SPALDING THEORY: WIDOW SPALDING SPEAKS
In his 1834 book
Mormonism Unvailed, E. D. Howe speculated that Spalding's MS was left at Patterson's establishment "in seclusion, till about the year 1823 or '24, at which time
Sidney Rigdon located himself in that city" (Howe, 289). He then insinuated that through an acquaintance with Lambdin, Rigdon somehow got possession of the MS. This simple theory would eventually give way to more elaborate versions as new details would come to light. Whereas Hurlbut's 1833 affidavits focused on Spalding's readings to neighbors in Ohio, subsequent statements by Matilda Spalding Davison and Matilda Spalding McKinstry, Solomon's widow and daughter, as well as others who knew him during his last years at Amity, PA, would place the MS in his hands between 1814 and 1816,
after his removal from Pittsburgh when Howe speculated that he no longer possessed MS Found. This problem was resolved in various ways and incorporated as part of the testimony of some witnesses (which I will take note of along the way).
In this post, I want to focus on the malleability of memory. When confronted with the fact that Spalding's MS dealt with Romans, not Hebrews, and had no resemblance to the Book of Mormon, some witnesses claimed Spalding's "Manuscript Story" was not the MS they had heard read to them more than twenty years previously. In most cases, such claims are difficult to test, but the claims of Spalding's widow and daughter provide a unique control that is absent from the other witnesses. While other witnesses could simply claim the MS recovered from the trunk wasn't the one they heard Spalding read, Matilda Davison and her daughter were drawing on
specific memories of a specific MS in the trunk. Yet, we find them making some of the same claims as the Conneaut witnesses, particularly with regard to names. This leads to important questions about memory that should also be leveled at Hurlbut's 1833 witnesses as well, especially since some elements of their testimony seem to parallel MS Story.
As this kind of analysis would prove devastating to the Spalding theory, we should not be surprised to learn that some Spalding advocates believe that there were two copies of MS Found, and that one of them was in the trunk with MS Story, but somehow also got lost or stolen. This is the theory advanced by both Dale Broadhurst and the authors of
Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon. Take away this ad hoc rationalization, and they have serious problems with the witnesses who were closest to the MS in question. Matilda Davison and her daughter believed the trunk contained one MS pertaining to the history of ancient America, which they thought was called "Manuscript Found" but actually was "Manuscript Story".
ca. 1 March 1839
Matilda Davison statement to the Rev. David R. Austin.
While the initial publication of Mrs. Davison's statement implied that it was given in a letter to Mr. John Storrs, the true circumstances were later given by Austin as follows:--
At his [Storrs'] request I obtained from Mrs. Davison a statement of the facts contained in that letter, and wrote them out precisely as she related them to me. She then signed the paper with her own hand which I have now in my possession. Every fact as stated in the letter was related to me by her in the order they were set down. ... Mrs. Davison is now living about twelve miles from this place; is an aged woman and very infirm.
Dr. D. R. Austin.
--Letter of 28 June 1841, in John Clark, Gleanings by the Way (1842), 264-44.
Davison's statement is as follows:--
As this book has excited much attention and has been put by a certain new sect, in the place of the sacred Scriptures, I deem it a duty which I owe to the public, to state what I know touching its origin. That its claims to a divine origin are wholly unfounded, needs no proof to a mind unperverted by the grossest delusions. That any sane person should rank it higher than any other merely human composition, is a matter of the greatest astonishment; yet it is received as divine by some who dwell in enlightened New England, and even by those who have sustained the character of devoted Christians. Learning recently, that Mormonism had found its way into a church in Massachusetts, and has impregnated some of its members with its gross delusions, so that excommunication has become necessary, I am determined to delay no longer doing what I can to strip the mask from this monster of sin, and to lay open this pit of abominations.
Rev. Solomon Spaulding, to whom I was united in marriage in early life, was a graduate of Dartmouth College, and was distinguished for a lively imagination and a great fondness for history. At the time of our marriage, he resided in Cherry Valley, N.Y. From this place we removed to New Salem, Ashtabula county, Ohio; sometimes called Conneaut, as it is situated upon Conneaut Creek. Shortly after our removal to this place, his health sunk, and he was laid aside from active labors. In the town of New Salem, there are numerous mounds and forts, supposed by many to be the dilapidated dwellings and fortifications of a race now extinct. These ancient relics arrest the attention of the new settlers, and become objects of research for the curious. Numerous implements were found and other articles evincing great skill in the arts. Mr. Spaulding being an educated man and passionately fond of history, took a lively interest in these developments of antiquity; and in order to beguile the hours of retirement and furnish employment for his lively imagination, he conceived the idea of giving a historical sketch of this long lost race. Their extreme antiquity of course would lead him to write in the most ancient style, and as the Old Testament is the most ancient book in the world, he imitated its style as nearly as possible. His sole object in writing this historical romance was to amuse himself and his neighbors. This was about the year 1812. Hull's surrender at Detroit, occurred near the same time, and I recollect the date well from that circumstance. As he progressed in his narrative, the neighbors would come in from time to time to hear portions read, and a great interest in the work was excited among them. It claimed to have been written by one of the lost nation, and to have been recovered from the earth, and, assumed the title of "Manuscript Found." The neighbors would often inquire how Mr. S. progressed in deciphering "the manuscript," and when he had sufficient portion prepared he would inform them, and they would assemble to hear it read. He was enabled from his acquaintance with the classics and ancient history, to introduce many singular names, which were particularly noticed by the people and could be easily recognized by them. Mr. Solomon Spaulding had a brother, Mr. John Spaulding residing in the place at the time, who was perfectly familiar with this work and repeatedly heard the whole of it read.
