full height and value. In 1831, in this same _Millennial Harbinger,_
Vol. II, beginning at p. 86, is an exhaustive review and analysis
of the Book of Mormon, and the most powerful critique of it ever
published. It is by the Reverend Alexander Campbell. After giving an
analysis of each book, in the Book of Mormon, from Nephi I to Moroni,
the last book in it, he then starts an investigation of its "internal
evidences," and in the first subdivision he begins in this language:
"Smith, its real author, as ignorant and impudent a knave as ever
wrote a book, betrays the cloven foot in basing his whole book upon a
false fact." Then he proceeds. On the "internal evidence" he uses the
following language:
"The book proposes to be written at intervals and by different
persons, during the long period of 1020 years, and yet for
uniformity of style, there never was a book more evidently written
by one set of fingers, nor more certainly conceived in one cranium
since the first book appeared in human language, than this same
book. If I could swear to any man's voice, face, or person,
assuming different names, I could swear that this book was written
by one man. And as Joseph Smith is a very ignorant man and is
called the 'author' on the title page, I cannot doubt for a single
moment but that he is sole 'author' and 'proprietor' of it."
Mr. Campbell also considers the testimony of the three witnesses, and
of the eight witnesses, and denounces them. He is acquainted with the
whole subject. He knows that it was claimed for the record that it
was engraved on gold plates; that they were found buried in a stone
box in New York; that an account is given in the record of the gospel
having been preached in America in the first Christian century--for all
these things are subjects of his criticism. He criticises nearly every
important doctrine and historical event in the book. He revels in his
criticism, and near the conclusion of the whole says:
"If this Prophet and his three prophetic witnesses had aught of
speciosity about them in their book, we would have examined it
and exposed it in a different manner. I have never felt so fully
authorized to address mortal man in the style in which Paul
Addressed Elymas, the sorcerer, as I feel towards this atheist
Smith."
And now question to Mr. Campbell, and to Mr. Schroeder: Could the
event described in the letter of Mr. Bently and confirmed by Mr.
Campbell's editorial note, have happened in 1826 or 1827 without Mr.
Campbell remembering it in 1831 when he wrote this scathing review
and critique on the Book of Mormon? Let it be held in mind here how
explicit the charge of Bently is. More than two years before the Book
of Mormon made its appearance Rigdon told Bently "there was a book
coming out the manuscript of which had been found on gold plates."
Campbell was present and heard this remark, and also says that Rigdon
at the same time observed that "the plates were dug up in New York,"
and that "the Christian religion had been preached in this country
during the first Christian century, just as we were preaching it on
the western reserve." Had these things been said in the presence of
Alexander Campbell, two years before the Book of Mormon came out,
and so said that they made such a lasting impression upon his mind
that in 1844 he remembered them perfectly--will any reasonable person
undertake to say that under the strong stress of feeling exhibited by
Alexander Campbell against the Book of Mormon in 1831, remembering too
that this same Sidney Rigdon had left the Campbellites and joined the
Mormon Church--under these circumstances, will any person, reasonable
or otherwise, say that during the writing of this long and bitter
criticism of the Book of Mormon in 1831 the association of ideas and
incidents would not have asserted itself and recalled this alleged
Bently-Rigdon incident to the mind of Alexander Campbell? Yet not one
word in the Campbell review of 1831, to indicate that the Bently-Rigdon
incident ever happened.
Yet as he proceeded with his review, it would have been inevitable that
he would have discovered Rigdon's forth-promised book--"the manuscript
of which had been found engraved on gold plates." "Why, yes," he would
have said, "that must be the book that Rigdon spoke to Bently about."
He read in the preface to the first edition of the Book of Mormon--and
Mr. Campbell made a specialty of this preface in his criticism--"I
would also inform you that the plates of which hath been spoken were
found in the township of Manchester, Ontario county, New York"--"Yes, I
remember," Mr. Campbell would have exclaimed--"dug up in New York"--"I
remember, that is what Sidney Rigdon said to Adamson Bently two or
three years ago." He came to the account of the appearance of the risen
Messiah among the aborigines of America; to the choosing of a ministry
and commissioning them to preach the Gospel to all the people--"Yes,"
he would have exclaimed, "it is all here; that is what Rigdon said in
that Bently conversation in 1826 or 1827,--'the Christian religion had
been preached in this country during the first century, just as we are
preaching it on the western reserve'--those were his very words, and
now Rigdon has joined the movement of which the coming forth of this
book is a leading incident! Well! well!"
Would not such have been the mental process? And would we not, in that
event, have had the Book of Mormon criticised by Mr. Campbell in 1831,
from quite a different view-point than that from which he treated it?
Anyone who can believe that Campbell could remember such an incident as
the Bently-Rigdon incident he recites in 1844, and yet that he failed
to remember it under all the circumstances of writing his review of the
Book of Mormon in 1831, need not stagger over believing any seeming
miracle within the experience of man, however extravagant it may be.
I shall never be able to express in words the deep depression that
overcame me when the conviction of Alexander Campbell's perfidy was
forced upon me. In my early manhood I had read extensively in his
works. The evidence he compiled and the argument he made in his
great debate with Robert Owen, the English Communist, I regard as
the grandest defense ever made of historic Christianity, while his
debate with Bishop Purcell on the The Roman Catholic Religion is
justly described as the "battle of the giants." In these and in his
debates with William McCalla and the Reverend N. L. Rice, his bearing
is admirable; he is the courteous gentleman, the splendid scholar,
the patient philosopher, the fair opponent. In discussing the Book of
Mormon, he exhibits a vulgarity, a bitterness utterly unaccountable,
and entirely unworthy of himself; and lastly, and saddest of all, he
descends to the low subterfuge of falsehood as in this Bently-Rigdon
affair.
One may halt here. The Reverend Mr. Atwater quoted by Mr. Schroeder
may now tell his little story, in 1873, of his "recollection" of
Sidney Rigdon's reference to the mounds and other antiquities found
in some parts of America, and of his saying before the Book of Mormon
was published that "there was a book to be published containing an
account of these things." Dr. Rosa of Painsville, Ohio, also quoted by
Mr. Schroeder, can now tell, in 1841, of a conversation he had with
Sidney Rigdon in the early part of 1830, about it being time for a new
religion to spring up that "mankind were ripe, and ready for it;" and
air his suspicions that Rigdon found his "new religion" in Mormonism,
and on that and a remembrance of a casual remark of Rigdon's that he
expected to be absent from home a few months, build his conclusion that
Rigdon "was at least an accessory, if not the principal in getting up
this farce" [128] of Mormonism. All this I say may be said by these
"witnesses," but it is of no effect; for if sectarian prejudice and
bitterness and jealousy, coupled with intellectual pride, can so swerve
Alexander Campbell from the path direct of truth and fair dealing, it
is not to be marveled at if a thousand little Reverend whiffets spring
forward with their timely "recollections," that make against the truth.
[Footnote 128: _American Historical Magazine_, November, 1906, p. 532,
_ante p._ 46.]
IV.
Mr. Schroeder's next development of his attempted "cumulative
evidence and argument" is to establish a connection between Joseph
Smith and Sidney Rigdon, through Parley P. Pratt. He first deals
with the movements of Pratt from his birth until he is established
in Amherst, Lorain county, Ohio, a few miles west of Cleveland, in
1826. In order to lay a foundation for his conclusion Mr. Schroeder
gives an exaggerated idea of the notoriety of Joseph Smith at this
time "as a 'peep-stone' money digger, through mention made of him in
papers published in several counties in southern New York and northern
Pennsylvania." [129] For authority of this statement Mr. Schroeder cites
only Tucker, author of "Origin and Progress of Mormonism," and the Rev.
Clark Braden, in the "Braden-Kelly Debate." He might just as well have
only cited Tucker, for Braden but repeats, in slightly altered form
what was said by Tucker. The latter in his work produces not a single
newspaper item, nor gives a single reference to any publication in
justification of his statement. There was none to give prior to 1826.
Joseph Smith's "notoriety" was purely local up to that time.
[Footnote 129: _American Historical Magazine,_ Jan., 1907, p. 58.
_Ante_ p. 49.]
Mr. Schroeder represents that Parley P. Pratt was a peddler "who knew
almost every body in western New York," [130] therefore he very likely
knew the Smiths previous to 1826. For the statement that Pratt was a
peddler, and "ubiquitous," Mr. Schroeder can only cite an address,
before the Union Home Missionary meeting in 1881, by Mrs. Horace Eaton,
of Palmyra; [131] and she was evidently repeating one of the many idle
rumors from the vicinity of Palmyra, as there is no evidence for the
statement of Mrs. Eaton, and the story is refuted by the facts as
stated in the first chapters of Pratt's "Autobiography," where his
struggles to secure and clear a farm, in partnership with his brother,
are detailed. This farm was near the then small town of Oswego, on
Lake Ontario, in Oswego County. It is true that Pratt in the autumn
of 1826 visited his uncles, Ira and Allen Pratt, in Wayne--then
Ontario--county, New York,--exact location not given. There is
nothing "ubiquitous" about his movements, or any evidence of his wide
acquaintance with people.
[Footnote 130: "Hand Book on Mormonism" (1882), p. 3.]
[Footnote 131: _American Historical Magazine,_ Jan., 1907, p. 58.
_Ante_ p. 49. Also "Hand Book on Mormonism," p. 3.]
To give a coloring of dishonesty to the character of Pratt, Mr.
Schroeder writes the following passage:
"One of the temptations inducing Pratt's departure from New York
was to get a country where, as he himself expresses it, there is
'no law to sweep (away) all the hard earnings of years to pay a
small debt.' The ethical status of an average country-peddler who
is willing to leave his native State to avoid the payment of his
'small debts' furnishes a fertile immorality in which to plant the
seeds of religious imposture." [132]
[Footnote 132: _American Historical Magazine,_ Jan., 1907, p. 59.
_Ante_ pp. 49-50.]
Mr. Schroeder conceals the fact that the "small debt" not "debts" as
put by him, was merely a remainder due to Mr. Morgan of whom Pratt
had purchased the farm near Oswego, and which owing to his brother's
failure to meet his share of the payments, as also bad markets for the
crop of 1826, Mr. Pratt could not pay. Whereupon the farm it had taken
years to clear of timber, and the crop was seized by Morgan for that
debt. Is Mr. Schroeder justified in giving a sinister aspect to this
matter?
