DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY

[_Uncle Dale]

I find it difficult to believe Spalding was a habitual user of these phrases and that they are virtually
absent from his MS Story. MS Story might not use "and it came to pass", but it does use scriptural
and archaic language such as "thy", "thou", "thee", "behold", "O", "thou art", "thou shalt", "thou shouldst", etc. ...

After his graduation from Dartmouth and his attainment of an MA degree (probably granted by that same college,
in consequence of his studying divinity, law, or some other profession under a learned teacher), Solomon Spalding
was licensed as an Evangelist for the Congregational Church in his own home region of Connecticut. After leaving
New England, he later filled in for the absent preacher at the Cherry Valley, NY Presbyterian Church. He obviously
had considerable exposure to the Christian scriptures and probably also some practice in homiletics. His foster
daughter later recalled that he had left some "sermons" among the papers inherited by his widow.

So, it is not surprising that a literate man like Spalding would make use of scriptural terms, even in scribbling
out a fanciful story that perhaps ran through his head after a little too much self-medication of the same sort of
wine he talks of in the first pages of the Oberlin manuscript's story.

It was also reported by Spalding's nephew and other witnesses, that he made no pretensions of being a minister of
any sort in his later years -- so it appears that he evolved away from his youthful profession of Congregational
Calvinism. I think he became a Deist of the Thomas Jefferson/Tom Paine sort -- a man who was more interested
in the application of human reason to life's problems, than the application of pious prayers. At the same time, his
extant writings show that he maintained an interest in the sociology and politics of religion, even long after he had
given up on Christianity as a personal faith. His Oberlin story is packed with religious terminology and occasional
biblical snippets -- for example:

He compares a struggling Indian athlete in that story to a figurative biblical term, thusly --

"His heels kicked against the wind like Jeshuran waxed fat..."

Since I do not find this phrase much used in early 19th century popular fiction, I suppose that Spalding was here
drawing upon his earlier biblical studies, to reproduce: "But Jeshurun grew fat and kicked" (Deut. 32:15)

In Chapter IV of Solomon Spalding's Oberlin manuscript, he has his Roman protagonist speaking thusly:

"Who can endure such reflections, such heart-rending anticipations?
They pour upon my soul like a flood and bear me down with the weight
of a millstone. O that my head were waters and my eyes a fountain of tears;
then my intolerable burthen should be poured forth in a torrent and my soul
set at liberty..."

Again, this sort of phraseology may simply be a hold-over from Spalding's days as a student of divinity and as
a licensed preacher; but I think his source for the above sentiments was something other than the Bible.

After having Fabius, the Roman stranded in ancient America, express the above emotions, Spalding goes on
to tell of how that same Roman wanderer comforted himself by the application of reason -- whereby he anticipated
the Copernican solar system and the spherical Earth, and reasoned that by traveling west he might eventually
end up back in Italia.

Where might have Spalding picked up this use of reason, in order to solve problems and overcome superstition
and implausible religious explanations for the natural world? Consider this quote from Tom Paine's famous 1794
book, "Age of Reason" (p. 24 of "Part the First" in the original London edition) --->

Another instance I shall quote is from the mournful Jeremiah,
to which I shall add two other lines, for the purpose of carrying
out the figure, and showing the intention of the poet:

"O! that mine head were waters and mine eyes
Were fountains flowing like the liquid skies;

Then would I give the mighty flood release,
And weep a deluge for the human race."

My guess is that Spalding was relying more upon Tom Paine than he was upon Jeremiah, and that he may have even
had a copy of Age of Reason open to page 24, when he scripted Fabius' improbable remarks.

Later in his Oberlin story, he has another Roman speak of "the true principles of reason;" and in the fragment of a
draft letter which D. P. Hurlbut evidently recovered from Spalding's old trunk at Hartwick, NY, we read this:

"In forming my creed I bring everything to the standard of reason... This is
an unerring and sure guide in all matters of faith and practice. Having
divested myself therefore of traditionary and vulgar prejudice and submitting
to the guidance of reason it is impossible for me to have the same sentiments
of the Christian religion which its advocates consider as orthodoxy..."

It sounds like another quote out of Paine, and I would guess that some careful searching of Common Sense or
some other Paine volume would turn up a number of the same phrases Spalding used in writing his letter.

Thus, while Spalding could (and obviously did) use biblical expressions, I do not think he ever did so with any special
reverance or piety in mind. If anything, Spalding probably tended to use biblical expressions and little fragments of
biblical passages in a subtly sarcastic or impious, parodying manner.

This is one point you might use, Dan, to argue against Spalding having written any of the Book of Mormon, which is seemingly
such a straightforward work of intense piety.

Possibly both Abner Jackson and Joseph Miller were lying, and nobody ever called the man "Old Come to Pass," in
either Conneaut (where Mr. Jackson was a resident on Aron Wright's farm) or in Amity (where Miller resided).
Perhaps the Nephites' similar foreknowledge of Copernican astronomical mechanics was not a Spaldingish innovation.
Then again, any writer who would inject such non-biblical astronomy, and overuse such a biblical phrase, to the point
of mind-numbing boredom, in a purported work of holy writ, may have not been quite so pious as it appears at first glance.

Want to discuss these points, Dan?

UD

[_Dan Vogel]

Dale,

Brent is right -- all the Spalding evidence is worthless, because of the "wherefore/therefore" distribution in the Book of Mormon text --
and I ought to immediately burn my files and give up my useless researching this sort of "cross-contaminated" hearsay.

You're getting too far downstream. But I have to question a methodology that generally dismisses firsthand testimony because it is a single source and gives priority to thirdhand late sources. You dismiss evidence from Joseph Smith's revelations almost out-of-hand ("almost") because you turn around and use it yourself. The revelations and story of Cowdery's attempt at translation (which incidentally you got wrong) were not intended to throw people off the track that Cowdery had brought a replacement MS with him. That's what makes it good evidence. It's incidental to the purpose of its existence. But you seem attracted to sources like Bennett's unattributed thirdhand reports that both garbles the information and relates speculation as fact. Some sources just aren't reliable.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Dan,
Art’’s post did much more than ““simply quote sources”” I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you missed it. I’’ll repeat some of the other evidence he provided.

Of course, I know what Art said. For now, I'm focusing on the witnesses and the historical evidence. However, his mention of the discrepancies between the physical MS Story and the descriptions of the witnesses is also ultimately a question of the witnesses. If one is skeptical of the witnesses' memories about names like Lehi and Nephi, it follows that details about foolscap paper hardly matter.

by the way, while it is prudent to be skeptical of Spalding witnesses, one factor which is important to consider is ““motivation.”” Did these witnesses seek out reporters to tell their story to? Were these witnesses anti Mormon or were they non Mormon? Did they seem to have a overly keen interest in promoting their recollections of Spalding’’s manuscript having similarities to the Book of Mormon? Is it likely they conspired together?

I haven't accused the witnesses of lying. I have suggested that their memories played tricks on them. Please read what I say; it will save us both from wasting time responding to non-issues. I have implied that the interviewers may have been overzealous. They sought the witnesses out and pressured them for information.

