DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY

[_Uncle Dale]

It was actually a rewrite of Joseph Smith's June 1829 revelation (D&C 18), which had assigned Cowdery and David Whitmer the task of naming 12 apostles, and that the 12 would then ordain priests and teachers. This revelation essentially cut Cowdery out of the hierarchy, which also ran counter to what he and the Whitmers believed a church government should be like. Cowdery's revelation declared himself to be an apostle, and called him to organize the church by ordaining priests and teachers. Joseph Smith declared it of the devil, but when he organized the church the following year he didn't organize 12 apostles. Instead, he said an elder was an apostle. This was a compromise with OC and his supporters. Not until after Cowdery was made co-president in December 1834 was the Quorum of 12 organized. There is more, but that will do for now. I would much rather pursue the Spalding theory.

Well, I did not mean to imply that each and every "revealed" tenet from Cowdery's document made it into the D&C --
only that it was a precursor to the final text and that it appears to have influenced that final text -- and that the Cowdery
document is steeped in Book of Mormon language and allusions. Clearly he at least expected the contents to be taken seriously by
somebody. My thoughts are that the document may help provide insight into how Cowdery and Smith may have worked
together on "divine" texts, with Smith being the final editor or final voice, but with Oliver providing input nevertheless.

It is not immediately relevant to whether or not parts of the Book of Mormon resemble Spalding's extant writings. However, in
anticipation of the forthcoming word-print analysis, which I am seeing in the preliminary drafts, I feel that the Cowdery
"revelation" and its relationship with the language of certain parts of the Book of Mormon may yet become a subject of interest.

Art and I do not agree on every jot and tittle of theorizing -- which is probably for the best.

I want some solid 1820s information on Oliver before I make so many decisions about him as Art has done. Since he
was a minor during that period, it is difficult to find him in preserved records. If his father was indeed a Mason, Oliver
could have become one also at the reduced age of 18 -- perhaps mention of him will yet turn up in some lodge records.
I am looking into that, for "Kirtland" in Auburn right now.

As for single source or multiple-source hearsay -- I suppose each investigator must come to his/her conclusions. When
the single source is an eye-witness, the whole matter gets even more problematic. There are a dozen different events
where I'm tempted to trust John C. Bennett's eye-witness testimony -- but think it best to match him against the public
records, rather than trusting any confirming second, third, or fourth accounts.

The subject of Spalding has been so belittled over the last 80 years or so, that I cannot expect any LDS or RLDS
archivist or investigator to volunteer hitherto unexamined source documents. I might as well ask them for primary
sources on Ed Decker, or something. Still, I am hopeful that solid evidence will be turned up -- if only somebody
would take the time to look.

As I said, I'm trying to examine the Spalding theory as a phenomenon. It's too easy to jump ahead and quote from sources that reflect later developments. Those sources can't be understood in context and assessed for reliability until one knows the developments. One can't just look for similarities. A number of sources "confirm" Spalding's MS was about the lost tribes, but how meaningful is that when that is not what the Book of Mormon is about?

It would be helpful to you, had Patterson said that the manuscript brought to his attention was about Romans, or
was terribly unfinished, or was not the same one that the widow later brought to him -- or anything.

A final thought: Spalding may have written a lost tribes story that superficially resembled the Book of Mormon,
but was not so close a match as some witnesses say. In fact the Mormons used to argue that very possibility in
the years before 1884. It remains a largely unexplored option -- neither Mormons nor Spalding advocates having
much use for such ideas in the wake of the Honolulu discovery.


Dale

[_Dan Vogel]

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?

Do you have another explanation for the similarities in the wording of various witnesses who were not all in the same room? It isn't possible, it is likely he led his witnesses and cross-infected them. But I can understand the ad hominal reaction to something you can't answer.

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?

Reported by whom? Who would have the sophistication to know the dangers?

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.

You don't seem to be following my argument. I'm arguing that Hurlbut's witnesses for the most part were sincere, but they were victims of false memory. The problem is much bigger than Hurlbut. It's the witnesses talking among themselves for a year before he came. You should read up on false memory. The repeated phrases indicate that Hurlbut was probably composing the statements, as well as sharing information between witnesses.

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.

Do you have any description of how Hurlbut took his statements?

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.

So.

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.

There's those patterns you were talking about earlier. Rather than trying to imply that there must have been something to the Spalding claims or else the Mormons would have behaved differently, I suggest sticking with the statements of the witnesses themselves.

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?

It does seem odd to me that you make much of my lack of uncertainty, but you are not at all suspicious of the lack of hesitancy in witnesses who claim to remember invented names from 20+ years previous.

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?

Perhaps it is evidence that they are made up names. But my problem is in the claim that they could remember the names after so long, some even claiming that all the names in the Book of Mormon are from Spalding. There is a limit to credulity.

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.

Do you have a better explanation for the similar phrasing between the various witnesses?

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.

