DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY

[_Merry]

Dale,

What evidence do you have that might support my theory that the Elias Budinot's were also contributors? It is an intriguing idea, and I will be searching your websites as soon as I have time and computer/internet access at home.

[_Uncle Dale]

Dale,

What evidence do you have that might support my theory that the Elias Budinot's
were also contributors? It is an intriguing idea, and I will be searching your websites
as soon as I have time and computer/internet access at home.

I guess here the distinguishing difference is between "influence" and "contributor" --
Elias Budinot helped popularize the concept of Israelite Indians and set funds aside
in his will to help create a temporary place of refuge for Jews in America -- all of this
in anticipation of the expected "gathering of Israel" just prior to the Millennnium.

Mordecai M. Noah responded, by creating plans for his own American "city of refuge"
for Israelite Indians (the scattered of Israel) and Jews (the dispersed of Israel).

Budinot's initial spot for the Israelite gathering was in western PA -- moved to western NY
after his death -- then finally located in eastern NY, with dismal results.

Noah's spot for his planned Israelite gathering was just a few miles west of the second
Budinot site -- but Noah's gathering on Grand Island, NY failed even more than Budinot's.

So far as I know, Chief Budinot, the noted Cherokee, did not believe in this stuff.

Ethan Smith's books were contemporary with M. M. Noah's plans, and both men were
influenced to some extent by Budinot. Ethan Smith and Budinot looked forward to a
fulfillment of supposed prophetic promises to Israelite Indians in Palestine -- and any
congregation of Indians or Jews in the Americas was but a prelude to re-locating them
in the Holy Land, in anticipation of the arrival of the Messiah there.

M. M. Noah is less clear about the destiny of his Israelite Indians -- it is possible that
he hoped to re-locate Jews to Palestine, eventually -- but intended for the Indians
to inherit the Americas, upon the arrival of the Expected (Jewish, in this case) Messiah.

Whoever may have composed the Book of Mormon, the writer(s) did not follow Budinot
and Ethan Smith, in the idea of Israelite Indians re-locating in Palestine, prior to the
Second Advent. The Book of Mormon writer(s) developed a more complex, "two Zions" precept,
which Sidney Rigdon later elucidated in the pages of the Kirtland Mormon newspaper.

In the Mormon plan, there was to be a "New Jerusalem" (later called Mt. Zion or Zion)
gathering-place for the descendants of the patriarch Joseph and a Palestinian gathering
for the descendants of Judah and related tribes ---- thus saving the Manassehite Indians
the trouble of migrating to Jerusalem.

I do not think that the Cherokees and Chief Budinot were much impressed with this --
(see relevant letters and articles in the "Cherokee Phoenix," both before and after the
birth of Mormonism).

As for Solomon Spalding -- without some evidence of his beliefs, or imaginative views,
regarding "Israelites," I cannot speculate as to what he had to say. I can provide
some sketchy conclusions, as to how the Book of Mormon's statements on Israelite Indians
correspond to occurrences of "high" word-print matches with Spalding, Rigdon and
Cowdery, in the text ---- but that is getting far away from your original interests.

Uncle Dale

[_Merry]

Yeah, whether ideas were just borrowed, or whether actual texts were borrowed--shrug.

I may just do some research there before I get started again. **laughing** I'm not as compulsive about the subject now, and my sense of humor is restored.

The Cherokee Budinot wasn't a chief, although he was a notable leader. Just because he was a signer of a treaty doesn't make him a chief. Whites would draft anyone who was willing to sign a treaty, if they wanted it enough. The treaty by which Keokuk's people lost their land was signed by other Sac & Fox tribes who blamed Keokuk for the Black Hawk disaster.

the Book of Mormon's statements on Israelite Indians
correspond to occurrences of "high" word-print matches with Spalding, Rigdon and
Cowdery, in the text ---- but that is getting far away from your original interests.

Not necessarily. According to the logic of the thing, what isn't Spalding, Rigdon, Cowdry, or Smith is the original "Nephite" text. Unless there is cut&paste where plots are similar. Maybe some examination of those sections for either Budinot flavor might reveal enough, if you have large enough samples?

[_marg]

According to the logic of the thing, what isn't Spalding, Rigdon, Cowdry, or Smith is the original "Nephite" text.

I don't want to sidetrack this thread, but just want to briefly mention, it is presumed in this thread only naturalistic explanations for the Book of Mormon. Any claim or theory involving the supernatural by the very nature of the meaning of the word, means it does not have evidence to warrant it. My understanding is that Nephite requires the presumption of the supernatural, hence your counter to Dale that the Book of Mormon may have "original Nephite text" is not an acceptable claim, or assumption in this thread.

[_Uncle Dale]

According to the logic of the thing, what isn't Spalding, Rigdon, Cowdry, or Smith is the original "Nephite" text.

I don't want to sidetrack this thread, but just want to briefly mention, it is presumed in this thread only naturalistic explanations for the Book of Mormon. Any claim or theory involving the supernatural by the very nature of the meaning of the word, means it does not have evidence to warrant it. My understanding is that Nephite requires the presumption of the supernatural, hence your counter to Dale that the Book of Mormon may have "original Nephite text" is not an acceptable claim, or assumption in this thread.

I tend to agree -- although I sometimes use the term "Nephite" and "Nephite Record" myself -- mostly out of sheer
frustration, that 13,000,000 people today consider this to be the truth; and I have no way to convince them otherwise.
Nor can I say for certain who wrote any part of the text. When I say "Moroni the son of Mormon," what I
really mean, is "Rev. Sidney Rigdon." And when I say "Jacob" I mean Oliver Cowdery, etc. etc.

Going on in this frame of expression, some have said that Amulek = Joseph Knight and Alma the younger = Joe Smith.
Again, I have no way to prove that Amulek did not exist; or that he was or was not Joseph Knight; or that his story
does or does not mirror Rigdon's supposed early cooperation with a "prophet" in Bainbridge/Auburn, NY. But I ponder
these possible connections and try to keep an open mind on the matter.

Perhaps a better question we might ask, is: "Who was the first person who really believed in Nephites?"

If Mother Smith's story can be trusted, then perhaps her family was hearing and believing "Nephite" accounts
back before Alvin died. Then again, if Lucy did not know Nephites were a hoax, then she must not have been a
very perceptive mother. My own mother may not know every page of fiction I've ever written, but she could
probably do a better job of discerning the authorship of unattributed stories set down in my old teen-age
notebooks, than just about any other person who ever knew me.

If Lucy Mack Smith believed Nephites were "real," then she was a strange old lady indeed.