Spalding witnesses all say it was common for Spalding to read to friends, boarders, family, business acquaintances quite regularly so it’’s understandable there will be many witnesses to his readings. This recollection seems to credible. The witness statements support the actual evidence that Spalding wrote, and wrote more than just one piece of work, that the Roman story in existence is unfinished and therefore probably not the one brought to the printers upon completion. Yes, the witnesses may have had faulty memory, may remember some things based on planted memories but the witnesses were consistent that the Roman story was not the one they had previously told Hurlbut about.

Stick with me and you will see that things aren't as they appear. Of course, if the witnesses were victims of something like false memory syndrome, then they were sincere, and when confronted by the physical MS Story, they gave what was the only answer that made sense to them. Are you sure an incomplete MS would not have been taken to the printers? According to Spalding's daughter, the MS given to the printer wasn't finished:--

My mother mentioned many other circumstances to me in connection with this subject which are interesting, of my father's literary tastes, his fine education and peculiar temperament. She stated to me that she had heard the manuscript alluded to read by my father, was familiar with its contents, and she deeply regretted that her husband, as she believed, had innocently been the means of furnishing matter for a religious delusion. She said that my father loaned this "Manuscript Found" to Mr. Patterson, of Pittsburg, and that when he returned it to my father, he said: "Polish it up, finish it, and you will make money out of it."[b] My mother confirmed my remembrances of my father's fondness for history, and told me of his frequent conversations regarding a theory which he had of a prehistoric race which had inhabited this continent, etc., all showing that his mind dwelt on this subject. The "Manuscript Found," she said, was a romance [b]written in Biblical style, and that while she heard it read she had no special admiration for it more than other romances he wrote and read to her.

--Matilda Spalding McKinstry Statement of 3 Apr. 1880, in Ellen E. Dickinson, "The Book of Mormon," Scribner's Monthly, Aug. 1880, 616ff. 3 Apr. 1880; also quoted in Deseret Evening News 14 (3 Jan. 1881).

Given the fact that the Roman story was unfinished and that strong evidence supports that a completed manuscript had been brought to the printers by Spalding, it is with high probability likely there were 2 different stories and this is consistent with the witnesses’’ statements.

I think the probability is high that there was only one MS. The invention of a second MS was to explain the discrepancies between the witnesses and the physical evidence. This happens all the time in trial cases.

In this case the witnesses statements are strengthened because they are consistent with strong evidence of a complete manuscript being brought to the printers. It is also likely the witnesses did their best to recollect the details of the story but given the lapse of time, probably did did err, and probably were influenced by the Book of Mormon, however the way the brain works oftentimes certain information does tend to stick.be remembered much more than other, even over long periods of time.

And some of the information, as I have shown with the Mound Builder elements, does match MS Story. But I seriously doubt that they would remember the invented names, and all them remember the same names. There is good reason for skepticism there.

Something like ““and it came to pass”” would likely stick in memory much more so than storyline details. So yes, Dan you can criticize their memory but overall their memories support other evidence in particular that the uncompleted Roman story manuscript in existence was not the same manuscript brought to the printer’’s by Spalding.

"And it came to pass" doesn't seem to have been part of Spalding's vocabulary.

From Art's post (I've colored what I think are signficant points)

"(A) Benjamin Winchester’’s premise that Hurlbut, motivated by a desire ““to obtain revenge,””(ref: Winchester [1840], 6) concocted a notorious fabrication around Spalding and then sought to deceive the world with it, is both illogical and untenable in light of Hurlbut’’s subsequent behavior. If he knew from the very beginning that the entire story of a Spalding-Book of Mormon connection was nothing more than the product of his own vengeful imagination, a creation deliberately designed to deceive, then it makes no sense whatsoever that Hurlbut would devote all of his energies over the next several months to seeking out the very manuscript which, once found and compared to The Book of Mormon, would not only destroy the theory he had striven so hard to promote, but would likely wreck whatever was left of his own reputation in the process. In other words, the presumption that Hurlbut would actively promote a lie and then set out on a quest to uncover the one piece of evidence capable of exposing him as a liar is patently absurd. "

I have argued in print this very thing. So I'm not one to accuse Hurlbut of intentionally manipulating the witnesses. It was their claims that attracted him to Conneaut and other places. That doesn't mean he was a great investigator, which is a point Art and his co-authors also make.

So if Hurlbut was attempting to influence witnesses in order to destroy Mormonism, he actually did the opposite. By finding the unfinished Roman story by Spalding and it having little obvious resemblance to the Book of Mormon, it looks like he in fact was working on behalf of the church, by showing that the manuscript which the witnesses might be remembering is similar to but does not correspond to the Book of Mormon. This evidence indicates Hurlbut was not an overzealous investigator helping to plant ideas into the witnesses minds. If he was overzealous it would have been better for him to destroy the Roman story manuscript.

I wouldn't say Hurlbut was overzealous in the sense that he intentionally manipulated his witnesses, but he wasn't critical of them either. He likely unintentionally lead his witnesses by telling them what other witnesses had said and tried to coax responses from his witnesses--asking, for example, "Aron Wright remembers having heard the names Nephi and Lehi, do you?" "Well, I'm not sure," says another witness. "Do they sound vaguely familiar? Are they the kinds of names found it the MS Found?" "Yes, just the kinds of names I also heard." It is the repeated themes that point to Hurlbut's interview techniques. He didn't separate the witnesses and make them volunteer information; they appear for the most part to stick to the script and narrow focus of Hurlbut's questions.

From Art's post (again I colored parts red) :

““(D) The very physical appearance of the Oberlin manuscript itself virtually destroys the Mormon argument that this was the same work Spalding submitted to the Pattersons for their consideration.
First of all, Story was never finished. It progresses, howbeit fitfully, up to the point of a final war, devotes about forty pages to a description of that war, and then ends abruptly in the middle of a page just as the two opposing armies appear ready to begin the final battle.
Secondly, this manuscript cannot possibly have been the one Spalding took to the Pattersons, for it is hardly fit for publication. For example, a number of changes in the spellings of proper names occur throughout the text; Siota becoming Sciota, Hadokam changing to Hadoram, Bombal to Banbo, Labarmock to Labamack, Lambon to Lambdon (note the similarity to Lambdin here-- q.v. Chapt. IV), and Mammoons being later designated as Mammouths. In one especially confusing passage, two Kentucks who sneak into the Sciotan camp by night are identified as Thelford and Hamkien on one page, and as Kelsock and Hamkoo on the next. Later, even Hamkoo changes to Hamko”” Aside from the fact that the manuscript itself is incomplete, can anyone imagine that Spalding actually submitted such a work to the Pattersons for their erudite consideration?
Furthermore, Story begins as a first-person narrative told by its hero Fabius, and remains thus through chapter four. In chapters five through eight however, only a few passages are in the first person; and in all the remaining text (which comprises more than half the manuscript) everything is written in the third-person. These chapters contain lengthy and often intimate conversations, but provide the reader with no explanation as to how Fabius could have obtained such information. ““As Spalding neared the end of his story, he must have realized that he had no plausible way to return to his first-person account,”” and that radical changes to his manuscript would be necessary in order to reconcile this difficulty.