As I said, I don't think he intentionally led or infected the Spalding witness. Of course, he used a similar method in Manchester, and one should be critical there too. In Manchester, he also led the witnesses to focus on certain questions, but the effect wasn't nearly the same. While it's not likely that Hurlbut could implant memories of Joseph Smith money digging, it is entirely possible for him to have "helped" witnesses remember names. You do understand why leading the witnesses is wrong, don't you? Again, I think you should read up on false memory, and memory in general, especially since your case rests on it.

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.

I said Hurlbut didn't do it intentionally, and no one approached these matters with sophistication.

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.

Nonsense. When a witness says they can remember specific names after 20+ years, or even all the names, and you think they are likely true memories I think you abandon common sense. The comments about foolscap paper come 50+ years later. If I don't think the evidence for a second MS is otherwise good, I'm hardly going to forget about the problems because two witnesses remember different sized paper--but more on this later.

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?

The problem is that the case rests on memory. So far, I have examined Hurlbut's witnesses prior to the discovery of MS Story. How reliable do they sound? Don't you see serious problems with their testimonies?

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!

You are getting a little over dramatic here, don't you think? Is it reasonable to believe so many memories could work so well? Someone in your position should really investigate false memories as a more reasonable explanation.

[_Dan Vogel]

Dale,

Upon what basis do you say that, Dan? I cannot recall all of the many skits of the old TV program, "Laugh-In," but I
recall the general format of the program, many of its performers, and phrases which were used over and over and
over again, such as "You bet your bippy!" and "Very interesting -- interesting, but stupid."

Now, Dan, I will be the first to admit that there is a serious problem with my memory -- it is disappearing at a very
frightening rate. But do I really have to remember every Laugh-In skit, before you will allow me to remember phrases
used on that old program many, many times? On what basis do you disallow this?

A TV series of hundreds of forgettable skits, week after week, tends to character-driven with repeated catch phrases and punch lines. So I'm not surprised at your state of mind. I expect the opposite with Spalding witnesses. Sort of like, "Remember the guy who cuts the other guy's head off to get his Bible?" No, but I remember their names were Nephi and Laban.

How in heaven's name can you say that, Dan? Were you there with Martin Harris on his side of the curtain? Can
you be 100.00% positive that when the 1830 edition was handed to Martin, he did not say: "Gee, there sure is a lot
of stuff here I never knew about -- and a lot of the stuff I wrote down for Joe isn't here, either!" ???

When you tell us what was in the Book of Lehi, you are overstepping your bounds as a recognized scholar and putting
your hard-earned reputation in jeopardy. You do not know what was said in those lost pages -- other than the fact
that their replacement story fits in fairly well with the rest of the book. Then again, according to Bro. Brent, all the rest
of the book had already been set down on paper, before the replacement account was prefixed to them ---- so it
would not have been difficult to match its essentials to the already written part of the narrative (and especially so, if
that already written part were compiled in anticipation of what would be written into the replacement text).

Thus, for all you know, the 116 pages (or how ever many there were) told the story of Ephraimite and Manassehite
idolators who escaped Assyrian bondage in Samaria by pretending to attend King Josiah's Great Passover in nearby
Jerusalem, and then escaped across Asia to the Americas, bringing along with them a few monotheists in their midst.

What was Martin more interested in, Dan -- getting word to future generations about how much or how little the Book
of Lehi matched up with the "small plates of Nephi"? -- or making a juicy profit in his publishing investment?

I'm sorry Dale, but you don't know the Book of Mormon that well. You are speaking gibberish. Did you ever read Kent Brown's essay on what was in the lost Book of Lehi? It was Mormon's abridgment of the Book of Lehi.

If we had some eggs we could have ham and eggs.
...... If we had some ham.

Admit it, Dan -- you have no idea what the Book of Lehi was about. The narrator may have been Lehi largely quoting
Nephi -- or Nephi quoting some Lehi -- or some Nephi and some Lehi both quoting God Almighty.

Your scholastic deduction is reaching the point of absurdity --- a bridge of "ifs" and "maybes" that goes nowhere.
Didn't they teach you in law school how to make use of induction as well as a priori reasoning and deduction?

The Preface of the 1st edition says that the lost 116 pages was taken from "the Book of Lehi, which was an account abridge from the plates of Lehi, by the hand of Mormon." See also D&C 10. The narrator was Mormon, just as it is from Mosiah to 4 Nephi. Of course, he could have quoted Lehi on occasion, just as he does in Alma, but "I, Alma" is not frequent. "I, Nephi" in such a situation might have occurred, but it is highly unlikely to have occurred frequently. Obviously, the description fits the present books of Nephi.

So then, complain away all you want about the quality of the testimony. I thought you were here to refute the
Spalding authorship claims, based upon evidence that you were willing to share with other investigators. If this
is the best you can do, Dan, I think you must realize by now that you are failing in your purpose.

There isn't a want of new evidence, but of a critical attitude towards the sources we already have.

Instead of presenting all of this armchair pontificating, why don't you go out and uncover some primary evidence
of your own? Go transcribe a few of Spalding's letters, preserved in various archives, or dig up a few journal entries
from his day that mention him and his activities.

