the
Book of Mormon does not tell the story of some of the lost tribesman of ancient Israel traveling to the Americas via the Bering Strait.
If Hurlbut were reading out of his personal copy of the Book of Mormon, and controling the witnesses' testimony in ways overt,
covert, or merely implicit, then why on earth do several of the early accounts make such a huge blunder on the storyline?

You say that they could not have derived these lost tribes memories from the Book of Lehi, because you know what
was in that lost story -- down to how many times it voiced the words "I, Nephi." So, it seems that your primary argument
here is that the witnesses (for whatever reason) told massive falsehoods and then were so bad a lot as to never revise
their Mormon-damning errors. So -- based upon your seeming unique knowledge of what was and what was not in a
lost narrative, you are able to advise all of the rest of us who find true assertions in those Conneaut witness statements,
that we are getting off on the wrong foot at the very beginning of our investigation.

Of course we cannot refute you, because we do not have your special access to the text of the so-called 116 lost pages.

Nor can we refute you, when you say that all subsequent testimony has been contaminated by those same falsehoods
of 1833. At least I do not know how to even begin to make reference to that material, if you have concluded in advance
that it merely duplicates the false claims of 1833. If we cannot refer to the original 1833 testimony for relevant
information, and if we cannot refer to any subsequent witness reports -- then all I see left for us to study are the extant
texts themselves. That is precisely where I found myself in 1979, when RLDS officials said the same things you are
now saying, and in frustration I decided to conduct my textual investigation in earnest.

But now you also dismiss the textual resemblance between Spalding's extant writings and the Mormon book, as not
even being sufficient to have been typical of the Conneaut witnesses' retained memories, (before tainted by Hurlbut's
implanting of false recollections). Since you say that the Oberlin narrative does not resemble the Book of Mormon
any better than the adventures of Natty Bumpo, then it seems those sorts of thematic and phraseology parallels are
so minor as to have never played any part in the Conneaut witnesses' assertions prior to Hurlbut's arrival on the scene.

So -- according to you -- even the textual resemblance evidence myself and others have compiled must be dismissed.
Pray tell, what will you allow us to discuss, other than the self-serving propaganda of a false "one true church?"

Can we salvage anything from the 1833 statements?

Do you believe a single word in any of them? And if so, would you be so kind as to tell us how to separate the wheat
from the chaff in this matter, in order to know which parts of those eight documents can be relied upon as telling the
truth? Or, failing that, then at least the probable truth, based upon your standards as an expert on Mormon origins?

If you cannot give us even that much to discuss, then you have limited the playing field, so that you are the only
one left standing with any allowable ground under him, on which to base the future content of this thread.

Do you understand the implications of what I am saying?

UD

[_avanick]

Marg,
I don't have the findings handy, but I believe that they were not in agreement with Briggs' statement. Also, with regard to your question about Howe vs Hurlbut, Dowen was talking about Howe. His exact words were: "Hurlbut let E.D. Howe, of Painesville, have his manuscript to publish. I should not be
surprised if Howe sold Spaulding's 'Manuscript Found' to the Mormons."
(Dowen to Deming, Jan. 20, 1885)

That's all I can do for now, as I'm in the middle of a big sound system installation and have to tend to it. Check our source material, and if the print version of our book doesn't have what you want, see if you can get a copy of our CD version, as it has much more of our resource material in it.

Art

Also, we didn't base our opiniion of Briggs just one that one statement about Garfield, but also upon what he said about he and the committe reading Manuscript Found and other things. [/b]

Art,

There was a committee that's not in dispute, so what do statements from other committee members say, as far as an agreed to resolution and conclusion of their meetings?

[Bedlamite]

There was a committee that's not in dispute, so what do statements from other committee members say,
as far as an agreed to resolution and conclusion of their meetings?

For years I tried to get somebody interested in researching this matter --

<contents moved to the other Spalding-Rigdon thread, so as not to intefere with Dan's ongoing rebuttal>

UD

[_marg]

Also, with regard to your question about Howe vs Hurlbut, Dowen was talking about Howe. His exact words were: "Hurlbut let E.D. Howe, of Painesville, have his manuscript to publish. I should not be
surprised if Howe sold Spaulding's 'Manuscript Found' to the Mormons."
(Dowen to Deming, Jan. 20, 1885)

You are right, I checked but that doesn't make sense to assume Howe as a likely possibility of selling to the Mormons, because Howe knew Hurlbut could easily expose him. And Howe doesn't seem to be a dishonest character.