As the reader of many MS submitted for publication, both as books and articles in journals, I quite often encounter low-quality unfinished MSS. Perhaps Spalding wanted to know if he should waste any more time on the project.

Consider also the circular logic used by Mormon writers when they criticize supporters of the Spalding Enigma who hold that there must have been at least one other Spalding manuscript in existence. The Mormons claim, of course, that Spalding wrote only one manuscript, the one which Hurlbut found in the trunk, Manuscript Story-- Conneaut Creek, which, as we have shown, is obviously unfinished and in no condition to be presented to a publisher. Yet they do not question that Spalding took a manuscript to the Patterson brothers for their consideration. If not this one, then which one?

This is essentially an ad hominem circumstantial argument designed to win an argument based on an apparent contradiction, which in reality is only a subjective belief that an incomplete MS would not have been submitted to a publisher.

(E) Another piece of evidence indicating that Manuscript Story and A Manuscript Found were not one and the same can be found in the recollections of Redick McKee and Joseph Miller, Sr., both of whom befriended the Spaldings during their residence at Amity between 1814 and 1816, and later recorded statements providing many details about Solomon, his family, and his manuscript. What is important here is the fact that both individuals recalled a certain specific detail about Spalding’’s A Manuscript Found which seems to have escaped prior notice.

According to Miller: ““...When Mr. Spalding lived in Amity, Pa., I was well acquainted with him.... He had in his possession some papers which he said he had written. He used to read select portions of these papers to amuse us of evenings. These papers were detached sheets of foolscap. He said he wrote the papers as a novel. He called it the Manuscript Found, or The Lost Manuscript Found. He said he wrote it to pass away the time when he was unwell; and after it was written he thought he would publish it as a novel, as a means to support his family.””(ref: Washington, PA, Reporter, April 8, 1869; Creigh, [1870], 89-93. Miller’’s statement is dated March 26, 1869) And, ““...Mr. S. was poor but honest. I endorsed for him twice to borrow money. His house was a place of common resort especially in the evening. I was presenting my trade as a carpenter, in the village and frequented his house. Mr. S. seemed to take delight in reading from his manuscript written on foolscap for the entertainment of his frequent visitors, heard him read most if not all of it, and had frequent conversations with him about it.””(ref: Pittsburgh Telegraph, Feb. 6, 1879)

According to Redick McKee: ““One day when I called he [Spalding] was writing upon foolscap paper, taken from some old account book. My curiosity was excited, and I said to him, that if he was writing letters I could furnish him with more suitable paper. He replied that he was not writing letters, but... [a] story he called The Manuscript Found. It purported to give a history of the ten tribes, their disputes and dissentions... etc.””(ref: McKee to Deming, Jan. 25, 1886, in Chicago Hist. Soc.)

These memories constitute an extremely important detail because foolscap was a very special kind of paper with particularly distinguishing and readily identifiable characteristics. An examination of the original manuscript of Spalding’’s Manuscript Story, conducted at our request by Roland M. Baumann, Archivist of Oberlin College’’s Mudd Library, revealed that no foolscap was employed in the creation of that work.

Again, if I doubt the accuracy of the memories in other areas, I can also doubt this detail also.

[Bedlamite]

You're getting too far downstream.

Perhaps so, Dan -- I recall my years of attending JWHA meetings and being told almost to "a surety," by my
peers there, that certain areas of Mormon history were open to study and reporting and that other areas had been
so well researched and agreed upon, that they really did not need any further inquiry. Thus, we might study and
report upon the Mormon efforts to bring forth and establish the sugar beet industry in the Intermoutain West, until
the cows come home -- but there was absolutely no need whatsoever to study our ancestors' attempts to bring
forth and establish the Book of Mormon, or their methods in covering up the "eternal covenant of patriarchal marriage."

Although Dan Peterson and his crowd might grumble a little at your Smith bio, most of the scholars and academics
will not complain too loudly, because you leave the status quo paradigm intact and all our concentration remains
centered upon Smith and not upon any dangling loose threads of an initial conspiracy in the founding of Mormonism.

But I have to question a methodology that generally dismisses firsthand testimony because it is a single source
and gives priority to thirdhand late sources. You dismiss evidence from Joseph Smith's revelations almost out-of-hand
("almost") because you turn around and use it yourself.

That's the difference between you and myself, Dan. You are a published writer who must come to some sort of
final conclusions in order to have your books say anything definite -- in order to communicate a message or to
set up a recommended path for further historical inquiry. But I am a professional researcher and not much of a
writer at all. In my last academic position I was paid to assemble and compile information on the educational needs
of a small, federally-funded school system in the far flung islands of the western Pacific. I would seek out and
tabulate information used to justify funding levels and to secure special educational grants from Washington, D. C.
I was used to seeing my compilations viewed one way back on Guam and Saipan, and viewed entirely differently
by the bureaucratic officials in the national government. Which was OK, because it was their job to reach the
final conclusions -- my job was simply to find and compile data.

Should the day ever come that I actually publish anything (like the projected Rigdon book), I will have to state some
conclusions of my own, and will probably have to stick with those conclusions after they are presented as my findings
and not just my research priorities.

As I said earlier in this thread, RLDS are conditioned not to accept Mormon testimony too easily -- even when the
Mormons giving that testimony are the very founders of our religion. And, besides that cultural predisposition, my own
experience with RLDS leaders, archivists, teachers and scholars tells me that they themselves often selectively use
historical source material, not to uncover the truth of the past, but to promote and protect the "latter day work."

So, yes, I admit a skepticism when it comes to accepting any old Mormon source upon its face value. Sidney Rigdon
accused The Twelve of counterfeiting at Nauvoo -- and Orson Hyde, speaking on behalf of The Twelve, accused Elder
Rigdon and his followers of being the counterfeitors. Which source am I to believe? I am naturally skeptical regarding
either source, but I am convinced that such counterfeiting of Mexican and US silver coins did go on in the town, under
the protection of some high officials in the Church. As a researcher, my perceived task is to investigate such controversy
and to see if I can come up with hitherto unknown or unexamined relevant source material for further study.

But, as a book writer, Dan, you would come out looking rather badly, to write on Nauvoo counterfeiting and not to come
to some final conclusions on the subject, before you brought your book to an end.

That's the difference I see.

Let's take another example. Mother Smith says that Alvin was enthusiastic about the Nephite Record -- perhaps even
more enthusiastic about it than was Joseph himself. What do I do with such a single source report? How much trust do
I put in it? I can only be skeptical --- but when Orsamus Turner claims that he knew (or was told) at an early date,
that Alvin was the family choice for a prophet, ahead of Joseph, then I begin to place a little more reliance upon
Mother Smith's testimony. And if I can locate a third and a fourth confirming source, then I will place even more
trust in her recollections. Isn't that a natural sort of way to organize research priorities, Dan?