Heck, Dan -- with ten minutes' consultation of Ancestry.com, you can report back to us how close Mary Rigdon lived
to Solomon Spalding's "temperance tavern" in Amity in 1814, and how often her nephew Sidney Rigdon might have
walked over from Library, to visit his cousins in good old Aunt Mary's household.

Got time to consult the 1810 census for Washington Co., PA -- Amwell twp.? Or do you want me to do that for you?

Which proves what?

[_marg]

When a witness says they can remember specific names after 20+ years, or even all the names, and you think they are likely true memories I think you abandon common sense.

You are missing an important point. Had the witnesses been questioned after 20+ years and been asked to give specific names...remembering them probably would be remarkable depending upon how often they heard those names. But you know that's not how they were questioned as they had looked at the Book of Mormon before hand. I'm sure you are aware of the phenomenon of the brain's ability to make connections to remember something because of something observed or heard which jogs the memory. So it wouldn't be all that remarkable if the witnesses looked at the Book of Mormon which they said they did, and then remembered those names.

If the witnesses had been deceptive they wouldn't have mentioned reading any of the Book of Mormon. If the witnesses had experienced faulty memory (which is your position) ..then it would also have been likely that at the very least one of them would have appreciated their error when Hurlbut showed each of them the unfinished Manuscript lost/Oberland one.

It is you who abandons common sense Dan, because you do not appreciate the how unreasonable it would be for not one witness after reviewing the Manuscript Lost/Oberland to appreciate and acknowledge they had been mistaken previously. Instead they all said ..that it wasn't the manuscript they had referred to. What a bunch of weak minded, intellectually challenged you take those witnesses to be. Well one good thing for the Spalding witnesses at least they aren't delusional and do appear to be well grounded in reality unlike the Book of Mormon witnesses you seem to have no problem with you see angels and listen to God speaking to them.

Do you have a better explanation for the similar phrasing between the various witnesses?

Generally witnesses are reluctant to give statements. I had experience in the past of going to small claims court over the decision of the gov't insurance corporation for a small car accident I was in. There were 2 witnesses who observed the accident, a crossing guard and a mother of young children who lived nearby. Both these people should have had an interest in testifying...as the accident was at the crossing where the crossing guard worked and the mother's children when a bit older would probably use that crossing.

Both did end up coming to court but I found them to be somewhat reluctant, not something they wanted to do or be bothered with. But I think that is human nature, to not want to be bothered with something for which there is little perceived reward and only perceived hassles. I think Hurlbut may have had a similar experience. He was motivated to an extent, both personal and financial, but likely the witnesses were reluctant.

According to Dales site http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs1/18 ... htm#pg222b ,there is a paraphrasing from a number of sources of statements by James Briggs ..in which he said that Hurlbut at a committee used the statements by John and Martha Spalding...to influence them to provide money for him to get additional statements from Spalding's neighbours. John and Martha's statement are short. Certainly it doesn't appear as if they put much effort into them. And they likely looked at one another's statements. It doesn't mean they were lying but they likely discussed it and came to agreed upon conclusions of what to write. Later, Hurlbut may have presented those statements to other witnesses as examples and to encourage. It other witnesses were willing to supply statements such as John and Martha..then it puts a little pressure on others to do so as well. The later statements by neighbours did add more details.

"This "Doctor" Hurlbut promised to return with many incriminating signed affidavits taken from the former neighbors of the Mormon Smith family. This much I heard him say myself. The man also dropped dark hints about his being able to prove the altogether human origin of the Mormon Bible in the writings of a certain deceased clergyman. The details of this impending disclosure Hurlbut shared only with Judge Allen, Dr. Card and Col. Corning. However, I was later informed that he had displayed to them and to three other men, not members of the "Committee," two personal statements he had recently obtained from the brother and sister-in-law of this mysterious deceased clergyman -- depositions which detailed the true origin of the so-called Book of Mormon. "

Dan, you say ( I believe) that the spalding witnesses were sincere. But, according to your view ..not one of them had the intellectual capacity to appreciate and acknowledge their errors..and appreciate the Lost Manuscript as being the one they had remembered in their first statements. Your assessment is extremely unrealistic.

[_Uncle Dale]

Do you have another explanation for the similarities in the wording of various witnesses who were not all in the
same room? It isn't possible, it is likely he led his witnesses and cross-infected them. But I can understand the
ad hominal reaction to something you can't answer.

According to Aron Wright's Dec. 31, 1833 draft letter (perhaps written to Josiah Jones, Esq. of Kirtland Twp.), it was
Spalding's old neighbor, Dr. Nehemiah King (1772-1832), who first made the connection between Solomon Spalding
and the Book of Mormon, when Samuel H. Smith and Orson Hyde passed through New Salem (Conneaut) on their
mission to New England. If this is a valid recollection, then perhaps it was Dr. King who first informed other old settlers
in the area of his discovery, after having heard those missionaries preaching from the Book of Mormon. Their diaries
indicate that they sold some copies of the book in the area, so perhaps Nehemiah King and/or one of his associates
had early access to the text and began making mental comparisons of its contents to what could be recalled of Spalding's
old story-telling sessions and loaning out of his writings.