Check our source material, and if the print version of our book doesn't have what you want, see if you can get a copy of our CD version, as it has much more of our resource material in it.

Many times I've been frustrated looking for something I had read in your book. So where does one now get a copy of the CD version? I'll check ebay.

Art

Also, we didn't base our opiniion of Briggs just one that one statement about Garfield, but also upon what he said about he and the committe reading Manuscript Found and other things. [/b]

Art,

There was a committee that's not in dispute, so what do statements from other committee members say, as far as an agreed to resolution and conclusion of their meetings?

[/quote]

[_Dan Vogel]

Dale,

4. He traced their journey from Jerusalem to America, as it is given in the Book of Mormon, excepting the religious matter. -- Having the lost tribes coming out of Jerusalem makes no senses. So it is likely an indication that Wright's memory is tainted by what he knows about the Book of Mormon.

Totally wrong -- as any first semester seminarian at even the most "hick" of the hick Bible colleges will tell you.

The Assyrians left a sizeable remnant of the northern tribes in Israel after they had deported the elite of Ephraim.
The biblical books of Kings and Chronicles detail how King Josiah conducted monotheistic reforms in the occupied
land -- obviously with Assyrian consent.

Josiah also taxed or "billed" the remaining Israelite leaders in the north -- none of which must have set very well the
the people there. He also celebrated a Great Passover for all the monotheists to attend -- both from Israel and Judah.
Thus, Jerusalem was a place that northerners (or at least those northerners who were welcome in Judah) still visited.
That was the whole purpose of Josiah's destroying the independent henotheistic shrines in both realms -- so that the
worshippers of YHWH would COME TO JERUSALEM for their rites and ceremonies.

Solomon Spalding knew enough of the Bible to be aware of this, Dan -- even if you do not. He also had Josephus and
Clarke's Biblical Commentary to help him out with the stories and traditions.

A group of the northern tribal remnant would naturally depart from near the vicinity of Jerusalem, if they expected to
escape both their Assyrian overlords and King Josiah's reforms -- They might have used the TransJordan as a route
around Assyrian controlled territory and traveled through Arabia and Persia to find a land where never man had dwelt
(save for a handful of savage Scythians). From Persia these refugees might have wandered to Siberia and over into
North America -- just as several Spalding witnesses claim.

Those same witnesses say that either all or most of these northerners were idolators -- probably worshippers of the
young bull (as the footstool of El or YHWH). Whether Spalding took the trouble to spell out such subtle stuff, I have no
idea -- but my guess is that the so-called 116 "lost pages" of the Book of Lehi told the story of these notherners
traveling from Jerusalem by land and by sea, until they reached the Americas -- a land where never man had dwelt --
and there they eventually divided into two factions, one of which preserved nothern Israelite "idolatry," with the other
one opting for what was becoming Judaism at about this same time in Babylon and Palestine.
Disagree with Spalding authorship testimony all you want Dan -- but at least get your biblical history right.

OK?

First, I don't assume what Spalding understood or wrote about. I'm only concerned with how those who believed the ten tribe theory of Indian origins understood the theory. You are trying to harmonize the contradiction, which anyone could do with enough imagination and motivation. The ten tribe theory has those that are carried away into captivity escape and move further on into a land "where never mankind dwelt." It has nothing to do with the Assyrians leaving "a sizeable remnant of the northern tribes in Israel after they had deported the elite of Ephraim." Nor does it have to do with Josiah's reforms, or the possibility that northerners would visit Jerusalem, or a remnant from the north would depart using the trans-Jordan route. We are not talking about real history. Anyone contemplating a ten tribe theory of Indian origins didn't think the way you do. The ten tribes in America is the stuff of folklore. Hence, it's not to the Old Testament one should resort, but rather to the Apocryphal book of 2 Esdras (written about A.D. 100), and included in some nineteenth-century editions of the Bible, which mentions the Assyrian captivity of the northern kingdom of Israel around 734 B.C. An angel shows Ezra a vision of a crowd of people, explaining:--

These are the ten tribes, which were carried away, prisoners out of their own land in the time of Osea the king, whom Shalmanaser the king of Assyria led away captive, and he carried them over the waters, and so came they into another land. But they took this counsel among themselves, that they would leave the multitude of the heathen, and go forth into a further country, where never mankind dwelt. . . . For through that country there was a great way to go, namely, of a year and a half: and the same region is called Arsareth. (13:40-41, 45, in KJV)