But then there is another level to this "supernatural" stuff marg --- and I think it may be an important one.

Some early Smith-followers/admirers may have believed in "Nephites" as a matter of deduction. In other words,
the stories published in the Book of Mormon may not have been precisely accurate in their estimation -- but rather, the stories
were "close enough for church work," and (in their rough estimation) something very much like Nephites must have
build the old eastern mounds, etc.

My current opinion is that at least a small handful of the earliest Mormons had this "imprecise" belief in Nephites,
when they attempted to "work out in their minds" what the history of the "Lehite Dispensation" must have been.
Such a fluid belief in Nephites would have allowed an early follower like Oliver Cowdery to believe in the basic
truth of the Mormon message, even if its historical details were imprecise. He could work out in his mind what some
details must have been, seek "spiritual" confirmation via his divining rod, and go on about his business, not
much concerned about the ambiguities and deceptions of the earliest phases of the "latter day work."

I know it sounds weird to us today --- but perhaps there was a grey, middle-ground between "truth" and "lies" in
which the first Mormons operated, and they were not much concerned about the consequences for us moderns.

UD

[_Dan Vogel]

WHO WAS THE MYSTERIOUS STRANGER AT THE SMITH HOME IN 1827?

In this post, I will deal with the sources dealing with the mysterious stranger that some Palmyra-Manchester residents remembered to have seen at the Smith residence about 1827 and uncritical acceptance of these sources by Cowdrey et al.

Our authors begin with a long discussion of what seems to be evidence of Rigdon's pre-November 1830 knowledge of the Book of Mormon (pp. 487-94), which I will skip for this post, then the move to the testimony of Lorenzo Saunders, who eventually claimed to have seen Rigdon at the Smiths' residence in 1827. As was apparent with Hurlbut's witnesses, as well as subsequent statements obtained by eager interviewers, Saunders was also probably a victim of constructive memory and memory distortion.

LORENZO SAUNDERS AND JOHN H. GILBERT

According to Cowdrey et al.:--

The process of his [Saunders'] coming forward to speak began in 1879 when Saunders, who had moved to Michigan in 1854, returned to Palmyra for a visit. While there, he and John H. Gilbert held a conversation on the subject of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. The following day, Gilbert reported the results of that conversation to James T. Cobb, a newspaper man from Salt Lake City with whom he had been corresponding: ...

--2000 CD, 494.

Cowdrey et al. then quote Gilbert's letter:--

Last evening I had about 15 minutes conversation with Mr. Lorenzo Saunders of Reading, Hillsdale Co., Mich[igan]. He has been gone about thirty years. He was born south of our village in 1811, and was a near neighbor of the Smith family--knew them all well; was in the habit of visiting the Smith boys; says he knows that RIGDON was hanging around Smith's for EIGHTEEN MONTHS PRIOR TO THE PUBLISHING OF THE Mormon Bible.

--JOHN H. GILBERT TO JAMES T. COBB, 14 OCTOBER 1879, in Wilhelm Ritter von Wymetal, Joseph Smith, the Prophet, His Family and His Friends (Salt Lake City: Tribune Printing and Publishing Co., 1886), 231.

Cowdrey et al. follow this with three statements where Saunders claims that he saw Rigdon on Smith property in 1827. However, there is more to the story of Saunders' 1879 statement to Gilbert than these authors want to discuss. Gilbert, who had typeset the Book of Mormon, had previously reported to Cobb on 10 February 1879:--

... I do not think there is a single person living here or near here, who knows that Rigdon visited Smith prior to 1830. Where Tucker got his information, I am unable to say. ...

That the Spaulding Manuscript is the foun<d>ation of the Mormon Bible, I have not the least doubt; but how they got hold of it, and [p. 3] how Smith and Rigdon got together, is the great mystery to me. That Rigdon made a copy while working in the Pittsburgh Office, (if he ever worked there) I do not believe--it was too big a job. ...

When I see him I will question him, and if I learn anything that I think will assist you, I will write you again.

That you may succeed in exposing this monstrous fraud and humbug from beginning to end, beyond dispute, is my sincere wish. ...

--John H. Gilbert to James T. Cobb, 10 February 1879, Theodore A. Schroeder Papers, Rare Books and Manuscripts Division, New York Public Library, New York, New York.

This letter shows that Gilbert and Cobb were not only discussing the Spalding theory prior to Saunders' arrival, but were specifically wanting evidence that Rigdon had been at the Smith residence prior to 1830. Evidently Cobb was seeking proof for Pomeroy Tucker's claims about a stranger at the Smith residence in 1827. Before proceeding with my discussion of Gilbert's interview with Saunders, I want to examine Tucker's claims. Obviously, they set the stage for Saunders' own claims.


POMEROY TUCKER

Pomeroy Tucker was apparently the first to report the presence of the "mysterious stranger" on Smith property in 1827 in his 1867 book.

This review comes down to the summer of 1827. A mysterious stranger now appears at Smith's residence, and holds private interviews with the far-famed money-digger. For a considerable length of time no intimation of the name or purpose of this personage transpired to the public, nor even to Smith's nearest neighbors. It was observed by some of them that his visits were frequently repeated. The sequel of these private interviews between the stranger and the money-digger will sufficiently appear hereafter.

--Pomeroy Tucker, Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1867), 28.

Note that none of the neighbors knew the identity of the stranger. Tucker also reports that the stranger made a reappearance after Harris lost the 116-page MS in June-July 1828.

Great consternation now pervaded the Mormon circles. The reappearance of the mysterious stranger at Smith's was again the subject of inquiry and conjecture by observers, from whom was withheld all explanation of his identity or purpose.... The great trouble was, the lost translations could not be replaced, or at least such apparently was the difficulty. It might be supposed that, with his golden plates and spectacles before him, and with the benefit of the divine aid as he claimed, the prophet could easily have supplied a duplicate; and so he doubtless would have done had he really been the translator or original author of the composition. ...

The loss of the first translations checked for a time the progress of Mormon events. But Smith, Harris, and their abiding associates were seemingly undismayed. Some six months passed when the announcement was given out that a new and complete translation of the Book of Mormon had been made by the prophet, which was ready for the press. In the interim the stranger before spoken of had again been seen at Smith's; and the prophet had been away from home, may-be to repay the former's visits. The bearing of these circumstances upon any important question can only be left to reasonable conjecture in reference to the subsequent developments. ...

--Pomeroy Tucker, Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1867), 46, 48.