If that was the genesis of the Spalding authorship claims -- with one or two auditors of and readers of Mormon preaching
and scriptures -- then it stands to reason that the initial telling of the recollected resemblance would influence to some
extent the memories of other old pioneers who knew something of Solomon Spalding's literary productions.

Perhaps Nehemiah King, Aron Wright, or some other New Salem resident even went to the trouble to write down a list
of thematic parallels between the two sources. I do not know that is exactly what happened, but it is one alternative
possibility to Hurlbut having implanted false memories in those peoples' minds.

John and Martha Spalding lived at a considerable distance from New Salem and they may not have been aware of
Nehemiah King's reported discovery. I think it very likely that John Spalding came to his conclusions regarding the
Mormon book in a separate event, hazily related by his sister-in-law, Solomon's widow. The widow seems to think
that John attended a Mormon preaching service in New Salem and learned of the literary resemblance as a matter of
great surprise and regret. As I said in another message in this thread, I think it possible that John attended a preaching
service conducted by D. P. Hurlbut early in 1833 in Crawford Co., PA and came to his own conclusions in the matter,
independently of Nehemiah King. Benjamin Winchester, a relative of Hurlbut, says that the missionary had some success
in Crawford County -- so John (who had lived there for years) perhaps crossed Hurlbut's path at that time.

A third origin point of Spalding authorship allegations was Elk Creek, in Springfield Co., PA -- where Dale W Adams
believes that Hurlbut himself first learned of the claims, from the Jackson family there. The extended Jackson family
included the patriarch, Lyman (who may be the Jackson Winchester mentioned in 1840), Abner (his son) and Erastus
Rudd (his son-in-law).

Without having access to ALL the statements that Hurlbut and Howe collected, it is very difficult for me to speculate
upon how much the witnesses influenced one another. In the statements Hurlbut collected in the Palmyra/Manchester
area we can see both shared information and unique recollections by the testifiers. Based upon the variety evident
in those statements, it is my impression that Hurlbut allowed his statement-givers considerable latitude to tell their own
versions of past events, while at the same time keeping the topic at hand centered upon the type of information he
wished to receive and record.

Hurlbut got better at his statement-taking with experience. His NY collection is better documented than are his OH/PA
collection. He learned to get the affidavits signed and recorded. I believe that John and Martha's statements were the
first ones Hurlbut received and that is why they are undated --- he had not yet learned the importance of documenting
the testimony. I also think their statements were the ones he showed to the Kirtland area anti-Mormons, in order to
gain their confidence in supplying his financial needs for a trip to Palmyra. I think he went through New Salem with
those two statements in hand, telling other people THAT was the sort of information he wanted, and that by the process
the John and Martha documents served as literary templates for the other collected statements.

At least that is my guess. It would be very helpful, were somebody to take the time to recover some additional early
information from the Conneaut area, preferably before Hurlbut's arrival there. Perhaps some old correspondence of
Dr. King would prove useful. He was a state legislator and a county judge, and no doubt carried on correspondence
with people in the state capital, etc. Perhaps some of his papers can le located and examined for information.

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?

Reported by whom? Who would have the sophistication to know the dangers?

Orson Hyde, Oliver Cowdery and Parley P. Pratt appear to have been the earliest Mormon elders who responded to
the problem. Hyde said he conducted interviews in the Conneut area, but that the old settlers there denied Spalding's
writings resembled the Book of Mormon. Benjamin Winchester said that a certain Mr. Jackson said much the same.
And the Mormon elder, Erastus Rudd, reportedly told my ancestral family during the 1820s that Spalding's writings
were about lost Israelite tribes. Rudd, who knew the contents of Spalding's writings first-hand, still joined the Church;
so he must have thought the literary overlap not to be very significant.

As Hurlbut was on his way from New Salem, traveling east to Palmyra and Onondaga Hollow (where he thought the
Spalding writings were then kept), he was followed by Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery. Smith and
Rigdon tarried in the Springfield and Elk Creek Church of Christ branches, where D. P. Hurlbut had recently caused
some trouble. They might have settled the whole affair then and there, by collecting evidence for possible future
publication -- but if they did that, it was never used that I know of. My relatives, the Tylers, hosted Smith for a day --
and the Rudd family put him and Rigdon up overnight. My own Winegar ancestors spoke with Smith and Rigdon when
they went to nearby Elk Creek. Why the Mormon leaders did not nip the Spalding claims in the bud, before Hurlbut
ever had a chance to do any more, I do not know. Smith and Rigdon left the trail at Buffalo and went up to Canada.
Cowdery continued on and was in Canandaigua about the same time Hurlbut was in Lyons, trying to get Oliver's
brother to reveal Oliver's past misdeeds. Lyman Cowdery evidently did not do so, and Oliver later thanked him for
that favor. I do not think Cowdery followed Hurlbut past Ontario, County -- so perhaps he was satisfied that there
was no need to counter the man's investigation.

