Dale,
On pages 202-203 of the second volume of "Early Mormon Documents," we find
the recorded statement of Mr. Isaac Butts, who was born in Palmyra and who
was about the same age as Joseph Smith, Jr.
That much, at least is undisputed: there really was such a person and he really
did live in western New York, and later northern Ohio, spending his last years
in Newbury township, Geauga Co. His tombstone may be viewed across the south
border of that township, in neighboring Auburn, where Isaac lived most of his
life. The statement attributed to him almost certainly reflects his own thoughts
and recollections at an advanced age. I can find no plausible reason to assume
that it was crafted by his interviewer, Arthur B. Deming -- or that the contents
were altered by Deming, prior to its publication in the initial issue of Deming's
"Naked Truths About Mormonism: --
Here is the entire Butts statement, with the key part bolded::--
I was born in Palmyra, N.Y., near where old Jo Smith settled, January 4, 1807. I attended school with Prophet Jo. His father taught me to mow. I worked with old and young Jo at farming. I have frequently seen old Jo drunk. Young Jo had a forked witch-hazel rod with which he claimed he could locate buried money or hidden things. Later he had a peep-stone which he put into his hat and looked into it. I have seen both. Joshua Stafford, a good citizen, told me that young Jo Smith and himself dug for money in his orchard and elsewhere nights. All the money digging was done nights. I saw the holes in the orchard which were four or five feet square and three or four feet deep. Jo and others dug much about Palmyra and Manchester. I have seen many of the holes. The first thing he claimed to find was gold plates of the "Book of Mormon," which he kept in a pillowcase and would let people lift, but not see. I came to Ohio in 1818, and became acquainted with Sydney Rigdon in 1820. He preached my brother's funeral sermon in Auburn, O., in May, 1822. I returned to Palmyra twice and resided there about two years each time. Many persons whom I knew in New York joined the Mormons and came to Kirtland. They told me they saw Sidney Rigdon much with Jo Smith before they became Mormons, but did not know who he was until they came to Kirtland.
--ISAAC BUTTS STATEMENT, CIRCA MARCH 1885, Naked Truths About Mormonism (January 1888): 2.
Although Richard L. Anderson and other faithful LDS critics have dismissed the
Deming collection of eye-witness statements as totally worthless anti-Mormon
lies, concocted to destroy God's "one true church," it is not unusual these days
to see even observant LDS writers referencing some of this material in respectable
publications. Biographies of Orrin Porter Rockwell (as one example) draw upon
the Deming statements as suppling reliable historical details on early Mormons.
Deming's affidavits can contain useful information, but one needs to take a cautious and critical approach with them. By way of background on this item, it is important to keep in mind the following information, which I provided in EMD:--
The present statement is undated, but it was probably taken by Deming about March 1885 when he interviewed others in Geauga County. The following note accompanies Butts' statement: "Original sworn to, but missing in Chicago." Because Butts' original, notarized statement was among the papers stolen from Deming during a visit to Chicago in December 1885, the published version was taken from a copy Deming had retained (Naked Truths About Mormonism 1 [January 1888]: 4).
Surprisingly, the Isaac Butts statement in EMD2 is given in full, with no evident
effort to suppress Butts' disclosure of information pertaining to Sidney Rigdon.
If Butts went on the speculate about Spalding, I might have cut it because it would have nothing to do with Mormon origins. But because he gives testimony about Mormon converts, it does, although it evidently is worded to suit the Spalding theorists of the 1880s. Unfortunately, Butts' testimony on this matter is worthless in that regard.
The depondent's two remarks concerning Rigdon are provided in an off-hand manner
that does not appear to me to reflect any rabid anti-Mormon motives. Butts first
of all says that Rigdon preached the "funeral sermon" of his brother, "in Auburn,
O., in May, 1822." I can see no reason to doubt this assertion. Rigdon was at
that time the pastor of the First Baptist Church in Pittsburgh, but he had previously
been a traveling preacher, based in Trumbull Co., Ohio, not far to the east of
the Butts' home in Auburn. Rigdon's wife's family lived in Trumbull and probably
hosted their son-in-law on his occasional visits, up from Pittsburgh.
This claim can be neither confirmed nor disproved. Not impossible, but questionable nonetheless.
I cannot identify Isaac's brother, who died during the spring of 1822. Possibly
he was a half-brother with a different surname. There were four Butts brothers
(or cousins) living in Auburn during the 1820s, but they do not show up in the
annual property tax records I have so far inspected. Hopefully this fifth young
Mr. Butts can be eventually identified, to help confirm Isaac's statement.
Another unverifiable claim.
The second thing that Isaac Butts says regarding Sidney Rigdon, is that acquaintances
"told me they saw Sidney Rigdon much with Jo Smith before they became Mormons..."
Isaac does not say who, where, when or why -- but by November 1830, at least, both
Smith and Rigdon were definitely "Mormons;" so the supposition is that Isaac is
here relaying Rigdon-Smith information that pre-dates November, 1830. Another possibility, is that the THEY spoken of here represents the New York witnesses
themselves -- but again, this merely sets the time frame to late 1830 or thereafter.