From New Salem we removed to Pittsburgh, Pa. Here Mr. Spaulding found an acquaintance and friend, in the person of Mr. Patterson, an editor of a newspaper. He exhibited his manuscript to Mr. P. who was very much pleased with it, and borrowed it for perusal. He retained it a long time and informed Mr. S. that if he would make out a title page and preface, he would publish it and it might be a source of profit. This Mr. S. refused to do for reasons which I cannot now state. -- Sidney Rigdon,* who has figured so largely in the history of the Mormons, was at this time connected with the printing office of Mr. Patterson, as is well known in that region, and as Rigdon himself has frequently stated. Here he had ample opportunity to become acquainted with Mr. Spaulding's manuscript and to copy it if he chose. It was a matter of notoriety and interest to all who were connected with the printing establishment. At length the manuscript was returned to its author, and soon after we removed to Amity, Washington county, Pa., where Mr. S. deceased in 1816. The manuscript then fell into my hands and was carefully preserved. It has frequently been examined by my daughter, Mrs. McKenstry, of Monson, Mass., with whom I now reside, and by other friends. -- After the "Book of Mormon" came out, a copy of it was taken to New Salem, the place of Mr. Spaulding's former residence and the very place where the "Manuscript Found" was written. A woman [Mormon] preacher appointed a meeting there, and in the meeting read and repeated copious extracts from the "Book of Mormon." The historical part was immediately recognized by all the older inhabitants, as the identical work of Mr. S., in which they had been so deeply interested years before. Mr. John Spaulding was present, who is an eminently pious man, and recognized perfectly the work of his brother. He was amazed and afflicted, that it should have been perverted to so wicked a purpose. His grief found vent in a flood of tears, and he arose on the spot, and expressed to the meeting his deep sorrow and regret, that the writings of his sainted brother should be used for a purpose so vile and shocking. The excitement in New Salem became so great, that the inhabitants had a meeting and deputed Dr. Philastus Hurlbut, one of their number to repair to this place and to obtain from me the original manuscript of Mr. Spaulding, for the purpose of comparing it with the Mormon Bible, to satisfy their own minds, and to prevent their friends from embracing an error so delusive. This was in the year 1834. Dr. Hurlbut brought with him an introduction and request for the manuscript, signed by Messrs. Henry Lake, Aaron Wright and others, with all whom I was acquainted, as they were my neighbors when I resided in New Salem.
I am sure that nothing would grieve my husband more, were he living, than the use which has been made of his work. The air of antiquity which was thrown about the composition, doubtless suggested the idea of converting it to the purposes of delusion. Thus a historical romance, with the addition of a few pious expressions and extracts from the sacred Scriptures, has been construed into a new Bible and palmed off upon a company of poor deluded fanatics, as divine. I have given the previous brief narration, that this work of deep deception and wickedness may be searched to the foundation, and its author exposed to the contempt and execration he so justly deserves. --MATILDA DAVISON.
--Boston Recorder 24 (19 April 1839)
he conceived the idea of giving a historical sketch of this long lost race.-- True for MS Story.
Their extreme antiquity of course would lead him to write in the most ancient style, and as the Old Testament is the most ancient book in the world, he imitated its style as nearly as possible. -- True for MS Story.
This was about the year 1812. Hull's surrender at Detroit, occurred near the same time, and I recollect the date well from that circumstance. -- on August 16, 1812.
It claimed to have been written by one of the lost nation, and to have been recovered from the earth, and, assumed the title of "Manuscript Found." -- True for MS Story. Note there is no mention of lost tribes of Israel from Jerusalem.
He was enabled from his acquaintance with the classics and ancient history, to introduce many singular names, -- This is true for MS Story.
which were particularly noticed by the people and could be easily recognized by them. -- This sounds like the influence of the Reverend interviewer, introduced as an apologetic to explain how it was possible some could remember the names after 20+ years.
From New Salem we removed to Pittsburgh, Pa. -- About Fall 1812.
Here Mr. Spaulding found an acquaintance and friend, in the person of Mr. Patterson, an editor of a newspaper. He exhibited his manuscript to Mr. P. who was very much pleased with it, and borrowed it for perusal. He retained it a long time and informed Mr. S. that if he would make out a title page and preface, he would publish it and it might be a source of profit. This Mr. S. refused to do for reasons which I cannot now state. -- Note the uncertainty about why the deal didn't go through. The implication that the MS only lacked a title page and preface but was otherwise complete has become an argument for why Davison could not have been describing MS Story, which ends abruptly on pages 171. Reporting in 1880 on what her mother told her, McKinstry said:
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." ...
--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).
Two years later, Redick McKee reported a conversation he had with McKinstry:--
The only thing in relation to the lost 'Manuscript' within her recollection of which you have not already learned is her remembering to have heard her mother say that, before they left Pittsburgh, she accompanied her husband to the store of Mr. Patterson and heard a conversation in relation to the publication of the 'Manuscript.' There were two Mr. Pattersons present, one an elderly gentleman, with a remarkably mild, pleasant countenance, and much more robust than the other. The more slender Mr. Patterson told Mr. Spaulding that he had read several chapters of the 'Manuscript' and was struck favorably with its curious descriptions and its likeness to the ancient style of the Old Testament Scriptures. He thought it would be well to publish it, as it would attract attention and meet with a ready sale. He suggested, however, that Mr. Spaulding should write a brief preface, and perhaps a chapter or two in concluding the romance, giving a little more elaborate description of the Indian mounds in Ohio. Her mother thought he was engaged in doing that at the time I was living with the family at Amity.