This is how Ethan Smith talked about the theory:--

3. We have an account of the ten tribes, after their captivity, which accords with the ideas just stated. We receive not the books of the Apocrypha as given by Inspiration; but much credit has been given to historical facts recorded in it; as in the wars of the Maccabees, and other places. In 2 Esdras xiii. 40, and on, we read; "Those are the ten tribes which were carried away prisoners out of their own land, in this time of Osea, the king, whom Salmanezer, the king of Assyria, led away captive; and he carried them over the waters, and so came they into another land." Here is the planting of them over the Euphrates, in Media. The writer adds; "But they took this counsel among themselves, that they would leave the multitude of the heathen, and go forth into a further country, where never man dwelt; that they might there keep their statutes which they never kept (i. e. uniformly as they ought,) in their own land. There was a great way to go, namely, of a year and a half." The writer proceeds to speak of the name of the region being called Asareth, or Ararat. He must allude here to the region to which they directed their course to go this year and a half's journey. This place where no man dwelt, must of course have been unknown by any name. But Ararat, or Armenia lay north of the place where the ten tribes were planted when carried from Palestine. -- Their journey then, was to the north, or north-east. This writer says, "They entered into the Euphrates by the narrow passages of the river." He must mean, they repassed this river in its upper regions, or small streams, away toward Georgia; and hence must have taken their course between the Black and Caspian seas. This set them off north-east of the Ararat, which he mentions. Though this chapter in Esdras be a kind of prophecy, in which we place not confidence; yet the allusion to facts learned by the author, no doubt may be correct. And this seems just such an event as might be expected, had God indeed determined to separate them from the rest of the idolatrous world, and banish them by themselves, in a land where no man dwelt since the flood.

--Ethan Smith, View of the Hebrews (1823), 75-76.

It is not some remnant left in the north after the Assyrians carried the tribes captive that come to America. The northern tribes are carried en mass to Media, and from there they go into a farther region, and ultimately to America. You say that your speculated harmonization is "just as several Spalding witnesses claim." But I don't think your idiosyncratic theory about what Spalding wrote is the same as what the witnesses meant. Note John Spalding's 1851 elaboration:--

Long after this, Nephi, of the tribe of Joseph, emigrated to America with a large portion of the ten tribes whom Shalmanezer led away from Palestine, and scattered among the Midian cities.

--"The Yankee Mahomet," quoted in American Review, June 1851, 554.

So, what we have hear is Spalding saying the tribes that went to America were the ones that were led away, not the remnant that stayed behind. This is consistent with the book of Esdras and the popular version of the ten tribe theory of Indian origins.

My criticism, then, is only totally wrong if Uncle Dale is allowed to fantasize whatever is necessary to harmonize whatever contradiction might arise. Sounds a lot like the apologists you want to decry. Go ahead an invent your metahistorical explanations, but you should at least acknowledge what you are doing. Let's call it the presentist fallacy.

[_Uncle Dale]

My criticism, then, is only totally wrong if Uncle Dale is allowed to fantasize whatever is necessary
to harmonize whatever contradiction might arise....

OK -- that did it. I'm out of here -- and never to return to this thread.

Your mind is as closed as that of any Mormon apostle on these matters and you will not discuss them reasonably.

Since D. P. Hurlbut originated the Spalding claims -- and since Spalding could not have written about northerners
having departed from the area around Jerusalem (even if they traveled through western Neo-Babylonian or Persian
realms and there gathered with them some more fellow "scattered" kinsmen), then I can add nothing to your further
refutation of the old authorship claims.

Have a nice day,

Dale R. Broadhurst
web-host
SidneyRigdon.com

[_Dan Vogel]

SPALDING THEORY: RECOVERY OF THE MANUSCRIPT


ca. 12-15 November 1833
Hurlbut called on William H. Sabin, Matilda Spalding Davison's brother, in Onondaga (NY), ten miles south of Syracuse, and is sent to Monson (MA).

ca. 22 November 1833
Hurlbut arrived at Monson (MA) seeking Spalding's MS from Matilda Spalding Davison, who was then living with her married daughter Matilda McKinstry.

MATILDA SPALDING DID NOT TELL HURLBUT ABOUT RIGDON

According to Cowdrey et al., Hurlbut learned about the MS being taken to the printer's and about Rigdon taking the MS.

