Chapter XLIV: Counter Theories of Origin (2)

The theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon in the traditional
manuscript of Solomon Spaulding will probably have to be
relinquished. That manuscript is doubtless now in the possession
of Mr. L. L. Rice, of Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands, formerly an
anti-slavery editor in Ohio, and for many years state printer at
Columbus. During a recent visit to Honolulu, I suggested to Mr.
Rice that he might have valuable anti-slavery documents in his
possession which he would be willing to contribute to the rich
collection already in the Oberlin College library. In pursuance of
this suggestion Mr. Rice began looking over his old pamphlets and
papers, and at length came upon an old, worn, and faded manuscript
of about one hundred and seventy-five pages, small quarto,
purporting to be a history of the migrations and conflicts of the
ancient Indian tribes which occupied the territory now belonging
to the states of New York, Ohio, and Kentucky. On the last page of
this manuscript is a certificate and signature giving the names of
several persons known to the signer, who have assured him that,
to their personal knowledge, the manuscript was the writing of
Solomon Spaulding. Mr. Rice has no recollection how or when this
manuscript came into his possession. It was enveloped in a coarse
piece of wrapping paper and endorsed in Mr. Rice's handwriting, "A
Manuscript Story."

There seems to be no reason to doubt that this is the long-lost
story. Mr. Rice himself and others compared it with the Book of
Mormon and could detect no resemblance between the two, in general
or in detail. There seems to be no name or incident common to the
two. The solemn style of the Book of Mormon, in imitation of the
English scriptures, does not appear in the manuscript. The only
resemblance is the fact that both profess to set forth the history
of lost tribes. Some other explanation of the origin of the Book of
Mormon must be found if any explanation is required.

JAMES H. FAIRCHILD.

The means now of ascertaining whether the Book of Mormon came from Spaulding's manuscript was completed. A _verbatim et literatim_ transcript was obtained from Mr. L. L. Rice by President Joseph F. Smith, who in 1884 and 1885 was residing in the Sandwich Islands. This, in 1886, was published by the "Deseret News" exactly according to the transcript, with all its errors of grammar and orthography, as also with all the alterations, erasures, etc., made by its author, indicated. After a careful examination of it, I think everybody will come to the same conclusion that President Fairchild did: namely, that there is "no resemblance between the two, in general or in detail. There seems to be no name or incident common to the two--a fact that completely explodes the theory that Spaulding's manuscript was the origin of the Book of Mormon. Mr. Rice is of the same opinion as President Fairchild, though more emphatic in the expression of it. He says:

I should as soon think the Book of Revelation was written by the
author of "Don Quixote," as that the writer of this manuscript was
the author of the Book of Mormon.

Then in a postscript to the letter from which the above is a quotation, he says:

Upon reflection, since writing the foregoing, I am of the opinion
that no one who reads this manuscript will give credit to the story
that Solomon Spaulding was in any wise the author of the Book of
Mormon. It is unlikely that any one who wrote so elaborate a work
as the Mormon Bible would spend his time in getting up so shallow
a story as this, which at best is but a feeble imitation of the
other. Finally I am more than half convinced that this is his only
writing of the sort, and that any pretense that Spaulding was in
any sense the author of the other is a sheer fabrication. It was
easy for anybody who may have seen this, or heard anything of its
contents, to get up the story that they were identical.

Subsequently and in another letter he said:

My opinion is, from all I have seen and learned, that this is the
only writing of Spaulding, and there is no foundation for the
statement of Deming and others that Spaulding made another story,
more elaborate, of which several copies were written, one of which
Rigdon stole from a printing office in Pittsburg, etc. [19]

Mr. Rice finally deposited the original Spaulding manuscript with the Oberlin College, where it now lies secure for the inspection of the curious, and a standing refutation to the extravagant claims that have been made respecting the part it played in the origin of the Book of Mormon.

Let us now review the course of those who originated this Spaulding theory, and foister it upon the world. It was evidently conceived by "Doctor" Philastus Hurlburt, the enemy of the Prophet Joseph and of Mormonism. He had heard of Spaulding's writings in Pennsylvania, also at Conneaut, Ohio, and in his hatred of Mormonism determined to show some connection between the writings of Spaulding and the Book of Mormon, in the hope of destroying faith in the divine origin of the latter. He appealed to other enemies of the Prophet, and with their financial assistance started out to collect affidavits and statements that would prove his theory. Hurlburt, under Mrs. Davison's order, as already seen, obtained Spaulding's story "The Manuscript Found," undoubtedly the identical story which Spaulding had read to his neighbors on Conneaut Creek. This is proved by the fact that the document which Hurlburt turned over to Howe [20] corresponds with every description that is given concerning the size and character of the manuscript.

Mrs. Davison, in her conversation with Jesse Haven, declares that the manuscript would be "about one-third as large as the Book of Mormon" [21] (that is, would produce about one-third of the printed matter in that book.)