We have Pratt located in Amherst, 1826. Sidney Rigdon makes his second
journey from Pennsylvania and arrives at Bainbridge, Ohio, in 1826, and
in capacity of "Disciple" preacher visits the surrounding towns where
he becomes acquainted with Pratt. All this is granted. Mr. Schroeder
in trying to fix upon the exact time and circumstance of their first
meeting, resorts to a jugglery of facts, and builds on the distorted
mass such conclusions as can be characterized only by the term
shameful. I quote Mr. Schroeder:
"The date of their first meeting is nowhere given, but may
reasonably be inferred from an address delivered by Parley
P. Pratt in 1843 or '4. In this discourse Pratt tells of an
occurrence which transpired on his way to his future Ohio home,
which occurrence furnishes the key to his first connection with
Mormonism. On his way he stopped at a humble cottage, the name
of whose occupant he carefully fails to give. Here, while asleep
(so he says), "a messenger of a mild and intelligent countenance
suddenly stood before me (Pratt) arrayed in robes of dazzling
splendor." According to Mormon theory, an angel is but an exalted
man. Of course Sidney Rigdon was an exalted man; why not, then,
an angel? This angel claimed to hold the keys to the mysteries
of this wonderful country, and took Pratt out to exhibit those
mysteries to him. Pratt then had portrayed to his mind the whole
future of Mormonism; its cities, with inhabitants from all parts
of the globe; its temples, with a yet unattained splendor; its
present church organization was, with considerable definiteness,
outlined; its political ambition to establish a temporal kingdom
of God on the ruins of this government was set forth with quite
as much definiteness as in the subsequent more publicly uttered,
treasonable sermons. I conclude from the exact manner in which
this "Angel of the Prairies" foreknew the ambitions, hopes,
and future achievements of the Mormon Church and the similar
admitted fore-knowledge of Rigdon and the subsequently established
connection between Rigdon, Pratt, and Smith, that the "Angel of
the Prairies" who outlined to Pratt his then contemplated and
now executed religious fraud, was none other than Sidney Rigdon
himself, and that this fact accounts for Pratt's failure to
give the name of his host or the date of his first meeting with
Rigdon." [133]
[Footnote 133: _American Historical Magazine,_ Jan., 1907, p. 59.
_Ante_ p. 51.]
"THE ANGEL OF THE PRAIRIES."
The work here quoted for these supposedly historical incidents, is
entitled "The Angel of the Prairies," and is a work of pure fiction,
a product of the author's imagination, professedly and confessedly
so. [134] It was never delivered as a public address in Nauvoo, though
Mr. Schroeder in the above calls it successively an "Address delivered
by Parley P. Pratt," a "discourse," and in his notes a "sermon." [135]
It was merely read in the presence of Joseph Smith and "a general
council," most likely the First Presidency and Mr. Pratt's associates
of the Twelve Apostles, as "a curious and extraordinary composition in
the similitude of a dream." Such is its author's characterization of
it. "It was designed," he continues, "as a reproof of the corruptions
and degeneracy of our government, in suffering mobs to murder, plunder,
rob and drive their fellow citizens with impunity. It also suggested
some reforms." [136] It is no more history, or even prophecy than
Johnson's "Rasselas" or Sir Thomas Moore's "Utopia" is history or
prophecy. Yet this fiction, and I charge that Mr. Schroeder knew it
to be fiction--for he could learn the facts from its preface--must be
pressed into service as solemn prose history in order to complete and
sustain the vagaries of the Schroeder-Spaulding theory! At first on
meeting with this shameful perversion one is inclined to an outburst of
vexation. On second thought he remembers that this fragment is but a
piece of the whole fabric of the Spaulding theory, and smiles.
[Footnote 134: "Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt," edition of 1874, p.
367.]
[Footnote 135: Note 101 _American Historical Magazine,_ Jan., 1907, p.
74. _Ante_ 51.]
[Footnote 136: Same as note 134.]
But let us follow Mr. Schroeder further into the realms of his
deductions built upon this piece of literary fiction, the "Angel of
the Prairies." Parley P. Pratt returned to the home of his aunt Van
Cott in Canaan, Columbia county, New York, for the purpose of marrying
a Miss Halsey to whom he was engaged. This was in the summer of 1827.
Mr. Schroeder makes Pratt's visit to New York for the above purpose,
the occasion of placing the Spaulding manuscript in the hands of Joseph
Smith, and all the connections are perfected for revamping this old
manuscript story into a pretended volume of scripture. And this is the
way of it as _per_ Mr. Schroeder:
"Pratt was married September 9, 1827. On September 22, 1827, a
'heavenly messenger' appeared to Joseph Smith and unfolded to him
the scheme of the Book of Mormon, and disclosed the where abouts
of the 'Golden Plates.' This 'heavenly messenger' is called the
Angel Moroni. According to Mormon theology, 'God may use any
beings he has made or that he pleases, and call them his angels,
or messengers.' 'Gods, angels, and men are all of one species, one
race, one great family.' 'God is a man like unto yourselves; that
is the great secret.' Why of course! 'That is the great secret.'
God is but an 'exalted man,' and may call Parley Parker Pratt his
angel. Parley Parker Pratt was the 'heavenly messenger,' the angel
who, on that day (September 22, 1827), appeared to Joseph Smith
and told him where were the golden plates, that is, Spaulding's
'Manuscript Found.' Sidney Rigdon for Smith's purposes, was the
'exalted man,' the 'God' who sent this 'heavenly messenger,' Parley
Parker Pratt, just as the Mormon people now look upon Joseph Smith
as the 'God to this people.'" [137]
[Footnote 137: _American Historical Magazine,_ Jan., 1907, pp. 60, 61.
_Ante_ p. 53.]
One might well consider himself under no obligation to treat seriously
such a palpable perversion of Mormon ideas as is here presented. But
this taking a piece of Mormon fiction, the "Angel of the Prairies,"
and misrepresenting it first as a "discourse delivered by Parley
P. Pratt at Nauvoo;" thence elevating it from fiction to a sober
historical document; thence building upon it this misrepresentation,
and perversion of Mormon ideas and historical facts, exhibits in the
person of Mr. Schroeder that order of intelligence that could conceive
of others following the same process in relation to the Spaulding
manuscript, until it was converted into a pretended revelation. I think
Mr. Schroeder will not gain much for his "evidence" or his "argument"
by this wicked perversion of Mormon ideas and facts of history, since
it must suggest the innate weakness of a cause that requires such
intellectual dishonesty, as is here exhibited.
It is true that the Mormons are anthropomorphists in that they
believe that Jesus Christ is the "brightness of God's glory and the
express image of his person" [138] the revelation of God as well in
form as in spiritual attributes; they believe that Jesus Christ is
not only divine, but Deity; that he exists now as he did after his
resurrection from the dead, an immortal personage of flesh and bones
and spirit--hence that God is an exalted man; that he uses other men,
perfected and glorified, such as Noah, Moses, Elijah, and others, as
his angels and arch-angels and messengers, to aid in the accomplishment
of his purposes. But to represent the Latter-day Saints as believing in
or accepting such jugglery as that which Mr. Schroeder charges is an
outrage and a direct and conscious misrepresentation of the faith of
a people. Joseph Smith indeed proclaimed that God appeared to him; in
fact he claims that both the Father and the Son appeared to him, but
it is blasphemy to think of Rigdon impersonating them, or either of
them, in the manner and for the purpose represented by Mr. Schroeder.
This revelation moreover was given in 1820, not 1827. [139] Joseph Smith
said an angel visited him and revealed to him the existence of the
Book of Mormon; but this was declared to be a very definite personage,
a man who had lived in America in the fourth century of the Christian
Era, now raised from the dead and sent to make this revelation of
the American volume of scripture; he was not Parley P. Pratt; and
he revealed the existence of the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith in
September, 1823, not 1827. [140]
[Footnote 138: Hebrews, 1, 3.]
[Footnote 139: See Joseph Smith's own account, "Pearl of Great Price,"
writings of Joseph Smith and many other Mormon works.]
[Footnote 140: Ibid.]
THE SUPPOSED MEETINGS OF JOSEPH SMITH AND SIDNEY RIGDON BEFORE THE
PUBLICATION OF THE BOOK OF MORMON.
Mr. Schroeder after getting the Spaulding manuscript into the hands
of Joseph Smith, _via_ Parley P. Pratt, proceeds next to bring Sidney
Rigdon and Joseph Smith together for the necessary collaboration on
the manuscript. The chief, and I may say the only, authority that Mr.
Schroeder really gives for this charge is that of Pomery Tucker, author
of "Origin, Rise and Progress of Mormonism," (1867). Tucker having
brought his narrative down to the year 1827, announces the appearance
of a "mysterious stranger" at the Smith residence. No name or purpose
of this stranger is given out even to the nearest neighbors, but it
was observed that "his visits were frequently repeated." Afterwards
Tucker makes out this mysterious stranger to be Sidney Rigdon. The
other "witnesses," Mrs. Eaton (1881), as also J. H. McCauley, in his
"History of Franklin County, Pa.," together with Abel Chase and Lorenzo
Saunders, neighbors of the Smiths (the last three are the "witnesses"
named by Braden in the "Braden-Kelly Debate," and for which that
disputant gives no authority) merely repeat the statement of Tucker.
Mr. Schroeder himself in another matter, however, discredits Tucker. In
his note 115, he says: "Tucker * * * * says Rigdon officiated at the
wedding of Joseph Smith and Emma Hale, but he fixes the date of the
wedding in November, 1829, when in fact it seems to have occurred Jan.
18, 1827. Tucker therefore may have been misinformed." [141] And Joseph
Smith, who ought to know, says that he and Emma were married by Esquire
Tarbill. [142]
[Footnote 141: "Origin and Rise and Progress of Mormonism," pp. 28, 46,
75, 121.]
[Footnote 142: "History of the Church," Vol. I, p. 17.]
Lucy Smith, in her "History of the Prophet Joseph," makes mention of a
stranger coming to the home of the Smiths in company with Joseph about
the time Martin Harris lost 116 pages of the translation of the Book
of Mormon. The reason for the stranger accompanying the prophet to his
home was the dejection of spirits and illness and physical weakness of
the latter, and out of kindness the stranger insisted upon accompanying
Joseph home from the point at which he left the stage on which he had
traveled from his home in Harmony, Pennsylvania. Mr. Schroeder, of
course, seeks to press the incident into service as an evidence of the
acquaintance and co-operation of Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon before
the Book of Mormon is published; hence as seen through Mr. Schroeder's
eyes, the "stranger" is Sidney Rigdon. There is nothing, however,
in the narrative of Lucy Smith to warrant the conclusion that this
stranger was Sidney Rigdon; and Mr. Schroeder is certainly in error
as to the "stranger" being present at the interview between Martin
Harris and the Smiths on the next day--the only circumstance that could
have made the coming of the "stranger" in any way significant in Mr.
Schroeder's theories. [143]
[Footnote 143: The incident of the "stranger" and Joseph, the prophet
is found in chapter XXV of Lucy Smith's "History of Joseph, the
Prophet," Mr. Schroeder's reference to the incident is in his note 113.]
Of course, this allegation of the appearance of Rigdon at the Smith
home, resting upon no other basis than the fabrication of Tucker, comes
in direct conflict with the express statement of both Parley P. Pratt
and Sidney Rigdon, but I am not trying this issue upon the _per contra_
testimony of "interested" witnesses. I hold that this particular charge
of collaboration between Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, involving
frequent association and in fact demanding almost constant association
between the two in the years from 1827 and 1830, necessarily breaks
down under its own weight of absurdity. The movements of Joseph Smith
and of Sidney Rigdon are too well known to allow of that association
taking place, to say nothing of its being kept secret. The distances
separating them during those years are too great to be covered by
Sidney Rigdon, even if his falsely alleged occasional absences from
Ohio were allowed to stand unchallenged. This matter of distance that
separated them, together with the slow modes of travel--by carriage or
horse-back--badness of roads, etc., seem not to be taken into account
at all in the fabrications of Tucker. Sidney Rigdon is operating
exclusively in Ohio, in Kirtland and vicinity from 1827 to 1830. Mr.