Obviously, Tucker believes the unnamed stranger was Rigdon, who was the real author of the Book of Mormon. Here, Tucker dates the second appearance of the stranger to about July 1828. In commenting on Rigdon's appearance in Palmyra December 1830 to preach at the Young Men's Association, in the third story of Exchange Row, Tucker states:--

Up to this time, Sidney Rigdon had played his part in the background, and his occasional visits at Smith's residence had been noticed by uninitiated observers as those of the mysterious stranger. It had been his policy to remain in concealment until [p. 75] all things should be in readiness for blowing the trumpet of the new gospel.

--Pomeroy Tucker, Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1867), 75-76.

Tucker does not explain it, but he implies that some unidentified neighbors recognized Rigdon as the mysterious stranger. Prior to that time, the stranger's identity was unknown. Tucker does not explain how the connection between Rigdon and the stranger was made, or whether it was made at the time Rigdon delivered his sermon or later when Tucker interviewed residents in preparation for publishing his book. Given the absence of this extraordinary claim in previous sources, I'm inclined to think the latter. I think it's noteworthy that Gilbert had not heard the claim outside of Tucker's book, and confessed he did not know the source of such claims.

Was this a case of mistaken identity? It should be observed that the Smiths were about this time visited by several "mysterious strangers"--Josiah Stowell, Joseph Knight, Sr., and Alvah Beaman--all of whom were financially better off than the Smiths and interested in Joseph Smith's treasure-seeing abilities. Other candidates for the stranger would have been anyone outside the area seeking Joseph Smith's services as a treasure seer.


MORE ON GILBERT AND SAUNDERS

As discussed previously, Gilbert promised James T. Cobb that he would visit Orlando Saunders and question him regarding what he knew about the Smiths. Lorenzo Saunders, who lived in Michigan, was evidently visiting his brother in Palmyra at the time Gilbert called at Orlando's home. Regarding this meeting, Lorenzo said [<words> = above the line; |words| = strkeout]:--

Four years ago I went to Palmyra to see my Brothers, and I met Gilbert. He wanted to know if I |eve[r]| remembered see=ing Sidney Rigdon in that neighbor=hood previous to 1830 when he come preaching the Mormon Bible. He said Abel Chase testified that he thought he saw Rigdon before that time, but was not certain. [p. 4] Says I to Gilbert[,] Sidney Rig=don was about Smiths before 1830 in my opinion. Gilbert asked if I would make aff=idavit that I saw Rigdon at Smiths before that time? I told him I would think the matter over. After a while I think I told him I would. ...

--Lorenzo Saunders, Interviewed by William H. Kelley, 17 September 1884, 4-5, E. L. Kelley Papers, RLDS Church Library-Archives, Independence, Missouri.

A little more information was included in Kelley's expanded version of the interview, which was notarize and signed by Saunders:--

When I was down to see my Brothers four years ago in a conversation with Gilbert when I first got there, it was then he said that he did not know that Sidney Rigdon was ever here a previous to 1830. He believed he was, but they had no evidence. He said they had been studying on it for 35 or 40 years but could not get the evidence. Said if they could only make that [p. 5] point the fraud would come out. He said he could come the nearest proving it by Abel Chase but he was not certain. When I got ready to come home (was there three weeks) Gilbert said he want=ed to see me before I left. He was work=ing on the Canal. He came to me as I was about to start home and it was then that I told him that I had thought the matter over and made up my mind that I could swear that I saw Rigdon in the neighborhood in the Spring of 1827. That is what he wanted I should write to Cobb. This conversation was in Palmyra in front of John Saunders store.

--Lorenzo Saunders, Interviewed by William H. Kelley, 20 September 1884, 5-6, "Miscellany," RLDS Church Library-Archives, Independence, Missouri.

The evening following his first conversation with Saunders, Gilbert excitedly dashed off his letter to Cobb:--"Saunders ... says he knows that RIGDON was hanging around Smith's for EIGHTEEN MONTHS PRIOR TO THE PUBLISHING OF THE Mormon Bible."

Here we have a glimpse of how other Spalding researchers may have conducted their interviews. Saunders it told what kind of information is needed, and that Abel Chase thought he had seen Rigdon before 1830 but was uncertain. Thus, like Book of Mormon names with Hurlbut's witnesses, there is a danger of implanting memories. Saunders' own description of the meeting contrasts with Gilbert's exuberant declaration that Saunders' "knows"; and Gilbert's "hanging around" turns one or two times into a frequent occurrence, which I suspect is the kind of overstatement behind some of Hurlbut's affidavits and those collected by other well-meaning researchers.

Delay and finally no affidavit from Saunders. In the same interview, Saunders goes on to explain why he didn't make an affidavit for Gilbert and Cobb:--

After I got home a while I received a letter from [James T.] Cobb of Salt Lake [City]. Gilbert wrote to Cobb and gave him my ad=dress. I wrote to Cobb the next Spring. Gilbert wrote to me |after I returned home from| I think in Nov[ember]. after I returned home, asking why I did not answer Cobbs letter. While I was writing an answer to Cobb's first letter my house caught fire and burnt. Burnt <up> every thing I had and there was no insurance. Lost a thousand dollars. |It| <I> was some time thinking the matter over [p. 5] before writing to Cobb and during that time my house burnt. It had been a long time since those transactions and it was difficult to fix dates. ...

--Lorenzo Saunders, Interviewed by William H. Kelley, 17 September 1884, 1-18, E. L. Kelley Papers, RLDS Church Library-Archives, Independence, Missouri.

In his 12 November 1884 interview with E. L. Kelley, Saunders again explained:--

Cobb at Utah wrote three letters to me. I did not send him an affidavit. I wrote him off a statement with what I could remember throughout. I then lived a mile south of here. And just as I got it ready, I had not sealed it up, my house took fire & burned up & everything I had; And no insurance. And that burned up the papers. I had no chance & I thought I was not doing justice not to reply to matters, so I did, and set down & wrote a short list of my misfortunes; & why I had replied to him before, but not anything of amount to him or anybody els[e].

--Lorenzo Saunders, Interviewed by E. L. Kelley, 12 November 1884, 20, E. L. Kelley Papers, "Miscellany," RLDS Church Library-Archives, Independence, Missouri.

So, evidently, Saunders was not confident enough about his information to make an affidavit, and seems rather hesitant to make any statement at all.


DECONSTRUCTING SAUNDERS' MEMORY

In his first interview with the Kelleys, Saunders told William Kelley on 17 September 1884:--

Q. Did you ever see Sidney Rig=don in the neighborhood where you lived previous to 1830?

A. Yes. In March 1827. I went over to Joe Smith's to eat sugar, and as I went over I saw, about 20 rods from the |road| <house>, five or six men <standing and> talking. one was well dressed.