--Presbyterian Banner 68 (15 Nov. 1882).
So, the MS given to Patterson was returned was not finished or polished as argued by Cowdrey et al.
Sidney Rigdon, who has figured so largely in the history of the Mormons, was at this time connected with the printing office of Mr. Patterson, as is well known in that region, and as Rigdon himself has frequently stated. -- As discussed in a previous post, Dale is also suspicious of this part of the interview.
The widow's published statement, however, contained some errors and over-generalizations, and upon these inconsistencies Elder Sidney Rigdon fell with an eager venegance in is only substantial denial of the Spalding authorship claims. ...
The most unfortunate misstatement in the widow's 1839 statement is the remark: "Sidney Rigdon, who has figured so largely in the history of the Mormons, was at this time connected with the printing office of Mr. Patterson, as is well known in that region, and as Rigdon himself has frequently stated." It is very doubtful that the widow actually voiced that allegation, as it is actually a literary conflation of two sentences somehow derived from E. D. Howe's 1834 Mormonism Unvailed:
"While they [the Spaldings] lived in Pittsburgh, she [the widow] thinks it [her husband's manuscript] was once taken to the printing office of Patterson & Lambdin." -- and --
"We have been credibly informed that he [Sidney Rigdon] was on terms of intimacy with Lambdin, being seen frequently in his shop. Rigdon resided in Pittsburgh about three years, and during the whole of that time, as he has since frequently asserted, abandoned preaching and all other employment, for the purpose of studying the Bible." Thus, second-hand testimony linking Sidney Rigdon to the printer J. Harrison Lambdin, of Pittsburgh, was muddled into a seeming allegation, saying that Rigdon was once somehow connected with a printing business operated by Robert Patterson, Sr., of that same city. The 1839 publication of this misworded allegation gave Sidney Rigdon something to protest against and to deny in righteous indignation -- which of course he quickly did: see the
Whig of June 8th.
--
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL/whig1839.htm
There is a remote possibility that widow Spalding confused the name of Lambdin with Rigdon, which the Rev. Austin used to justify his insertion of information he got from Howe's 1834 book. Dale has also said in another note on his site:--
Here D. R. Austin was almost certainly relying upon information published in E. D. Howe's 1834 book, where Howe states that Rigdon "was... seen frequently in his shop. Rigdon resided in Pittsburgh... as he has since frequently asserted." Whether or not Spalding's widow ever made such an allegation, the wording, as published in her article, is obviously an erroneous conflation derived from a misreading of Howe.
Because widow Spalding believed the MS had been returned, Austin was under the necessity of changing Howe's statement to fit a different theory.
Here he had ample opportunity to become acquainted with Mr. Spaulding's manuscript and to copy it if he chose. It was a matter of notoriety and interest to all who were connected with the printing establishment. -- Because the MS was returned to her husband sometime before their removal to Amity about 1814, Mrs. Davison (or probably Austin) assumes Rigdon must have copied the MS. If Davison had any firsthand information, she certainly would have made it plain and Austin would have no doubt taken full advantaged of it. Instead, he adapts Howe's theory, which also was nothing but speculation. Howe simply had Rigdon taken the MS during his residence in Pittsburgh, 1822-25, whereas Austin's theory places Rigdon there about 1814.
At length the manuscript was returned to its author, and soon after we removed to Amity, Washington county, Pa., where Mr. S. deceased in 1816. The manuscript then fell into my hands and was carefully preserved. -- This was about 1814. At this point, Cowdrey et al. both dispute probably the most important Spalding witness. They say she was mistaken, the MS was not returned and she only placed a 2nd draft of the MS in her trunk (along with MS Story), which coincidentally also got lost (more on this later). Note, however, that there is no discussion of another MS in the trunk.
It has frequently been examined by my daughter, Mrs. McKenstry, of Monson, Mass., with whom I now reside, and by other friends. -- Note there is only one MS examined by Davison's daughter and friends. Having read Howe's book, Austin was certainly aware of how important it would be to distinguish this MS (copied by Rigdon) from the one Hurlbut actually retrieved from the trunk, described by Howe as "giving a fabulous account of a ship's being driven upon the American coast, while proceeding from Rome to Britain, a short time previous to the Christian era, this country then being inhabited by the Indians" (Howe, 288). He doesn't dare make a distinction, because Davison only knows about one MS about the ancient inhabitants of America--and that was the MS that was taken to the print shop, returned, and later place in the trunk. She never accused Hurlbut of not returning two manuscripts.
The historical part was immediately recognized by all the older inhabitants, as the identical work of Mr. S., in which they had been so deeply interested years before. Mr. John Spaulding was present, who is an eminently pious man, and recognized perfectly the work of his brother. -- Note that she does not take responsibility for the claim that the Book of Mormon is similar to her husband's MS.
The excitement in New Salem became so great, that the inhabitants had a meeting and deputed Dr. Philastus Hurlbut, one of their number to repair to this place and to obtain from me the original manuscript of Mr. Spaulding, ... Dr. Hurlbut brought with him an introduction and request for the manuscript, ... -- Apparently, she did not warn Hurlbut that there would be two MSS in the trunk. Hurlbut expect one, got the one, and carried the one away believing he had got the one he came after. Hurlbut told Robert Patterson in 1879:--
I then received from her a manuscript of her husband's, which I did not read, but brought home with me, and immediately gave it to Mr. E. D. Howe of Painesville, Ohio, ... I do not know whether or not the document I received from Mrs. Davison was Spaulding's "Manuscript Found," as I never read it entire, and it convinced me that it was not the Spaulding manuscript; ... I never received any other manuscript of Spaulding's from Mrs. Davison, or any one else. ...