Mrs. McKinstry, in describing "Manuscript Found" which she had in her hands many times, says that the manuscript was "about one inch thick, and closely written." This agrees closely with the statement of Mrs. Davison on the subject. Mr. Howe, in his book, declares that the "Manuscript Found" in Mrs. Spaulding Davison's trunk was "in Spaulding's hand writing, containing about one quire of paper." [22]

All witnesses who came in contact with this manuscript story declare that the title of it was "The Manuscript Found;" or "Manuscript Found." This is the statement of nearly all the witnesses on Conneaut Creek, whose testimony appears in Howe's "Mormonism," and that it contained the names of "Nephi," "Lehi," "Mormon," "Lamanites," etc., and was based on the theory that the American Indians were the "Lost tribes of Israel." But when Hurlburt returned to Conneaut with this precious "Manuscript Found," according to Howe's own statement, it was not at all what it had been represented to be. Howe says of the manuscript:

This is a romance purporting to have been translated from the
Latin found on 24 rolls of parchment in a cave on the banks of
Conneaut Creek, but written in modern style, and 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.
This old manuscript has been shown to several of the foregoing
witnesses, [23] who recognize it as Spaulding's.

The foregoing accurately describes the "Manuscript Found," since obtained of Mr. L. L. Rice and published; and by both its title and its size is identified to be the manuscript read by Spaulding to his neighbors.

This manuscript must have been a very great disappointment to the conspirators against the Book of Mormon. They had staked their all on the fact of Spaulding's "Manuscript Found" being the foundation matter of the Book of Mormon, but when found it proved to be so dissimilar that they could not, with any face, undertake to maintain that this manuscript was the source whence the Book of Mormon was derived. What must be done to meet this dilemma? That those who had gone this far in opposing the work of God would repent of their folly, and admit their defeat would be too much to expect. No; instead of doing that they resorted to the following subterfuge. I quote Howe:

This manuscript has been shown to several of the foregoing
witnesses who recognize it as Spaulding's, he having told them that
he had altered his first plan of writing, by going farther back
with dates, and writing in the old scripture style, in order that
it might appear more ancient. They say that it bears no resemblance
to the "Manuscript Found." [24]

Two things, in this statement, are extremely unfortunate for the reputation of Mr. Howe, and those who have been beguiled into accepting the theory of his book respecting the origin of the Book of Mormon:

First: The fact that in none of the statements of the witnesses who heard Mr. Spaulding read his manuscript is there any account of his having made two drafts of his story, one which he found too modern to suit the antiquities of America, and written in modern style; and the other going farther back in time and written in the old scripture style, in order to make it appear more ancient. All this seems to have been an after thought, a subterfuge, when it was learned that "The Manuscript Found" did not warrant the theory that it was the foundation of the Book of Mormon. The things it is here claimed were said by these Conneaut witnesses concerning a second Spaulding Manuscript on American antiquities, are not said _by_ them, but _for_ them by Mr. Howe.

Second: That Mr. Howe himself wickedly conceals the fact that this old Roman story of Spaulding's was labeled "Manuscript Found;" and in addition to concealing that fact declares that the witnesses say "that it bears no resemblance to the "Manuscript Found," when, as a matter of fact, this Roman story itself was the "Manuscript Found." Comment is unnecessary; a bare statement of the facts expose the villainy of these conspirators. [25]

Relative to the manner in which it is supposed the Spaulding manuscript came into the hands of Joseph Smith, the theories differ. Howe supposes that Lambdin, alleged partner of Patterson in the printing business at Pittsburg, placed in the hands of Sidney Rigdon the "Manuscript Found," to be "embellished, altered, and added to as he might think expedient" to transform it into what is now the Book of Mormon. [26] When Howe put forth this theory, Lambdin had been dead some eight years. [27]

Query: Did Howe select this dead man as the medium through which the Spaulding manuscript reached the hands of Sidney Rigdon, and thence to Joseph Smith, for the reason that the dead man could not arise to contradict it? We shall see that Patterson contradicted it when that gentleman was appealed to in order to confirm his connection with Sidney Rigdon.

The Rev. John Storrs, in the bogus signed statement he put forth as coming from Mrs. Davison, represents her as saying that Rigdon became acquainted with Spaulding's manuscript "and copied it," and that this was a "matter of notoriety and interest to all connected with the printing establishment." According to this "Davison Statement," the manuscript was returned to Mr. Spaulding before he left Pittsburg for Amity (where he died), and that the manuscript after this was "carefully preserved" by Mrs. Spaulding, until delivered to Hurlburt, in 1834.

Rev. Clark Braden, a Campbellite minister, in a protracted debate on the Book of Mormon in Kirtland, 1884, declares that Sidney Rigdon stole the Spaulding manuscript and that Mrs. (Spaulding) Davison--he should have said rather the Rev. John Storrs, the real author of the "Davison Statement"--was mistaken in saying that Rigdon "copied it" and returned the original to Mr. Spaulding. [28]

Mrs. McKenstry's affidavit on the subject, published in Scribner's for August, 1880, says he (Solomon Spaulding) loaned the manuscript to Mr. Patterson; that he read it and returned it to its author, with the suggestion that he "polish it up and finish it," and that he might make money out of it; but when Mr. Patterson was appealed to for information on the subject he said he had "no recollection of any such manuscript being brought there (i. e., to his establishment in Pittsburg) for publication." [29]

Mrs. Ellen E. Dickinson, grand-niece of Solomon Spaulding and the author of "New Light on Mormonism," holds that the Spaulding manuscript remained safely in the hands of the family until turned over to Hurlburt. At this point she thinks several things may have befallen the manuscript. One, that Hurlburt "sold the manuscript to the Mormons for a sum of money which he used in purchasing a farm near Gibonsburg, Ohio, where he now [1880] resides; and that the Mormons burned the manuscript at Conneaut." Another, that "Hurlburt sold it with a sworn agreement that it should not be given to the world until after his death." Then she concludes:

There are circumstances which support both theories; but the
author's opinion, after a careful study of the matter, is, that
Hurlburt made a copy of the original manuscript, which he sold to
E. D. Howe, of Painsville, to use in writing the book "Mormonism
Unveiled," and sold the original to the Mormons, who destroyed it.
The life of Hurlburt since his return from his errand of duplicity
to Munson shows conclusively that he wishes to hide himself from
the world, and that he is burdened with a secret which he does not
intend shall come to light through any act or revelation of his
own. [30] * * * Beyond a shadow of doubt Hurlburt, after getting
the genuine Spaulding romance at Munson, destroyed it or saw it
destroyed by the Mormons at Conneaut, in 1834, after his being paid
for his share of this transaction. [31]

This theory Mrs. Davison maintains throughout her book with something more than a half hysterical style meant to be very sensational.

Thus these originators and promulgators of the Spaulding theory, having started with conjecture and falsehood, go on varying, changing, and patching up their story until they are involved in innumerable inconsistencies and contradictions, which constantly makes more apparent the absurdity of this attempt to construct a counter theory for the origin of the Book of Mormon to that given by Joseph Smith. The theory, however, fails by dint of its own inconsistencies, and by the discovery and publication of the manuscript with which the theory started; and that in another way, and in addition to the fact that there is no incident, or name, or set of ideas, common to the two productions. The publication of the "Manuscript Found" not only demonstrates that this particular manuscript was not the foundation of the Book of Mormon, but it demonstrates, also, that no other writings of Solomon Spaulding's could possibly be the Book of Mormon. Spaulding's manuscript, as published, makes a pamphlet of some 112 pages, of about 350 words to the page, enough matter to give a clear idea of his literary style. I am sure that no person, having any literary judgment will think it possible for the author of "Manuscript Found" to be the author of the Book of Mormon. Composition in writers becomes individualized as distinctly as the looks, or appearance, or character, of separate individuals; and they can no more write in several styles than individuals can impersonate different characters. True, by special efforts this latter may be done to a limited extent by a change of tone, costume and the like, but underneath these impersonations is to be seen the real individual; and so with authors. One may sometimes affect a light, and sometimes a serious vein, in prose and poetry. He may imitate a solemn scriptural style or the diction of some Greek or Roman author, but underneath it all will be seen the individuality of the writer from which he cannot separate himself any more than he can separate himself from his true form, features, or character. Since we have in this "Manuscript Found" enough of Mr. Spaulding's style to determine its nature, if this manuscript of his was used either as the foundation or the complete work of the Book of Mormon, we should be able to detect Spauldingisms in it; identity of style would be apparent; but these things are entirely absent from every page of the Book of Mormon. Mr. Rice does not overstate the matter when he says: "I should as soon think the Book of Revelation was written by the author of "Don Quixote," as that the writer of this manuscript was the author of the Book of Mormon." And again, he is right when he says: "It is unlikely that any one who wrote so elaborate a work as the Mormon Bible would spend his time in getting up so shallow a story as this"--the Spaulding Story.

Another point at which the Spaulding theory goes to pieces is in the utter inability of its advocates to bring together the parties to the conspiracy in which the Book of Mormon is supposed to have had its origin. They fail even to bring Joseph Smith in contact with the Spaulding manuscript; they also fail to connect Sidney Rigdon with the manuscript; they fail to bring together Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, previous to the publication of the Book of Mormon. In all these things, vital to the maintenance of their theory, they fail. Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, until after the publication of the Book of Mormon, are from 200 to 300 miles apart, with no means of communication or of collaboration, which would be necessary if the Spaulding theory were correct. Of the necessary extent and greatness of this conspiracy, Elder George Reynolds justly remarks:

Whole families must have been engaged in it. Men of all ages and
various conditions in life, and living in widely separate portions
of the country must have been connected with it. First, we must
include in the catalogue of conspirators the whole of the Smith
family, then the Whitmers, Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery;
further, to carry out this absurd idea, Sidney Rigdon and Parley
P. Pratt must have been their active fellow-conspirators in
arranging, carrying out and consummating their iniquitous fraud.
To do this they must have traveled thousands of miles and spent
months, perhaps years, to accomplish--what? That is the unsolved
problem. Was it for the purpose of duping the world? They, at any
rate the great majority of them, were of all men most unlikely to
be engaged in such a folly. Their habits, surroundings, station
in life, youth and inexperience all forbid such a thought. What
could they gain, in any light that could be then presented to
their minds, by palming such a deception upon the world? This is
another unanswerable question. Then comes the staggering fact,
if the book be a falsity, that all these families, all these
diverse characters, in all the trouble, perplexity, persecution
and suffering through which they passed, never wavered in their
testimony, never changed their statements, never "went back" on
their original declarations, but continued unto death, and they
have all passed away (save a very few), proclaiming that the Book
of Mormon was a divine revelation, and that its record was true.
Was there ever such an exhibition in the history of the world of
such continued, such unabating, such undeviating falsehood if
falsehood it was? We cannot find a place in the annals of their
lives where they wavered, and what makes the matter more remarkable
is that it can be said of most of them, as is elsewhere said of
the three witnesses, they became offended with the Prophet Joseph,
and a number of them openly rebelled against him; but they never
retracted one word with regard to the genuineness of Mormon's
inspired record. Whether they were friends or foes to Joseph,
whether they regarded him as God's continued mouthpiece or as a
fallen Prophet, they still persisted in their statements with
regard to the book and the veracity of their earlier testimonies.
How can we possibly, with our knowledge of human nature, make
this undeviating, unchanging, unwavering course, continuing
over fifty years consistent with a deliberate, premeditated and
cunningly-devised and executed fraud! [32]

III.