Clearly Mrs. Davison and her daughter believed that the manuscript in question was the one Hurlbut required in order to fulfill his mission and that it still lay in the old trunk at Hartwick, or she would not have written an order to Mr. Clark to open that trunk and retrieved it. And in spite of the fact that she didn't trust Hurlbut, she was able to add considerably more to the story of "Manuscript Found" than he had known before coming to see her. Indeed, although Hurlbut probably didn't yet fully appreciate it, what the widow Spalding had to tell him would ultimately change the entire focus of the Spalding Enigma in the years to come; for it was she who intimated that her husband had taken his manuscript to Pattersons' publishing house in Pittsburgh, and that one Mr. Lambdin had been an associate of the Pattersons. In addition, it is now evident (see later in text) that she was the first to name Sidney Rigdon as one who, as a result of his friendship with Lambdin, had enjoyed some sort of association with Pattersons' print shop, and also as the very person suspected by her husband, just before he died, of having purloined a copy of his "Manuscript Found" from that establishment. Prior to this, there is no indication that either the Pattersons, or Lambdin, or Rigdon had ever been mentioned to Hurlbut in connection with Spalding, nor had they figured into his investigations in any way. Indeed, John Spalding had clearly said in his statement that he had no idea how his brother's manuscript had fallen into Joseph Smith's hands. Now however a clue had surfaced, and it was a big one, as shall be demonstrated in the chapters which follow. (2000 CD, pp. 36-37)

There are several claims here that need investigating:--

1. Davison believed the trunk contain the MS Hurlbut was after.
2. Davison told Hurlbut her husband had taken the MS to the printers, naming both Patterson and Lambdin.
3. Davison named "Sidney Rigdon as one who, as a result of his friendship with Lambdin, had enjoyed some sort of association with Pattersons' print shop, and also as the very person suspected by her husband, just before he died, of having purloined a copy of his "Manuscript Found" from that establishment."

If Hurlbut had learned these facts from widow Spalding he failed to report it to Howe, who gave the following account of what had been learned from Mrs. Davison:--

"She [Mrs. Davison] states that Spalding had a great variety of manuscripts, and recollects that one was entitled the 'Manuscript Found,' but of its contents she has no distinct knowledge. While they lived in Pittsburgh, she thinks it was once taken to the printing office of Patterson & Lambdin; but whether it was ever brought back to the house again, she is quite uncertain; if it was, however, it was then with his other writings, in a trunk which she had left in Ostego County, N.Y. This is all the information that could be obtained from her ..." (Howe, 287-88).

While I think it is quite apparent that Howe has misrepresented Mrs. Spalding in that she is made to be uncertain about the return of the MS, which is necessary for Howe's theory, it is quite clear that the Rigdon-Spalding connection didn't come from her. Had widow Spalding connected Rigdon with the print shop, Howe certainly would have reported it. Instead, he declares that she had no such additional information. So, the theory of Cowdrey et al. that the widow had told Hurlbut about Rigdon in November 1833 is to be seriously doubted. For their incredible and incorrect assertions, Cowdrey et al. rely on a very problematic statement given by Matilda Davison in 1839, which they misrepresent. Although presented like a letter to the editor over the signature of widow Spalding, it was actually written by the Reverend D. R. Austin based on his interview with her. Dale points out a major weakness of this source, which happens to be the part Cowdrey et al. use:

The widow's published statement, however, contained some errors and over-generalizations, and upon these inconsistencies Elder Sidney Rigdon fell with an eager venegance in is only substantial denial of the Spalding authorship claims. ...

The most unfortunate misstatement in the widow's 1839 statement is the remark: "Sidney Rigdon, who has figured so largely in the history of the Mormons, was at this time connected with the printing office of Mr. Patterson, as is well known in that region, and as Rigdon himself has frequently stated." It is very doubtful that the widow actually voiced that allegation, as it is actually a literary conflation of two sentences somehow derived from E. D. Howe's 1834 Mormonism Unvailed: "While they [the Spaldings] lived in Pittsburgh, she [the widow] thinks it [her husband's manuscript] was once taken to the printing office of Patterson & Lambdin." -- and -- "We have been credibly informed that he [Sidney Rigdon] was on terms of intimacy with Lambdin, being seen frequently in his shop. Rigdon resided in Pittsburgh about three years, and during the whole of that time, as he has since frequently asserted, abandoned preaching and all other employment, for the purpose of studying the Bible." Thus, second-hand testimony linking Sidney Rigdon to the printer J. Harrison Lambdin, of Pittsburgh, was muddled into a seeming allegation, saying that Rigdon was once somehow connected with a printing business operated by Robert Patterson, Sr., of that same city. The 1839 publication of this misworded allegation gave Sidney Rigdon something to protest against and to deny in righteous indignation -- which of course he quickly did: see the Whig of June 8th.