The revelations and story of Cowdery's attempt at translation (which incidentally you got wrong) were not intended
to throw people off the track that Cowdery had brought a replacement MS with him.

That may be true. So please spell out exactly what I "got wrong," because my hypothesis is that Cowdery was actually
involved in the "translation" process in ways that might have allowed him to contribute to the language of the text, if
not to its basic subject matter. If my notions are anywhere near correct, the report of Oliver's translation failure was
a device whereby Oliver was either exhonorated of any outside accusations of having so contributed to the narrative,
and/or he was thus halted in his expectations of making any further contributions. None of which has much to do with
what might have been in his peddler's pack, as he journeyed back and forth across New York or Pennsylvania.

That's what makes it good evidence. It's incidental to the purpose of its existence. But you seem attracted to sources
like Bennett's unattributed thirdhand reports that both garbles the information and relates speculation as fact. Some sources just aren't reliable.

Because -- and like I have said many times -- my work is basically that of an investigative reporter who has not yet
published his reporting. In carrying out such a task, I try to be skeptical as to the validity and fulness of disclosure
for each additional source I come upon. When those sources begin to provide a pattern of information, contrary to
the common consensus paradigm of Mormon origins, I become progressively more interested in that pattern. And, as
you yourself mention, I become progressively more concerned with possibilities of "cross-contamination" of the basic
evidence thus presented. But, until I can uncover and compile enough information to form a reasonably predictive
pattern, I cannot say for certain whether I am dealing with valid, authentic historical communications or not.

That is why I am so uneasy with single sources -- whether they might support one of my working hypotheses or not.
Single sources do not establish a probable pattern of past events and they are only predictive, if and when a second
source is uncovered and compared in its contents to the original source.

My theory is that the writer(s) of the Book of Mormon compiled the book, not to make money nor to gain notoriety,
but to establish the "one true church," the leaders of which would be able to extend their power and influence in a
world-wide, exclusive organization -- just as Sidney Rigdon outlined in the published 1/3 of his 1844 spring conference
talk in Nauvoo. My theory also relies upon the view that one (or more) of the writers of the book actually believed in
Nephites, in the "power of the restored priesthood," and in the expected millennium -- no matter what elements of
fraud had to be resorted to, in order to get the book distributed among that section of the American public susceptible
to hearing and "obeying" its peculiar "gospel."

Now -- back to Oliver's "translating" efforts -- and back to his writing the "Articles of the Church revelation," as reported
by Bro. Faulring.....

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

The invention of a second MS was to explain the discrepancies between the witnesses and the physical evidence.
This happens all the time in trial cases.

I can understand your adopting this old Mormon excuse as a working hypothesis, Dan --- but I cannot for the life
of me comprehend why you would state for all the world to see, that this is your final and unalterable conclusion.

Let's look at some evidence to the contrary --

Solomon's brother Josiah stated in later years, that he had visited his brother at the outset of the War of 1812
(probably during the summer of 1812, prior to General Hull's surrender) at what is now Conneaut and that at
the time Solomon Spalding "began to compose his novel, which it is conjectured that the Mormons made use
of in forming their Bible. Indeed, although there was nothing in it of Mormonism or that favored error in any way,
yet I am apprehensive that they took pattern from it in forming their delusion. "

Josiah goes on to describe either the Solomon Spalding document now at Oberlin, or else perhaps an earlier draft of
that same basic story, and then says that he left his brother while the story was yet unfinished (and evidently before
its author had written down the events of the great war of mound-builder extermination). Josiah then states that he
later heard from Solomon's widow, "if I recollect right, that my brother continued his history of the civilized nation
and the progress of the war until the triumph of the savages to the destruction of the civilized government."
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs1/18 ... htm#pg254b

Certainly Solomon's Oberlin manuscript was carried on past the mention of conflicts of its civilized mound-builders with
their surrounding savage neighbors, but the draft we see preserved at Oberlin College does not tell of the destruction
of the "civilized" ancient Americans by "the triumph of the savages." Such and ending of the tale, in a subsequent draft,
might have made it a more saleable literary commodity.

There is other testimony supportive of Josiah's recollections, and that comes from the Rev. Abner Jackson, the son of
the man to whom Solomon sold land on the OH/PA border, prior to 1812. Jackson says:

[Spalding wrote a story] purporting to be a history of the lost tribes of Israel... he gave an account of their divisions
and subdivisions... They soon quarreled, and then commenced war anew, and continued to fight... until finally a
terrible battle was fought, which was conclusive. All the Righteous were slain, except one, and he was Chief Prophet
and Recorder. He was notified of the defeat in time by Divine authority; told where, when and how to conceal the
record, and He would take care that it should be preserved, and brought to light again at the proper time, for the benefit
of mankind. So the Recorder professed to do, and then submitted to his fate. I do not remember what that fate was.
He was left alone of his party... Spaulding's Romance professed to find the Record where the Recorder concealed it, in one of those mounds, one of which was but a few rods from Spaulding's residence.
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA ... htm#010781

Thus, like Josiah Spalding, Abner Jackson reports that Solomon's novel was brought to a conclusion, in which the savages
exterminated the civilized mound-builders. Unlike Josiah (who left his brother while he was still writing, in the summer
of 1812), Abner Jackson says that the story which was brought to such a conclusion was about Israelite tribes.

One of my own Mormon relatives was a friend of Erastus Rudd, the Mormon brother-in-law of Abner Jackson. Rudd also
had recollections of a Spalding story, which he provided as an independent source. Rudd reportedly said Spalding:

"had written a romance on a few mounds at the above named village [New Salem] , pretending that the ten tribes
crossed from the eastern hemisphere via the Behring Straits to this continent, and that said mounds were built by
a portion of them, to bury the dead after some hard fighting. The novel, as I was told by those who heard it read,
referred to them as idolaters and not otherwise religious."
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/LD ... htm#011678

Elder Rudd conveyed essentially the same account as did Jackson, but Rudd reportedly told all of this to my relatives
in the Andrews Tyler family, during the 1820s.

Why would Jackson and Rudd make up stories about a second "lost tribes" manuscript? I do not comprehend why they
would "invent" such accounts or why Rudd would have invented such a description before the Book of Mormon appeared.

Again, we have this published account from Spalding's intented publisher, the Rev. Robert Patterson, Sr.:

"a gentleman, from the East originally, had put into his [Silas Engles'] hands a manuscript of a singular work,
chiefly in the style of our English translation of the Bible, and handed the copy to R. P., who read only a few pages,
and finding nothing apparently exceptionable, he (R. P.) said to Engles, he might publish it, if the author furnished
the funds or good security. "
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/1842Wilm.htm#pg16b

In the same pamphlet, immediately alongside Patterson's signed statement, the Rev. Samuel Williams (a fellow Calvinist
minister with Patterson in Pittsburgh at that time) states: "Mr. Patterson firmly believes also, from what he has heard
of the Mormon Bible, that it is the same thing he examined at that time."