Q. Did you know their names?

A. Yes. |One| <It> was Peter Ingersol, Sam=uel Lawrence, George Proper, the old man [Orin] Rockwell, father of Porter Rockwell, and the well dressed man. They stood ten rods from the road. When I got to the house [Samuel] Harrison (Smith) told me [p. 3] that it was Sidney Rigdon, i.e. the well dressed man. ...

Q. Did you see him after that previous to 1830?

A. Yes. I saw him |that same| in <the> fall <just before Joseph went to Pennsylvania> (1827). Peter Ingersol and I met him (Rigdon) in the Road between Palmyra and Inger=sols. I never saw him any more until he came to Palmy=ra to preach the Mormon Bible.

--Lorenzo Saunders, Interviewed by William H. Kelley, 17 September 1884, 4-5, E. L. Kelley Papers, RLDS Church Library-Archives, Independence, Missouri.

Here Saunders claims he saw a "well dressed man" at the Smith residence in March 1827, and was told by Samuel Harrison Smith that his name was Sidney Rigdon. Then he saw the same man in the Fall of 1827 just before Joseph Smith move to Harmony, PA, and didn't see the man until December 1830, more than three years afterwards. Two issues arise from Saunders' claims:--

1. Did he immediately recognize Rigdon as the well-dressed stranger he had seen three years previously, or did he put the two things together later?

2. Did Samuel Harrison Smith (or any Smith family member) identify the stranger as Sidney Rigdon in 1827?

Was Saunders told in 1827 that the stranger was Rigdon? Extremely doubtful. On 17 September 1884 Saunders said Samuel Harrison had told him the well dressed man was Sidney Rigdon, but in his 12 November 1884 interview he said it was Hyrum who identified Rigdon. In his third interview with the Kelleys, Saunders told E. L. Kelley:--

There was George Proper & Rockwell I supposed there were men to work for them in the sugar bush; I never asked any questions about his help. Samuel Lawrence came along & I went to the house. And there was a man better dressed than the rest come along up to smiths & Stood out door. I says, to Hiram Smith what well dressed man is that that stood out there? And he said, it was Sidney Rigdon. This was in the time of making sugar along in march about the 10th or 15th, & they was in full blast & they used to invite us over to eat sugar. They made sugar every year.

--Lorenzo Saunders, Interviewed by E. L. Kelley, 12 November 1884, 2, 7, E. L. Kelley Papers, "Miscellany," RLDS Church Library-Archives, Independence, Missouri.

Whereas Saunders had claimed that Samuel Harrison had told him the stranger was Rigdon, three months later Saunders tells the other Kelley it was Hyrum. In an 1887 statement for A. B. Deming, he will again identify Samuel as the person.

That my father died on the 10th day of October, A.D. 1825. That in March of 1827, on or about the 15th of said month I went to the house of Joseph Smith for the purpose of getting some maple sugar to eat, that when I arrived at the house of said Joseph Smith, I was met at the door by [Samuel] Harrison Smith, Jo's brother. That at a distance of ten or twelve rods from the house there were five men that were engaged in talking, four of whom I knew, the fifth one was better dressed than the rest of those whom I was acquainted with. I inquired of Harrison Smith who the stranger was? He informed me his name was Sidney Rigdom with whom I afterwards became acquainted and found to be Sidney Rigdon. This was in March, A.D. 1827, the second spring after the death of my father.

--LORENZO SAUNDERS STATEMENT, 21 JULY 1887, Naked Truths About Mormonism (January 1888): 2.

Of course, neither Samuel nor Hyrum were alive to challenge this claim, but William, Catherine, and Emma were.

William Smith Testimony

It is said Rigdon got up that book. It was published before ever Rigdon saw it. It is said that one Solomon Spaulding wrote it. If there had been any truth in the "Spaulding story" I should have known it.

--"William B. Smith. Experience and Testimony," in "Sketches of Conference Sermons," reported by Charles Derry, Saints' Herald 30 (16 June 1883): 388.

Where is the Spaulding Story? I am a little too old a man to be telling stories. There is no money in telling this story. I expect to stand before angels and archangels and be judged for how I have told it. When Joseph received the plates he a[l]so received the Urim and Thummim, which he would place in a hat to exclude all light, and with the plates by his side he translated the characters, which were cut into the plates with some sharp instrument, into English. And thus, letter by letter, word by word, sentence by sentence, the whole book was translated. It was not written from the Spaulding Romance. That story is false. Some say this romance was stolen by Sidney Rigdon while at Pittsburgh. This is false. Sidney Rigdon knew nothing about it. He never saw or heard tell of the Book of Mormon until it was presented to him by P. P. Pratt and others. He was never at my father's house to see my brother until after the book was published. If he had wanted to see Joseph at that time and remained very long, he would have had to be in the field rolling logs or carrying brush.

--"The Old Soldier's Testimony. Sermon preached by Bro. William B. Smith, in the Saints' Chapel, Detroit, Iowa, June 8th, 1884. Reported by C. E. Butterworth," Saints' Herald 31 (4 October 1884): 643-44.

Katharine Smith Salisbury Testimony

That prior to the latter part of the year A.D. 1830, there was no person who visited with or was an acquaintance of |my brother Joseph| <or called upon the> said family or any member thereof, to my knowledge, by the name of Sidney Rigdon; nor was such person known to the family or any member thereof to my knowledge, until the last part of the year AD. 1830, or the first part of the year, 1831, and Sometime after the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ by Joseph Smith jr. and Several months after the publication of the Book of Mormon. That I remember the time when Sidney Rigdon came to my father's place and it was after the removal of my father from Waterloo, N.Y. to Kirtland, Ohio; That this was in the year, 1831, and some months after the publication of the Book of Mormon and fully one year after the Church <was organized> as before stated herein. That I made this statement not on account of fear, favor [p. 1] or hope of reward of and [any?] kind; but simply that the truth may be known with reference to said matter; and that the foregoing statements made by me are true as I verily believe.

--Katharine Smith Salisbury, Affidavit, 15 April 1881, Artificial Collection, RLDS Church Library-Archives, Independence, Missouri. Published in Saints' Herald 28 (1 June 1881): 169.

Emma Smith Testimony

Emma lived with the Smith family shortly after her marriage to Joseph Smith in January 1827 until their removal in December 1827. So her testimony is quite valid on this matter.