Kelly in his debate with Braden thus summarized the movements of Rigdon
during these years from Hayden's "History of the Disciples:"
"The Disciple (Campbellite) history sets forth, that Rigdon was
their standing minister for the year 1825, at Bainbridge, Ohio;
for the year 1826 at Mentor and Bainbridge; for the year 1827 at
Mantua; for the year 1828, at Mentor, and this year is the time
when he met Alexander Campbell at Warren, Ohio, at their assembly,
where the famous passage at arms took place between Campbell and
Rigdon of which so much has been said. The next year, 1829, Rigdon
continued the work in Mentor, and at Euclid, and founded the
church in Perry, Ohio, Aug. 7th. The next year, 1830, he continued
as their minister, (and the ablest of them all), at Mentor,
Euclid, Kirtland, and occasionally at Hiram, Perry, Mantua, and
Plainsville." [144]
[Footnote 144: "Braden-Kelly Debate," p. 100.]
Joseph Smith's movements during the years named are between Manchester,
New York, Pennsylvania, and Fayette township (where the Whitmers
lived), New York; a distance from Ohio points, where Rigdon was
operating, by the nearest roads traveled, of from 250 to 300 miles.
Does any one believe that the necessary collaboration was possible
under such circumstances as Mr. Schroeder's theory of origin for the
Book of Mormon calls for?
On this whole question of collaboration, and conspiracy by Rigdon,
Pratt and Smith in the production of the Book of Mormon the following
paragraph from the writings of Elder George Reynolds is most convincing:
"Has it ever entered into the thoughts of our opponents that if
Sidney Rigdon was the author or adapter of the Book of Mormon how
vast and wide spread must have been the conspiracy that foisted it
upon the world? 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 [off] 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), 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 retraced
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!" [145]
[Footnote 145: "Myth of the Manuscript Found," (1883) pp. 35-6.]
The last matter of argument in the quotation above, the unwavering
adherence of the witnesses to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon
and the relationship they sustained to that work, has peculiar force
when applied to the case of Sidney Rigdon. He claims to have known
nothing of the Book of Mormon until it was presented to him (as we
shall see later by a statement of his) by Parley P. Pratt and Oliver
Cowdery, some six months after its publication. But let us suppose for
the sake of the argument, that he really took the part assigned to him
by Mr. Schroeder in bringing into existence the Book of Mormon; that
he stole the Spaulding "Manuscript Found" about 1816; that hearing of
Smith through Pratt, he then sent the said manuscript to Smith to be
announced as a revelation from God; that afterwards he collaborated
with Smith to produce the Book of Mormon out of it. It will go without
saying that a thief, and especially such a thief as Rigdon is here
represented to be, is a very ignoble character; and it will not be
too much to say that if such a character is hard pressed by his
associates, or is, what he might consider, ill treated by them, he will
very-probably betray them. Sidney Rigdon certainly considered himself
both hard pressed and positively wronged by his brethren--but he never
"revealed" the "fraud" in which Mormonism is supposed to have had its
origin. Joseph Smith sought to be rid of him as his counselor at the
October Conference of 1843. He directly charged Rigdon with treachery,
of being leagued with his deadly enemies, and that he had no confidence
in his "integrity and steadfastness;" that Rigdon had been profitless
to him as a counselor since their escape from Missouri in 1839. By
virtue of a vigorous denial on the part of Rigdon as to some of the
charges, and a plea for mercy as to some delinquencies confessed,
he was sustained by the conference in his office of counselor to
the Prophet, notwithstanding the latter was not satisfied with the
conclusion of the matter reached by the conference. "I have thrown him
off my shoulders," said he, "and you have again put him upon me. You
may carry him, but I will not." [146]
[Footnote 146: _Millenial Star_, Vol. 22, pp. 215-16.]
After the death of the prophet, Sidney Rigdon put in a claim for
precedence in authority, claiming that right by virtue of his office
as counselor to the prophet now martyred. The priesthood of the
church assembled as a body to hear the cause, President Brigham Young
presenting the counter claims of the Twelve Apostles as the proper
presiding authority in the absence of the First Presidency. Sidney
Rigdon was rejected by that body of the priesthood; [147] and shortly
after left Nauvoo full of disappointment and bitterness; but he never
in those trying days, or in any of the subsequent years of his life,
by hint or direct charge or confession, revealed any "fraud" in which
Mormonism is supposed to have had its origin; but on the contrary, as
we shall see, emphatically reaffirmed his true relationship to the
work, and his faith in it.
[Footnote 147: _Millennial Star,_ Vol. 25, pp. 215, 279.]
There is one person, however, who undertakes to say that Sidney Rigdon
"revealed" the secret concerning the origin of the Book of Mormon. This
is Clark Braden, who quotes one James Jeffries of St. Louis, as saying
in substance that in the fall of 1844, Rigdon in several conversations
admitted to him the existence of the Spaulding manuscript; that it
traced the origin of the Indians from the lost tribes of Israel;
that the manuscript was within his reach for several years; that "He
(Rigdon) and Joe Smith used to look over the manuscript and read it on
Sundays. Rigdon said Smith took the manuscript and said 'I'll print
it,' and went off to Palmyra, New York." On this "testimony," the
Reverend Clark Braden comments: "On his way from Nauvoo to Pittsburg
(in the fall of 1844) he (Rigdon) called on his old acquaintance, Mr.
Jeffries, in St. Louis, and in his anger at the Mormons, he let out the
secrets of Mormonism, just as he told the Mormons he would if they did
not make him their leader." [148] This "evidence," however, since it
costs him nothing to set aside such palpable absurdity, Mr. Schroeder,
with a show of bigness and condescension, discredits by saying: "an
alleged admission of Sidney Rigdon to James Jeffries I consider of
doubtful value." [149] In this case, as in that of the item presented
by Mrs. Ellen E. Dickinson, to the effect that it was "remembered" by
some of the Conneaut witnesses in 1834, that the "Spaulding manuscript
was the translation of the Book of Mormon"--the "evidence" manufactured
in support of the Spaulding theory of origin, becomes a little too
raw for Mr. Schroeder, and his gorge rises at it, and with an air of
superiority he "considers it doubtful!"
[Footnote 148: "Braden-Kelly Debate," p. 42.]
[Footnote 149: _American Historical Magazine,_ Jan., 1907, p. 75 and
note 115. _Ante_ p. 55 and Note.]
Closely connected with Sidney Rigdon's relationship to the coming forth
of the Book of Mormon is another matter several times alluded to by Mr.
Schroeder, in common with all other advocates of the Spaulding theory
of origin, namely, the assumption that "Joseph Smith, the nominal
founder and first prophet of Mormonism, was probably too ignorant
to have produced the volume unaided." It is because of this assumed
inability of Joseph Smith to produce the book that the Spaulding
manuscript and Sidney Rigdon are brought into the scheme of production.
And yet it is clearly demonstrable that Joseph Smith did not need the
assistance of either Spaulding or of Sidney Rigdon in the production of
a book equal, if not superior, to the Book of Mormon from a literary
standpoint. I refer to the "Book of Doctrine and Covenants." It is true
this book was not published until 1835; but the revelations of which
it is composed began in 1828, and by the close of 1833, one hundred
and one of the revelations forming the major part of the book, were
received and are of record.
There can be no question as to the authorship of this book.
Joseph Smith--under a divine inspiration, as Latter-day Saints
believe--dictated these revelations, and in this way he is their
author; and they disclose a literary force and beauty far ahead of the
Book of Mormon. If any one shall doubt it, let him read and compare
sections 20, 42, 76, 84, 88, and 107 of the "Doctrine and Covenants,"
with the Book of Mormon. Any part of the book would demonstrate what is
here claimed, but these sections particularly demonstrate it. Moreover
in all published documents in the current periodicals of the Church,
those that may be referred respectively to Joseph Smith and Sidney
Rigdon, will disclose the superior excellence in every respect of those
produced by the former, over those produced by the latter.
This Spaulding theory, moreover, supposes the necessity of a superior
intelligence to Joseph Smith in the production of the Book of
Mormon--in the inception of the "Mormon fraud." But will some one
explain--for Mr. Schroeder fails us at this point--how it is that
Sidney Rigdon, as soon as the Book of Mormon is launched, though having
been up to this point the "master Spirit" of Mormonism, now suddenly
falls into second place in the development of Mormonism, and becomes
merely the scribe of the Prophet, as Mr. Schroeder himself points out.
It should be remembered that in 1827, the year in which Mr. Schroeder
brings them together for the work of collaboration, Rigdon was
thirty-four years old, Joseph Smith but twenty-two; and when the Church
was organized, Joseph was but twenty-five and Rigdon thirty-seven. With
Rigdon's better education (which is granted), how comes it that this
man, superior in education and knowledge of the world, and of greater
age, consents to occupy second place to Joseph Smith? If Rigdon was the
great moving spirit of Mormonism during its incubation, why did he not
continue so after the Book of Mormon was printed? The answer is that
Sidney Rigdon never was the prophet's superior in talents or even in
literary power of expression.
Then, again, in this connection, I call attention to the fact that if
the Book of Mormon had been produced as charged by Mr. Schroeder, it
would not have been so full of petty errors in grammar and the faulty
use of words as is found in the first edition of the Book of Mormon.
While entertaining no exalted opinion of the education of either Mr.
Spaulding or of Mr. Rigdon, and the works of both are before me, on
which to base that judgment, yet I cannot conceive it possible that
they, even though but half educated, would make such language errors as
appear in the first edition. Take for example the following passages
from said first edition of the Book of Mormon--speaking of the Urim and
Thummim it says:
"And the things are called interpreters; and no man can look in
them, except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he had
not ought, and he should perish; * * * but a seer can know of
things which has past and also of things which is to come * * * and
hidden things shall come to light, and things which is not known
shall be made known by them." (Page 173.)
"Blessed are they who humbleth themselves without being compelled
to be humble." (Page 314.)
"Little children doth have words given unto them many times which
doth confound the wise and the learned." (Page 315.)
"But they had fell into great errors, for they would not observe to
keep the commandments of God." (Page 310.)
Such errors as the foregoing occur frequently throughout the first
edition of the Book of Mormon. They are ingrained in it; they
are constitutional faults. And while perfectly explicable on the
supposition that one unlearned in the grammar of the English language,
as confessedly Joseph Smith was, obtaining the thought from the Nephite
characters in which the Book of Mormon was written, but left to express
said thought in such faulty English as he was master of;[150]--yet
utterly inexplicable on the supposition that the manuscript from which
the Book of Mormon was printed was written by Solomon Spaulding and
revamped by Sidney Rigdon. The errors in grammar and the occasional
wrong use of words are just such errors as would be made by Joseph
Smith, an unlettered youth, in working out the translation, but just
the errors that such educated men as Spaulding and Rigdon would pride
themselves in avoiding. I am of the opinion that this consideration
alone would be sufficient to convince a candid mind that whoever wrote
the Book of Mormon, neither Sidney Rigdon nor Solomon Spaulding ever
wrote it, or any part of it.
[Footnote 150: For an exposition and defense of this theory of the
translation of the Book of Mormon, see the author's treatise of the
subject, in "Defense of the Faith and the Saints," Vol. I, (1907) pp.
249-311.]
In this connection I also call attention to the fact that it is utterly
impossible that the Book of Mormon should be the Solomon Spaulding
story, "Manuscript Found," plus the religious matter supposed to have
been supplied by Sidney Rigdon. This is the claim of all Spauldingite
theorists, including Mr. Schroeder. It is based upon the assumption
of Joseph Smith's lack of knowledge of theological subjects and
controversies. If the book, however, was constructed as the Spaulding
theorists claim it was, the line of cleavage would be apparent; the
necessarily incongruous parts must be discernible: but no critic has
yet appeared bold enough to point out which was originally Spaulding's,
and which the Rigdon addition. The fact of the matter is there is no
line of cleavage; no point at which one ends and the other begins.