Rev. Williams' published 1842 report from Patterson evidently so troubled the resident LDS Apostle in Pittsburgh
(Elder John E. Page) that he visited with Patterson himself and obtained his own information. This information he and
Rigdon intended to announce to the world in the summer of 1844, but after the publication that announcement in the
newspaper, Williams' charges were never met and refuted. All the while Rev. Patterson was living in the city -- and
all the while Apostle Page and his opponents were carrying on a running battle over the merits of Mormonism in the
city's popular press. Rev. Patterson never objected to nor corrected his fellow minister's 1842 report -- and it stands
as uncontroverted evidence of a Spalding story "chiefly in the style of our English translation of the Bible."

Finally, the very first mention we have of the "two manuscripts" came from Aron Wright, at the end of 1833, eleven
months before Howe's book was published.

Why would Patterson and Wright "invent" "a second MS" ???? What "discrepancies between the witnesses and the
physical evidence" were Patterson, Wright, Rudd and Jackson all trying to cover up???

Your conclusion does not make sense to me, Dan. It sounds more like Mormon apologetics than it does scholarship.

Here are some possibilities for you to consider:

1. The Oberlin MS itself shows signs of having been partially re-copied from an earlier source.

2. Several witnesses said that Spalding finished his story, bringing an end to the mound-builder civilization

3. Robert Patterson, Sr. had no objections to putting the name of his publishing company upon the book's title page.

4. Numerous early sources say that the the story in which the mound-builders were exterminated was about Israelites.

5. The first extant document in the Spalding claims library says that Solomon wrote a second story.

Why, after all of this --- and much more that I can (and will) cite, do you continue to say that Spalding could have
never written a second draft of his one extant story???? Can't you at least hold open the slender possibility that the
writer wrote a cleaned-up version of his Roman story, and that Patterson was not such an idiot as to accept the draft
now on file at Oberlin??? I have a dozen different 1810s and 1820s books published by Patterson & Hopkins, by
Patterson & Patterson, and by Patterson and Lambdin ---- all are quality volumes, meant to sell and make a profit.

Your lack of judgment in this matter clouds your entire refutation of the Spalding claims, Dan.

UD

[_Fortigurn]

"And it came to pass" doesn't seem to have been part of Spalding's vocabulary.

Where would people get the idea from that it was? Because they certainly did get the idea that it was part of his vocabulary:

I well recollect telling Mr. Spaulding, that the so frequent use of the words 'And it came to pass,' 'Now it came to pass,' rendered it ridiculous."

I well remember he wrote in the old style, and commenced about every sentence with 'And it came to pass,' or 'Now it came to pass,' the same as The Book of Mormon, and according to the best of my recollection and belief, it is the same as my brother Solomon wrote, with the exception of the religious part.

I have read the hook of Mormon, which has brought fresh to my recollection the writings of Solomon Spaulding; and I have no manner of doubt that the historical part of it, is the same that I read and heard read, more than twenty years ago. The old obsolete style, and the phrases of "and it came to pass," etc., are the same.

[_Uncle Dale]

I wouldn't say Hurlbut was overzealous in the sense that he intentionally manipulated his witnesses, but he
wasn't critical of them either. He likely unintentionally lead his witnesses by telling them what other witnesses
had said and tried to coax responses from his witnesses--

I suppose anything is possible. For all I know, the moon is made of green cheese. But, Dan, how do you personally,
as a historian of Mormon origins, move so quickly from the possible to the likely?

If it is likely that Hurlbut made/led/caused/allowed the original witnesses to say that the story they heard or read
had Israelite characters with names like Laban, Lehi and Nephi, then why was this misreporting never uncovered?

Orson Hyde tells us that he went to the area soon after Howe's book came out and interviewed old neighbors and
associates of Solomon Spalding. In a mere sentence or two, Hyde could have cleared all of this controversy up,
by quoting a single Hurlbut witness. Hyde could have documented his allegation that these same witnesses later
said that Spalding's writings and the Book of Mormon did not resemble each other and had no names in common.

In all the years after 1834, somebody -- Mormon or otherwise -- might have exposed this Hurlbut influence, or at
least offered one shred of evidence whereby doubt might be cast upon these witnesses' testimony, or their motives,
or their character. But that never happened, so far as I can tell.

In fact, the brother-in-law of my g-g-g-grandmother, Elder Andrews Tyler, was the first person known to have left
the Mormon Church over the Spalding claims -- before Howe's book came out. Elder Tyler's son, Daniel Tyler (the
chronicler of the Mormon Battalion) later said that Hurlbut witness Henry Lake (a neighbor of the Tylers) had come
across the state line unto the Springfield branch of the Church of Christ and was there spreading the Spalding
authorship claims. If we want to talk about likely events, then it is likely that Elder Tyler was convinced to
leave the Mormons, due to Henry Lake talking about names such as Laban, Lehi and Nephi appearing in the writings
of Solomon Spalding.

And yet, I know of no attempt by the Mormon leaders to controvert this influence -- instead, they closed down the
Springfield and Elk Creek branches, where the Spalding claims were being kept alive by old associates of Solomon
Spalding, and abandoned any known subsequent missionary efforts in the contigious counties of Ashtabula, Erie
and Crawford, for several years. My own ancestors were relocated to Missouri, in the closing of these branches.

Does all of this sound to you like the outcome of hestitant, forgetful witnesses who did not recognize any resemblance
in the respective stories unique names?

Have you ever sat down and pondered compiled lists of the unique names from the Book of Mormon, and from the
extant writings of Mr. Spalding, to try and determine how they were derived and constructed? Much has already been
said about this phenomenon, and how the names of the characters in the two stories form very similar patterns of
construction, depending upon the repetition of a certain syllable or clusters of letters in a series of related names.
Is this evidence of common authorship, or is it non-evidence?

asking, for example, "Aron Wright remembers having heard the names Nephi and Lehi, do you?" "Well, I'm not sure,"
says another witness. "Do they sound vaguely familiar? Are they the kinds of names found it the MS Found?" "Yes,
just the kinds of names I also heard." It is the repeated themes that point to Hurlbut's interview techniques. He didn't separate the witnesses and make them volunteer information; they appear for the most part to stick to the script and narrow focus of Hurlbut's questions.

Like I said, perhaps the moon is made of green cheese -- but until you can provide some evidence of this sort of
thing being "likely," I think you are off on a wild goose chase, Dan.

Hurlbut interviewed other witnesses, of course. Perhaps you can tell us where he made/led/caused/allowed the old
neighbors of the Manchester Smith family to recall untrue accustations? For heavens sake, Dan! Hurlbut was taking
testimony that he WANTED to be checked out by future readers of his compiled evidence. He wanted investigators
of Mormonism to consider that testimony, before they surrendered to the missionaries' baptismal challenges. It
would have destroyed his very efforts themselves, had he manipulated the witnesses and their testimony into
demonstrable falsehoods, and then given that same material to the printer for publication to the world.