Q. When did you first know Sidney Rigdon? Where?

A. I was residing at father Whitmer's, when I first saw Sidney Rigdon. I think he came there.

Q. Was this before or after the publication of the Book of Mormon?

A. The Book of Mormon had been translated and published some time before. Parley P. Pratt had united with the Church before I knew Sidney Rigdon, or heard of him. At the time the Book of Mormon was translated there was no church organized, and Rigdon did not become acquainted with Joseph and me till after the Church was established in 1830. How long after that I do not know but it was some time.

--Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," Saints' Herald 26 (1 October 1879): 289-90. Also published in Saints' Advocate 2 (October 1879): 49-52.

William, Katharine, and Emma were certainly in a better position than was Saunders to know who was visiting the Smith family in 1827. The only way to escape this evidence is for Spalding theorists to postulate an ever-widening and untenable mass conspiracy. Not likely.


When did Saunders start claiming he was told the stranger was Rigdon? I think the evidence shows that Saunders did not make the claim until Gilbert had pressed him for information in 1879. Why didn't Tucker name the stranger? In fact, he twice made a point that the stranger's name was withheld by Smith family members. The Smiths, he said, "withheld all explanation of his [the stranger's] identity" (III.J.8, POMEROY TUCKER ACCOUNT, 1867, 47). This is in stark contrast to Saunders' claims, which is made even more curious when it is discovered that Saunders and Tucker were communicating during the writing of his 1867 book.

Q. Do you know anything about Tucker?

A. Yes. I knew him.

Q. Is he alive?

A. No, he is dead. At the time Tucker was publishing his Book, I was there at Tuckers house, and he said I had a better memory than he did, and he wanted me to help him on his Book and I did so. He promised to give me a Book, and he sent me this one (holding up Tuckers work) when the book was published. [p. 14]

--Lorenzo Saunders, Interviewed by William H. Kelley, 17 September 1884, 14, E. L. Kelley Papers, RLDS Church Library-Archives, Independence, Missouri.

Did Saunders recognize Rigdon as the well-dressed stranger he saw at the Smith residence in 1827 when he saw him preach in December 1830, or did he make the connection later, perhaps while helping Tucker in 1867 write his book?

This is a more difficult question to answer, but Saunders didn't make the claim that he did. Regardless, how reliable would Saunders' three-year-old memory be? Saunders was almost sixteen when he first saw the well-dressed stranger in March 1827, and nineteen when Sidney Rigdon preached at Palmyra's Young Men's Library Society in December 1830. Given the previous discussion, Saunders probably confused Rigdon with the stranger, either in 1830 or in 1867, and the rest was the result of memory distortion.


SAUNDERS ON SEEING RIGDON PREACH IN PALMYRA IN 1830

When Rigdon preached in Palmyra in December 1830, Saunders was there:--

I saw Rigdon in 1830 preach with the Bible in one hand and the Book of Mormon in the other (as illustrated in Tuckers work opening the book and showing the picture) and he said the Bible was now fulfilled and done away and the Book of Mormon was to take its place. The meeting was held in Palmyra in the young mens Library Soci<e>ty.

--Lorenzo Saunders, Interviewed by William H. Kelley, 17 September 1884, 9, E. L. Kelley Papers, RLDS Church Library-Archives, Independence, Missouri.

Did he recognize Rigdon as the stranger he saw three years previously? In his 12 November 1884 interview with E. L. Kelley, Saunders was asked this question:--

E.L. In the house when you saw him afterwards & heard him preach could you identify <him?>

L.S. No, I could not I was not near enough to |identify| see his face before I heard him preach. Joseph Smith & this well dressed man stopped & talked with Peter Ingersoll. That was the time that Peter Ingersol[l] told Jo. Smith, he guessed he had not got any plates the neighbors say it is all a humbug. Jo. Smith said: "what if it is now I have got the fools caught.["] This man was with him at the time & after we past on, I asked Peter Ingersol[l] who that man was? & he said, it was Rigdon. That was in 1827 late in the fall

--Lorenzo Saunders, Interviewed by E. L. Kelley, 12 November 1884, 15, E. L. Kelley Papers, "Miscellany," RLDS Church Library-Archives, Independence, Missouri.

So, only a few months later Rigdon could not identify the stranger. And even after this second sighting, Saunders confesses that he could not identify the stranger as Rigdon. His entire evidence was verbal, but that is exactly the most questionable part of his testimony. Take that away, and Saunders was likely misidentifying the stranger at the Smith farm.

This is where Saunder's testimony gets even more unbelievable. He adds a third sighting of Rigdon--this time up close and personal.

... I saw Sidney Rigdon in the Spring of 1827, about the middle of March. I went to Smiths to eat maple sugar, and I saw five or six men standing in a group and there was one among them better dressed than the rest and I asked [Samuel] Harrison Smith who he was (and) he said his name was Sidney Rigdon, a friend of Joseph's from Pennsylvania. I saw him in the Fall of 1827 on the road between where I lived and Palmyra, with Joseph. I was with a man by the name of Jugegsah [Ingersoll] (spelling doubtful, C.A.S.). They talked together and when he went on I asked Jugegsah [Ingersoll] (spelling doubtful, C.A.S.) who he was and he said it was Rigdon. Then in the summer of 1828 I saw him at Samuel Lawrence's just before harvest. I was cutting corn for Lawrence and went to dinner and he took dinner with us and when dinner was over they went into another room and I didn't see him again till he came to Palmyra to preach. ...

--LORENZO SAUNDERS TO THOMAS GREGG, 28 JANUARY 1885, Charles A. Shook, The True Origin of the Book of Mormon (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Co., [1914]), 134-35.

If this third sighting of the stranger were true, he certainly would have recognized Rigdon when he saw him in December 1830. So, there is a major contradiction between what Saunders told the Kelleys only three months previously. The most likely explanation (assuming Saunders was sincere) is that his memory after 55 years was playing tricks on him. By the 1880s, Saunders had only a dim memory of what Rigdon looked like, and in his attempt to link him with the strangers he had seen previously, he probably became a victim of false memory and memory distortion.


ABLE CHASE

The case of Abel Chase is also peculiar and doubtful. On 2 May 1879 a sixty-five-year-old Abel D. Chase said:--

I was well acquainted with the Smith family, frequently visiting the Smith boys and they me. I was a youth at the time from twelve to thirteen years old, having been born Jan. 19, 1814, at Palmyra, N.Y. During some of my visits at the Smiths, I saw a STRANGER there WHO THEY SAID WAS MR. RIGDON. He was at Smith's several times, and it was in the year of 1827 when I first saw him there, as near as I can recollect.