_The Sidney Rigdon Theory_.

It will be seen, by those who have followed us through the treatise on the Spaulding Theory, that Sidney Rigdon is considered a factor in that supposed scheme. It is generally thought that it was he who supplied the religious matter of the book, and who determined the parts of the Hebrew scripture that should be interwoven in its alleged historical parts. Such prominence, in fact, is given to Sidney Rigdon in bringing forth the Book of Mormon that I decided to consider his connection with it under this separate heading.

Mr. Sidney Rigdon always, and most emphatically, denied the story of his connection with Patterson and his printing establishment. In the January number (1836) of the "Latter-day Saints Messenger and Advocate" he denounces Howe's book and those who advocated it. Referring to Mr. Scott, Mr. Campbell and other professed ministers of the gospel, he said:

In order to avoid investigation this brotherhood will condescend
to mean, low subterfuges, to which a noble-minded man would never
condescend; no, he would suffer martyrdom first. Witness Mr.
Campbell's recommendation of Howe's book, while he knows, as well
as every person who reads it, that it is a batch of falsehoods.

Later, in a letter to Messrs. Bartlett and Sullivan, written from Commerce (afterwards Nauvoo), May 27, 1839, in a communication called forth by the publication of the bogus statement purporting to come from Mrs. Davison and published by the Rev. John Storrs, Elder Rigdon said:

Commerce, May 27, 1839. Messrs. Bartlett and Sullivan:--In your
paper of the 18th instant, I see a letter signed my somebody
calling herself Matilda Davison, pretending to give the origin of
Mormonism, as she is pleased to call it, by relating a moonshine
story about a certain Solomon Spaulding, a creature with the
knowledge of whose earthly existence I am entirely indebted to this
production; for, surely, until Dr. Philastus Hurlburt informed
me that such a being lived, at some former period, I had not the
most distant knowledge of his existence; and all I know about his
character is the opinion I form from what is attributed to his wife
in obtruding my name upon the public in the manner in which she is
said to have done, by trying to make the public believe that I had
knowledge of the ignorant, and, according to her own testimony, the
lying scribblings of her deceased husband; for if her testimony is
to be credited, her pious husband, in his lifetime, wrote a bundle
of lies for the righteous purpose of getting money. How many lies
he had told for the same purpose, while he was preaching, she has
not so kindly informed us; but we are at liberty to draw our own
conclusions, for he that would write lies to get money, would also
preach lies for the same object. This being the only information
which I have, or ever had, of the said Rev. Solomon Spaulding, I,
of necessity, have but a very light opinion of him as a gentleman,
a scholar, or a man of piety, for had he been either, he certainly
would have taught his pious wife not to lie, nor unite herself with
adulterers, liars, and the basest of mankind.

It is only necessary to say, in relation to the whole story about
Spaulding's writings being in the hands of Mr. Patterson, who was
in Pittsburg, and who is said to have kept a printing office, and
my saying that I was concerned in the said office, etc., is the
most base of lies, without even a shadow of truth. There was no man
by the name of Patterson, during my residence at Pittsburg, who had
a printing office; what might have been before I lived there I know
not. Mr. Robert Patterson, I was told, had owned a printing office
before I lived in that city, but had been unfortunate in business,
and failed before my residence there. This Mr. Patterson, who was a
Presbyterian preacher, I had a very slight acquaintance with during
my residence in Pittsburg. He was then acting under an agency, in
the book and stationery business, and was the owner of no property
of any kind, printing office or anything else, during the time I
resided in the city. [33]

One can but regret the tone and coarseness of this letter of Sidney Rigdon's, but it cannot be denied but that it is a very emphatic contradiction of the charge that he was connected with the Spaulding manuscript theory of the Book of Mormon's origin, and it is very natural that a man of the nervous, irritable temperament of Sidney Rigdon would be very much vexed at connecting him with such a theory.