Why did Orson Hyde or some other Mormon defender NOT uncover Hurlbut as a deceiver, in his collecting of this sort
of testimony -- when those same witnesses were yet alive and could be cross-examined? Probably because any such
re-interviewing of those named and located witnesses would have resulted in their giving the same testimony again.

Again, if I doubt the accuracy of the memories in other areas, I can also doubt this detail also.

Of course you can -- that is your right. You may doubt the virtue of your own mother, for all the world cares. But when
you go around telling other people not to believe any of the Spalding authorship claims, because you think they were
LIKELY manufactured, by one device or another, you are overstepping your bounds, from the provenance of your
rights to that of your wrongs.

First you tell us that any pertinent evidence presented by the original 1833 witnesses was likely manufactured -- then
you tell us that all subsequent confirming evidence was "cross-contaminated" by the faulty testimony of the original
testifiers and their promoters, through many decades. That leaves us without a single reliable statement, doesn't it?

Sounds like the defense of a criminal lawyer to me --- "Pay no attention to that little man behind the curtain -- for if I
can plant a single reasonable doubt in your minds, then you must aquit my honorable client, President Joseph Smith!!"

Oh, for shame, Dan --- for shame!

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

THE CROSS-ROADS OF Mormon HISTORY

Every student of early Mormonism quickly comes to a fork in the historical road where an important choice must be made.
I call this the "cross-roads of Mormon history;" for after each of us has made his/her decision as to which path to follow,
that decision will invariably alter our subsequent views of what Mormonism is -- what its original purpose was -- and how
much its originators can be relied upon to provide us with accurate and authentic information about Mormonism's origin.

Strangely enough, that initial fork in the road comes not at the spot in the journey where we first ask ourselves whether
or not the phenomenon is a godly manifestation; but rather, it comes even earlier than that weighty binary choice.

The first important cross-roads of Mormon History comes at that point in our studies of the past, where we must decide
whether or not the religious movement originated with Joseph Smith, Jr. There are two possible answers here -- first,
that Mormonism began with Smith, and he was, as Donna Hill called him, "The First Mormon" -- and second, that the new
religion did not originate with Smith, but was instead the secret product of two or more people, working together to
"bring forth and establish the cause of Zion" by means not altogether open and forthright.

Once the student of Mormon origins has made a decision in this regard, only THEN does a second fork appear in each of
the two, now separate and divided, pathways to further inquiry. For, although seldom considered for what it is, this second
fork in the road is where that same student must ask: "If Mormonism DID originate with Smith, can it still be divine?" --
or, the alternative query: "If Latter Day Saintism DID NOT originate with Smith, might it somehow still be divinly inspired?

Thus you can clearly see that the "Smith-alone" crowd is comprised of two sets of closely related brethren -- those who
say that Smith alone was the original prophet, seer, revelator and translator of the final dispensation of the Gospel, and
those who merely say that Smith alone was the pretended, or self-deluded, prophet who created Mormonism. These
two sets of related brethren may appear to fight and fuss among themselves -- a Mike Quinn or a Dan Vogel may cross
the room, from one side to the other. But they all remain within the same conceptual room together. They all expend
their energies and concentration upon the historical figure of Joseph Smith, Jr., agreeing what a great genius he was,
and how tremendous a latter day institution he has created (no matter the precise degree of divine inspiration credited).

These brethren gather together to feast at their Mormon History Association banquets; or to pat one another on the back
at their Sperry symposiums and their JWHA book award celebrations. They can look back to Sister Fawn M. Brodie as
their great common philosophical and maternal founder -- the ardent advocate of the "Smith-alone" explanation of the
Mormon past. Among their sub-groups these brethren may quibble and feud, pointing fingers and thumbing their 4-in-1s,
or their FARMS Reviews, or their latest purchases from Signature Books -- but they are one people and they have made
Mormon Studies a respectable academic discipline. They have proslytized the world with Saint Fawn's message -- that
Mormonism is not and never was a deeply-guarded conspiracy. And thus, we can all rest assured of its benign nature.

But there also exists a tiny, scattered remnant of that original Gentile-Apostate confederation, which began to fade in
the public eye, after Johnston's Army built and occupied Fort Douglas -- and which dwindled in unbelief after the salty
Territory of Utah was made a state and sent senators to Congress, and became in every way Christian and respectable.
This scattered remnant holds no annual feasts nor book award ceremonies -- for even its sons and daughters have been
seduced into the Smith-alone ranks, and few remain loyal enough to hoist aloft the rent of Spalding's garment in these
dark and dreadful latter days.

This little band of two thousand, or less, struggles on -- whispering to the world that dreaded word: CONSPIRACY.

But the Smith-alone crowd need not worry. The little band is weak and weary. Persecuted and driven from the land of
their first inheritance, they limp up the sides of a little hill, to make their final stand, against all odds.

A few rub the canker of rust from their battle-worn swords and head-plates, and stand defiant against the armies of the
surrounding king-men and Brodieites. They bury their records and await their punishment, for having dwindled in
unbelief and for having taken that awful fork in the road, from whence they first began.

Courage, little flock -- the armies of the Brodieites and Brighamites and Vogelites come upon us again in their strength!

UD

[_marg]

previously I wrote: Art’'s post did much more than ““simply quote sources”” I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you missed it. I’’ll repeat some of the other evidence he provided.

Of course, I know what Art said. For now, I'm focusing on the witnesses and the historical evidence. However, his mention of the discrepancies between the physical MS Story and the descriptions of the witnesses is also ultimately a question of the witnesses. If one is skeptical of the witnesses' memories about names like Lehi and Nephi, it follows that details about foolscap paper hardly matter.

I disagree Dan, if one is skeptical of the witnesses’ memories such as Lehi and Nephi it does NOT follow that details about foolscap paper hardly matters. “Skepical” does not mean complete rejection. The “foolscap paper” memory of Joseph Miller and Redick Mckee is another piece of evidence which requires evaluation in light of other evidence to determine significance if any.
For example when Joseph Miller made the statement in which he briefly mentions Spalding using foolscap paper, the Roman Manuscript was not available having been lost among Howe’s papers. If J. Miller had in fact observed the Roman/Oberland MS, which wasn’t on foolscap, why even mention foolscap at all? The fact that he menions “foolscap”, that it is even noteworthy to him, that the Oberland is not on “foolscap, and not available at the time in the public eye…leads to a good probability that J. Miller did remember another different manuscript on foolscap. Sure he could be in error. But his claim/observation is reinforced by McKee later. So Dan it’s just additional evidence which supports the idea that a different manuscript in addition to the Oberland one existed. Of course good investigation would have been if investigators asked all witnesses what kind of paper Spalding wrote the Manuscript Found story on. But the investigation was admittedly poor.