You might just as well talk about a line of cleavage between what the
element of earth and what the element of sunshine has contributed to
the coloring of the pansy or the rose, as to try to indicate what is
the religious part added to the Book of Mormon by Rigdon, and what the
historical part supplied by Spaulding. The religious and historical
parts of the Book of Mormon are perfectly fused. They can no more
be separated than sunlight and sun-warmth can be separated from our
earth's atmosphere. As the sun's rays penetrate and permeate our
earth's atmosphere, so the religious elements, incidents and spirit
alike, permeate the Book of Mormon--in it they are one and inseparable.
OF THE CONVERSION OF PRATT AND RIGDON.
As part of Mr. Schroeder's chain of evidence, by which he hopes to
establish the cumulative proofs that Pratt, Rigdon and Joseph Smith
connived in palming off upon the world the Spaulding manuscript as
a revelation--the Book of Mormon--he points to discrepancies in the
published accounts of the suddenness or slowness of Pratt's and
Rigdon's conversions. Holding that the accounts of their sudden and
miraculous conversion, had to be modified, and, in fact, concealed lest
they should lead to the suspicion of connivance, if Rigdon and Pratt
should be found giving too ready a credence to the Book of Mormon. Of
the variations pointed out in Pratt's conversion it is only necessary
to say that they are such variations, so slight and unimportant, that
if it is considered that they are made by different persons, or, as
in the case of Pratt himself, on widely separated occasions, the
variations are the sure witnesses that the account is not a concocted
one. In the case of one of the authorities quoted, Lucy Smith, mother
of the prophet, and author of the "Life of the Prophet Joseph," Mr.
Schroeder should be corrected. He states, following a misapprehension
of Orson Pratt's, in order to make his statement of more force,
that Lucy Smith's book was written under the supervision of Joseph
Smith. [151] This is not true, as Lucy Smith did not begin to write her
book until after the martyrdom of her son Joseph. It was in the fall of
the year of 1844 that she began her work, and the prophet was killed
in June of that year, all of which could have been learned by Mr.
Schroeder by consulting the foot notes of the edition of Lucy Smith's
book published by the Reorganized Church, in 1880. [152]
[Footnote 151: _American Historical Magazine,_ Jan., 1907, p. 67.
_Ante_ p. 61.]
[Footnote 152: "Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet," by
Lucy Smith, p. 90, foot notes.]
The discrepancy as to the time element in the conversion of Sidney
Rigdon--as to whether it was two days after Pratt and Cowdery's arrival
at Kirtland, or two weeks--may not be as satisfactorily accounted for
as in the case of Parley P. Pratt. Still the chief authority for Mr.
Schroeder's whole theory of the Spaulding origin of the Book of Mormon
favors the longer period for the conversion of Rigdon, since Mr. Howe
represents that the "sudden" conversion of Rigdon occurred "after many
pretensions to disbelieve it." [153] Furthermore, in view of the whole
question here debated, and the overwhelming evidences educed against
the contentions of Mr. Schroeder, the matter of the time it took to
convert Sidney Rigdon to Mormonism is of but slight importance.
[Footnote 153: "Mormonism Unveiled," Howe, p. 290.]
THE DENIALS OF RIGDON.
Mr. Schroeder throughout his argument, intermittently seeks to add
force to his "evidence" by saying that Sidney Rigdon never denied this,
that, or the other statement though made in his life time. He notices
only Rigdon's denial published in the _Boston Journal_ in 1839, and
represents it as "absolutely the only recorded public denial ever made
by Rigdon, though from 1834 to 1876 he was almost continually under
the fire of this charge, reiterated in various forms and with varying
proofs." [154] Of course, Mr. Schroeder is allowed to speak with some
degree of authority upon the anti-Mormon side of this controversy;
but for all that there are some things he does not seem to know about
Sidney Rigdon's denials and affirmations. It may be that of the several
statements to which Mr. Schroeder attaches the remark of Rigdon's
silence, Rigdon never saw one of them; and there is one denial made by
Mr. Rigdon that Mr. Schroeder has failed to note, made in 1836; and
which, since it is general in its character, may be made to cover the
whole period in which Mr. Rigdon is said to have made no denial. In
the January number of the Latter-day Saints' _Messenger and Advocate,_
after denouncing Howe's book and those who advocate it, and referring
to Mr. Scott, Mr. Campbell and other professed ministers, he says:
[Footnote 154: _American Historical Magazine,_ Nov., 1906, p. 527.]
"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." [155]
[Footnote 155: _Messenger and Advocate,_ Jan., 1836, p. 242.]
Inasmuch as Howe's book, published in 1834, charges Rigdon's complicity
with the whole procedure by which the Book of Mormon is alleged to
have been produced out of the Spaulding manuscript, and Rigdon above
denounces Howe's book as "a batch of falsehoods," we may say there has
been in existence ever since January, 1836, Rigdon's denial of the
whole Spaulding theory of his complicity with a scheme to deceive men
in respect of the Book of Mormon.
However, if that is not sufficient to be convincing, then I wish
to produce a well authenticated denial of the most sweeping and
convincing nature. John W. Rigdon, the son of Sidney Rigdon, has
written a somewhat extended biography of his father which he has filed
in its manuscript form in the Church Historian's Office at Salt Lake
City. In this 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. He
tells of his 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 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 this 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 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 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." [156]
[Footnote 156: "Life of Sidney Rigdon," by his son, John W. Rigdon,
ms. pp. 188-195. The passages quoted in the text will be found in the
"History of the Church," Vol. I, pp. 112-3. Also "Y.M.M.I.A. Manual"
for 1905-6, pp. 485-6.]
Not only does John W. Rigdon give this valuable statement as to his
father's position respecting the Book of Mormon, but he adds the
following from his mother:
"After my father's death, my mother, who survived him several
years, was in the enjoyment of good health up to the time of her
last sickness, she being eighty-six years old. A short time before
her death I had a conversation with her about the origin of the
Book of Mormon, and wanted to know what she remembered about its
being presented to my father. She said to me in that conversation
that what my father had told me about the book being presented to
him was true, for she was present at the time and knew that was
the first time he ever saw it, and that the stories told about my
father writing the Book of Mormon were not true. This she said to
me in her old age, and when the shadows of the grave were gathering
around her; and I believe her." [157]
[Footnote 157: "History of the Church," Vol. I, p. 123, note.]
THE REAL ORIGIN OF THE SPAULDING THEORY.
A word upon the real origin of the Spaulding theory. It did not
originate by a "woman preacher," [158] reading extracts from the Book
of Mormon whereupon there was a "spontaneous" recognition of Solomon
Spaulding's story "Manuscript Found," and an outburst of popular
indignation against this deception, as is usually represented to
be the case by those who advocate the Spaulding theory, and by Mr.
Schroeder in particular. [159] Especially is Mr. Schroeder insistent
upon the "spontaneity" with which the Spaulding work was recognized
when the Book of Mormon was publicly read at Conneaut; though to get
this "spontaneity" Mr. Schroeder must needs rely upon the Davidson
statement which he acknowledges. Mrs. Davidson never wrote, and which
he says can have no "evidentiary weight except in those matters where
it is plain from the nature of things that she must have been speaking
from her own personal knowledge" [160] and in the matter here to be
mentioned Mrs. Davidson could have had no personal knowledge at all. So
that Mr. Schroeder throws aside his own limitations within which Mrs.
Davidson's statement is to be given evidentiary weight, in the interest
of his desire for the force of "spontaneity" in the recognition of
the Book of Mormon as Spaulding's work. According to the Davidson
statement, then, when the "woman preacher" in a public meeting read
extracts from the Book of Mormon, John Spaulding, residing at Conneaut
at the time, and present at the meeting--
[Footnote 158: It is claimed that the words "woman preacher" found
in the Davidson statement was a typographical error, (see Clark's
"Gleanings by the Way,") and should read "Mormon preacher;" bu the
typographical error being claimed after it was learned that the mormon
Church at that time had no women preachers, gives it the color of one
of those "afterthoughts" which are so frequently seen in this Spaulding
theory, that one in spite of himself remains doubtful.]
[Footnote 159: _American Historical Magazine,_ Jan., 1907, p. 71.
_Ante_ p. 67.]
[Footnote 160: _American Historical Magazine,_ Sept., 1906, p. 394.
_Ante_ p. 29.]
"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 rose on
the spot, and expressed to the meeting his sorrow and regret that
the writings of his deceased brother should be used for a purpose
so vile and shocking. The excitement in New Salem (Conneaut)
became so great that the inhabitants had a meeting and deputed Dr.
Philastus Hurlburt one of their number to repair to this place
(Monson) and to obtain from me (Mrs. [Spaulding] Davidson) the
original manuscript of Mr. Spaulding."
One marvels that all this was missed by the authors of "Mormonism
Unveiled." Dr. Hurlburt was present, too, in that meeting, and was the
chief agent and factor in compiling Howe's book. Yet in the statement
published in that book, and credited to John Spaulding, there is not
a word of this dramatic circumstance--this splendid "spontaneity," so
much the joy of Mr. Schroeder. There is no "agony of grief;" no "flood
of tears;" no "denunciation on the spot;" no reference to a purpose
"vile and shocking;" just a plain statement that he had "recently
read the Book of Mormon;" and the claim that he found nearly the same
historical matter in it as in his brother's writings; some names that
were alike; and that the "Manuscript Found" held to the theory that
the American Indians were descendants of the "lost tribes;" evidently
supposing that the Book of Mormon held the same theory. Had any such
circumstance as described in the Davidson statement occurred, it would
undoubtedly have appeared in John Spaulding's statement published by
Howe five years before this second version was put forth.
But notwithstanding the bad odor of the whole Davidson statement,
and the violation of his own principle, under which only it is to be
considered possessed of evidentiary weight, Mr. Schroeder uses this
highly dramatic fiction to introduce his "clinching" evidence of the
plagiarism charged against those responsible for the publication of the
Book of Mormon.
The true story of the origin of this Spaulding theory is as follows:
When Dr. Hurlburt was finally excommunicated from the Church he took
to lecturing against the Mormons, holding forth first at Springfield,
Erie County, Penn., some distance east of Conneaut. Finally visiting
the Jackson settlement (presumably in the same county) he learned, from
one of the Jacksons, of Solomon Spaulding, and that he had written
a story called "Manuscript Found." "Not that any of these persons,"
says my authority, who was well acquainted in the Jackson Settlement,
also with Dr. Hurlburt, and attended his anti-Mormon meetings in the
neighborhood--"not that any of these persons had the most distant idea
that his [Spaulding's] novel had ever been converted into the Book of
Mormon; or that there was any connection between them." [161]
[Footnote 161: "Origin of the Spaulding Story" (1840), B. Winchester,
p. 8.]