On the matter of Sidney Rigdon not being connected with the origin of the Book of Mormon we have also the statement of Oliver Cowdery, made on his return to the Church at Kanesville (now Council Bluffs), in October, 1848, a statement that was made in the presence of 2,000 Saints. In the course of his remarks, Oliver Cowdery then said:

I wrote, with my own pen, the entire Book of Mormon (save a few
pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph Smith, as he
translated it by the gift and power of God, by means of the Urim
and Thummim, or, as it is called by that book, "Holy Interpreters."
I beheld with my eyes, and handled with my hands the gold plates
from which it was transcribed. I also saw with my eyes and handled
with my hands the "holy interpreters." That book is true. Sidney
Rigdon did not write it. Mr. Spaulding did not write it. I wrote it
myself as it fell from the lips of the Prophet. [34]

Parley P. Pratt, who, with Oliver Cowdery, was the first to present the Book of Mormon to Sidney Rigdon some six months after its publication, is also on record as denying the story of Sidney Rigdon's connection with the origin of the Book of Mormon. When the "Davison Statement" was copied from the "Boston Recorder" into the "New York Era," Elder Pratt promptly denied the falsehood. The "Era" published the "Davison Statement" on the 20th, and in its issue of the 27th Elder Pratt published a somewhat exhaustive treatise in which the following occurs:

The piece in your paper states that "Sidney Rigdon was connected
in the printing office of Mr. Patterson" (in Pittsburg), and that
this is a fact 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 (romance) and to copy
it if he chose. This statement is utterly and entirely false. Mr.
Rigdon was never connected with the said printing establishment,
either directly or indirectly, and we defy the world to bring proof
of any such connection. * * The statement that Sidney Rigdon is one
of the founders of the said religious sect is also incorrect.

The sect was founded in the state of New York, while Mr. Rigdon
resided in Ohio, several hundred miles distant. Mr. Rigdon embraced
the doctrine through my instrumentality. I first presented the Book
of Mormon to him. I stood upon the bank of the stream while he
was baptized, and assisted to officiate in his ordination, and I
myself was unacquainted with the system until some months after its
organization, which was on the 6th of April, 1830, and I embraced
it in September following.

Again, in 1840, in a work entitled "Late Persecutions of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints," referring to the persecutions in Missouri, in the course of which he also gave an account of the rise and progress of the doctrine of the Church, Elder Pratt says, relative to this Spaulding story:

There is one story, however, which I will notice, because some
religious journals have given some credit to it. It is the story
of Solomon Spaulding writing a romance of the ancient inhabitants
of America which is said to be converted by Mr. Sidney Rigdon into
the Book of Mormon. This is another base fabrication got up by the
devil and his servants to deceive the world. Mr. Sidney Rigdon
never saw the Book of Mormon until it had been published more than
six months; it was then presented to him by the author of this
history. [35]

From another source there is also an emphatic denial of Sidney Rigdon's connection with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. This is the statement of Mr. Rigdon's son, John W. Rigdon. This gentleman wrote a somewhat extended biography of his father, Sidney Rigdon, which he placed in its manuscript form in the Church Historian's office, at Salt Lake City, where it is now on file. Mr. John W. Rigdon's account of his father's connection with the Book of Mormon agrees with the statement of Elder Pratt; and then, near the close of his narrative, he relates his own experience in connection with Mormonism, and his attempt to learn the truth from his father respecting the latter's early connection with the Book of Mormon. John W. Rigdon tells of his own visit to Utah, in 1863, where he spent the winter among the Mormon people. He was not favorably impressed with their religious life, and came to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon itself was a fraud. He determined in his own heart that if ever he returned home and found his father, Sidney Rigdon, alive, he would try and find out what he knew of the origin of the Book of Mormon. "Although," he adds, "he had never told but one story about it, and that was that Parley P. Pratt and Oliver Cowdery presented him with a bound volume of that book in the year 1830, while he (Sidney Rigdon) was preaching Campbellism at Mentor, Ohio." What John W. Rigdon claims to have seen in Utah, however, together with the fact that Sidney Rigdon had been charged with writing the Book of Mormon, made him suspicious; and he remarks:

I concluded I would make an investigation for my own satisfaction
and find out, if I could, if he had all these years been deceiving
his family and the world, by telling that which was not true,
and I was in earnest about it. If Sidney Rigdon, my father, had
thrown his life away by telling a falsehood and bringing sorrow and
disgrace upon his family, I wanted to know it and was determined
to find out the facts, no matter what the consequences might be. I
reached home in the fall of 1865, found my father in good health
and (he) was very much pleased to see me. As he had not heard
anything from me for some time, he was afraid that I had been
killed by the Indians. Shortly after I had arrived home, I went to
my father's room; he was there and alone, and now was the time for
me to commence my inquiries in regard to the origin of the Book
of Mormon, and as to the truth of the Mormon religion. I told him
what I had seen at Salt Lake City, and I said to him that what I
had seen at Salt Lake had not impressed me very favorably toward
the Mormon Church, "and as to the origin of the Book of Mormon I
had some doubts." "You have been charged with writing that book
and giving it to Joseph Smith to introduce to the world. You have
always told me one story; that you never saw the book until it was
presented to you by Parley P. Pratt and Oliver Cowdery; and all you
ever knew of the origin of that book was what they told you and
what Joseph Smith and the witnesses who claimed to have seen the
plates had told you. Is this true? If so, all right; if it is not,
you owe it to me and to your family to tell it. You are an old man
and you will soon pass away, and I wish to know if Joseph Smith, in
your intimacy with him for fourteen years, has not said something
to you that led you to believe he obtained that book in some other
way than what he had told you. Give me all you know about it, that
I may know the truth." My father, after I had finished saying what
I have repeated above, looked at me a moment, raised his hand
above his head and slowly said, with tears glistening in his eyes:
"My son, I can swear before high heaven that what I have told you
about the origin of that book is true. Your mother and sister,
Mrs. Athalia Robinson, were present when that book was handed to
me in Mentor, Ohio, and all I ever knew about the origin of that
book was what Parley P. Pratt, Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith and
the witnesses who claimed they saw the plates have told me, and in
all of my intimacy with Joseph Smith he never told me but the one
story, and that was that he found it engraved upon gold plates in
a hill near Palmyra, New York, and that an angel had appeared to
him and directed him where to find it; and I have never, to you or
to any one else, told but the one story, and that I now repeat to
you." I believed him, and now believe he told me the truth. He also
said to me after that that Mormonism was true; that Joseph Smith
was a Prophet, and this world would find it out some day. [36]