At any rate, if Smith was telling the truth, when he wrote in his journal that Hurlbut had threatened to do him harm,
long before the Spalding claims became a problem, I would think that he and Rigdon would have had "the sophistication
to know the dangers" of what Hurlbut was up to at the time.

Evidently, after interviewing the Mormons in the Conneaut area, they thought it best not to try and pre-empt the man.
Why they never made use of Mormon testimony regarding Spalding's writings later on, I do not know. The death of
Erastus Rudd in 1834 may have had something to do with their inability or disinterest in pursuing the issue.

More later,
UD

[_Uncle Dale]

Nonsense. When a witness says they can remember specific names after 20+ years, or even all the names,
and you think they are likely true memories I think you abandon common sense. The comments about foolscap
paper come 50+ years later. If I don't think the evidence for a second MS is otherwise good, I'm hardly going to
forget about the problems because two witnesses remember different sized paper--but more on this later....

The problem is that the case rests on memory. So far, I have examined Hurlbut's witnesses prior to the discovery
of MS Story. How reliable do they sound? Don't you see serious problems with their testimonies?

Define "serious." --- People make allegations and then never retract them after they have been published??? I find
that strange. Aron Wright, when shown the Oberlin Roman story should have blurted out -- "Oh, good Lord! I've been
accusing innocent men of crimes --- I must retract my testimony before it gets published. I'm a judge and this sort
of dishonesty will ruin my reputation for ever! And I must tell all my old neighbors about this also!" or.......

"I see it here in front of me -- the characters are Fabius and Elseon and Lamesa -- why on earth have we been telling
people that they were Laban and Lehi! What a terrible mistake!"

But that is not what happened, so far as I can see. Instead, we have John Spalding, years later, giving the same sort
of "lost tribes" testimony in his second statement. And we have Henry Lake talking my g-g-g-great uncle out of the
Mormon Church, based upon this stuff -- and Lake's son and other later witnesses saying how the man kept up his
conclusions in this regard for decades thereafter.

You are not just accusing the people of Conneaut of sincerely having mistaken memories -- you are accusing them of
having been confronted with evidence to the contrary, and never one of them stepping forward to clear his conscience
and say that the Roman story was all that their old friend ever wrote.

You are also accusing Spalding's family and his Amity associates of telling the same lies -- due to cross-contamination
of witness statements. In short, everybody is telling falsehoods, and not one of the bunch has the honesty to step
forward and admit what he or she said was very wrong and very bad.

I know dedicated Mormons who believe every single word Smith ever said, who are less accusative on such matters.
But, if this is your line of attack, you must be just about finished now. No need to investigate any more, if the first
witnesses had not the common decency to admit their wrongdoing.

In that case, who cares if Mary Rigdon lived right next door to the Spaldings and her apprentice tanner nephew walked
over every weekend to share Sunday dinner with that part of his extended family? If the Conneaut witnesses will not
admit their Mormon-damning errors, then Sidney might have been a daily visitor with the folks in Amity, and the fact
would not be worth our spending a single minute in documenting.

As Johnny Cochran said, "If the glove doesn't fit --- you must acquit!"

Declare victory and go spend your time on more useful matters, Dan. You are not open to learning a single new fact,
so far as I can see in 15 pages of your thread. A hundred different topics have been discussed and you are not one
word different now, from what you were before you heard it all. Will not this be the pattern for all future messages
from you? You have nothing to learn from us -- we can only learn from you??? As Brent said, the presence of
"therefore" in Alma makes is practically impossible that Spalding could have written a single word of the book.

What more can you hope to accomplish here, beyond the re-statement of that sage counsel?

UD

[_avanick]

Hi Marg,
Interesting questions, and I'll attempt to answer them to your satisfaction. Some of my comments are before your quotes and the rest come afterward.

First, if Hurlbut indeed did have the manuscript, why even bother to travel nearly 100 miles back to the committee with the wrong one, instead of just getting rid of it somewhere and saying that he did find anything at all? In addition, while Briggs might seem credible in other statements he had made, one has to wonder whether Briggs was completely in his senses when he made the statement to which you refer. Read Chapter Two's endnote #35 for our comment on Briggs' credibility and the fact that he seems to have been a bit daft late in his life, which is when he made the statements in question. Anyone who thought Garfield was still alive three years after his assassination can't have been entirely all there. Moreover, all the court docket evidence has Smith bringing the charges against Hurlbut and not vice versa. As to Dowen ,who knows? He seems credible otherwise, but on this matter, he seems misinformed. One thing he did say later was that he wouldn't have been surprised if Howe had possessed Manuscript Found and sold it to the Mormons. This does not say Howe had it, but only shows that Dowen didn't trust Howe very much. In the final analysis, we can't really refute Briggs and Dowen, nor do we really try. It's just that the preponderance of evidence speaks against their recollections being accurate, and that's pretty much the way we report it.

