jonw@tekmdp.UUCP (Jonathan White) (09/02/83)
By now, it should be obvious to any dispassionate (i.e. non-Mormon) observer that the Book of Mormon is not an authentic ancient document, much less "the inspired word of God." So the question remains, just how did Joseph Smith come up with this amazing book? Well, there are three theories of which I am aware: 1. Joseph Smith wrote the book himself. Fawn Brodie advances this theory in her biography of Smith, entitled "No Man Knows My History". I haven't studied her theory in detail, but I have my doubts. However, I would be the last person to deny that Smith was a shrewd, intelligent, and charismatic character. 2. Joseph Smith ripped off Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews" (published seven years prior to the Book of Mormon). Hal Hougey and others have pointed out many striking similarities between the two books. Also, "View of the Hebrews" was published in Poultney, Vermont, where our friend Oliver Cowdery lived before moving to New York in 1825. 3. Joseph Smith was only part of a plan master-minded by Sidney Rigdon, who stole an unpublished manuscript entitled "Manuscript Found" and re-worked it with the help of Oliver Cowdery and possibly others. This is the famous Spalding-Rigdon theory that has been around since the beginning of Mormonism. E.D. Howe, in his classic "Mormonism Unveiled" (1834) proposed this theory, as well as later writers, such as Charles Shook in "The True Origin of the Book of Mormon" (1914). One of the most recent books is "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?" (1978) by Cowdrey, Davis, and Scales. I have studied the Spalding-Rigdon theory a great deal as of late, and consider it to be very plausible. But I suspect the true explanation could lie in a hybrid theory that includes all three. The following text outlines the Spalding-Rigdon theory. For obvious reasons, I must leave out a great deal of substantiating information, but I am prepared to back up any point on which I am challenged. Keep in mind, though, that even if the Mormons could prove this theory utterly false, it would in no way vindicate the Book of Mormon; that book has been demonstrated to be fraudulent independent of this theory. Our story begins with an ailing, retired Congregational minister by the name of Solomon Spaulding. He was a highly educated man (Masters degree from Dartmouth) who spent his declining years writing various romantic histories. He spent some time working on a novel called "Manuscript Story", but in 1809 aborted the project in favor of another work, which was to be written in a more ancient, biblical style, but incorporate some of the same ideas as in the first novel. This second book he titled "Manuscript Found", and it, like the first, was a history of the ancient inhabitants of North and South America. (Note that in later years, the Mormons published the 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 Spaulding-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.) During the course of writing "Manuscript Found", Spaulding read his book to friends and neighbors, some of whom were less than impressed. He became known as "Old Come to Pass" for his frequent repetition of that phrase. We have statements from eight witnesses who read or heard read "Manuscript Found", and believed that Spaulding's manuscript was the basis for the Book of Mormon. Typical is the statement from John Spalding (Solomon's brother): "...The Book was entitled "Manuscript Found", of which he read to me many passages. It was an historical romance of the first settlers of America, endeavoring to show that the American Indians are the descendents of the Jews, or the lost tribes. It gave a detailed account of the journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till they arrived in America, under the command of Nephi and Lehi. They afterwards had quarrels and contentions, and seperated [sic] into two distinct nations, one of which he denominated Nephites, and the other Lamanites. Cruel and bloody wars ensued, in which great multitudes were slain... ...I have recently read the Book of Mormon and to my great surprise I find nearly the same historical matter, names & c., as they were in my brother's writings." In 1812, Spaulding moved to Pittsburgh, and at that time left his manuscript at the printing establishment of Robert Patterson for the purpose of having it published. Spaulding's manuscript remained at the shop for some time, and in 1814 Spaulding moved to nearby Amity, Pennsylvania, where he died in 1816. Some time before his death, the manuscript came up missing, and he told two intimate acquaintances (Joseph Miller and Dr. Cephas Dodd) that he suspected Sidney Rigdon of the theft. (Rigdon lived just outside Pittsburgh and was a good friend of one of the print shop employees. He was known to hang around the shop a good deal.) In 1822 or 1823, and again in 1826 or 1827, Rigdon exhibited such a manuscript to Dr. John Winter and Mrs. Amos Dunlap, his wife's niece. He told Dr. Winter that the manuscript had been written by a man named Spaulding. Between 1826 and 1830, a number of people, including Rev. Adamson Bentley, Rev. Alexander Campbell, Darwin Atwater, and Dr. Rosa, were told things by Rigdon that clearly show that he was aware of Mormon developments. (Rigdon was a Campbellite preacher at this time.) For example, Bentley wrote in a letter, dated January 22, 1841: "I know that Sidney Rigdon told me there was a book coming out (the manuscript of which had been found engraved on gold plates) as much as two years before the Mormon book made its appearance in this country or had been heard of by me." Alexander Campbell (founder of the Campbellites) corroborated Bentley's statement: "The conversation alluded to in Brother Bentley's letter of 1841, was in my presence as well as his... ...his recollection...accorded with mine in every particular, except the year in which it occured, he placing it in the summer of 1827, I in the summer of 1826..." These statements are noteworthy because Rigdon had always denied knowing anything about Mormonism until his pretended conversion in 1830. During the period between 1826 and 1830, Rigdon was seen in the company of Joseph Smith at least six times. These six occasions correspond directly to large gaps in Rigdon's official itinerary, and some of the gaps occurred after incidents that would have required Rigdon's attention. For example, there is a two month gap (June--August, 1828), during which Smith and Rigdon were seen together, and which is precisely after Martin Harris lost 116 pages of the translated manuscript. (Oddly enough, these pages were never replaced or "re-translated.") In November of 1830, Rigdon converted to Mormonism after only a few days' investigation, and soon became one of its most prominent leaders. Well, there it is. I'm sure that this article will provide fodder for much historical nitpicking in coming weeks. By the way, a recent study by Jerald and Sandra Tanner has revealed at least 3,913 changes to the Book of Mormon since it was first published. Can this be the same volume that Joseph Smith declared as being the "most correct of any book on Earth"? Jon White Tektronix Aloha, Ore
jonw@tekmdp.UUCP (Jonathan White) (09/10/83)
Thank you Russell Anderson and Dennis McCurdy for your detailed, point-for- point rebuttals of the Spalding-Rigdon theory. This is the type of response that I had been hoping my "Case against the Book of Mormon" articles would elicit, but never did. Most of your response consisted of the stock-standard counter-arguments that have been around for years, and have been soundly refuted in books such as "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?" (by Cowdrey, Davis, and Scales; published by Vision House in 1978). Due to a busy personal schedule, I will probably not be able to generate a detailed reply for several weeks, but in the meantime I would like to see at least one of you respond to a paragraph in my article that both of you apparently overlooked: (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? It is interesting to note that author Wayne L. Cowdrey (a descendant of Oliver Cowdery (the spelling of "Cowdery" has been altered)) left the Mormon church after reading Spalding's first manuscript and then realizing that the Mormon church had lied about the fact that there is a great deal of similarity between that manuscript and the Book of Mormon. Jon White Tektronix Aloha, Ore