--Wilhelm Ritter von Wymetal, Joseph Smith, the Prophet, His Family and His Friends (Salt Lake City: Tribune Printing and Publishing Co., 1886), 230-31.

The statement is signed, and Gilbert was one of the witnesses. Although Gilbert had obtained this affidavit from Chase (in May 1879), he was evidently not unimpressed by what Chase had to say. The following October, Gilbert told Saunders that

"Abel Chase testified that he thought he saw Rigdon before that time, but was not certain" (Lorenzo Saunders, Interviewed by William H. Kelley, 17 September 1884, 4-5, E. L. Kelley Papers, RLDS Church Library-Archives, Independence, Missouri).

"He said they had been studying on it for 35 or 40 years but could not get the evidence. Said if they could only make that [p. 5] point the fraud would come out. He said he could come the nearest proving it by Abel Chase but he was not certain (Lorenzo Saunders, Interviewed by William H. Kelley, 20 September 1884, 5-6, "Miscellany," RLDS Church Library-Archives, Independence, Missouri).

Not only had Saunders talked about Abel Chase with Gilbert, but Saunders reported that he had talked about the subject with Chase himself:--

"I talked with Able Chase & spoke to him about it (Lorenzo Saunders, Interviewed by E. L. Kelley, 12 November 1884, 13, E. L. Kelley Papers, "Miscellany," RLDS Church Library-Archives, Independence, Missouri).

So, Saunders knew firsthand how weak Chase's testimony was, despite the positive tone of the latter's affidavit.


S. F. ANDERICK STATEMENT

Several times while I was visiting Sophronia Smith at old Jo's house, she told me that a stranger who I saw there several times in warm weather and several months apart, was Mr. Rigdon. At other times the Smith children told me that Mr. Rigdon was at their house when I did not see him.

--S. F. ANDERICK STATEMENT, 24 JUNE 1887, Naked Truths About Mormonism (January 1888): 2.

Presumably this alleged sighting of Rigdon took place before Anderick left Palmyra in December 1828. Her mention of two sightings several months apart during warm weather is evidently designed to support Lorenzo Saunders' statement given to Deming several months previously (see III.D.9, LORENZO SAUNDERS STATEMENT, 21 JUL 1887). This part of Anderick's statement is highly suspect, especially since it contradicts the statements of William, Katharine, and Emma Smith.


DANIEL HENDRIX REMINISCENCE

Presumably Hendrix describes seeing Rigdon in Palmyra before his removal from the area in 1830:--

"I remember Rigdon as a man of about 40 years, smooth, sleek and with some means. He had a wonderful quantity of assurance, and in these days would be a good broker or speculator. He was a man of energy of contrivance, and would make a good living anywhere and in any business. He was distrusted by a large part of the people in Palmyra and Canandaigua, but had some sincere friends. He and Joe Smith fell in with each other and were cronies for several months. It was after Rigdon and Smith were so intimate that the divine part of the finding of the golden plates began to be spread abroad. It was given out that the plates were a new revelation and were a part of the original Bible, while Joe Smith was a true prophet of the Lord, to whom it was given to publish among men.

--"Origin of Mormonism. Joe Smith and His Early Habits. How He Found the Golden Plates. A Contemporary of the Prophet Relates Some Interesting Facts," San Francisco Chronicle, 14 May 1893, 12.

This claim is ludicrous on its face. If Rigdon were so well known in Palmyra, Tucker and Gilbert would have known him and would have had no trouble demonstrating Rigdon's presence without resorting to far off sightings of mysterious strangers.


COWDREY, DAVIS, AND VANICK

Cowdrey et al. reproduce three statements of Saunders:--his first interview with the Kelleys on 17 September 1884, his 28 January 1885 letter to Gregg, and his 21 July 1887 affidavit for A. B. Deming (pp. 495-98). They also reproduce Abel Chase's affidavit (498-99), Pomeroy Tucker's 1867 account (499), and S. F. Anderick's 1887 statement (499-501). They include and try to defend a thirdhand account by W. A. Lillie, who reported the 1885 statement of a Mr. Pearne from 50 years previously (501-2). They quote the 1851 statement of Orsamus Turner that has nothing to do with Rigdon's pre-1830 visits to Palmyra. After expressing his opinion that Rigdon was involved with Joseph Smith's transformation from a money-digging scheme to a religious fraud, Turner states that Rigdon appeared "about the time the book was issued from the press" and "blended himself with the poorly devised scheme of imposture." But Turner wasn't making a statement that Rigdon was seen in Palmyra before he was supposed to have been seen. He wasn't even putting an exact date (like the spring of 1830) on Rigdon's appearance. Nevertheless, Cowdrey et al. argue:--

The fact that Turner does not seem to have known anything about Rigdon's having been in collusion with Smith and Cowdery prior to the spring of 1830 not only goes a long way towards explaining his comments about Spalding (Chapter IX), but also provides an excellent indicator of the effectiveness of the conspirators' efforts to maintain an aura of secrecy around Rigdon's visits up to that time (503)

And this is an excellent example of how conspiracy theories thrive despite the lack of evidence. The lack of evidence becomes evidence. And thus the Spalding theorists become trapped in a closed, unfalsifiable paradigm of circular logic. Additionally, Cowdrey et al. misrepresent Turner.

They revisit the 1831 speculations of James Gordon Bennet (503-4), which I have already examined and show to be a conflation of Walters the Magician and Rigdon. They include a long reproduction of the 1897 statement of Daniel Hendrix (504-8), which is of suspicious origin and of questionable content (even by me).

At this point, Cowdrey et al. move on to claimed sightings of Rigdon in Colesville (508-13), which are based on a misreading of Emily Colburn Austin's 1882 history. This is quite complex, and since it doesn't deal with Palmyra I will not discuss it at this time.

The remainder of Cowdrey et al.'s discussion deals with a correlation of gaps in Rigdon's chronology and the sightings of Rigdon in New York before December 1830 (519-33). They conclude:--

Obviously the conclusion which must be drawn from the above is devastating to the Mormons, for in every instance without exception, where a witness or witnesses have claimed that Rigdon and Smith were together, a gap in Rigdon's chronology occurs which allows sufficient time for him to have visited New York. (p. 533).

However, for Saunders' dating of ca. 15 or 17 March 1827, their own list of Rigdon's activities includes the following:--

1827 Mar Held meeting at Mentor, Ohio. Baptizes Nancy M. Stafford.

1827 Mar 17 Last entry for Rigdon family in account legers of Kent family mercantile, indicating probable date of their removal to new residence at Mentor, 30 miles north . ...