Yet, another unverifiable claim, made even more difficult by the lack of specificity. What! Butts couldn't give the name of at least one of the "many persons" who gave him this hearsay information? Who were these people whom he knew in NY and OH? They would have to fulfill the following criteria:--
1. Lived in the vicinity of Palmyra.
2. Knew Butts, both in NY and OH.
3. Knew Joseph Smith well enough to observe a stranger with him "much" in a way unobserved by his own family and not requiring an introduction.
4. Did not see Rigdon in NY during his Dec 1830-Jan 1831 visit.
5. Converted to Mormonism.
6. Moved to OH after conversion and met the Mormon Rigdon for the first time.
Who fits this description? Nobody I know of.
Isaac says that "many people" told him this -- but one man's "couple" can easily
be another's "many." I take this to mean at least three (and probably more) people
who were eye-witnesses to Smith and Rigdon being together before late 1830 is meant.
I find it doubtful that Isaac meant to assert that many more than three people
told him such a thing --- for, if there were "many" who had such knowledge, I would
expect them to have shared the information more widely and publicly, than just their
telling Isaac such a thing.
Give me one possible candidate; we know who most of the converts were by name.
Isaac also says that these "many" were people he knew in New York, who "joined the
Mormons." By that, I suppose he meant to say "converted to Mormonism;" but he may
also have been speaking of people who simply followed along with Mormons among
their family and/or friends, who migrated westward during the 1830s. Not "many"
people Isaac could have known back in the Palmyra area actually converted to the
new religion -- so, again, I assume he speaks of a handful of people at most.
There is no reason to suppose he wasn't talking about converts.
Isaac states that these people, who "joined the Mormons" also "came to Kirtland."
Here I assume he meant to say "Kirtland Mills" or "Kirtland Township." However,
there was another "Kirtland" -- a hamlet located in the center of Auburn township,
where Isaac lived most of his life. So, perhaps some caution should be exercised
in trying to discern exactly what his statement says.
I don't think relaxing this criteria is going to help find a suitable candidate.
Finally, Isaac states that these "many" whom he "knew in New York" and who "joined
the Mormons," at first "did not know who he (Rigdon) was..." That is, some people
from the Palmyra area said that they saw Rigdon and Smith together, back in New York;
but they did not, at the time, know who Sidney Rigdon was, "until they came to
Kirtland." The most straightforward reading here, suggests that these witnesses were
Mormon converts who moved to Kirtland Mills, in northern Geauga Co., Ohio, after
1830, who there became familiar with Sidney Rigdon. But another possible reading
would be that the witnesses did not know this until THEY (Rigdon and Smith) came
to Kirtland hamlet, in Auburn -- probably in 1832 when both lived nearby at Hiram.
The latter is not a likely meaning. Rather convoluted if you ask me.
So much for decyphering Mr. Butt's assertions ---
The question that remains to be answered, is "Why would Butts lie about such a thing?"
Not an important question. They only thing we need to know is that he didn't give us enough information to convince us that he knew what he was talking about. Some people lie. Others get confused with the passage of time. And some can be manipulated by eager investigators like Deming. Regardless, the statement is totally devoid of substance, and in no way should throw us off track provided by more reliable testimonies.
Or -- if he himself were not telling fibs, then why did the witnesses from New York
concoct such Mormon-damning allegations (and especially so, if they were Mormons!)???
Good question.
If one wants to harmonize everything, which isn't our job, but if that is what you are looking for, you might consider that due to poor wording (which you have noticed) and bad memory Butt's account is based on this reconstruction:--the converts he spoke to had been converted after Rigdon's December 1830-January 1831 visit to NY; they had seen Rigdon with Joseph Smith during that time, but were never introduced; after their conversions and removal to OH, they learned who he was. It was no beg deal, and at the time had nothing to do with the Spalding theory; more than fifty years later under pressure from Deming, this memory seemed to fit what was desired.
Perhaps the poorly worded statement, might be clarified as follows:--
b]Many persons, whom I knew, in New York joined the Mormons and came to Kirtland. They told me they saw Sidney Rigdon much with Jo Smith before they became Mormons, but did not know who he was until they came to Kirtland.[/b]
In this way, the converts are not geographically limited.
If other parts of the Butts statement could be identified as untruthful or mistaken,
then I might be convinced that the old man was talking nonsense (or worse) here. But as
far as I can tell, he is truthful in the rest of the statement.
This is the wrong stance. Butts has to convince you. You say he is truthful, but you can't verify any of his statements. But even if you could, what does that have to do with the main question we are interested in here? You seem to have the notion that a liar always lies. There would be no motivation to lie about his brother's funeral, but high motivation to lie about the Rigdon being seen with Smith. You sound a lot like apologists who want to assume something is true until proven wrong. Statements can be rejected without proving them wrong. Basically, I reject Butt's statement on this because it lacks substance and conflicts with more certain testimony.
Either Smith and Rigdon DID meet before the latter part of 1830, or they DID NOT. Isaac
Butts' statement says that they DID. I take this as a potentially fruitful "lead,"
and suggest that his neighbors in Auburn (many of whom came from the Palmyra area)
be investigated, to see if others gave reports like Mr. Butts did, about Sidney Rigdon.
Butts' statement only seems to say what you think it does, but it never explicitly states that "Smith and Rigdon DID meet before the latter part of 1830."
I wish you well.