It was the conception of Dr. Hurlburt that this Spaulding manuscript
could be used in concocting a counter theory for the origin of the Book
of Mormon--"a long felt want," by the way, among those who opposed
the book and the work growing out of it. With the information he had
obtained in the Jackson Settlement, Hurlburt repairs to Kirtland, holds
a public meeting, at which there is great joy, and enthusiasm among
the anti-Mormons in that vicinity, because of Hurlburt's theory of the
origin of the Book of Mormon. One Mr. Newel, a bitter anti-Mormon,
promised to advance $300 for prosecuting the work of identification,
and others contributed liberally for the same purpose. Out of this
meeting grew the public meeting held later at Conneaut; [162] and which
sent Hurlburt upon his journey to Monson, Mass., for Spaulding's
manuscript which ultimately he obtained of Mr. Jerome Clark at
Hartwicks, New York, on the order of Mrs. (Spaulding) Davidson. This
manuscript Hurlburt brought to E. D. Howe of Plainsville, Ohio, for the
forth-coming book, "Mormonism Unveiled." It was a disappointment to
these conspirators, as already detailed; and as explained by Hurlburt
in a letter to Mrs. Davidson, "It did not read as expected, and he
should not print it." [163]
[Footnote 162: Ibid. pp. 6-14.]
[Footnote 163: See Haven-Davidson Interview. _Ante_ p. 147.]
In passing, it should be said that Hurlburt never received but the one
manuscript. The theory put forth that he obtained two, one the true
"Manuscript Found," which it is alleged, he sold to the Mormons,--as
is the suspicion of the Spauldings--and a worthless one, the Roman
manuscript, now at Oberlin, which he gave to Howe, is one of the
many fictions that have grown out of the innumerable surmisings and
conjectures associated with the Spaulding theory. Hurlburt himself says
on this point, in a signed statement under date of August 19, 1879:
"I do not know whether or not the document I received from Mrs.
Davidson was Spaulding's Manuscript Found, as I never read
it entire, and it convinced me that it was not the Spaulding
Manuscript; but whatever it was, Mr. Howe received it under the
condition on which I took it from Mrs. Davidson--to compare it with
the Book of Mormon, and then return it to her. I never received
any other manuscript of Spaulding's from Mrs. Davidson, or any one
else. Of that manuscript I made no other use than to give it, with
all my other documents connected with Mormonism, to Mr. Howe. I did
not destroy the manuscript nor dispose or it to Joe Smith, or to
any other person." [164]
[Footnote 164: "New Light on Mormonism," appendix, p. 260, No. 17.
Letter from Hurlburt; also no. 8, another letter from Hurlburt, and No.
16 a letter from Howe.]
This manuscript received by Hurlburt and given to Howe is the only
Spaulding manuscript written by Spaulding, making any reference to
the antiquities of America. It is the simon-pure and only "Manuscript
Found." Against this it is urged by Mr. Schroeder that "no such title
is discoverable anywhere upon or in the body of the manuscript in the
Oberlin library." [165] And yet with strange inconsistency he himself
a few pages further on admits--"It is even possible that this first
manuscript (meaning the one now at Oberlin), may at sometime have been
labeled "Manuscript Found." [166] But what is better than any "label"
on the manuscript inside or outside; better than any admission of Mr.
Schroeder's, is the fact that this manuscript is the one Mr. Spaulding
feigned to have found, and that he pretended to translate into English.
It is the "found" manuscript, and the only one that Spaulding pretended
or feigned to have found. It is the one that Mrs. McKinstry says she
had in her hands "many times" at Sabine's after 1816; and that "on the
outside of this manuscript were written the words, 'Manuscript Found.'"
[Footnote 165: _American Historical Magazine_, Sept., 1906, p. 386.
_Ante_ p. 20.]
[Footnote 166: Ibid. p. 390.]
Perhaps it was this positive statement that drove Mr. Schroeder to the
admission that it is possible that this manuscript at Oberlin may have
been so labeled. The descriptions of the Spaulding manuscript called
"Manuscript Found," by others, who had knowledge of it, agree very
nearly as to its size, and their descriptions fit the manuscript at
Oberlin and not at all such manuscript as would be required to make
the Book of Mormon. Thus, Mrs. McKinstry says that the manuscript she
had in her hands many times at Sabine's, and that was tied up with
some other stories, and had written on the outside of it, "Manuscript
Found," made the manuscript about "one inch thick." Mrs. (Spaulding)
Davidson in the Haven interview says her husband's manuscript was
"about one third as large as the Book of Mormon." (i.e., about one
third as much, Ms. as would be required to make the Book of Mormon).
The Davidson statement represents that John Spaulding was perfectly
familiar with the work of his brother, "Manuscript Found," _"and
repeatedly heard the whole of it read,"_ which might be possible with
the Spaulding manuscript, which, now that it is printed, makes 112
pages, but scarcely possible respecting a manuscript making a book of
about 600 such pages.
This manuscript of Spaulding's has finally been really "found" and
published as already detailed; and its publication has resulted in the
overthrow of the Spaulding theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon;
and that quite in another way than from disclosing 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 no more write in several styles than individuals 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 even, 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 would 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, in whose possession the Spaulding manuscript was found in 1884,
does not over-state the matter when he says: "I should as soon think
that 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"--i. e., the Spaulding
Story.
THE MOTIVE FOR PUBLISHING THE BOOK OF MORMON.
It must be said for Mr. Schroeder that his theory of the motive
prompting the publication of the Book of Mormon is quite in harmony
with his theory of its origin. For it is fitting that a thing founded
in fraud should--and it very likely would--have the "greed of gain" as
the "dynamics of the scheme;" and that "love of gold, not God," would
be the moving cause of action. The only point at which Mr. Schroeder
breaks down in his theory of the motive, is just where he breaks down
in his theory of origin--namely, in the proof.
The excerpts from the revelations quoted by Mr. Schroeder fail
as proofs for his assumption. He ranges all through the numerous
revelations given to the Church from 1830 to 1841. Of the thirteen
excerpts quoted by him two only have any bearing upon the Book of
Mormon; and these two are from a revelation to Martin Harris, who had
covenanted with Joseph Smith and with the publisher of the book, Mr.
Grandin, that he would pay for printing it. Yet when the time came
to make good his plighted word, he hesitated; whereupon the word of
the Lord came, as quoted by Mr. Schroeder: "Impart a portion of thy
property; yea, even part of thy lands, and all save the support of thy
family." So far Mr. Schroeder quotes. The very next paragraph (35) of
the revelation goes on--"Pay the debt thou has contracted with the
printer. Release thyself from bondage"--(i. e. the bondage of debt).
Again Mr. Schroeder quotes (verse 26) "I command that thou shalt not
covet thine own property." The full paragraph is: "And again I command
thee, that thou shalt not covet thine own property, but impart it
freely to the printing of the Book of Mormon, which contains the truth
and the word of God." [167] Just where in these passages, which are the
only ones out of those quoted from the "Doctrine and Covenants" that
bear at all on the Book of Mormon--just wherein they bear witness to
the "greed of gain" being the motive that prompted the publication of
the book; or how they sustain the idea that "love of gold, not God" was
the "dynamics of the scheme," I fail to see.
[Footnote 167: "Doctrine and Covenants," Sec. 19:34, 35, 36.]
As for the rest of the passages quoted by Mr. Schroeder, they fall into
two classes: first, those that relate to the consecration of properties
to the Church; and second, those that command that provisions be made
for the sustenance of Joseph Smith and others who were devoting their
energies to the work of the Lord. In relation to the first class it
will make matters clear for the reader to know that the Saints were
called upon to recognize this principle: The earth is the Lord's.
He created it. It is his, by virtue of proprietorship; consequently
all that man holds, of the world's wealth is held as a stewardship
under God. To give visible recognition to this truth, the Saints were
commanded in Missouri to consecrate their property to the Lord through
his servants, and receive back a stewardship as from the Lord; and
this in order that the great truth of man's mere stewardship over that
which he is said to possess--coming now to be recognized by the best
Christian thought of the age as the proper attitude of mind for the
believer in God, in respect of his material possessions--might once
for all be established as a doctrine of the Church, emphasized by this
visible act of consecration.
As to the second class of quotations directing that provisions shall
be made for the material needs of Joseph Smith and his family--is it
necessary to argue at this late day what Paul seems to have settled
long ago, viz: "They which minister about holy things, live of the
things of the temple. * * * * Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they
which preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel." [168] Is not the
justice of this principle universally recognized? I say Mr. Schroeder
breaks down at the production of proof for his theory as to motive. And
his ringing the changes upon this subject has but the sound of brass
when applied to Joseph Smith personally or to all the leaders of the
Mormon Church from its inception. Never have a people been more blessed
with unselfish leaders than the Latter-day Saints. Men blessed with
divine insight and power have given their services, practically without
renumeration, for the welfare of their people. They have labored in
season and out of season for them. They have given not only a teaching
service, tending to make the truth clear, but they have given freely
of their business ability, executive and judicial abilities. Men of
statesman-like quality of mind have devoted their lives to their
people, and practically without earthly reward, and many of them, the
most of them, in fact, have died poor in this world's goods, but rich
in the consciousness of service for fellow-men well performed.
[Footnote 168: I Corinthians 9:13, 14.]
I write these words from the midst of a people, who, when they read
them, will think of hundreds of men who have lived and wrought out
life's service among them, in the very spirit here described. "Greed
of gain" furnish "the dynamics" of the Mormon scheme! "Love of gold,
not of God," the motive force in Mormonism! "A desire for money" "the
inspiring cause of every act of the Mormon Prophet, the very divinity
that moulded his thoughts and revelations, and brought into being
Mormon's books!" [169] Nonsense, Mr. Schroeder; you have studied human
nature as well as Mormonism to little purpose if you really think so.
Joseph Smith was loved by his people to the verge of idolization.
He won and kept that love of theirs to the day of his death. He had
the satisfaction of seeing one of his great prophecies fulfilled--a
prophecy given out from a prison cell, in 1839, and when his fortunes
were fallen to their lowest point--when his enemies seemed to triumph,
and traitors were arrayed against him-then came the assurance from
God--"Thy people shall never be turned against thee by the testimony of
traitors." [170] And they never were, either before his death or since.
"Greed of gold," selfishness; "Love of gold, not God," does not produce
these results. Selfishness never wins or holds hearts. Only a life that
pours out itself in floods of unselfish service for others wins and
holds affections. Such was the life of Joseph Smith, such the lives of
Mormon leaders.
[Footnote 169: _American Historical Magazine,_ May, 1907, p. 221.
_Ante_ pp. 80-81.]
[Footnote 170: "Doctrine and Covenants," Sec. 122.]
CONCLUDING REMARKS.
And now my task draws towards its close. My purpose in this paper,
in the main, has been merely to refute the theory, together with the
alleged evidences and arguments of Mr. Schroeder. My method has been
to refute him largely out of the material and authorities which he
himself has introduced. And of course this has kept the discussion
of the origin of the Book of Mormon within narrow limits. This paper
has been more in the nature of a rejoinder than anything else to Mr.
Schroeder's reply to the theory set forth by the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints for the origin of the Book of Mormon.
By this undesigned order of the discussion and by its necessary
limitations, the reader is at the disadvantage of not having
immediately before him the theory of the divine origin of the Book of
Mormon, sustained by the strong array of evidences and arguments, that
may be marshalled in its support. [171] But it will help in forming
a right conclusion as to the merits of this discussion if what is
here suggested be held in mind, namely: The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints sets forth the claim of a divine origin for the
Book of Mormon, sustained by special witnesses, whom God raised up to
testify of that origin; sustained also, as that Church believes, by a
world of evidences, both external and internal. To this Mr. Schroeder
has offered a counter-theory of origin, the "Spaulding Theory," to
which I have made this rejoinder. My effort has had no higher aim
than this, believing that nothing more was required of me under the
circumstances. If my paper shall prove to be, as I think it must, a
successful rejoinder; if it exhibits how inherently weak, and foolish
this Spaulding theory is, even when most skillfully set forth; if it
exhibits the tissue of falsehood and of malice, of which that theory is
made up; and the bitterness and hatred in which it had its inception;
and exposes the dishonest sophistry by which that theory has been
supported,--I shall be content.