In addition to these solemn denials of Sidney Rigdon's connection with this Spaulding theory, we have another means of testing whether or not Sidney Rigdon was the author of the Book of Mormon. That test is the one already referred to when considering the difference of style between Spaulding's manuscript story, and the Book of Mormon. We have enough of Sidney Rigdon's writings before us to determine his literary style; namely, in the Historian's office we have in manuscript his description of the land of Zion, Jackson County, which he was commanded of the Lord to write. We have a number of his communications published in the "Evening and Morning Star," and also the "Messenger and Advocate." In these two publications also there are thirteen articles on the subject of the "Millennium" from his pen, and after careful comparison of his style with that of the Book of Mormon, I do not hesitate to say that Sidney Rigdon, not only never did, but never could have written the Book of Mormon. There are no phrases or conceptions in the Book of Mormon that are Sidney Rigdon's. There is nothing in common between his style and that of the Book of Mormon. There can be no doubt about it; Sidney Rigdon as the author of the Book of Mormon is impossible.

IV.

_The "Joachim" fragment of the Spaulding-Rigdon Theory_.

It was reserved for William Linn, author of the "Story of the Mormons," [37] a pretentious work of nearly 650 pages, to go "a far way" for an additional item which, in the full pride of an author who has made a new discovery, he adds to the Spaulding-Rigdon theory of the Book of Mormon's origin. This new item I have called the "Joachim Fragment of the Spaulding-Rigdon Theory." Mr. Linn, with evident pride, makes this mention of it in the preface of his book: "The probable service of Joachim's 'Everlasting Gospel,' as suggesting the story of the revelation of the plates, has been hitherto overlooked." [38] In the body of his work he thus sets forth his idea of the part played by the "Everlasting Gospel," sometimes called by other writers, "The Eternal Gospel," and in the thirteenth century, when it was supposed to be in circulation among the Franciscan order of monks, it is spoken of as "The Book of Joachim."

That the idea of the revelation (i. e., of the existence of the
Book of Mormon) as described by Smith in his autobiography was
not original is shown by the fact that a similar divine message,
engraved on plates, was announced to have been received from an
angel nearly six hundred years before the alleged visit of an angel
to Smith. These original plates were described as a copper, and
the recipient was a monk named Cyril, from whom their contents
passed into the possession of the Abbot Joachim, whose "Everlasting
Gospel," founded thereon, was offered to the church as supplanting
the New Testament, just as the New Testament had supplanted the
Old, and caused so serious a schism that Pope Alexander IV took the
severest measures against it. [39]

This description of the origin of Joachim's "Everlasting Gospel" rests upon the respectable authority of Draper, in his "Intellectual Development of Europe." [40]

Linn's argument is to the effect that this origin of the "Everlasting Gospel" suggested the origin of the Book of Mormon because of the resemblance between the celestial announcement of both, and also because that both, according to his idea of them, were declared to have the same purport--each was to be "a forerunner of the end of the world." He also urges the frequent use of the phrase, "Everlasting Gospel," in the discourses of the early Elders of the Church as evidence that there was some connection between these two things, the Book of Mormon and "The Book of Joachim." He further holds that Sidney Rigdon, in the course of his ecclesiastical reading would come in contact with the story of Joachim's "Everlasting Gospel;" that it would be just such a story as would be attractive to one of Sidney Rigdon's temperament. Linn throughout his work assumes a connection and collaboration between Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, and claims that the latter suggested the story of the "Book of Joachim," as the ground-work of Joseph Smith's account of the origin of the Book of Mormon. Our author thinks that Rigdon may even have found sufficient matter in relation to Joachim's "Everlasting Gospel," in Mosheim's "Ecclesiastical History," to suggest the account he induced Joseph Smith to give of the origin of the Book of Mormon, and makes the following quotation from Mosheim in proof of his contention:

About the commencement of this [the thirteenth] century there were
handed about in Italy several pretended prophecies of the famous
Joachim, Abbot of Sora, in Calabria, whom the multitude revered
as a person divinely inspired, and equal to the most illustrious
prophets of ancient times. The greatest part of these predictions
were contained in a certain book entitled, "The Everlasting
Gospel," and which was also commonly called the Book of Joachim.
This Joachim, whether a real or fictitious person we shall not
pretend to determine, among many other future events, foretold the
destruction of the Church of Rome, whose corruptions he censured
with the greatest severity, and the promulgation of a new and more
perfect gospel in the age of the Holy Ghost, by the set of poor and
austere ministers, whom God was to raise up and employ for that
purpose