1827 Apr Held meeting at Mentor, Ohio. Baptizes William Dunson & wife.

(Gap of approximately a month-and-a-half.)

(p. 523)

Obviously, this is a problem for their argument. So, they find themselves questioning the accuracy of Saunders' memory, suggesting that "maple sugar season, which is usually from early February through mid-April, with actual length varying from year to year depending on weather" (531). Even granting this argument, it's still a stretch. Yet, our author's argue:--

Since the odds for such a thing happening by chance are considerable (if not astronomical), and since there is no way any of these witnesses could possibly have known where gaps in Rigdon's chronology would occur, nor is there any evidence of collusion among them ... (p. 533).

The gaps that occur are gaps in our information, not necessarily gaps in Rigdon's presence in Ohio. Cowdrey et al.'s argument commits the fallacy of possible proof.

[_Dan Vogel]

The question you have not answered was: "However, have you considered ways that Joseph Smith's story is closer to treasure-digging lore than it is to Spalding's story?"

My point being that Joseph Smith's story about the plates grew quite naturally out of his own environment. He wasn't following what he supposedly read on the first page of MS Story. The similarities in the two stories are due to the author's similar environments, similar tasks, and the limited ways in which to solve the problem. Joseph Smith's story is similar to MS Story, but also significantly different.

Although you didn't respond to my questions, I will respond to this one again. I do think that the Joseph Smith story was on the money on the treasure-digging lore of the day. Just as the E. T. A. Hoffmann's Golden Pot is similar. It was a very common lore in the day. Was it closer? It was the reality TV of the day. Another question could be if it was the same. They are not the same, but they are all very similar. Popular music and movies today is very similar, but not the exact same. I think you escaped your own questions of whether were close, and whether they were common.

We know Joseph Smith was into money-digging and folk magic, we don't know he read the Spalding's MS.

[_Uncle Dale]

I'm prepared to read more defense presentations

On pages 202-203 of the second volume of "Early Mormon Documents," we find
the recorded statement of Mr. Isaac Butts, who was born in Palmyra and who
was about the same age as Joseph Smith, Jr.

That much, at least is undisputed: there really was such a person and he really
did live in western New York, and later northern Ohio, spending his last years
in Newbury township, Geauga Co. His tombstone may be viewed across the south
border of that township, in neighboring Auburn, where Isaac lived most of his
life. The statement attributed to him almost certainly reflects his own thoughts
and recollections at an advanced age. I can find no plausible reason to assume
that it was crafted by his interviewer, Arthur B. Deming -- or that the contents
were altered by Deming, prior to its publication in the initial issue of Deming's
"Naked Truths About Mormonism: --
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/CA ... 010088-2e2

Although Richard L. Anderson and other faithful LDS critics have dismissed the
Deming collection of eye-witness statements as totally worthless anti-Mormon
lies, concocted to destroy God's "one true church," it is not unusual these days
to see even observant LDS writers referencing some of this material in respectable
publications. Biographies of Orrin Porter Rockwell (as one example) draw upon
the Deming statements as suppling reliable historical details on early Mormons.

Surprisingly, the Isaac Butts statement in EMD2 is given in full, with no evident
effort to suppress Butts' disclosure of information pertaining to Sidney Rigdon.

The depondent's two remarks concerning Rigdon are provided in an off-hand manner
that does not appear to me to reflect any rabid anti-Mormon motives. Butts first
of all says that Rigdon preached the "funeral sermon" of his brother, "in Auburn,
O., in May, 1822." I can see no reason to doubt this assertion. Rigdon was at
that time the pastor of the First Baptist Church in Pittsburgh, but he had previously
been a traveling preacher, based in Trumbull Co., Ohio, not far to the east of
the Butts' home in Auburn. Rigdon's wife's family lived in Trumbull and probably
hosted their son-in-law on his occaasional visits, up from Pittsburgh.

I cannot identify Isaac's brother, who died during the spring of 1822. Possibly
he was a half-brother with a different surname. There were four Butts brothers
(or cousins) living in Auburn during the 1820s, but they do not show up in the
annual property tax records I have so far inspected. Hopefully this fifth young
Mr. Butts can be eventually identified, to help confirm Isaac's statement.

The second thing that Isaac Butts says regarding Sidney Rigdon, is that acquaintances
"told me they saw Sidney Rigdon much with Jo Smith before they became Mormons..."
Isaac does not say who, where, when or why -- but by November 1830, at least, both
Smith and Rigdon were definitely "Mormons;" so the supposition is that Isaac is
here relaying Rigdon-Smith information that pre-dates November, 1830. Another
possibility, is that the THEY spoken of here represents the New York witnesses
themselves -- but again, this merely sets the time frame to late 1830 or thereafter.

Isaac says that "many people" told him this -- but one man's "couple" can easily
be another's "many." I take this to mean at least three (and probably more) people
who were eye-witnesses to Smith and Rigdon being together before late 1830 is meant.
I find it doubtful that Isaac meant to assert that many more than three people
told him such a thing --- for, if there were "many" who had such knowledge, I would
expect them to have shared the information more widely and publicly, than just their
telling Isaac such a thing.

Isaac also says that these "many" were people he knew in New York, who "joined the
Mormons." By that, I suppose he meant to say "converted to Mormonism;" but he may
also have been speaking of people who simply followed along with Mormons among
their family and/or friends, who migrated westward during the 1830s. Not "many"
people Isaac could have known back in the Palmyra area actually converted to the
new religion -- so, again, I assume he speaks of a handful of people at most.

Isaac states that these people, who "joined the Mormons" also "came to Kirtland."
Here I assume he meant to say "Kirtland Mills" or "Kirtland Township." However,
there was another "Kirtland" -- a hamlet located in the center of Auburn township,
where Isaac lived most of his life. So, perhaps some caution should be exercised
in trying to discern exactly what his statement says.

Finally, Isaac states that these "many" whom he "knew in New York" and who "joined
the Mormons," at first "did not know who he (Rigdon) was..." That is, some people
from the Palmyra area said that they saw Rigdon and Smith together, back in New York;
but they did not, at the time, know who Sidney Rigdon was, "until they came to
Kirtland." The most straightforward reading here, suggests that these witnesses were
Mormon converts who moved to Kirtland Mills, in northern Geauga Co., Ohio, after
1830, who there became familiar with Sidney Rigdon. But another possible reading
would be that the witnesses did not know this until THEY (Rigdon and Smith) came
to Kirtland hamlet, in Auburn -- probably in 1832 when both lived nearby at Hiram.