B. H. ROBERTS.
Salt Lake City, Jan., 1909.
[Footnote 171: For an extended treatise on this subject see the
writer's "New Witness for God," published as Young Men's Manuals, Nos.
7, 8 and 9, 1903-1906. Now published in a series of three volumes under
the title "New Witnesses for God," Vol. I treats of Joseph Smith as a
New Witness; Vols. II and III is the treatise on the Book of Mormon as
A New Witness for God.]
###PART II.
RECENT DISCUSSION OF MORMON AFFAIRS.
FOREWORD.
The justification for publishing the three following papers consists in
the importance of the subjects which they treat. The first paper, "An
Address to the World," was presented to the General Conference of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by the First Presidency of
the Church, and by that conference unanimously adopted on the 5th of
April, 1907, and sent forth to the world. It was conceived and written
in a conciliatory spirit, and was intended to form the basis of a right
understanding of the attitude of the Church of the Latter-day Saints
with reference to a number of subjects concerning which there had been
bitter controversy. The "Address" explained the past. It expressed the
intention of the Church to give strict adherence to its obligations
to discontinue plural marriages, and with that, in time, would pass
away polygamous living. It also declared the intention of the Church
to abstain from interference in politics. That this was the spirit and
intent of the "Address" cannot be questioned by those who read it.
It presented, as the writer then believed, and as he now believes, a
fair basis of understanding and settlement of our local difficulties.
The manner in which it was met by the Ministerial Association, with
distrust, misrepresentation, unfair criticism and sly innuendo of evil
intentions, went far towards defeating its purpose, and gave occasion
for the Answer to the Ministerial Association's Review of the Address
to the world. The papers themselves tell the rest.
I.
AN ADDRESS:
THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS TO THE WORLD.
FIRST PRESIDENCY OF THE CHURCH.
"Let facts be submitted to a candid world."
I.
_The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the World_.
GREETING: In the hope of correcting misrepresentation, and of
establishing a more perfect understanding respecting ourselves and our
religion, we, the officers and members of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints, in General Conference assembled, issue this
Declaration.
Such an action seems imperative. Never were our principles or our
purposes more widely misrepresented, more seriously misunderstood.
Our doctrines are distorted, the sacred ordinances of our religion
ridiculed, our Christianity questioned, our history falsified, our
character traduced, and our course of conduct as a people reprobated
and condemned.
In answer to the charges made against us, for ourselves and for those
who, under divine direction, founded our religion and our Church; for
our posterity, to whom we shall transmit the faith, and into whose
keeping we shall give the Church of Christ; and before mankind, whose
opinions we respect, we solemnly declare the truth to be:
Our religion is founded on the revelations of God. The Gospel we
proclaim is the Gospel of Christ, restored to earth in this the
dispensation of the fulness of times. The high claim of the Church is
declared in its title--The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Established by divine direction, its name was prescribed by him whose
Church it is--Jesus the Christ.
The religion of this people is pure Christianity. Its creed is
expressive of the duties of practical life. Its theology is based on
the doctrines of the Redeemer.
If it be true Christianity to accept Jesus Christ in person and in
mission as divine; to revere him as the Son of God, the crucified and
risen Lord, through whom alone can mankind attain salvation; to accept
his teachings as a guide, to adopt as a standard and observe as a
law the ethical code he promulgated; to comply with the requirements
prescribed by him as essential to membership in his Church, namely,
faith, repentance, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and
the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost,--if this be
Christianity, then are we Christians, and the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints is a Christian church.
The theology of our Church is the theology taught by Jesus Christ
and his apostles, the theology of scripture and reason. It not only
acknowledges the sacredness of ancient scripture, and the binding
force of divinely-inspired acts and utterances in ages past; but also
declares that God now speaks to man in this final Gospel dispensation.
We believe in the Godhead, comprising the three individual personages,
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
We hold that man is verily the child of God, formed in his image,
endowed with divine attributes, and possessing power to rise from the
gross desires of earth to the ennobling aspirations of heaven.
We believe in the pre-existence of man as a spirit, and in a future
state of individual existence, in which every soul shall find its
place, as determined by justice and mercy, with opportunities of
endless progression, in the varied conditions of eternity.
We believe in the free agency of man, and therefore in his individual
responsibility.
We believe that salvation is for no select few, but that all men may be
saved through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
We affirm that to administer in the ordinances of the Gospel authority
must be given of God; and that this authority is the power of the Holy
Priesthood.
We affirm that through the ministration of immortal personages; the
Holy Priesthood has been conferred upon men in the present age,
and that under this divine authority the Church of Christ has been
organized.
We proclaim the objects of this organization to be, the preaching of
the Gospel in all the world, the gathering of scattered-Israel, and the
preparation of a people for the coming of the Lord.
"Mormonism" seeks its converts among all classes and conditions of
society, and those who accept it are among the best men and women of
the nations from which they come--honest, industrious, virtuous, and
reverent. In their community life they are peaceable, law-abiding and
exemplary. Their instincts, traditions and training are opposed to
vice and crime. The religion they have embraced, the Church of which
they are members, condemns every form of evil, and their lives, with
few exceptions, are exponents of righteousness. Many of the early
proselytes to our faith were descendants of the Pilgrims and Puritans.
Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other leaders among the Latter-day
Saints, traced their lineage to the founders and first defenders of the
nation. Joseph Smith was a native of Vermont, and by vocation a farmer.
All trades and professions were drawn upon for the membership of the
Church. In England, its first foreign mission field, it was mainly the
middle and working classes that responded to the Gospel message. All
over the world it has been the same,--our converts have been men and
women of character, intelligence, and integrity. There is nothing in
"Mormonism" to attract the selfish or the vile.
The effort to differentiate the "Mormon" priesthood and the
"Mormon" people, by allowing that the latter are a good, honest,
though misguided folk, while alleging that their leaders are the
personification of all that is bad, is a most futile one. The great
majority of the male members of the Church hold the priesthood, and
though constituting the official body of the Church, they are a portion
of the people. Priesthood and people are inseparable, and, vindicated
or condemned, stand together.
The charge that the Church relies upon duplicity in the propagation
of her doctrines, and shuns enlightened investigation, is contrary to
reason and fact. Deceit and fraud in the perpetuation of any religion
must end in failure. A system of religion, ethics, or philosophy, to
attract and hold the attention of men, must be sincere in doctrine and
honest in propaganda. That the Church employs deceptive methods; that
she has one doctrine for the priesthood and another for the people;
that she teaches one set of principles to her members in Zion, and
another to the world, is not true. Enlightened investigation is the
very means through which the Church hopes to promote belief in her
principles, and extend the beneficent influence of her institutions.
From the beginning, enlightened investigation has been the one thing
she has sought. To secure this she has sent her missionaries into all
parts of the world, especially to the centres of civilization and
enlightenment, where her literature has been freely distributed; yet
too frequently her claims have been disallowed without investigation,
and judgment has been pronounced without a hearing. At the Columbian
Exposition, which celebrated the four hundredth anniversary of the
discovery of America, the religions of the world were represented in a
great parliament, for the purpose of showing "in the most impressive
way, what and how many important truths the various religions hold
and teach in common; * * * to set forth by those most competent to
speak, what are deemed the important distinctive truths held and
taught by each religion; * * * to inquire what light each religion has
afforded or may afford to the other religions of the world." To this
gathering the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, though the
most distinctively American church, was not invited; nevertheless she
sought opportunity to place side by side with the creeds of all the
great historic faiths, a presentation of her principles, and to voice
to mankind the truths she deemed most important and most helpful. This
opportunity was denied the Church, except upon such terms as were
humiliating and subversive of the end sought--a wider publication and
a more just consideration of her faith. After such an experience,
and others of like kind, though of varying degree, we submit that
it ill becomes our accusers to charge us with shunning enlightened
investigation.
It has been charged that "Mormonism" is opposed to education. The
history of the Church and the precepts of its leaders are a sufficient
answer to that accusation. Joseph Smith, the first President of the
Church, founded schools, and attended them as a student, as did many
of his followers under his advice and influence. Brigham Young, who
succeeded Joseph Smith, emulated him as a founder and patron of
schools; and every subsequent President of the Church, his associates,
and the people generally, have been equally zealous in that cause. In
the course of their exodus from Illinois, our people built log school
houses while halting on the Missouri river, then the frontier of the
nation; and after they had traversed a thousand miles of wilderness,
and planted their infant colony in the valley of the Great Salt Lake,
school houses were among the first buildings they erected. Such has
been the course pursued in every "Mormon" colony. The State of Utah,
now dotted with free schools, academies, colleges, and universities,
institutions which have given her marked educational prominence,
furnishes indisputable evidence that her people--mostly "Mormons"--are
friends and promoters of education. To the Latter-day Saints, salvation
itself, under the atonement of Christ, is a process of education.
That knowledge is a means of eternal progress, was taught by Joseph
Smith--It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance.--A man
is saved no faster than he gets knowledge.--The Glory of God is
intelligence.--Whatever principles of intelligence we attain to in this
life, will rise with us in the resurrection.--He who gains in this life
more knowledge than another, will have so much the advantage in the
world to come. These were aphorisms with the Prophet Joseph Smith.
Neither is it true, as alleged, that "Mormonism" is destructive of
the sanctity of the marriage relation; on the contrary it regards
the lawful union of man and woman as the means through which they
may realize their highest and holiest aspirations. To the Latter-day
Saints, marriage is not designed by our Heavenly Father to be merely an
earthly union, but one that shall survive the vicissitudes of time, and
endure for eternity, bestowing honor and joy in this world, glory and
eternal lives in the worlds to come.
The typical "Mormon" home is the temple of the family, in which the
members of the household gather morning and evening, for prayer
and praise to God, offered in the name of Jesus Christ, and often
accompanied by the reading of scripture and the singing of spiritual
songs. Here are taught and gently enforced, the moral precepts and
religious truths, which, taken together, make up that righteousness
which exalteth a nation, and ward off that sin which is a reproach
to any people. If such conditions are not a sufficient answer to the
charge that our homes are un-Christian, subversive of moral influence,
and destructive of the state's stability, then we turn to the present
generations, "Mormon" American citizens products of our religion and
our homes, for our vindication:--Here are our sons and daughters,
submit them to any test of comparison you will; regard for truth,
veneration for age, reverence for God, love of man, loyalty to country,
respect for law, refinement of manners, and, lastly, in this issue
between us and our accusers the crowning test of all, purity of mind
and chastity of conduct. It is not inordinate self praise to say of the
generations of our people, born and reared in "Mormon" homes, that they
will compare favorably, in the Christian virtues, and in all that makes
for good citizenship, with any community in this or any other country.
The charge that the Church is a commercial rather than a religious
institution; that its aims are temporal rather than spiritual; that
it dictates its members in their industrial activities and relations,
and aims at absolute domination in temporal affairs,--all this we
emphatically deny. That the Church claims the right to counsel and
advise her members in temporal as well as in spiritual affairs is
admitted. Leading Church officials, men of practical experience in
pioneer life, have aided the people in establishing settlements
throughout the inter-mountain west, and have given them, gratuitously,
the benefit of their broader knowledge of things, through counsel and
direction, which the people have followed to their advantage; and
both the wisdom of the leaders and the good sense of the people are
vindicated in the results achieved. All this has been done without
the exercise of arbitrary power. It has resulted from wise counsels,
persuasively given and willingly followed.