--http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL/whig1839.htm

The fact that widow Spalding believed the trunk contained the wanted MS indicates that she also believed the MS had been returned to her husband--which is why Howe's description of Matilda's uncertainty about the return of the MS is to be doubted. In her 1839 statement, she makes clear that she did not think the MS was stolen or purloined, but rather returned and "carefully preserved" by her. Her certainty about the return of the MS is what caused her (or her interviewer) to suggest that Rigdon copied the MS, but it is apparently based on surmising rather than firsthand knowledge.

It is claimed to have been written by one of the lost nation, and to have been recovered from earth, and assumed the title of 'Manuscript Found.' ...

From New Salem we removed to Pittsburgh, Pa. [ca. 1812] Here Mr. S. found an acquaintance and friend, in the person of Mr. Patterson, an editor of a newspaper. He exhibited his manuscript to Mr. P. who was very much pleased with it, and borrowed it for perusal. He retained it a long time and informed Mr. S. that if he would make out a title page and preface, he would publish it and it might be a source of profit. This Mr. S. refused to do for reasons which I cannot now state. -- Sidney Rigdon, who has figured so largely in the history of the Mormons, was at this time connected with the printing office of Mr. Patterson, as is well known in that region, and as Rigdon himself has frequently stated.[/b] Here he had ample opportunity to become acquainted with Mr. Spaulding's manuscript, and to copy it if he chose. It was a matter of notoriety and interest to all who were connected with the printing establishment. At length the manuscript was returned to its author, and soon after we removed to Amity, Washington county, Pa., [ca. 1814] where Mr. S. died in 1816. The manuscript then fell into my hands and was carefully preserved.

--Boston Recorder 24 (19 April 1839); reprinted in Quincy Whig 2 (18 May 1839).

Perhaps the widow or her interviewer confused "Lambdin" with "Rigdon"? Regardless, Rigdon wasn't ever connected with the printing office, let alone prior to 1814. Dale has pointed out the influence from Howe's 1834 book, but Howe place the accusation in the 1820s. Nothing in this statement reports any firsthand knowledge by widow Spalding, who left the Amity/Pittsburgh area in 1819.

Clearly, for widow Spalding, there was only one MS. The MS in the trunk was the one given to the printer and returned.

Contrary to what Cowdrey et al. assume, the accusation that Solomon Spalding himself suspected Rigdon of taking his MS from the printer's office does not originate with widow Spalding, but rather with several late statements (1879, 1882, and 1882) of Joseph Miller, Sr. (1791-1885), and very similar statements (1886) by Redick McKee (1800-86), both of whom knew Spalding in Amity in 1814-16. Of course, the authors know this, but they seem to want to assume widow Spalding knew what Miller and McKee knew and told Hurlbut. According to Howe's 1834 statement, she didn't, which in itself should call Miller's and McKee's late recollections into question. It would be too tangential to deal with Miller and McKee here; what's important is that widow Spalding didn't tell Hurlbut about Rigdon.


ca. 22-28 November 1833
Hurlbut arrived at Hartwick (NY) at the home of Mrs. Jerome Clark, Matilda Davison's niece, who has the trunk and MS.

20 December 1833
Wayne Sentinel publishes statement based on information from Hurlbut.

The Mormon mystery developed. -- Doct. P. Hurlbert, of Kirtland, Ohio, who has been engaged for some time in different parts of this state, but chiefly in this neighborhood, on behalf of his fellow-townsmen, in the pursuit of facts and information concerning the origin and design of the Book of Mormon, which, to the surprise of all in this region who know the character of the leaders in the bungling imposition, seems already to have gained multitudes of believers in various parts of the country, requests us to say, that he has succeeded in accomplishing the object of his mission, and that an authentic history of the whole affair will shortly be given to the public.

The original manuscript of the Book was written some thirty years since, by a respectable clergyman, now deceased, whose name we are not permitted to give. It was designed to be published as a romance, but the work has been superadded by some modem hand -- believed to be the notorious Rigdon. These particulars have been derived by Dr. Hurlbert from the widow of the author of the original manuscript.