Note that Briggs writes in NY Tribune, 31 Jan 1886: "Dr. D. P. Hurlbut [sic] whose name is mentioned in the article in your paper this morning, was
employed to look up testimony. He was present with the committee and had Spaulding's original manuscript with him. We compared it, chapter by chapter
with the Mormon Bible. It was written in the same style; many of the names were the same, and we came to the conclusion, from all the testimony before
us, that the Rev. Sidney Rigdon, the eloquent Mormon preacher, made the Mormon Bible from this manuscript. Of this the committee had no doubt
whatever." YET, if ALL of the dozen or so members members of the Citizens Committee "had no doubt whatsoever," how come Briggs is the only one to say
so? Why did not the Committee publish thie finding? Why did not not ALL swear out an affidavit saying Hurlbut had possessed Manuscript Found and
they had seen it, read it, and diligently compared it to the Book of Mormon? Why only Briggs, and why did he wait more than 50 years to say so? Moreover,
Briggs does not seem to have been one of the bigger wheels on this committee, but rather only someone peripherally associated with it. At least, his name does not appear on all the membership lists, and, as noted in our book, he was only a very green 22 year-old lawyer just six-months past his bar exam at the time.

You write on p 59 of your book: (I've bolded some words)

"Proof that Doctor Hurbut never had A Manuscript Found in his possession and that he recognized the difference between it and Manuscript Story-Conneaut Creek lies in the fact that at the end of December 1833, only days after Judge Dowen's write had been lodged against him, Hurlbut returned to Conneaut with Manuscript Story-Conneaut Creek in hand and showed to to several key witnesses who, upon examination, quickly recognized that it was indeed Spalding's work, but verified that it was definitely no A Manuscript found. One again, such is hardly the vehavior of one intent upon subterfuge and deceit. "

The above seems to be poor reasoning and/or poor choice of words.

That Hurlbut showed various witnesses the Manuscript Story is not PROOF that a Manuscript Found was NEVER in his possession. So I fail to understand why you are reaching that conclusion and using those words were reflect absolute certain knowledge.

What about credible witnesses that I've read statements of i.e. from lawyer Briggs and Judge Dowen that they saw and read portions of Manuscript Found after Hurlbut had returned with Spalding's papers and they compared it to the Book of Mormon and found same sentences?

I can think of a few good reasons why Hurlbut would have handed over the Manuscript Found to Smith and other Mormons in town.

BUT, THE BIG PROBLEM WITH THIS SCENARIO, and indeed with ANY hypothesis that attempts to say that Hurlbut had the real thing and sold it to Smith, is
that Smith continued his court case against Hurlbut. Surely had the two made any kind of underhanded deal, part of it would have been that Smith had to
drop the court case. OTHERWISE, what's to keep Hurlbut from saying he DID have Manuscript Found and that Smith had STOLEN it from him? What with
Briggs and Dowen as witnesses that Hurlbut did have it, and what with Briggs being a lawyer and Dowen being a judge, surely Smith would have been
arrested, etc. etc. Yet we have none of that, but rather Hurlbut goes to trial, Smith testifies against him, and Hurlbut is found guilty. Meanwhile, Howe publishes Mormonism Unvailed and speaks ONLY of Manuscript Story.

It's all a matter of how much evidence one needs before the one comes to accept that the matter is essentially proved. If you want to hold out for reasonable doubt, no problem. When writing history, however, one usually prefers to side with the preponderance of evidence--presuming, of course that there is a
preponderance, as there is in this matter. Our position is that Hurlbut's behaviour and the fact that Smith took him to trial instead of dropping the case makes sense only if Hurlbut did not have Manuscript Found.

By way of aside, it is my PERSONAL assessment that if Hurlbut did have Manuscript Found and if he sought to make a deal with Smith for it, he (Hurlbut) was undoubtedly smart/sly enough to surreptitiously remove a page or two, or even a dozen at random, and keep it/them for insurance against Smith's renegging on the deal. Smith would have had no way of knowing whether any manuscript Hurlbut had retrieved from the widow's trunk was completely intact or only partially so. And remember that if Hurlbut did have a few such pages kept back as "insurance," he would have been free to publish them after Smith's assassination, which took place only a dozen years later. Yet we have none of this.

In conclusion, virtually everything speaks against him ever having Manuscript Found. All we have on the other side is Griggs and Dowen, and one very late, and contradictory statement by Hurlbut made after he had suffered a stroke and was mentally confused.

As to Hurlbut's buying land in PA, even this works against the conspiracy theorists because Hurlbut married a respected judge's daughter and it's more
likely he got a good dowery than that he made some shady deal with Smith. As it ended up, the Hurlbuts bought land, but as I recall, he was somehow
screwed on the deal and ended up losing both the land and the money.

I know that our book can get a bit intense at times with all of the information packed into a fairly short, for its content, book, but please make sure that you check items like the chapter endnotes when questions arise. I really wish that we couold have included all of our material in the book because we regularly get complaints, mostly from folks like Dale, who are frustrated because we don't have all of the resource material in the book, nor do we have ANY index. We were really upset about the lack of index as well, not to mention the ommission of nearly all of our photographs, including the best ones from the Commonwealth newspaper, which they explained by saying that our Commonwealth photo's didn't include enough of the pages to properly show the date and other identifying information, or something like that.