It has also been the policy of the Church to foster home industries.
Where there has been a lack of confidence in some of these enterprises,
and private capital has been afraid to invest, the Church has furnished
funds that the practicability of the undertaking might be demonstrated;
and repeatedly the wisdom of this policy has been made manifest.
Thereby the resources of various localities have been developed,
community industries diversified, and the people, especially the poor,
given increased opportunity of employment and a better chance to become
self-sustaining.
We deny the existence of arbitrary power in the Church; and this
because its government is moral government purely, and its forces are
applied through kindness, reason, and persuasion. Government by consent
of the governed is the rule of the Church. Following is a summary of
the word of the Lord, setting forth the principles on which the Church
government is to be administered:
The rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers
of heaven, and the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled
only upon the principles of righteousness. That they may be conferred
upon men, is true; but when they undertake to cover their sins, or
gratify their pride, their vain ambition, or exercise control, or
dominion, or compulsion, upon the souls of the children of men, in any
degree of unrighteousness, the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when
it is withdrawn, amen to the priesthood, or the authority of that man.
No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the
priesthood, only by persuasion, by long suffering, by gentleness, and
meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which
shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy and without guile.
Nominations to Chuch office may be made by revelation; and the right of
nomination is usually exercised by those holding high authority, but it
is a law that no person is to be ordained to any office in the Church,
where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the
vote of its members. This law is operative as to all the officers of
the Church, from the president down to the deacon. The ecclesiastical
government itself exists by the will of the people; elections are
frequent, and the members are at liberty to vote as they choose. True,
the elective principle here operates by popular acceptance, rather
than through popular selection, but it is none the less real. Where
the foregoing facts exist as to any system, it is not and cannot be
arbitrary.
The Church officers, in the exercise of their functions, are answerable
to the Church. No officer, however exalted his position, is exempt from
this law. All decisions, rulings and conduct of officials are subject
to investigation, correction, revision and final rejection by the
general assembly of the priesthood of the Church, its final court of
appeal. Even the President, its highest officer, is subject to these
laws, and special provision is made for his trial, and, if necessary,
his deposition. Where these facts exist in any administration of
government, it cannot be justly classed as a tyranny, nor considered a
menace to free institutions.
The tithing system of the Church, so often denounced as oppressive, and
as imposing an arbitrary ecclesiastical tax, is in reality a system of
free-will offerings. True, the members, by the law of the Church, are
under moral obligation to pay one-tenth of their interest annually. But
from the very nature of the principles on which churches exist, they
being voluntary associations for the fostering of spiritual life, and
the achievement of moral and charitable ends--in which associations
membership cannot be compelled--there is no compulsory means of
collecting this or any other church revenue. Tithing is a voluntary
offering for religious and charitable purposes, and not a scheme of
extortion for the enrichment of the higher officials. Service in the
interest of the Church is given, for the most part, without monetary
compensation; where compensation is allowed it is moderate; the high
Church officials are not rich, but in the majority of cases are men of
limited means, and where it is otherwise their wealth did not come from
the tithes of the people; these facts are a complete refutation of the
slander that our tithing is a system of extortion practiced upon the
people for the enrichment of the priesthood. Like the Church government
throughout, the tithing system operates upon the principle of free will
and the consent of those who hold the faith to be divine.
Neither in mental attitude nor in conduct have we been disloyal to the
government under whose guarantee of religious freedom our Church was
founded. The Book of Mormon proclaims America to be the land of Zion;
a land dedicated to righteousness and liberty; a land of promise to
certain branches of the house of Israel, and also to the Gentiles. It
declares that God will fortify this land against all other nations;
and "he that fighteth against Zion shall perish." By revelation to
Joseph Smith the Prophet, the Lord declared that he had established
the Constitution of the United States through "wise men raised up unto
this very purpose." It is also our belief that God has blessed and
prospered this nation, and given unto it power to enforce the divine
decrees concerning the land of Zion, that free institutions might not
perish from the earth. Cherishing such convictions, we have no place in
our hearts for disloyal sentiments, nor is there likelihood of treason
in our conduct. Were we evil-disposed toward American institutions, or
disloyal to the United States, we would be recreant to those principles
to which by interest and education we are attached, and would repudiate
the revelations of God concerning this land.
In reaffirming our belief in the high destiny of America, our
attachment to American institutions, and our loyalty to the United
States, we declare that these sentiments, this loyalty, have outlived
the memory of all the wrongs inflicted upon our fathers and ourselves.
If patriotism and loyalty are qualities manifested in times of peace,
by just, temperate, benevolent, industrious, and virtuous living; in
times of trial, by patience, resistance only by lawful means to real or
fancied wrongs, and by final submission to the laws of the land, though
involving distress and sorrow; and in time of war, by willingness
to fight the battles of the nation,--then, unquestionably, are the
"Mormon" people patriotic and loyal.
The only conduct seemingly inconsistent with our professions as loyal
citizens, is that involved in our attitude during the controversies
that have arisen respecting plural marriage. This principle was
introduced by the Prophet Joseph Smith, at Nauvoo, Illinois. The
practice was continued in Utah, and published to the world, as
a doctrine of the Church, in 1852. In the face of these facts,
Brigham Young, whose position in the matter was well known, was
twice appointed, with the consent of the Senate, first by president
Fillmore, and afterwards by President Pierce, to be the Governor of the
Territory. It was not until 1862 that Congress enacted a law forbidding
plural marriage. This law the Latter-day Saints conscientiously
disregarded, in their observance of a principle sanctioned by their
religion. Moreover they believed the enactment to be violative of
the Constitution, which provides that Congress shall make no law
prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Notwithstanding this
attitude and conduct on the part of our people, no decision of the
Supreme Court upon this question was secured until 1878, more than
thirty years after the settlement of Utah; nor were determined efforts
made to enforce the law until a further period of five or six years had
elapsed. Surely this toleration, under which the practice of plural
marriage became firmly established, binds the United States and its
people, if indeed they are not bound by considerations of mercy and
wisdom, to the exercise of patience and charity in dealing with this
question.
If it be charged by those who find extenuation for offenses committed
prior to the decision of 1878, that our subsequent duty as good
citizens was clear and unmistakable, we reply that the situation, as
viewed by some of our members, developed a conflict between duty to God
and duty to the government. Moreover, it was thought possible that the
decision of the Supreme Court might be reversed, if what was regarded
as a constitutional right were not too easily surrendered. What our
people did in disregard of the law and of the decisions of the Supreme
Court affecting plural marriages, was in the spirit of maintaining
religious rights under constitutional guaranties, and not in any spirit
of defiance or disloyalty to the government.
The "Mormon" people have bowed in respectful submission to the laws
enacted against plural marriage. While it is true that for many years
they contested the constitutionality of the law of Congress, and
during that time acted in harmony with their religious convictions
in upholding by practice, as well as by spoken and written word, a
principle committed to them from God, still, when every means of
constitutional defense had been exhausted, the Church abandoned the
controversy and announced its intention to be obedient to the laws of
the land. Subsequently, when statehood for Utah became a possibility,
on the condition that her constitution provide by ordinance,
irrevocable without the consent of the United States, that plural
marriages should be forever prohibited, the "Mormon" people accepted
the condition by voting for the adoption of the constitution. From
that time until now, the Church has been true to its pledge respecting
the abandonment of the practice of plural marriage. If it be urged
that there have been instances of the violation of the anti-polygamy
laws, and that some persons within the Church have sought to evade the
rule adopted by her, prohibiting plural marriages, the plain answer is
that in every state and nation there are individuals who violate law
in spite of all the vigilance that can be exercised; but it does not
follow that the integrity of a community or of a state is destroyed,
because of such individual transgressions. All we ask is that the same
common-sense judgment be exercised in relation to our community that is
accorded to other communities. When all the circumstances are weighed,
the wonder is, not that there have been sporadic cases of plural
marriage, but that such cases have been so few. It should be remembered
that a religious conviction existed among the people, holding this
order of marriage to be divinely sanctioned. Little wonder then that
there should appear, in a community as large as ours, and as sincere, a
few over-zealous individuals who refused to submit even to the action
of the Church in such a matter, or that these few should find others
who sympathized with their views; the number, however, is small.
Those who refer to "Mormon polygamy" as a menace to the American
home, or as a serious factor in American problems, make themselves
ridiculous. So far as plural marriage is concerned, the question is
settled. The problem of polygamous living among our people is rapidly
solving itself. It is a matter of record that in 1890, when the
manifesto was issued, there were 2,451 plural families; in nine years
this number had been reduced to 1,543. Four years later the number was
897; and many of these have since passed away.
In answer to the charge of disloyalty, founded upon alleged secret
obligations against our government, we declare to all men that there is
nothing treasonable or disloyal to any ordinance, ceremony, or ritual
of the Church.
The overthrow of earthly governments; the union of church and state;
domination of the state by the church; ecclesiastical interference
with the political freedom and rights of the citizen,--all such things
are contrary to the principles and policy of the Church, and directly
at variance with the oft repeated declarations of its chief presiding
authorities and of the Church itself, speaking through its general
conferences. The doctrine of the Church on the subject of government,
stands as follows:
"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and
magistrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law."
Such is our acknowledgment of duty to civil governments. Again:
"We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers
and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same, and that such as
will administer law in equity and justice should be sought for and
upheld by the voice of the people (if a republic), or the will of
the sovereign."
"We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil
government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another
proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights
of its members, as citizens, denied." (Doc. & Cov. Sec. 134.)
With reference to the laws of the Church, it is expressly said:
"Be subject to the powers that be, until He reigns whose right it
is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet.
"Behold, the laws which ye have received from my hand are the laws
of the Church, and in this light ye shall hold them forth." (Doc. &
Cov. Sec. 58.)
That is to say, no law or rule enacted, or revelation received by the
Church, has been promulgated for the State. Such laws and revelations
as have been given are solely for the government of the Church.
The Church, of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds to the doctrine
of the separation of church and state; the non-interference of
church authority in political matters; and the absolute freedom and
independence of the individual in the performance of his political
duties. If, at any time, there has been conduct at variance with this
doctrine, it has been in violation of the well settled principles and
policy of the Church.
We declare that from principle and policy, we favor:
The absolute separation of church and state;
No domination of the state by the church;
No church interference with the functions of the State;
No state interference with the functions of the church; or with the
free exercise of religion;
The absolute freedom of the individual from the domination of
ecclesiastical authority in political affairs;
The equality of all churches before the law.
The reaffirmation of this doctrine and policy, however, is predicated
upon the express understanding that politics in the states where our
people reside, shall be conducted as in other parts of the Union;
that there shall be no interference by the State with the Church, nor
with the free exercise of religion. Should political parties make
war upon the Church, or menace the civil, political, or religious
rights of its members as such--against a policy of that kind by any
political party or set of men whatsoever, we assert the inherent right
of self-preservation for the Church and her right and duty to call
upon all her children, and upon all who love justice, and desire the
perpetuation of religious liberty, to come to her aid, to stand with
her until the danger shall have passed. And this, openly, submitting
the justice of our cause to the enlightened judgment of our fellow men,
should such an issue unhappily arise. We desire to live in peace and
confidence with our fellow citizens of all political parties and of all
religions.