--Statement to Robert Patterson, 19 Aug. 1879, quoted in Cowdrey et al., 2000 CD, 692.
The part I wish to draw attention to is Hurlbut's not being confused by the presence of
one MS in the trunk; he took it without a second thought about wether he had the right MS in hand. In other words, Davison gave him no reason to expect two MSS in the trunk.
27 May 1839Rigdon denies knowing Spalding and a Patterson who had a print shop in Pittsburgh.
(Cowdrey et al. accuse Rigdon of lying. This will be explored in detail in a separate post.)27 November 1839Parley P. Pratt denies knowing about Mormonism until "some months after its organization," and states that Rigdon had been converted "through my instrumentality." He defies the world to prove Rigdon was "connected in the printing office of Mr. Patterson". Howe says MS lost, widow here says "carefully preserved'. So where is it? (John E. Page,
The Spalding Story [1843], 13).
ca. December 1839Matilda Davison and Matilda McKinstry (ca. 1806-ca. 1890) answer questions of Jesse Haven, a Mormon.
The pertinent part of this interview reads as follows:--
[Matilda Davison]
Ques. Have you read the Book of Mormon?
Ans: I have read some in it.
Ques. Does Mr. Spaulding's manuscript, and the Book of Mormon agree?
I think some few of the names are alike.
Ques. Does the manuscript describe an idolatrous or a Religious people?
Ans: An Idolatrous people.
Ques: Where is the manuscript?
Ans: Dr. P. Hurlbut came here and took it, [he] said he would get it printed and let me have one-half of the profits. ...
[Matilda McKinstry]
Ques. To Mrs. McKenestry, how old was you when your father wrote the manuscript?
Ans: About five years of age. [ca. 1811]
Ques. Did you ever read the manuscript?
Ans: When I was about twelve years old, I used to read it for diversion. [ca. 1818]
Ques. Did the manuscript describe an Idolatrous or a Religious people.
Ans: An Idolatrous people.
Ques. Does the manuscript and the Book of Mormon agree?
Ans: I think some of the names agree.
Ques. Are you certain that some of the names agree?
Ans: I am not.
Ques. Have you ever read any in the Book of Mormon?
Ans: I have not.
-- Quincy Whig 2 (16 Nov. 1839?), quoted in Times and Seasons 1 (Jan. 1840): 47.
Note that Davison speaks of only one MS, the one Hurlbut took. There is no confusion about multiple MSS in the trunk, and no accusation that Hurlbut took more than one MS. Both mother and daughter, however, seem to refer to MS Story and believe the MS describes an idolatrous people. Yet, they think some names might be the same. Commenting on McKinstry's comment that she was not sure the Book of Mormon's names agreed with her father's MS, Cowdrey et al. add: "How could she be, since she hadn't read the Book of Mormon up to this point?" (2000 CD, 154). This uncertainty, as we will see, will change.
3 April 1880Matilda McKinstry makes affidavit for Ellen E. Dickinson.
Concerning the production of McKinstry's affidavit, Dickinson wrote:--
I wrote this statement at Mrs. McKinstry's dicatation, and was obliged to change it and copy it four times before she was satisfied, so anxious was she that no word or expression should occur in it to which she could not solemnly make oath.
--Ellen E. Dickinson, "The Book of Mormon," Scribner's Monthly, Aug. 1880, 613.
Part of McKinstry's affidavit is as follows:--
He [Solomon] talked with my mother of these discoveries in the mound, and was writing every day as the work progressed. Afterward he read the manuscript which I had seen him writing, to the neighbors, and to a clergyman, a friend of his who came to see him. Some of the names that he mentioned while reading to these. people I have never forgotten. They are as fresh to me to-day as though I heard them yesterday. They were Mormon, Maroni, Lamanite, Nephi. ...
I perfectly remember the appearance of this trunk, and of looking at its contents. There were sermons and other papers, and I saw a manuscript about an inch thick, closely written, tied with some of the stories my father in had written for me, one of which he called "The Frogs of Wyndham." On the outside of this manuscript were written the words, "Manuscript Found." I did not read it, but looked through it and had it in my hands many times, and saw the names I had heard at Conneaut, when my father read it to his friends. I was about eleven years of age at this time. ...
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.
We never, either of us, ever saw, or in any way communicated with the Mormons, save Hurlburt, as above described; and while we have no personal knowledge that the Mormon Bible was taken from the "Manuscript Found," there are many evidences to us that it was and that Hurlburt and others at the time thought so. A convincing proof to us of this belief was that my uncle, William H. Sabine, had undoubtedly read the manuscript while it was in his house, and his faith that its production would show to the world that the Mormon Bible had been taken from it, or was the same with slight alterations.
--Matilda Spalding McKinstry Statement of 3 Apr. 1880, in Ellen E. Dickinson, "The Book of Mormon," Scribner's Monthly, Aug. 1880, 616ff.; also quoted in Deseret Evening News 14 (3 Jan. 1881).