We've been strongly considering publishing a companion volume that would include the resource information and a thorough index. Our Cd version, which came out several years ago, was the equivalent of 1132 pages, and as thorough as it is, it doesn't have a lot of the information that is contained in the newer print version, so I'm afraid that Dan will still probably need to get a copy of it so that he won't get caught anymore than he has already in his suppositions regarding the Conneaut witnesses, Hurlbut, Howe, and Spalding's manuscripts. I'd comment further about Dan's arguments but Dale has done such a masterful job already that I don't really need to say anything in addition.

Art

[_Uncle Dale]

As to Hurlbut's buying land in PA, even this works against the conspiracy theorists because Hurlbut married a
respected judge's daughter and it's more likely he got a good dowery than that he made some shady deal with Smith.
As it ended up, the Hurlbuts bought land, but as I recall, he was somehow screwed on the deal and ended up losing
both the land and the money.[/b]

I doubt that the Woodbury family was ever very happy with Hurlbut -- who believed in spiritual wifery and had
more than one female companion, according to testimony and census records. Why his wife stuck with him, I cannot
understand. Their farm in Pennsylvania was a very small lot with one cow -- to small to farm. Probably it was little
more than a house and garden patch. I think it had been previously occupied by a Mormon family. At any rate, his
wife said that they could never get a clear title and had to leave the property. Their first son was born there, but after
they left the family seems to have maintained no close ties to the property or former neighbors in PA.

I do not see any evidence that Hurlbut ever had much money. So the speculation of his selling Spalding documents to
the Mormons for big sums of money are not supported by any evidence I can find. If any of his gathered materials
ever ended up in Mormon hands, my guess is that it happened without Hurlbut getting much advantage out of the
alleged transaction. It is possible that he WAS trying for a secret sale to the Mormons, however. His lectures in and
around Kirtland at the very end of 1833 reportedly extended to his entering a Mormon meeting at which Smith himself
was present, and to Hurlbut's being ejected from that gathering. These were the activities of a man who either did not
care how the Mormon leaders responded to him -- or those of a man who wanted to get their attention and perhaps
make some sort of a deal, so that they could be relieved of his "persecution."

I cannot say that from positive knowledge, but I would not be surprised if some primary evidence surfaces one day,
to confirm that Hurlbut was purposely trying to get the Mormon leaders angry at him and fearful of his influence.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

That Hurlbut showed various witnesses the Manuscript Story is not PROOF that a Manuscript Found was NEVER in
his possession. So I fail to understand why you are reaching that conclusion and using those words were reflect
absolute certain knowledge.

What about credible witnesses that I've read statements of i.e. from lawyer Briggs and Judge Dowen that they saw and read portions of Manuscript Found after Hurlbut had returned with Spalding's papers and they compared it to the Book of Mormon and found same sentences?

There were other witnesses besides those two, marg. So many, in fact, that RLDS Bishop E. L. Kelley, in debating this
matter, was forced to concede that Hurlbut was perhaps exhibiting SOMETHING he said was the "Manuscript Found," upon
his return to Kirtland during the last days of 1833. Here is an updated excerpt from my old thesis paper's notes:

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/SRPpap11.htm#n05


5 Exactly what Spalding manuscript material was recovered by Hurlbut in 1833 and was subsequently exhibited in his 1833-34 anti-Mormon lectures remains debatable. It is certain that he recovered the Spalding manuscript and the accompanying letter now in the Oberlin College Archives. The summary on page 288 of Howe's book matches the essentials, if not all the particulars, of the Oberlin holograph. This is clearly the same story (if not the exact same document) read by Spalding's brother Josiah in 1812 and described by him in his letter to George Chapman, dated Jan. 6, 1855, cit. Samuel J. Spalding, The Spalding Memorial (Boston 1872), pp. 160-162. The story remembered by Josiah after more than forty years differs greatly from one recalled by Solomon's friends and relatives as little as twenty years after their encountering it. Others who read or heard Spalding's story, whether in Ohio or later in Pennsylvania, recalled a tale of Israelite colonization of ancient America which read very much like parts of the Book of Mormon and contained similar or identical character names. A Kirtland Justice of the Peace, John C. Dowen, claimed that Hurlbut recovered this Spalding Israelite story and exhibited it during his first lecture in Kirtland following his late December 1833 return from the east. This lecture appears to have been given at the Kirtland Methodist Church a few days before the end of the year. Dowen further claimed to have personally compared this Israelite colonization story to the Book of Mormon and to have found their historical narratives to have been essentially the same, Statement of J[ohn] C. Dowen, Jan. 20, 1885, Willoughby, Ohio; original in Deming, MSs op. cit.