With regard to your skepticism of witnesses’ ability to remember names such as Lehi and Nephi , I do not concur with you that these names were most likely a result of implanted memory. To illustrate a personal experience, just yesterday I had a conversation with someone who asked me it I knew what street a mutual friend of ours lived on. It had been 2 years since I’d heard the street name but I seemed to remember it started with a “C” and after telling her that, she asked me, if the street is “Canterbury” to which I replied “yes”. Now had she not mentioned Canterbury it is quite likely I wouldn’t have been able to remember but once she said Canterbury I knew without the slightest bit of doubt, 100% certainty that was in fact the correct street name. My memory had been jogged.

So Dan, yes, the witnesses’ had they been quizzed without first reading the Book of Mormon and if they had been carefully questioned such that controls were in place to avoid leading them, implanting ideas..what would result is their actual long term memory after 20 + years. It is possible and even likely they’d not remember all the names, perhaps even none. Some ideas would likely stick though. But the fact that they wouldn’t have remembered names such as Lehi and Nephi had that been the case would not have been proof they didn’t hear such names from Spalding's readings. Yet upon hearing the names twenty years later, it is reasonable that their memories would have been jogged and they would know with certainty whether or not those were the names they had been somewhat familiar with. Since they were later shown the Oberland Ms. had they been wrong about Lehi and Nephi, it is likely then that the Oberland MS would have jogged or refreshed their memory and they would have appreciated their error. (assuming these are truthful witnesses not intent on lying – which Dan you say is your argument position) There is no indication that these people were not attempting to be truthful, and therefore with that assumption would not have hesitated admittance of their mistakes. If they were anti-mormon it would be more likely they wouldn't have admitted errors, but these people do not appear to be anti Mormon, but rather non Mormon.

Art reasons about this in his post “B) In December of 1833, Hurlbut returned to Conneaut with Spalding’s “Manuscript Story” in hand and proceeded to show it to Spalding’s former neighbors, who verified that it was NOT the manuscript to which they had referred in their various statements. (ref: Howe, 288; Aron Wright’s unsigned letter of Dec. 31, 1833) In order to refute this, one must claim that Hurlbut initially manipulated his witnesses, and that the deception stuck even after they were shown the original manuscript containing the very same story about which their memories had allegedly been manipulated in the first place. Isn’t it odd that, upon being confronted with Spalding’s original, not one of them ever said, “Why yes, this is the story you were trying to get me to recall, and it’s nothing like you coached me into saying it was”?

For the witnesses to continue to stick with a faulty memory of Lehi and Nephi after reviewing the Oberland MS. would mean that in effect, they would most likely have been lying, because the Oberland should have refreshed their memory. While the procedure of investigation had flaws, the fact that the witnesses’ did not attempt to hide that they had reviewed the Book of Mormon, works against their credibility, but their admittance works in favor of their honesty that it was not something they felt they needed to hide. It would appear their and Hurlbut’s objective was less about their credibility and more about a determination of whether the Book of Mormon did contain words from the Spalding manuscript read to them by Spalding years past.

previously: by the way, while it is prudent to be skeptical of Spalding witnesses, one factor which is important to consider is ““motivation.”” Did these witnesses seek out reporters to tell their story to? Were these witnesses anti Mormon or were they non Mormon? Did they seem to have a overly keen interest in promoting their recollections of Spalding’’s manuscript having similarities to the Book of Mormon? Is it likely they conspired together?

I haven't accused the witnesses of lying. I have suggested that their memories played tricks on them. Please read what I say; it will save us both from wasting time responding to non-issues. I have implied that the interviewers may have been overzealous. They sought the witnesses out and pressured them for information.

You haven’t directly accused the witnesses of lying but indirectly one can make that assumption as I point out above. If their memories are corrupted by information given them, i.e. the Book of Mormon and whatever Hurlbut or other witnesses have said, then the Oberland manuscript later shown them should have helped to rectify their faulty memory. That the Oberland didn’t change their memory leads one to a likely conclusion, of either they remembered correctly or if not, they were likely lying.

I’m not convinced by your suggestion that the witnesses were pressured too much. It seems to me there are too many witnesses independent of one another, respected in the community, who were not anti Mormon, who all remembered a different manuscript to the Oberland one. And Hurlbut was zealous, but in the end, he didn’t produce evidence favorable to the Spalding theory, so he couldn’t have been too zealous to the point of deliberately corrupting the evidence in favor of the Spalding theory.

previously I wrote:
Spalding witnesses all say it was common for Spalding to read to friends, boarders, family, business acquaintances quite regularly so it’’s understandable there will be many witnesses to his readings. This recollection seems to credible. The witness statements support the actual evidence that Spalding wrote, and wrote more than just one piece of work, that the Roman story in existence is unfinished and therefore probably not the one brought to the printers upon completion. Yes, the witnesses may have had faulty memory, may remember some things based on planted memories but the witnesses were consistent that the Roman story was not the one they had previously told Hurlbut about.

Stick with me and you will see that things aren't as they appear. Of course, if the witnesses were victims of something like false memory syndrome, then they were sincere, and when confronted by the physical MS Story, they gave what was the only answer that made sense to them. Are you sure an incomplete MS would not have been taken to the printers? According to Spalding's daughter, the MS given to the printer wasn't finished:--


My mother mentioned many other circumstances to me in connection with this subject which are interesting, of my father's literary tastes, his fine education and peculiar temperament. She stated to me that she had heard the manuscript alluded to read by my father, was familiar with its contents, and she deeply regretted that her husband, as she believed, had innocently been the means of furnishing matter for a religious delusion. She said that my father loaned this "Manuscript Found" to Mr. Patterson, of Pittsburg, and that when he returned it to my father, he said: "Polish it up, finish it, and you will make money out of it." My mother confirmed my remembrances of my father's fondness for history, and told me of his frequent conversations regarding a theory which he had of a prehistoric race which had inhabited this continent, etc., all showing that his mind dwelt on this subject. The "Manuscript Found," she said, was a romance written in Biblical style, and that while she heard it read she had no special admiration for it more than other romances he wrote and read to her.

--Matilda Spalding McKinstry Statement of 3 Apr. 1880, in Ellen E. Dickinson, "The Book of Mormon," Scribner's Monthly, Aug. 1880, 616ff. 3 Apr. 1880; also quoted in Deseret Evening News 14 (3 Jan. 1881).

Dan if all the the witnesses had faulty memories..a few of them at the very least should have had their memory jogged by the Oberland Ms. and remembered those names in it as being correct and not Lehi and Nephi or whatever else they remembered through faulty memory. Remembering a repeated phrase such as “And it came to pass” is also significant. It is likely such a phrase would stick in their memory if it was something repeated frequently to the point of annoyance. I’m extremely skeptical that all the witnesses were attempting to tell the truth but were suffering from faulty memories and hence when shown the Oberland didn't appreciate that was the one they had been referring to in the affidavits. I don’t find that to be highly probable, it seems to be a low probability to me given the circumstances.