Between 1840 and 1880, McKinstry had evidently become more familiar with the Book of Mormon's contents. She had heard her father read the MS about 1811. Then she read the MS when about 11 or 12 (ca. 1818). She also examined the MS "many times" after it had been placed in the trunk. While she describes shorter works like sermons and children's stories, she is not confused by two larger MSS about ancient America. Even her mother's mention of "other romances" doesn't confuse her--she knows the MS in the trunk was not them, whatever their subject or size. There can be no doubt that only one MS dealing with ancient America occupied the trunk--and that MS is MS Story. Nevertheless, her description of the MS is comparable to other Spalding witnesses from whom we have not the same advantage. Note the following claims she makes:--
1. She claims to have seen the names "Mormon, Maroni, Lamanite, Nephi".
2. She claims "On the outside of this manuscript were written the words, 'Manuscript Found'".
3. She reports that her mother said the MS was "written in Biblical style".
A convincing proof to us of this belief was that my uncle, William H. Sabine, had undoubtedly read the manuscript while it was in his house, and his faith that its production would show to the world that the Mormon Bible had been taken from it, or was the same with slight alterations. -- Shortly after Solomon died in 1816, widow Spalding and her daughter moved in with William H. Sabin (or Sabine), Davison's brother who lived at Onondaga, NY, where they stayed a short time. The trunk remained at his house until about 1820. However, like the two Matildas, any alleged similarities between the MS he read and the Book of Mormon would necessarily pertain to MS Story.
31 August 1880On 31 August 1880, McKinstry wrote to James T. Cobb in Salt Lake City:--
Hurlbut may have received in addition to "Manuscript Found" some fragment tied up with the bundle, which fragment he passed over to Mr. Howe, retaining the one of real importance for personal use. ...
--A. T. Schroeder Collection, University of Wisconsin, Box 2, Folder 1, as quoted in Cowdrey et al., 2000 CD, 711)
Prior to discovery of MS Story in 1884, McKinstry speculated that Hurlbut kept the large MS about ancient America upon which the Book of Mormon was based and gave Howe only a fragment that had no similarity to the Book of Mormon. Regardless, she held the possibility of an additional fragment, but dismissed the possibility of two MSS of roughly the same size was out of the question. She obviously only knew about the 171-page MS Story. Her claim to having seem Book of Mormon names in the MS, which we know was MS Story, therefore were wrong, as was also Sabin's--whatever they were. What's important here is not that Spalding had written more than one work of fiction (which is what Spalding advocates focus on), but that these other writings did not confuse McKinstry, who had no need to qualify which history of ancient America she had reference to.
4 April 1882McKinstry interview with E. L. Kelley.
Q. Mrs. McKinstry, have you the Manuscript Found, Mr. Solomon Spaulding is said to have written, in your possession?
A. I have not.
Q. What became of it?
A. My mother delivered it up for publication to a Mr. Hulburt who came to our house in Mass. for it, bearing letters of introduction from my uncle, a Mr. Sabine, a lawyer in New York State. ...
Q. When did you first think about the names in the Book of Mormon and the manuscript agreeing?
A. My attention was first called to it by some parties who asked me if I did not remember it, and then I remembered that they were." ...
--Braden and Kelley Debate , 82.
Again, she knows of only one MS, and does not complain that Hurlbut took at least two MSS.
On the origin of identifying the names, McKinstry is a good example of how false memories can be (unintentionally) planted. Here she probably refers to questions being asked of her prior to her 1839 interview with Jesse Haven. When she was interviewed by Haven, she said:--
"Ans: I think some of the names agree.
Ques. Are you certain that some of the names agree?
Ans: I am not."
Then, in 1880, she told Dickenson:--
"They are as fresh to me to-day as though I heard them yesterday. They were Mormon, Maroni, Lamanite, Nephi."
FALSE MEMORIES
Near the beginning of this thread, I brought up the research of Elizabeth Loftus on false memories. Evidently none of my respondents have bothered to examine her research, which is a mistake because the Spalding claims rest totally on 20+ year-old memories of the contents of a MS they heard read to them. Loftus wanted to examine the phenomenon of memories of childhood abuse being (unintentionally) planted in subjects under hypnosis or strong suggestion. To demonstrate that such could happen, she devised an experiment where subjects were told a story about their being lost in a shopping mall as a child, which the researcher falsely claimed came from their mothers. The subjects at first said they couldn't remember the event, but that it was possible. On successive interviews this possibility became a dim memory, and eventually to a certain memory. When the truth was finally revealed, some subjects refused to accept the explanation, which is what happens to those who form false memories of childhood trauma because it was suggested to them by their therapist.
Loftus discusses how false memories can be very real to those who experience them:--
Without corroboration, it is very difficult to differentiate between false memories and true ones. Also, in these cases, some memories were contrary to physical evidence, such as explicit and detailed recollections of rape and abortion when medical examination confirmed virginity. How is it possible for people to acquire elaborate and confident false memories? A growing number of investigations demonstrate that under the right circumstances false memories can be instilled rather easily in some people.
--This and following quotes from
http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/sciam.htm
Loftus describes an experiment that demonstrates how suggestion and misinformation can immediately distort memories:--
My own research into memory distortion goes back to the early 1970s, when I began studies of the "misinformation effect." These studies show that when people who witness an event are later exposed to new and misleading information about it, their recollections often become distorted. In one example, participants viewed a simulated automobile accident at an intersection with a stop sign. After the viewing, half the participants received a suggestion that the traffic sign was a yield sign. When asked later what traffic sign they remembered seeing at the intersection, those who had been given the suggestion tended to claim that they had seen a yield sign. Those who had not received the phony information were much more accurate in their recollection of the traffic sign.