It is to be observed of this passage, as indeed of all that is said by Mosheim upon the subject, that there is no account here of an angel revealing the existence of the Book of Joachim to Cyril, or to any one else, which is the chief item of resemblance between Joseph Smith's story of the origin of the Book of Mormon and the alleged origin of "The Everlasting Gospel," as related by Draper and Linn. Indeed, in the closing lines of the very paragraph from Mosheim which Linn quotes as being the possible source of Sidney Rigdon's knowledge of the "Book of Joachim," it is stated that the Franciscans who accepted Joachim's book maintained that Saint Francis, the founder of their Order, had "spoken to mankind the true gospel, and that he was the angel whom Saint John saw flying in the midst of heaven;" which is quite a different account of this matter than that given by Draper. Whether or not Sidney Rigdon had access to the same source of information as Draper had, is, of course, not known; but certainly Draper did not obtain the account of the angel appearing to Cyril from Mosheim. As a matter of fact, there is much confusion and uncertainty among authorities respecting the origin of this "Everlasting Gospel," and some question whether such a book was ever put forth by Joachim. The work used at the time it was current in the thirteenth century was very often confounded with an introduction to the so-called "Everlasting Gospel," written, as Draper says, by John of Parma; and as others say by Gerhard, a Franciscan friar. The celebrated Dr. Augustus Neander, in his "General History of the Christian Religion and Church," holds to this same theory. He says:

A great sensation was now created by a commentary on the "eternal
gospel," which after the middle of the thirteenth century the
Franciscan Gerhard, who, by his zeal for Joachim's doctrines,
involved himself in many persecutions and incurred an eighteen
years' imprisonment, published under the title of "Introduction
to the Eternal Gospel." Many vague notions were entertained about
the "eternal gospel" of the Franciscans, arising from superficial
views, or a superficial understanding of Joachim's writings, and
the offspring of mere rumor of the heresy-hunting spirit. Men spoke
of the "eternal gospel" as of a book composed under this title,
and circulated among the Franciscans. Occasionally, also, this
"eternal gospel" was confounded perhaps with the above-mentioned
"Introduction." In reality, there was no book existing under this
title of the "Eternal Gospel;" but all that is said about it
relates simply to the writings of Joachim. * * * The whole matter
of this work also seems to have consisted in an explanation of the
fundamental ideas of the Abbot Joachim, and in the application of
them to the genuine Franciscan order. [41]

This exhibits much confusion and uncertainty concerning the story of Joachim and his book. Of course, it may be argued that this story of the Book of Joachim, as told by Draper and repeated by Linn, would furnish equally well the suggestion of the origin of the Book of Mormon, whether it was the statement of an historical fact or only the wild invention of a fanatical Franciscan, but it would be incumbent upon those who make such an argument to prove that Sidney Rigdon had knowledge of such a story.

Another suggestion may be argued that would tend to break down the probability of the origin of the "Everlasting Gospel" suggesting the origin of the Book of Mormon; and that is: Had Sidney Rigdon or any one else taken the story of the revelation of the Book of Joachim to Cyril and from it invented the account of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he would very likely have taken other ideas attributed to this very worthy but over-zealous and weak-minded man of the thirteenth century. As, for example, Linn himself declares that the "Everlasting Gospel was offered to the Church as supplanting the New Testament, just as the New Testament had supplanted the Old," etc., a theory that would very likely have caught the fancy of such a man as Linn conceives Rigdon to have been. Yet Mormonism is as far removed from any such conception as this, as the east is from the west; for Mormonism gives full force to the present authority of both the Old and New Testaments as containing the word of God, and the Book of Mormon nowhere supplants these existing scriptures. Neander presents a more elaborate view of some of the theories of this same Joachim, and represents him as teaching the following:

The times of the Old Testament belong especially to God the
Father; in it, God revealed himself as the Almighty, by signs
and wonders; next, followed the times of the New Testament, in
which God, as the Word, revealed himself in his wisdom, where
the striving after a comprehensible knowledge of mysteries
predominates; the last times belong to the Holy Spirit, when the
first of love in contemplation will predominate. As the letter
of the Old Testament answers to God the Father, the letter of
the New Testament more especially to the Son, so the spiritual
understanding, which proceeds from both, answers to the Holy
Spirit. As all things were created by the Father through the Son;
so in the Holy Spirit, as love, all were to find their completion.
To the working of the Father--power, fear, faith, more especially
correspond; to the working of the Son--humility, truth, and wisdom;
to the working of the Holy Spirit--love, joy, and freedom. [42]

In like manner he takes up the Apostles Peter, James, and John as in a way representing in the earth, respectively, the three periods in the process of the development of the Church. I insist that if Sidney Rigdon had become acquainted with that story of the "Everlasting Gospel," as it is told by Draper, he would unquestionably also have come to the knowledge of these theories of Joachim's; and if Sidney Rigdon was the kind of character that Linn represents him to be, he would unquestionably have taken up some of these vagaries and exploited them, either in the Book of Mormon or in the subsequent development of the Church and its system of doctrine. It is scarcely necessary to say that none of these ideas of the thirteenth century man is to be found in Mormonism, nor are any other of Joachim's ideas found in the Latter-day dispensation of the Gospel. The mere matter of using the phrase, "Everlasting Gospel," by the early Elders of the Church--and for matter of that by the present ministry of the Church--in their discourses and books, scarcely rises to dignity of a coincidence, since we have the phrase suggested in the remarkable prophecy on the restoration of the Gospel in the Revelations of St. John, [43] without referring to any circumstance of the thirteenth century and the obscure literature concerning the Book of Joachim.