Regarding the manuscript being finished I seem to remember something about Spalding’s wife remembering the manuscript lacked mainly a preface. Again Dan, given what I’ve read of the evidence it is not likely Spalding submitted an uncompleted manuscript. However perhaps one could argue that the manuscript submitted was a completed version of the Oberland one. But, I find this not likely given the evidence of the witnesses. It seems to be that the Oberland one was remembered by some but that Spalding had continued on with another story taking place earlier on in time period and in biblical style in contrast to the Oberland one. As well the Oberland Ms.had many corrections in it indicating it was a working copy but it had stopped without completion. And witnesses did mention that Spalding had decided to write another similar similar themed story in biblical style, earlier time period. Sorry I don’t remember the source of that information.

previously:
Given the fact that the Roman story was unfinished and that strong evidence supports that a completed manuscript had been brought to the printers by Spalding, it is with high probability likely there were 2 different stories and this is consistent with the witnesses’’ statements.

I think the probability is high that there was only one MS. The invention of a second MS was to explain the discrepancies between the witnesses and the physical evidence. This happens all the time in trial cases.

So according to you the non Mormon witnesses rather than honestly admit they made a mistake, instead went along with pressure from Hurlbut to agree there was a second manuscript. I don’t know about your observation being "that sort of thing happening all the time" . I doubt the witness had much interest in this Spalding theory other than their unfortunate part in being witnesses to Spalding’s readings. What happens all the time, if that’s under consideration, is that physical evidence by those committing criminal acts is destroyed by the criminal. I read online @ http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/CA/natr1988.htm

STATEMENT OF J. C. DOWEN to Deming

The intro before Dowen’s statement mentions In January of 1885 Dowen was on his deathbed and he probably had no reason to inject any great falsehoods into his statement of recollections concerning the Kirtland Latter Day Saints.

In last line reads: I have heard Mr. Deming read this statement distinctly and make it as the last important act of my li[fe], hoping it will prevent people from embracing the Mormon Delusion.

In the statement he says : "Hurlbut staid at my house every three or four days for as many months. I read all of his manuscript, including Spaulding's Manuscript Found, and compared it with the Book of Mormon, the historical part of which is the same as Spaulding's Manuscript Found, which is about the size of the papyrus Jo had with his Egyptian mummies. Hurlbut said he would kill Jo Smith. He meant he would kill Mormonism. The Mormons urged me to issue a writ against him. I did, as recorded in my Docket, Dec. 27, 1833, on complaint of Joseph Smith, warrant returnable to William Holbrook, Esq., at Painesville, Ohio. He was brought to trial, and over 50 [15?] witnesses were called. The trial lasted several days, and he was bound over to appear at the Court of Common Pleas at Chardon. 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. There was all kinds of iniquity practiced at that time."

Of course this statement is not proof but it is conceivable that Hurlbut showed the judge the manscript before Mormons had a chance to talk to him, And if the Mormons had been harassing Hurlbut as indicated by the trial and likely also threatening him…Hurlbut was one man against many…plus the Mormons were hihgly motivated to get ahold of the Spalding manuscript ..it is likely they would pay him for the incriminating manuscript . As John Dowen says… I should not be surprised if Howe sold Spaulding's Manuscript Found to the Mormons.



I’m going to leave off at this point in response to your post…I’m sorry to do this it seems often, but there is so much information and it becomes overwhelming. I will attempt to continue later.

[_Uncle Dale]

[Dowen's] statement is not proof but it is conceivable that Hurlbut showed the judge the manscript before
Mormons had a chance to talk to him, And if the Mormons had been harassing Hurlbut as indicated by
the trial and likely also threatening him…Hurlbut was one man against many…plus the Mormons were
highly motivated to get ahold of the Spalding manuscript ..it is likely they would pay him for the incriminating
manuscript. As John Dowen says… I should not be surprised if Howe sold Spaulding's Manuscript Found
to the Mormons.

There is a considerable body of evidence, indicating that D. P. Hurbut was exhibiting something or another,
which he claimed to be Spalding's "Manuscript Found" in his late December 1833 lectures in and around Kirtland.
This was in the short period between the time that he returned to that place from New York and the time that he
became aware that Smith had obtained a warrant for his arrest -- after which Hurlbut fled from Geauga Co. for
several days. Upon his return he was arrested in Painesville, and then transported in custody of the Mormon
constable and held in Kirtland for a while. Then he was taken back to Painesville and held there until his hearing.

It is possible that the time Dowen referred to, as having Hurlbut as a resident in his house in Kirtland, was the time
during which Hurlbut was being held there, awaiting his hearing in Painesville. Or, perhaps not -- since at about that
same time Mr. Dowen's term of office as one of the two local Justices of the Peace expired, and he henceforth had
no official connection to the criminal justice system in Geauga Co.

At any rate, Dowen and others claimed that Hurlbut was displaying a Spalding manuscript, the content of which
matched closely with that of the Book of Mormon. RLDS Bishop E. L. Kelley, when confronted with this pile of evidence,
reluctantly admitted that Hurlbut must have been exhibiting something or another -- but he would not concede that it
could have been an authentic Spalding holograph. More recently, Matthew B. Brown has made a passing reference to
this historical oddity in his appendix on Spalding, in PLates of Gold, a well-written LDS faith-promoting volume.

Sandra and Jerald Tanner, on the other hand, rejected this cumulative evidence out-of-hand, after citing just one of a
dozen purported eye-witness accounts of the strange document.

Since Dan appears to agree with the Tanners at practically every turn of early Mormon history, I suppose he will
argue back at you, marg, that this purported eye-witness evidence was either manufactured by Hurlbut or was somehow
cross-contaminated by other pro-Spalding testmony.

Assuming Dan will conclude that it is likely that Hurlbut never showed such a document to anybody during late
December, 1833, he may be pleased to find that Art Vanick agrees with him on this particular point.

In late 1838 W. W. Phelps, who had keft the LDS Church in Missouri, advertised in the newspapers that he was writing
and exposure of Joe Smith and Mormonism. Instead, he was quickly seduced back into the Mormon ranks and his book
was either never completed or was destroyed. At this same time, reports were circulating among Mormons and likely
also ex-Mormon officials such as Phelps, that Smith had obtained Spalding's "Manuscript Found" and had paid somebody
(either Hurlbut or Howe) a good sum of money for the document. These reports circulared as far afield as New England
and Spalding's survivors and their associates got wind of them by 1842 at least.

None of which proves anything -- but it would be useful if we could consult Phelps' suppressed book. I heard a story
in Utah, in about 1980, that some damning confessions from Phelps had been preserved in the personal papers of
Joseph Fielding Smith. But how anybody can today follow up in that lead, I am not sure. I put the question before
Dr. Leonard Arrington at that time, but his only reply was that he did not think any such Joseph Fielding Smith papers
were preserved in the Historian's archives, and that I should speak with Elder Arthur Haycock, for permission to consult
"other" Joseph Fielding Smith papers, held elsewhere by the Church. I had already had one unhappy run-in with Elder
Haycock, and did not think it advisable that I should incur any additional anger from him by offering such a request.

Perhaps Dan can tell us where the Phelps material is kept, and whether or not it mentions Hurlbut, Howe, Spalding, etc.

UD

ps -- the manuscript you mentioned is kept at Oberlin College -- the school President Snow attended in his youth