My students and I have now conducted more than 200 experiments involving over 20,000 individuals that document how exposure to misinformation induces memory distortion. In these studies, people "recalled" a conspicuous barn in a bucolic scene that contained no buildings at all, broken glass and tape recorders that were not in the scenes they viewed, a white instead of a blue vehicle in a crime scene, and Minnie Mouse when they actually saw Mickey Mouse. Taken together, these studies show that misinformation can change an individual's recollection in predictable and sometimes very powerful ways.
This demonstrates how, by the power of suggestion, foreign elements can become part of our memories. Imagine what happens after years pass and someone suggests that the names in an old MS that was read to you were the same as the ones you were then reading in a published book.
Misinformation has the potential for invading our memories when we talk to other people, when we are suggestively interrogated or when we read or view media coverage about some event that we may have experienced ourselves. After more than two decades of exploring the power of misinformation, researchers have learned a great deal about the conditions that make people susceptible to memory modification. Memories are more easily modified, for instance, when the passage of time allows the original memory to fade.
This is particularly relevant to our study of the Spalding witnesses. The passage of 20+ years, faded memories, talking to other people, being suggestively interrogated, reading or being told what other witnesses were saying. All this spells disaster for the Spalding theorists, especially those prone to look only for confirmatory evidence or feel safe with multiple witnesses.
It is one thing to change a detail or two in an otherwise intact memory but quite another to plant a false memory of an event that never happened. ...
When one looks at what is possible in false memories, I think what I'm suggesting for some Spalding witnesses is relatively a minor memory distortion. I have suggested distortions of memory could have resulted from witnesses mixing Spalding's discussions about the Mound Builders and ten tribe theory of Indian origins with what was in the MS, and I have also suggested that discussions among the witnesses and interrogators could have cross-infected them with strong suggestions about names, which became part of their memories.
Loftus observes:--
The paradigm shows a way of instilling false memories and takes a step toward allowing us to understand how this might happen in real-world settings. Moreover, the study provides evidence that people can be led to remember their past in different ways, and they can even be coaxed into "remembering" entire events that never happened.
Similar results were found in another memory experiment:--
Hyman found that students fully or partially recalled 84 percent of the true events in the first interview and 88 percent in the second interview. None of the participants recalled the false event during the first interview, but 20 percent said they remembered something about the false event in the second interview. One participant who had been exposed to the emergency hospitalization story later remembered a male doctor, a female nurse and a friend from church who came to visit at the hospital. In another study, along with true events Hyman presented different false events, such as accidentally spilling a bowl of punch on the parents of the bride at a wedding reception or having to evacuate a grocery store when the overhead sprinkler systems erroneously activated. Again, none of the participants recalled the false event during the first interview, but 18 percent remembered something about it in the second interview. For example, during the first interview, one participant, when asked about the fictitious wedding event, stated, "I have no clue. I have never heard that one before." In the second interview, the participant said, "It was an outdoor wedding, and I think we were running around and knocked something over like the punch bowl or something and made a big mess and of course got yelled at for it. "
This is similar to McKinstry's improved memory with regard to names.
Loftus discusses how false memories can form:--
In the lost-in-the-mall study, implantation of false memory occurred when another person, usually a family member, claimed that the incident happened. Corroboration of an event by another person can be a powerful technique for instilling a false memory. ...
Research is beginning to give us an understanding of how false memories of complete, emotional and self-participatory experiences are created in adults. First, there are social demands on individuals to remember; for instance, researchers exert some pressure on participants in a study to come up with memories. Second, memory construction by imagining events can be explicitly encouraged when people are having trouble remembering. And, finally, individuals can be encouraged not to think about whether their constructions are real or not. Creation of false memories is most likely to occur when these external factors are present, whether in an experimental setting, in a therapeutic setting or during everyday activities.
False memories are constructed by combining actual memories with the content of suggestions received from others. During the process, individuals may forget the source of the information. This is a classic example of source confusion, in which the content and the source become dissociated.
Obviously, there were strong social factors, corroboration, and strong suggestion at play in the Spalding phenomenon.
WHEN MEMORIES DON'T MATCH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
It's interesting to see what happens to the witnesses responses after the discovery of MS Story in mid-August 1884. McKinstry gave only two brief and abrupt responses before she died about 1890.
2? Nov. 1886 and 31 Oct. 1887I have read much of the Manuscript Story Conneaut Creek you sent me. I know that it is not the Manuscript Found which contained the words "Nephi, Mormon, Maroni, and Lamanites." Do the Mormons expect to deceive the public by leaving off the title page--Conneaut Creek--and calling it Manuscript Found[?]
--Deming Papers, Chicago Historical Society, quoted in Cowdrey et al., 2000 CD, 811-12.
I have carefully read the Rice Spalding manuscript ("Manuscript Story") you gave me. It is not the "Manuscript Found," which I have often seen. It contained the words "Lehi," "Lamonia," "Nephi," and was a much larger work.
--Letter of 31 Oct. 1887, in Deming, Naked Truths About Mormonis 1:25, quoted in Cowdrey et al., 2000 CD, 821.
McKinstry gave two reasons why she thinks MS Story is not MS Found. The first was that the names she remembered were not in it and the title was different. But, as I have discussed, these memories were likely the result of memory distortion.
The second reason she gave was the size of MS Story was smaller than MS found. She saw the published version, which does look a lot smaller than a 171-page MS. In 1886 publication by the Mormons, the text of Spalding's MS occupied 113 pages. However, she offered no explanation for the presence of two sizable MSS in the trunk, because she had none. She had told Cobb in 1880 that Hurlbut could have only gotten a fragment in addition to MS Found (see above). Nevertheless, she was still convinced that the MS in the trunk was MS Found.