It is sometimes urged that the permanent realization of such a desire
is impossible, since the Latter-day Saints hold as a principle of their
faith that God now reveals himself to man, as in ancient times; that
the priesthood of the Church constitute a body of men who have, each
for himself, in the sphere in which he moves, special right to such
revelation; that the President of the Church is recognized as the only
person through whom divine communication will come as law and doctrine
to the religious body; that such revelation may come at any time, upon
any subject, spiritual or temporal, as God wills; and finally that,
in the mind of every faithful Latter-day Saint, such revelation, in
whatsoever it counsels, advises or commands, is paramount. Furthermore
it is sometimes pointed out that the members of the Church are looking
for the actual coming of a Kingdom of God on earth, that shall gather
all the kingdoms of the world into one visible, divine empire, over
which the risen Messiah shall reign.
All this, it is held, renders it impossible for a "Mormon" to give true
allegiance to his country, or to any earthly government.
We refuse to be bound by the interpretations which others place upon
our beliefs; or by what they allege must be the practical consequences
of our doctrines. Men have no right to impute to us what they think
may be the logical deduction from our beliefs, but which we ourselves
do not accept. We are to be judged by our own interpretations, and by
our actions, not by the logic of others, as to what is, or may be,
the result of our faith. We deny that either our belief in divine
revelation, or our anticipation of the coming kingdom of God, weakens
in any degree the genuineness of our allegiance to our country. When
the divine empire will be established, we may not know any more than
other Christians who pray, "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, in
earth as it is in heaven;" but we do know that our allegiance and
loyalty to country are strengthened by the fact that while awaiting the
advent of the Messiah's kingdom, we are under a commandment from God to
be subject to the powers that be, until He comes "whose right it is to
reign."
"Mormonism" is in the world for the world's good. Teaching truth,
inculcating morality, guarding the purity of the home, honoring
authority and government, fostering education, and exalting man and
woman, our religion denounces crime, and is a foe to tyranny in every
form. "Mormonism" seeks to uplift, not to destroy society. She joins
hands with the civilization of the age. Proclaiming herself a special
harbinger of the Savior's second coming, she recognizes in all the
great epochs and movements of the past, steps in the march of progress
leading up to the looked for millennial reign. "Mormonism" lifts an
ensign of peace to all people. The predestined fruits of her proposed
system are the sanctification of the earth and the salvation of the
human family.
And now, to all the world: Having been commanded of God, as much
as lieth in us, to live peaceably with all men--we, in order to be
obedient to the heavenly commandment, send forth this Declaration,
that our position upon the various questions agitating the public mind
concerning us may be known. We desire peace, and will do all in our
power on fair and honorable principles to promote it. Our religion
is interwoven with our lives, it has formed our character, and the
truth of its principles is impressed upon our souls. We submit to
you, our fellow-men, that there is nothing in those principles that
calls for execration, no matter how widely in some respects they may
differ from your conceptions of religious truth. Certainly there is
nothing in them that may not stand within the wide circle of modern
toleration of religious thought and practice. To us these principles
are crystallizations of truth. They are as dear to us as your religious
conceptions are to you. In their application to human conduct, we see
the world's hope of redemption from sin and strife, from ignorance
and unbelief. Our motives are not selfish; our purposes not petty and
earth-bound; we contemplate the human race, past, present and yet to
come, as immortal beings, for whose salvation it is our mission to
labor; and to this work, broad as eternity and deep as the love of God,
we devote ourselves, now, and forever. Amen.
JOSEPH F. SMITH,
JOHN R. WILDER,
ANTHON H. LUND,
In behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, March 26,
1907.
_Adopted by vote of the Church, in General Conference, April 5, 1907._
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH.
II.
REVIEW OF ADDRESS TO THE WORLD.
MINISTERIAL ASSOCIATION, SALT LAKE CITY.
FOREWORD.
The following announcement accompanying the publication of the
Ministerial Association's Review of the Mormon Address to the World
appeared in the _Salt Lake Tribune,_ impression of June 4, 1907:
REPLY TO MORMON ADDRESS TO THE WORLD IS ISSUED BY THE MINISTERIAL
ASSOCIATION OF SALT LAKE CITY.--PUBLICATION MISLEADING AND SUPPRESSION
OF FAITH.--MINISTERS OF THIS CITY ARE UNIT IN DECLARING AGAINST THE
ADDRESS.
The Ministerial association of Salt Lake City has issued a review, in
the nature of a reply, to the "Address to the World," put out by the
Mormon church at the recent conference held in this city, in defense
of Mormonism. The review represents the combined labor of nearly every
member of the Ministerial association of Salt Lake, of which there are
thirty-three members, and by which it was adopted as a unit.
The review, which is presented elsewhere in this issue of _The
Tribune,_ is lengthy, comprehensive and unanswerable, well worthy
any and every one's time in reading, studying and digesting. It was
unanimously adopted at a meeting of the Ministerial association in its
headquarters in the club room of the Y. M. C. A. Monday afternoon.
Almost the entire membership of the association was represented at the
final meeting and there was not a dissenting voice or vote against the
adopting of the review, or reply, as it may aptly be termed.
Within a few days after the publishing of the Mormon Address to the
World a movement was started in the association looking to a reply to
the so-called Address. Among the ministers the document put forth by
the Mormon church was considered in the light of a suppression rather
than a confession of Mormon faith, and so most misleading. With the end
in view of a reply to the falsified, juggled and deceiving Address,
a number of papers were prepared and submitted to the association by
several different members. These papers were placed into the hands
of the committee, selected by the association for that purpose,
which threw them into the form of a report. The report was discussed
thoroughly at several different meetings of the association and every
member was given an opportunity of suggesting changes, presenting his
ideas on the subject for incorporation in the reply, or registering an
objection to it. As before stated, there was not a dissenting voice or
vote against the reply, the adoption being unanimous.
A STRIKING THING.
One of the striking things in the reply, which covers every point in
the Address with convincing thoroughness, is that it sets the teachings
of the Mormon leaders, as published in their own works and used in
their Improvement Associations, Sunday-schools and the like, alongside
of and in direct contrast to the diluted statement of doctrines found
in the "Address to the World." It is confidently asserted that there
has never been such a published statement by the Mormons, based upon
their own publications of the fact that they teach that there are many
gods and goddesses, that God, the Father, is married and that the gift
of eternal procreation is one of the felicities of paradise, promised,
however, only to those who are joined by the priesthood in marriage for
eternity.
In the discussion of the several papers that were worked into the reply
to the "Address to the World" all the active members of the Ministerial
association have been present and have taken an active part in the
work that led to its promulgation. The reply represents the combined
labors of the members of the Ministerial association. In its drafting
the churches of the Presbyterian, Congregational, Methodist Episcopal,
Baptist, Lutheran, Christian and Episcopal denominations, through their
pastors, are represented. The officers of the Ministerial association
are: President, the Rev. S. A. Hayworth, pastor of the East Side
Baptist church; vice-president, the Rev. Benjamin Young, of the First
M. E. church; secretary and treasurer, the Rev. E. C. Parker, of the
Liberty Park M. E. church. The members and their denominations are:
MINISTERIAL DIRECTORY.
The Rev. J. C. Andrews, Baptist; the Rev. A. A. Anderson, Swedish
Evangelist; the Rev. J. H. Allen, Calvary Baptist; the Rev. J.
Armstrong, Baptist; the Rev. D. A. Brown, First Baptist; the Rev.
Benjamin Brewster, St. Mark's Episcopal; the Rev. F. W. Bussard,
English Lutheran; the Rev. J. C. Bell, A. M. E.; the Rev. J. G.
Cairns, Second M. E.; the Rev. J. F. Baker, Garfield, Baptist; the
Rev. D. M. Helmick, Iliff M. E.; the Rev. H. I. Hansen, Norwegian
and Danish M. E.; the Rev. H. E. Hays, Third Presbyterian; the Rev.
J. S. Hurlburt, Murray, M. E.; the Rev. Jesse Hyde, Murray, Baptist;
the Rev. Harold Jensen, Norwegian and Danish Evangelical Lutheran;
the Rev. Bruce Kinney, superintendent Baptist work; the Rev. R.
G. McNiece, Presbyterian; the Rev. Josiah McClain, superintendent
Presbyterian work; the Rev. J. K. McGillivray, Presbyterian: the Rev.
C. C. Mclntire, Westminster Presbyterian; the Rev. R. S. Nickerson,
Sandy, First Congregational; the Rev. W. M. Paden, First Presbyterian;
the Rev. E. C. Parker, Liberty Park M. E.; the Rev. Emanuel Rydberg,
Swedish Lutheran; the Rev. P. A. Simpkin, Phillips Congregational;
the Rev. R. M. Stevenson, Presbyterian; the Rev. D. B. Scott, M. E.;
the Rev. F. S. Spalding, Episcopal Bishop; the Rev. H. J. Talbott,
superintendent M. E. work; the Rev. Benjamin Young, First M. E.; the
Rev. J. H. Worrall, M. E.
Not only was the _"Review"_ thus heralded in the local columns of the
_Tribune,_ but that paper also made the following editorial comment:
THE REVIEW BY THE MINISTERS.
"We print in other columns this morning, in full, the review by the
Salt Lake Ministerial association of the declaration made by the
first presidency of the Mormon church and sustained by the general
conference in April last. This review is calm, deliberate, and
temperate in tone; but it is irresistible in force, in logic, and
in conclusion. It will, of course, be warmly welcomed and approved
by the loyal citizenship of Utah, while to the country at large it
will be a good deal in the nature of a revelation.
"It is shown that the Mormon declaration is uncandid in that it
suppresses so much of the real beliefs and sentiments of the
church; and citations are given from authoritative writers of
the church, and from its standard works, showing how serious
these omissions are, and how completely their suppression gives a
false impression of the whole system. The evidence presented on
this point by the Christian ministers of this city is absolutely
irresistible.
"The evasions, the duplicity, the hypocrisy, the dishonesty, of the
conference declaration are completely shown, in masterly style.
The repeated but half-hearted efforts of the church leaders to
make the world believe in their patriotism, their piety, their
unselfishness, their benevolence, their purity, when they do not
believe these things of themselves, knowing their own corruption,
treason, blasphemy and corroding selfishness, avarice, lusts of
power and of the flesh, are fitly dealt with in this admirable
review, which we cannot too highly commend for its spirit and its
substance.
"It is shown in it that the hypocritical position of the conference
declaration is condemned by the Mormon church's own publications;
that the righteousness of polygamy is still upheld by the Mormon
leaders and speakers; and the hollowness of the entire pretense
through which it is sought to make it appear that the Mormon
leaders occupy a position which they do not occupy, is made clear.
Not any longer will the hierarchic pretense of being what it is
not, serve."
Thus heralded, the "Review" follows.
II.
REVIEW.
An "Address to the World" was issued by the president of the Mormon
Church and his counselors, and was adopted by the general conference
of that church April 5, 1907. This "Address," evidently prepared for
the residents of non-Mormon communities, is being widely circulated.
Ostensibly it makes a declaration of the doctrines, asserts the
principles and defends the practices of the Mormon Church. It claims
supremacy for that body as the only divinely authorized church of Jesus
Christ in the earth. It sets forth grievances. It appeals to the candid
judgment of mankind for toleration.