Another witness to Hurlbut's 1833 acivities in Ohio, James A. Briggs, Esq., confirmed Dowen's testimony in a letter to John Codman dated March, 1875. Briggs claimed to have seen Hurlbut exhibit a Spalding manuscript with some names and features identical with those in the Book of Mormon, cit. John Codman "Mormonism," The International Review XI (Sept. 1881) pp. 222-223. Briggs expanded this testimony in an open letter to Joseph Smith III dated March 22, 1886, adding that Hurlbut initially exhibited both the manuscript summarized by Howe and a second manuscript that greatly resembled the Book of Mormon, at the home of Warren Corning, Jr. in Mentor, following that investigator's return from the east, cit. Arthur B. Deming, Naked Truths About Mormonism, (Oakland CA; hereinafter cited as: Deming, Naked Truths) Jan. 1, 1888. The sequence of events related by Dowen and Briggs was likely this: first, Hurlbut's return from the east in the last two weeks of Dec. 1833; second, the meeting at Mr. Corning's house, shortly thereafter; and third, Hurlbut's first lecture exhibiting his findings, presented near the beginning of the last full week in 1833.

Briggs reaffirmed his earlier testimony in two subsequent letters, saying Hurlbut recovered at least two Spalding works and that the one he gave to Howe was not the same as the one that greatly resembled the Book of Mormon, Letter in the New York Tribune of Jan. 31, 1886, and Letter to the New York Watchman, cit. Chicago Daily Tribune, Oct. 2, 1886, p. 10. Aron Wright's unsigned draft letter of Dec. 31, 1833 confirms that the Spalding manuscript Hurlbut gave to Howe was not the same as the one that allegedly greatly resembled the Book of Mormon, Unsigned Letter of Dec. 31, 1833 in the 1914 Mrs. Hiram Wright donation of Lake family papers, New York Public Library.

Another Ohio resident claimed to have heard Hurlbut lecture in the Willoughby town hall late in 1833 or early in 1834, and there to have been invited to examine a manuscript exhibited by Hurlbut which contained a historical narrative identical to that in the Book of Mormon; soon afterward he attended a similar Hurlbut lecture in Painesville where the same Spalding manuscript was again shown to the public, Charles Grover's Statement of March 5th, 1885, cit. Naked Truths 2, (Apr. 1888) op. cit.; cf. statement of Miss M. A. Grover, Lamoni, IA Independent Patriot of Aug. 6, 1891. Finally, a fourth witness remembered attending a Hurlbut lecture at the Presbyterian church in Kirtland (presumably late in 1833 or early in 1834) at which Hurlbut publicly compared the Book of Mormon to a Spalding manuscript containing the same historical narrative, Jacob Sherman's Statement of Feb. 24, 1885, cit. Naked Truths 2, op. cit.; cf. reference and supporting testimony in "Braden-Kelley Debate: First Proposition," Lamoni, IA Independent Patriot of June 25, 1891; cit. Matthew B. Brown, Plates of Gold, (American Fork, UT: Covenant, 2003) pp. 194-196. On problems concerning the reliability both of the statements collected by Hurlbut for Howe's book and those collected by Arthur B. Deming for his Naked Truths newspaper. see Richard L. Anderson, "Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reappraised," BYU Studies X:3 (Spring 1970) pp. 283-314, and Rodger I. Anderson, "Joseph Smith's Early Reputation Revisited," Journal of Pastoral Practice IV:3 (Fall 1980) pp. 71-108 and IV:4 (Winter 1980) pp. 72-105; cf. same author: Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reexamined, (SLC: Signature, 1990).

6 Solomon Spaulding, The "Manuscript Found," or "Manuscript Story..." (Lamoni, IA 1885). The following year saw the publication of The "Manuscript Found"... (Salt Lake City, 1886. reprint Liverpool 1910). Both the RLDS and LDS editions remain in print through various reproductions made recent years; one of the more easily obtainable copies is a partial reprint of the 1885 edition in Robert L. and Rosemary Brown, They Lie in Wait to Deceive II (Mesa, AZ 1984, 3rd rev. ed. 1993) pp. 393-428. Neither the 1885 nor the 1886 edition is an accurate transcription of the Oberlin document. The "Manuscript Found" appearing in the titles of both of these editions is not based upon any wording found in the original holograph. A faint notation, "Manuscript Story -- Conneaut Creek," was penciled upon the paper wrapper for the Oberlin MS at some date before it came into the possession of Lewis L. Rice, according to his statement in a letter to James H. Fairchild dated June 12, 1885, original in the Fairchild Papers, Oberlin College Archives. RLDS Elder (later President of the Twelve) William H. Kelley, attributed the penciled note to D. P. Hurlbut who had added another example of his handwriting to the reverse of MS's final written page at the end of Dec., 1885, while exhibiting the work to Spalding's old neighbors at Conneaut, Letter of William H. Kelley to W. W. Blair, cit. Saints' Herald Aug. 8, 1885, Solomon Spaulding, Holograph Manuscript, Oberlin College Archives, Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, op. cit. p. 288, and Wright, draft letter op. cit. It is most accurate to refer to the 167 page document recovered by Hurlbut as: "the Oberlin Spalding manuscript."



See the original on-line documnet for links to the sources cited.

Uncle Dale

[_marg]

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

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

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

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

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

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