THE MISCHIEF OF REDICK MCKEE
Prior to the above denials, McKinstry was interviewed by her childhood friend, Redick McKee, who gave an account of it in a lengthy leter to A. B.. Deming, dated 25 January 1886. The letter, which remained unpublished for a 100 years, is prized by Spalding advocates because it contains details nowhere else found and attempts to harmonize conflicting accounts. But that is exactly the reason McKee's account should be approached with caution. McKee is not merely a Spalding witness--he is a Spalding researcher and theorist on the same level as Deming himself. He freely mixed his report of various witnesses, including his own childhood experiences with Spalding, with his own commentary and theories, which are not always easy to separate. Never does he simply let his witnesses speak for themselves. It is therefore a mistake to take his reporting at face value.
The following discussion of McKee quotes from his 25 Jan. 1886 letter to A. B. Deming, as printed in
Naked Truths About Mormonism (Berkeley CA) 2 (Dec. 1988). The original of Redick McKee's letter is preserved in the A. B. Deming papers at the Chicago Historical Society Library.
According to McKee, McKinstry said:--
But touching these I will give below his daughter's (Mrs. McKinstry's) recollections, recently narrated by her to me, which I think more full and explanatory than my own. ... She corroborated her father's statement about his removal to Conneaut in 1809, his examining the Indian mounds &c., and distinctly recollected that he wrote two or more stories in support of the theory that the Indians of North America were lineal descendants of the Jews from Palestine. In the first of these he brought the Jews from Palestine to America via Italy during the reign of Constantine, and set forth that at Rome they engaged shipping to convey them to some place in Great Britain, but encountered stormy weather and were finally wrecked somewhere on the coast of New England. What became of the manuscript of this story she did not know with certainty but understood that it was published in some Eastern review or magazine.
Notice how McKee paraphrases McKinstry and that he is evidently is going on memory, which combined with his bias and puzzle-solving tendency is dangerous. Certainly, his reporting is less reliable than Dickinson's interview style. It is uncertain which parts are hers and which are his. She may have said her father wrote more than one story, but that there was more than one MS dealing with Indian-Jewish origins is questionable. It is unclear if the part describing the content of the first MS is hers or his. That she didn't know what happened to the story implies she didn't think it was the MS in the trunk, although it sounds like a garbled version of MS Story mixed with Jewish-Indian theory. Possibly this was an attempt to explain the origin of the Rice MS.
According to McKee, Spalding had two copies of MS Found, one of which went into the trunk. That MS was taken by Hurlbut and sold to the Mormons. He evidently believed Rice's MS Story had a different pedigree. He also knew that witnesses had given several versions of how the Mound Builders and Indians got to America, and so having McKinstry state there was multiple MSS on the same subject could harmonize those contradictions. While she is made to state that there were "two or more stories" linking the Indian with Jews, she doesn't say these stories were in the trunk. There is no reason t doubt that she still believed that the trunk contained one large MS-- MS Found --and possibly a "fragment" of another history.
One should always be suspicious when a late secondhand account gives more details than McKinstry's own statements, especially her carefully prepared affidavit for Dickinson in 1880. She could barely remember names, and never mentioned anything about content other than it was about an "idolatrous people". Now, she is made to give amazing detail that strangely incorporates elements from the newly discovered MS Story with the Jewish thesis. Since she had yet to read MS Story (see above), the description (if she actually gave it) may have been given with McKee's help. Regardless, the description of MS Story improves on Howe's 1834 description in some respects, but is nevertheless inaccurate. If it does represent McKinstry's (or McKee's) description of MS Story, it is clear evidence of memory distortion in the direction of similarity to the Book of Mormon. That's not good.
This romance he afterwards abandoned and set about writing a more probable story founded on the history of the ten lost tribes of Israel. She thought her father must have had wonderful powers of imagination and memory, great command of language and facility of description. Many of his descriptions were of a historical and religious character. Others were grotesque and ludicrous in the extreme.
The apparent contradiction between claiming Solomon perhaps published a short work of fiction in the East--which implies that it was finished--and then claiming that the first romance was "abandoned" is perhaps the result of McKee's poor editing of ideas from different witnesses. The bolded statement (together the "In the first of these ..." in the first paragraph) is probably McKee's editorial comments. Neither McKinstry nor her mother ever claimed that Solomon wrote two distinct histories of ancient America. Instead, the claims was advanced by Hurlbut's witnesses in 1833 when confronted with MS Story (Howe 1834, 288).
She remembered that in one of them, touching the mode of warfare in that day, (being hand to hand or man with man) he represented one of the parties having streaks of red paint upon their cheeks and foreheads to distinguish them from enemies in battle. This story he called "The Manuscript Found." It purported to give a history of the ten tribes, their disputes and dissensions concerning the religion of their fathers, their division into two parties; one called Nephites the other Lamanites; their bloody wars, followed by reunion and migration via the Red Sea to the Pacific Ocean; their residence for a long time in China; their crossing the ocean by Behrings Straits in North America, thus becoming the progenitors of the Indians who have inhabited or now live on this continent. This was the story which her Uncle John, Mr. Lake, Mr. Miller and other neighbors heard him read at Conneaut on different occasions. They were all much interested in it and advised him strongly to have it published. Such was not his intention at first, but he finally acceded to their advice, in the hope that from its sale he might obtain money to pay, at least, a portion of his indebtedness. He revised it accordingly. ...