This whole theory of the suggested origin of the Book of Mormon from the story of the Book of Joachim, however ingenious it may be regarded, breaks down as the Spaulding-Rigdon theory does, under the absolute inability of all these speculators to show any connection, or collaboration, between Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon previous to the publication of the Book of Mormon. Their inventions fail; their speculations amount to nothing. It is impossible to show any contact between Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon before the Book of Mormon was published, therefore, whatever opportunity Sidney Rigdon may have had to become acquainted with the story of Joachim's "Everlasting Gospel," that knowledge could play no part whatever in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

V.

_Woodbridge Riley's Theory of the Origin of the Book of Mormon_.

This theory may be said, in a way, to be a reversion to that of Alexander Campbell's; that is, a return to the theory that Joseph Smith was the "author" of the Book of Mormon. Mr. Riley's book, of 446 pages, is a well written thesis on the "Founder of Mormonism." It was published by Dodd, Mead & Company, 1902. It is a psychological study of Joseph Smith the Prophet. The purpose of the work is set forth in the author's preface, as follows:

The aim of this work is to examine Joseph Smith's character and
achievements from the standpoint of recent psychology. Sectarians
and phrenologists, spiritualists and mesmerists have variously
interpreted his more or less abnormal performances--it now remains
for the psychologist to have a try at them.

The work also has an introductory preface by Professor George Trumbull Ladd, of Yale University, in which Mr. Riley's essay is very highly praised. Indeed the work was offered to the Philosophical Faculty of Yale University as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, and before this the matter of the essay had been utilized in 1898 for a Master of Arts thesis, under the title of "Metaphysics of Mormonism," so that from these circumstances we may venture the remark that Mr. Riley's book is of highly scientific character, at least in its literary structure, and has already attracted some considerable notice in the world.

To the Latter-day Saints it will be interesting, and of value at least in this, that they may accept it as one of many manifestations that the other theories accounting for the origin of the Book of Mormon are regarded as inadequate, if not exploded, since the learned find it necessary to set forth now a new theory, both for the origin of the Book of Mormon, and the life work of the Prophet Joseph.

Mr. Riley's conclusions, after patient consideration of what he regards as the elements entering into the composition of the Book of Mormon, are thus stated:

In spite of a continuous stream of conjectural literature, it is
as yet impossible to pick out any special document as an original
source of the Book of Mormon. In particular the commonly-accepted
Spaulding theory is insoluble from external evidence and disproved
by internal evidence. Joseph Smith's "Record of the Indians" is a
product indigenous to the New York "Wilderness," and the authentic
work of its "author and proprietor." Outwardly, it reflects the
local color of Palmyra and Manchester, inwardly, its complexity
of thought is a replica of Smith's muddled brain. This monument
of misplaced energy was possible to the impressionable youth
constituted and circumstanced as he was. [44]

As for the process by which the book was produced, our author conceives it thus:

It was in western New York that the son of an obscure farmer gazed
in his magic crystal, automatically wrote "a transcription of gold
plates," dictated the Book of Mormon, and after strange signs and
wonders, started his communistic sect. [45]

Our author makes an extended pathological study of the prophet's ancestry, and arrives at the conclusion that their mental peculiarities and defects, culminate in epilepsy in Joseph Smith the Prophet. So that we may say, roughly speaking, that Mr. Riley's explanation of the origin of the Book of Mormon, and Mormonism, is that it has its source in an epileptic, whose-hallucinations are honestly mistaken for inspired visions, and who possesses partly conscious and partly unconscious hypnotic power over others. And this theory is presented seriously to one of the first institutions of learning in America as a rational explanation of "Mormonism!"

Unfortunately for Mr. Riley's theory, however, another writer, an authority in his chosen field of investigation, a writer of text books for higher institutions of learning on this very subject, has spoken with marked emphasis not only with reference to epilepsy in general and the milder forms of its manifestation under the head of Paranoia, but has spoken of it with special reference to Joseph Smith, and distinctly separates him from such class of persons. Following are passages from Mr. Dana's works upon the subject:

A certain rather small per centage of epileptics become either
demented or insane. True epilepsy is not compatible with
extraordinary intellectual endowments. Caesar, Napoleon, Peter the
Great and other geniuses may have had some symptomatic fits, but
not idispathic [primary] epilepsy. [46]

Again:

Paranoia is a chronic psychosis characterized by the development
gradually and soon after maturity of systematized delusion,
without other serious disturbances of the mind and without much
tendency to dementia. * * * With some the systematized idea takes a
religious turn, and the patient thinks he has some divine mission,
or has received some inspiration from God; or the idea may take
a devotional turn and the patient become an acetic. It is not,
however, to be assumed that all promoters of new religious and
novel social ideas are paranoics. Many of these are simply the
natural developments of ignorance and a somewhat emotional and
unbalanced temperament. The characteristics of the paranoic is
that his work is ineffective, his influence brief and trivial, his
ideas really too absurd and impractical for even ignorant men to
receive. _I do not class successful prophets and organizers like
Joseph Smith, or great apostles of social reforms like Rousseau as
paranoics_. Insane minds are not creative, but are weak and lack
persistence in purpose or power of execution. [47]