--Wayne Sentinel, 20 Dec. 1833.

Cowdery et al. read this as meaning the theory that Rigdon was the one who edited Spalding's MS came from Mrs. Davison, which given Howe's subsequent statement is unlikely. More likely, Hurlbut's theory came from the same source as James Gordon Bennett's. The same article mentions Hurlbut gathering "facts and information concerning the origin and design of the Book of Mormon" in the "neighborhood" of Palmyra and Manchester. It's likely that he ran into the same speculations about Rigdon's involvement in writing the Book of Mormon, which had been created without any evidence to counter Mormon apologetic claims to the book's apparent miraculous appearance and disbelief that Joseph Smith could author such a book with divine aid. While traveling through the area and stopping at Geneva, NY, Bennett recorded some notes that he later expanded:-- "Geneva Aug[us]t 7--1831 ... Henry Ringdon [Sidney Rigdon] a parson in general--smart fellow--he is the author of the Bible ..." Two years later, Hurlbut was in the same area interviewing witness and investigating Book of Mormon origins, so it is no surprise that he blended the two theories. Whatever the case, it didn't come from widow Spalding.

At this point, it is uncertain what Hurlbut actually knew about Rigdon. Perhaps he already knew enough about Rigdon to know he had once lived in Pittsburgh.


31 December 1833
Hurlbut returns to Conneaut (OH) and re-interviews Aron Wright, who dictates another statement saying the Roman romance was not the MS he had reference to (see Cowdery et al., 71-73).

[|word| = strikeouts]

this is therefore to inform you that I have made a statement to D P Hurlbut relative to Writings of S Spalding Esq. S[A.I.]D Hurlbut is now at my store I have examined the writings which he has obtained from S[A.I.]D Spaldings widowe I recognize them to be the |writings| handwriting of S[A.I.]D Spalding but not the Manuscript I had refferance to in my statement before alluded to as he informed me he wrote in the first place |he wrote| for his own amusement and then altered his plan and commenced writing a history of the first Settlement of America the particulars you will find in my testimony dated |Sept 18| August 1833-- for years before he left this place I was quite intimate with |hi| Spalding. we had many private interviews the history he was writing was the topic of his conversation relating his progress in Contemplating the avails of same-- I also contemplated reading his history but never saw it in print untill I saw the Book of Mormon where I find much of the history and the names verbatim the Book of Mormon does not contain all the writing S[A.I.]d Spaldings I expect to see them if [p. 1] Smith is permitted to go on and as he says get his other plates the first time that Mr Hyde a Mormon Preacher from Kirtland preached in the center School house in this place the Hon. Nehemiah King attended as soon as Hyde had got through king left the house and said that Hide had preached from the writings of S Spalding In conclusion I will observe that the names and most of the historical part of the Book of Mormon is as familiar to me as Most modern history if is not Spaldings writings copied it is the same as he wrote and if Smith was inspired I think it was by the same Spirit that Spalding possesed which he confessed to be the love of money. (Cowdrey et al., 2000 CD, 613-14)

This document is a great find. Roper makes several relevant observations about the document, but two of them need to be repeated here:--

Second, even though it was drafted eleven months before the publication of Mormonism Unvailed, the statement was still written only after Hurlbut's disappointing failure to recover what he and others had hoped would prove to be the source of the Book of Mormon. This leaves open the suspicion that the statement was made after the fact in order to explain away the discrepancy between "Manuscript Story" and the earlier testimony. ...

Finally, there is the fact, noted by the authors, that the statement is in the hand of Hurlbut, rather than that of Wright (pp. 60, 444 n. 11). Wright apparently did not draft his own statement. This supports the conclusion of many historians that, in collecting testimony, Hurlbut drafted many of the statements published by Howe and simply had people sign them.[73] This new evidence, if it is authentic, would appear to support that conclusion. It seems likely that the second Aaron Wright statement represents a sloppy and perhaps aborted effort by Hurlbut and Wright to salvage the earlier statements after the disappointing failure to obtain what they wrongly assumed was the source of the Book of Mormon.

