russ@dadla-b.UUCP (09/13/83)
Jon has asked that I respond to the following paragraph from his earlier
article on the Spaulding theory:
(Note that in later years, the Mormons published [Spalding's]
first novel under the erroneous title of "Manuscript Found", even
though that title appears nowhere on the manuscript. This was
clearly done to discredit the Spalding-Rigdon theory, but they
only succeeded in damaging their own case. There are over 75
similarities between the first novel and the Book of Mormon.)
If the Spalding-Rigdon theory is as feeble as the Mormons would
have us believe, why then did they feel it necessary to commit
fraud in an attempt to discredit the theory?
According to the Spaulding theory, Solomon Spaulding wrote two manuscripts.
The first one he called the "Manuscript Story" and then in 1809 he revamped
his plan and wrote an older account called the "Manuscript Found." Jon is
claiming that the manuscript that is published is not the "Manuscript Found."
If I can show that it was written during the time period of 1809 to 1812
then it is the "Manuscript Found" and there is no fraud by the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Many people heard Solomon Spaulding read from his manuscript while he resided
in Salem (Now known as Conneaut), Ohio. He moved from Salem to Pittsburgh
in 1812. Therefor it is usually assumed that he wrote most of the manuscript
from 1809 to 1812. There is internal evidence in the manuscript that has been
published, which shows that it also was mostly written before 1812 with a
portion written after January of 1812. On the back side of page 135 of the
171 page manuscript is the following unfinished letter:
Found Parents
I have received two letters the 10th jan 1812 the last mentioned Mr. Kings
dismission from you, which no doubt is great trial to you Christian Minister is
great loss to any people - -(illegible) - - teaches us the uncertainty of all
sublinary enjoyments & where to place our better trust & happiness
This would almost certainly have been penned prior to the narrative text on the
other side. (The reverse order makes no sense at all; and the other pages of the
manuscript has text on both sides.) This shows that Spaulding was still working
on this Roman story well after several of Hurlbut's witnesses claimed to have
read or heard read "Manuscript Found." And besides, Spaulding penned 36 more
pages AFTER Jan 1812, the probable year of his move to Pittsburg.
Also, I had previously quoted previously from Fawn Brodie who said that the
affidavits by Hurlbut where too consistent in memory of specific names. I think
that claim is also supported if you look at the testimony of someone who was
totally outside of that influence and compare the details he notices. Joseph
Miller heard Solomon Spaulding read from his manuscript after he moved from
Pittsburg to Amity, Pennsylvania in 1814.
In his first statement in 1869 he stated that "I firmly believe that Joseph
Smith, by some means, got possession of Mr. Spaulding's 'Manuscript,'" and yet
what proof does he give us to support that firm belief? The only point of
agreement that he shows was on page 148 of the Book of Mormon. "He speaks
of a battle, and says the Amalekites had marked themselves with red on the
forehead to distinguish them from the Nephites. The thought of being marked
on the forehead with red was so strange, it fixed itself in my memory. This
together with other passages I remember to have heard Mr. Spaulding read from
his 'Manuscript'" And so what do we find in the published manuscript?
The published manuscript says, "The one half of the head of the men was
shaved & painted with red . . ." It seems to me that he is referring to the
same manuscript which has been published and there would be no fraud to
call the published Spaulding manuscript the "Manuscript Found." It think it
is also interesting that this same Joseph Miller remembered more as time
passed. In 1879 he added that he remembered the phase "and it came to pass."
The published manuscript is quite frequent with its use of "&." And it wasn't
until 1880, possibly with the help of Shook who is now quoting him that he
finally remembers the names "Nephites" and "Lamanites."
I am curious where Jon came up with the number of 75 points of agreement
between the Book of Mormon and Spaulding's manuscript. I see the number more
like 10 to 20. But the point is totally irrelevant. If there were 150 points
of agreement, that would not explain the unique nature of the Book of Mormon.
How does the Book of Mormon correctly describe events that were totally
unknown at the time of Joseph Smith. The world's scholars could not have
written the Book of Mormon, let alone Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith even if
they use Spaulding's manuscript. We can just as well say that a history of
the United States is copied from Homer's Illiad as to say that the Book of
Mormon comes from the Spaulding manuscript. Some of the unanswered questions
that remain when trying to explain the origin of the Book of Mormon are the
various items that I have been posting in my Book of Mormon series which
have been totally ignored by the critics.
1. How does the Book of Mormon correctly describe an ancient trade route and
oases through the Arabian Pennisula when the knowledge at that time would
indicate it was all baren?
2. How does the Book of Mormon include unknown names that have later been shown
to be consistent with the time and era?
3. Why does the Book of Mormon indicate in its usage of words many Hebrew idioms
and writing styles?
4. Why does the unknown Hebrew writing style of Chiasmus show up repeatedly in
the Book of Mormon?
5. Why does the Book of Mormon correctly describe the ancient Year Rite that was
prevalent throughout the ancient world but little known of at Joseph Smith's
time?
Frauds are easy to prove and the fact that the Spaulding Theory is still around
only shows the lack of real proof against the Book of Mormon.
Russell Anderson
Tektronix