So much for decyphering Mr. Butt's assertions ---

The question that remains to be answered, is "Why would Butts lie about such a thing?"

Or -- if he himself were not telling fibs, then why did the witnesses from New York
concoct such Mormon-damning allegations (and especially so, if they were Mormons!)???

If other parts of the Butts statement could be identified as untruthful or mistaken,
then I might be convinced that the old man was talking nonsense (or worse) here. But as
far as I can tell, he is truthful in the rest of the statement.

Either Smith and Rigdon DID meet before the latter part of 1830, or they DID NOT. Isaac
Butts' statement says that they DID. I take this as a potentially fruitful "lead,"
and suggest that his neighbors in Auburn (many of whom came from the Palmyra area)
be investigated, to see if others gave reports like Mr. Butts did, about Sidney Rigdon.

Uncle Dale

[_Merry]

I don't want to sidetrack this thread, but just want to briefly mention, it is presumed in this thread only naturalistic explanations for the Book of Mormon. Any claim or theory involving the supernatural by the very nature of the meaning of the word, means it does not have evidence to warrant it. My understanding is that Nephite requires the presumption of the supernatural, hence your counter to Dale that the Book of Mormon may have "original Nephite text" is not an acceptable claim, or assumption in this thread.

I don't think you are familiar with my research. If we operate on the theory that someone uncovered some records left by the Vikings, or compiled stories based on the Viking invasion, and the conspiracy then mangled this information to substantiate Manifest Destiny, then we can presume a naturalistic interpretation for a core text for the Book of Mormon.

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga2/sagawt0J.htm

I tend to use "Nephite" in the place of "Viking" as a code when talking with Dale, because TBM's tend to react with anger at such a theory.

[_Uncle Dale]

TBM's tend to react with anger at such a theory...

It is not the "anger" of the individual, faithful LDS that most troubles me, merry. I interact with these people on
a more frequent and more friendly basis than you do -- so perhaps I have learned a little about how to deal
diplomatically with folks who do not wish to hear that there never were any Israelite Indians in the Americas.

What troubles me more, is the subtle and generally unseen suppression of historical sources by certain LDS
"authorities," among whom I would list Joseph Fielding Smith and Richard L. Anderson.

In 1988 an ex-Mormon by the name of Allred (I think it was) established what he called the "Arthur B. Deming
Society," in Berkeley, CA. The only member I ever knew was Vernal Holley -- though Byron Marchant seems
to also have played some role in the publication of that group's "Naked Truths About Mormonism." I only ever
saw one issue of that 1988 publication -- which I transcribed, but was never able to photocopy. All issues were
suppressed and Allred reportedly bowed to Mormon pressure, to destroy what he had printed in Berkeley.

I was told that the second edition contained hitherto unpublished A. B. Deming articles, taken from the old back
files of the Oakland "Signs of the Times," -- the Adventist periodical which was published upon the same press as
Deming's own, original 1888 "Naked Truths." It was thus that I first heard about 1820s Ohio money-digging and
its connection to the Joseph Smith, Sr. family of Manchester, NY. However, I was uninterested at the time -- was
living in Asia, and never inquired into the demise of the Deming Society, etc.

Now I am keenly interested in the subject, but can find nothing to back up that earlier information regarding
unpublished, late 1880s statements from Ohio on the subject. My guess is that Deming interviewed the descendants
of Gadius Stafford, in Chardon, Ohio, and from them (or others like them) learned of the connection. Another
"missing link" on this subject is the "lost" 1945 manuscript(s) of Prof. Carl M. Brewster, whose family came from
Auburn, Ohio. I purchased fragments of an original draft of Brewster's "Did Sidney Rigdon Write the Book of Mormon?"
on e-bay several months back, but the final draft of over 100 pages has been removed, suppressed or otherwise
"lost" from among Brewster's papers in Washington.

Why is 1820s Ohio money-digging worth researching?

My answer is that the same people involved in those activities were involved in similar efforts back in the Manchester
area of western NY -- and that these people interacted with the Rev. Sidney Rigdon in Ohio, before Rigdon became a
Mormon convert. Can I prove any of this? Not without the "lost" Deming statements -- not without the "lost" Brewster
research -- not without Rev. Lawrence Greatrake's 1826 Ravenna pamphlet on the Campbellites and Rigdon -- not
without all of the old Spalding-Rigdon sources suppressed from publication, even up until now. Where is this stuff???

But I keep trying, nevertheless.

The year 1816 was a disasterous one for farmers across the northern part of the USA. Some thought the crop failure
of that year to be a localized disaster, and they packed up and headed west, hoping to find better prospects. Among
these pioneers headed west, out of New York, were Winslow and Desire Douglas Green, along with their son Ampleus,
who all moved from Palmyra, NY to Newbury twp., Geauga Co., Ohio in 1816. The War of 1812 had just ended and
Ohio was free from the threat of British hostilities -- many pioneers poured into that fertile wilderness after 1816.

In the next couple of years more pioneers settled south of the Greens, in what had been the uninhabited wilds of
Auburn. Several of the first settlers were from western New York, including the Crafts and Keyes of Middlesex, a few
miles southeast of the Greens' former home in Ontario Co. Intermarried with those first Auburn pioneers were the
Butts of Manchester (also in Ontario Co., and the future home of the Joseph Smith, Sr. family). These first Auburn
pioneers reported back home, telling folks there about the prospects in Ohio, and were soon followed by more Butts,
Antisdales, Harringtons, Bartholomews, Fishes, Orrs, Staffords, Caprons, Colvins, etc., from the Farmington-Manchester
area of Ontario Co., NY. The center part of Auburn became a "Little Palmyra," filled up with pioneers, some of whom
had come from within less than a mile of the Smith homestead in Manchester, and some of whom were reportedly
followers of the seer Joe Smith (or came from families in which other members were pre-Mormon Smith followers).

The story of this migration has been forgotten, or lost, or purposely suppressed. Should anybody take the trouble
to investigate -- to retrace Auther B. Deming's 1884-86 tour of statement-taking in Auburn -- I predict that a good
deal of hidden knowledge concerning Mormon origins might there be uncovered.

We might begin with this question: "Who took William Stafford's seer stone to Auburn, and why?"

William Stafford's family was using the seer stone in Rhode Island, years before the family moved to Manchester.
Who else was in tiny Rhode Island at that time, with the Connecticut militia of the Continental Army? Hint: he wrote
of a seer stone, used by ancient American "prophets," but did not call it "Gazelem."

UD