I would go one step further and suggest that Hurlbut-Howe combined this December 1833 statement with Wright's August statement. In other words, what is presented under the date of August 1833 is possibly a composite statement. Wright begins by saying "the particulars you will find in my testimony dated |Sept 18| August 1833"--as if he wasn't going to repeat what he said, but ends up saying things that appear in his August statement. Now, let's look at Wright's August statement as published in Howe's 1834 book:--

I first became acquainted with Solomon Spalding in 1808 or 9, when he commenced building a forge on Conneaut creek. When at his house, one day, he showed and read to me a history he was writing, of the lost tribes of Israel, purporting that they were the first settlers of America, and that the Indians were their decendants. Upon this subject we had frequent conversations. He traced their journey from Jerusalem to America, as it is given in the Book of Mormon, excepting the religious matter. The historical part of the Book of Mormon, I know to be the same as I read and heard read from the writings of Spalding, more than twenty years ago; the names more especially are the same without any alteration. He told me his object was to account for all the fortifications, &c. to be found in this country, and said that in time it would be fully believed by all, except learned men and historians.

I once anticipated reading his writings in print, but little expected to see them in a new Bible. Spalding had many other manuscripts, which I expect to see when Smith translates his other plate. In conclusion, I will observe, that the names of, and most of the historical part of the Book of Mormon, were as familiar to me before I read it, as most modern history. If it is not Spalding's writing, it is the same as he wrote; and if Smith was inspired, I think it was by the same spirit that Spalding was, which he confessed to be the love of money. -- AARON WRIGHT.

--Howe, Mormonism Unvailed 284.

I have taken the liberty of adding a paragraph break. It just so happens the lower half is the repeated phrases, almost exactly as they appear in the December statement. Compare:--

1. Aug. -- I once anticipated reading his writings in print, but little expected to see them in a new Bible.

Dec. -- I also contemplated reading his history but never saw it in print untill I saw the Book of Mormon where I find much of the history and the names verbatim

2. Aug. -- Spalding had many other manuscripts, which I expect to see when Smith translates his other plate.

Dec. -- the Book of Mormon does not contain all the writing S[A.I.]d Spaldings I expect to see them if Smith is permitted to go on and as he says get his other plates

[Dec. -- Part about Nehemiah King deleted]

3. Aug. -- In conclusion, I will observe, that the names of, and most of the historical part of the Book of Mormon, were as familiar to me before I read it, as most modern history.

Dec. -- In conclusion I will observe that the names and most of the historical part of the Book of Mormon is as familiar to me as Most modern history

4. Aug. -- If it is not Spalding's writing, it is the same as he wrote; and if Smith was inspired, I think it was by the same spirit that Spalding was, which he confessed to be the love of money.

Dec. -- if is not Spaldings writings copied it is the same as he wrote and if Smith was inspired I think it was by the same Spirit that Spalding possesed which he confessed to be the love of money.


Excluding the part about Nehemiah King, the phrases appear without interruption in the same order and are worded very nearly the same wording, which means that it was not simply copied from the August statement into the December statement. Nor does it seem likely that Wright could duplicate his words from memory. Rather, as I have italicize and bolded, the differences appear to be the work of an editor. In #1, the is something interesting that happens in the December statement that seems to imply that it came first.

"we had many private interviews the history he was writing was the topic of his conversation relating his progress in Contemplating the avails of same-- I also contemplated reading his history but never saw it in print untill I saw the Book of Mormon where I find much of the history and the names verbatim"

Note how Wright connected the two sentences by playing on the word "contemplating". When the first sentence was dropped, "also" was no longer needed and "contemplated" was replaced with the more appropriate "anticipated". Thus--

"I once anticipated reading his writings in print, but little expected to see them in a new Bible."


If I'm right, then the part that states "Spalding had many other manuscripts" is the editor's rendition of "the Book of Mormon does not contain all the writing S[A.I.]d Spaldings," which could have a completely different meaning. It also means that the rationale for a second MS was not in place before discovery of MS Story--at least, as far as Wright's testimony is concerned.

The only other witness to mention other writings was John N. Miller:--

"He had written two or three books or pamphlets on different subjects; but that which more particularly drew my attention, was one which he called the 'Manuscript Found.'"

Apparently, Hurlbut took the MS to Aron Wright, Oliver Smith, and John N. Miller, which he noted on the back of the MS itself.

The Writings of Solomon Spalding

Proved by Aron Wright Oliver
Smith John N. Miller and others

The testimonies of the above
Gentlemen are now in my
possession D P Hurlbut

"Proved by ..." probably means that they verified the handwriting. As Wright said in his Dec. 1833 statement:-- "I recognize them to be the |writings| handwriting of S[A.I.]D Spalding." So one wonders if Hurlbut followed the same procedure with Miller as he had with Wright?