The red paint story is very similar to Joseph Miller's account, whom McKee also interviewed about the same time. Perhaps McKee got confused here. But if McKinstry also remembered the story of the red paint in the foreheads, she was probably remembering a story that does appear in MS Story--the only book-length MS that was in the trunk, which is where she claimed her memories came from. But I think it is likely that McKee in writing from memory has confused what Miller said with McKinstry's statements. I think this is a clear sign that his account of his interview with McKinstry is not entirely reliable, and should be regarded with skepticism.
Moreover, McKee's transition from McKinstry's remembering a specific story in "one of the" MSS to a description of the migration in "this manuscript" implies that the latter is not her memory of the MS she read as a child. His statement--that "This was the story which her Uncle John, Mr. Lake, Mr. Miller and other neighbors heard him read at Conneaut on different occasions"--implies that it was their memories that he was reporting, either from them directly or perhaps as McKinstry related them to him. Regardless, it is not the kind of interview one can uncritically quote from with confidence. So why do Cowdrey et al. and other Spalding advocates use McKee for evidence that Spalding had two copies of MS--one that was given to Patterson and the other that went into the trunk? This is probably the most unreliable part of his letter, because it is not based on firsthand information--but on supposition and speculation. In fact, his theory is self contradictory, and conflicts with widow Spalding's statement that the MS was returned before they moved to Amity. McKee states:--
Mr. Spaulding told me that at Pittsburg he became acquainted with the Rev. Robert Patterson who, then in advanced life, was keeping a bookstore with a publishing department attached. He had prepared a copy of his manuscript for the printer and left it with Mr. Patterson for examination. About its publication they had frequent conversation. Mr. P. thought favorably of the printing, but his manager of the publishing department -- a Mr. Engles or English -- had doubts about its being remunerative and thought the author should either deposit some money to pay the expenses, or, at least, give security for their payment. This was a damper, as he was unable at the time to meet either of the requirements, and the manuscript was laid aside in the office for further consultation.
Why keep the MS, if Spalding could not meet the requirements? Besides, the MS needed more work, according to widow Spalding, so it was returned for other reasons as well.
While the question of printing was in abeyance Mr. S. wrote to Mr. P. that if the document was not already in the hands of the printer he wished it to be sent [out] to him in order that he might amend it by the addition of a chapter on the discovery of valuable relics in a mound recently opened near Conneaut. In reply Mr. P. wrote him that the manuscript could not then be found, but that further search would be made for it. This excited Mr. Spaulding's suspicions that Rigdon had taken it home. In a week or two it was found in the place where it had originally been deposited, and sent out to him. The circumstance of this finding increased Mr. S's suspicions that Rigdon had taken the manuscript and made a copy of it with a view [to] ultimately publishing the story as the product of his own brain. Whether the manuscript was amended and returned to Mr. P. he did not tell me, but it probably was.
The part about Rigdon, I will deal with later. The statement "if the document was not already in the hands of the printer" sounds like the MS was going to be printed, which wasn't the case. McKee doesn't know what he is talking about. However, the important thing here is that the MS, according to McKee, was sent to Spalding; hence there was no need for two MSS. This MS was emended and sent back to Patterson, as McKee supposed. So, where does a second MS come from? From a paragraph where McKee freely speculates and tries to make sense of his understanding of events, though incorrect and incomplete as it was.
A few days after Mr S's death the firm of Patterson & Lambdin failed in business and it may have been purchased by Rigdon at the public sale of their assests, or, by some printer who removed it with the other appurtenances of the office to some town in the neighborhood; or, it may have been destroyed with other rubbish in cleaning up the room. It was certainly not the document discovered by Mr. Rice at Honolulu, nor the one found by Mrs. Davidson after her return to New York in an old trunk containing his manuscripts or sermons, essays, &c. For, this must have been the original or rough draft of the story. The Mormons at Conneaut, a year or two after the publication of the Book of Mormon, heard of the discovery made by Mrs. D. and immediately determined, if possible, to get possession of the document so found, lest its publication might expose their theory. To effect this they employed the talented money-loving and unscrupulous D.P. Hurlbut to go to Monson, Mass., to obtain, if possible, the document referred to. He made the journey and by subtlety and lying obtained an order from Mrs. D. on her brother -- Mr. Sabine -- for it, promising that it should be returned to her in a short time. This promise was never fulfilled. Returning to Conneaut, he obtained a certificate from several gentlemen that it was in the handwriting of Mr. Spaulding, delivered it to the Mormons, got his pay --some $400 or $500 -- and went his way. What eventually became of this manuscript is not known, but it was probably destroyed. So the whole matter remains to a great extent a mystery yet unsolved.
He speculates that the MS in Patterson's care was either stolen or purchased by Rigdon or copied by him before being destroyed. The other MS--an original or rough draft of MS Found-- went into the trunk. He further speculates -- quite wildly -- that Hurlbut was hired by the Mormons to find MS Found, which he did in the widow's trunk and sold to the Mormons. Cowdrey et al. reject this last part of McKee's theory, but they incorrectly accept the part about there being two copies of MS Found. However, neither speculation is based on firsthand observation, and therefore carry no more authority than anyone elses--including Cowdrey et al. and Broadhurst.
Evidently, McKee hasn't put the two MSS together; he speaks as if the Rice MS and the one in the trunk were different MSS. One can only wonder how McKee's theory would have changed once he realized that MS Story was the same MS that McKinstry was describing as being in the trunk. He never got the chance to revise his theory, because he died shortly after composing his letter to Deming.
AD HOC THEORIES OF MODERN RESEARCHERS
(see next post; this one apparently too long)