Nevertheless, it was apparently Wright who apparently suggested the two-MS theory. He confidently states:--

"I recognize them to be the |writings| handwriting of S[A.I.]D Spalding but not the Manuscript I had refferance to in my statement before alluded to as he informed me he wrote in the first place |he wrote| for his own amusement and then altered his plan and commenced writing a history of the first Settlement of America the particulars you will find in my testimony."

But he also confidently stated in the same document::--

"I find much of the history and the names verbatim."

And in his previous statement of August 1833:--

"The historical part of the Book of Mormon, I know to be the same as I read and heard read from the writings of Spalding, more than twenty years ago; the names more especially are the same without any alteration."

His statements to Hurlbut are so confident and overstated that it is doubtful that he would back down even if presented with clear evidence. I don't find Wright to be a credible witness with respect to some of the key elements.


31 March 1834/12 April 1834
Hurlbut's trial for threatening Joseph Smith.

28 November 1834
E. D. Howe publishes Mormonism Unvailed in Painesville (OH), which at the back includes Hurlbut's Spalding documents and a Howe's report on some other investigations.

Howe reported what could be learned from Pittsburgh printer Robert Patterson:--

Mr. Patterson says he has no recollection of any such manuscript being brought there for publication, neither would he have been likely to have seen it, as the business of printing was conducted wholly by Lambdin at that time. He says, however, that many M. S. books and pamphlets were brought to the office about that time, which remained upon their shelves for years, without being printed or even examined.

--Howe, 289.

He also reported what could learned from widow Spalding:--

"She [Mrs. Davison] states that Spalding had a great variety of manuscripts, and recollects that one was entitled the 'Manuscript Found,' but of its contents she has no distinct knowledge. While they lived in Pittsburgh, she thinks it was once taken to the printing office of Patterson & Lambdin; but whether it was ever brought back to the house again, she is quite uncertain; if it was, however, it was then with his other writings, in a trunk which she had left in Ostego County, N.Y. This is all the information that could be obtained from her ..." (Howe, 287-88).

Then, Howe speculates about Rigdon's involvement, but Davison was apparently not his source:

Now, as Spalding's book can no where be found, or any thing heard of it after being carried to this establishment, there is the strongest presumption that it remained there in seclusion, till about the year 1823 or '24, at which time Sidney Rigdon located himself in that city. We have been credibly informed that he was on terms of intimacy with Lambdin, being seen frequently in his shop. Rigdon resided in Pittsburgh about three years, and during the whole of that time, as he has since frequently asserted, abandoned preaching and all other employment, for the purpose of studying the Bible. He left there and came into the county where he now resides, about the time Lambdin died, and commenced preaching some new points of doctrine, which were afterwards found to be inculcated in the Mormon Bible. He resided in this vicinity about four years previous to the appearance of the book, during which time he made several long visits to Pittsburgh, and perhaps to the Susquehannah, where Smith was then digging for money, or pretending to be translating plates.

--Howe, 289.

Hurlbut had learned about the MS being taken to the print shop, but he also knew that widow Spalding believed it had been returned and was taken with here when she left the area in 1819. I believe Howe intentionally withheld this information in order to advance his own theory that Rigdon had taken the MS from the print ship in 1823-24. This is probably why no statement was taken from Davison.

[_Dan Vogel]

My criticism, then, is only totally wrong if Uncle Dale is allowed to fantasize whatever is necessary
to harmonize whatever contradiction might arise....

OK -- that did it. I'm out of here -- and never to return to this thread.

Your mind is as closed as that of any Mormon apostle on these matters and you will not discuss them reasonably.

Since D. P. Hurlbut originated the Spalding claims -- and since Spalding could not have written about northerners
having departed from the area around Jerusalem (even if they traveled through western Neo-Babylonian or Persian
realms and there gathered with them some more fellow "scattered" kinsmen), then I can add nothing to your further
refutation of the old authorship claims.

Have a nice day,

Dale R. Broadhurst
web-host
SidneyRigdon.com

Come on Dale. You have been insulting me left and right and writing in a biting and sacrastic tone from the start, but you don't see me grandstanding Hamblin-like and stomping off in a huff. Go take a few deep breaths of ocean air ... you'll feel better.

Why do you conclude that anyone who disagrees with you must have a closed mind? What if I concluded that because you won't admit I have a good arguement, you are the one who is stubborn? Frankly, I don't care if you accept my arguments or not. You have a right to disagree with me without personal attack.