MORMON JESUITISM.
Denial of Mrs. Davison's statement in reference to the
origin of the Mormon's Bible--The truth of her
statement corroborated by a letter from the Rev. John
Storrs--By another from the Rev. D. R. Austin.
Up to the period, in which the preceding sketch was published in the
columns of the Episcopal Recorder, no attempt was made, as far as our
information extends, to contradict the statement of Mrs. Davison, or in any
way to invalidate her testimony. Shortly after the appearance of the sketch
above referred to, a small pamphlet was issued by one of the Mormon
ministers, who, we understand, bears the relation of Pastor to one of the
societies of that people, established in Philadelphia, who call themselves
"The church of the latter day saints."
Although we do not think, that the truth, or falsehood of Mormonism, in any
degree turns upon the correctness, or incorrectness of the foregoing
statement of Mrs. Davison, for deceit and imposture are enstamped upon
every feature of this monster, evoked by a money digger and a juggler from
the shades of darkness--still if her statement be correct and is to be
relied upon, the facts brought out by Mrs. Davison would seem to be one of
those singular developments of divine Providence, by which impostors are
confounded, and their devices brought to nought; and therefore it may be
well to look for a moment at the arguments that are offered to disprove,
what the writer of the pamphlet just referred to denominates "THE SPAULDING
STORY." The pamphlet itself abounds with low and scurrilous remark--just
such as we should think would be likely to emanate from a Mormon leader.
The principal points upon which the writer rests his argument, are,
_First._ The worthless character of Dr. P. Hurlbut--who was deputed by a
meeting called at New Salem to visit Mrs. Davison and obtain from her the
manuscript written by her husband, Rev. Mr. Spaulding.
_Secondly._ That Mrs. Davison neither wrote nor signed the letter published
in the Boston Recorder, but that it was the production of the Rev. Mr.
Storrs.
_Thirdly._ That Sidney Rigdon did not join the Mormons nor have any
connection with them, till after the Book of Mormon was published: and did
not reside at Pittsburgh at the time he was supposed to have done so by
Mrs. Davison.
1. In reference to the first point: this writer depicts the character of
Dr. Hurlbut, as made up of dissoluteness, depravity, and crime. He was for
a considerable period a zealous Mormon, was ordained an elder, became a
distinguished preacher among them, and continued so, until they could
endure his vices no longer and cast him out--then he turned against them,
and endeavoured to expose their deception and imposture. Whether this be a
slander or true testimony, we have no means of ascertaining. But we do not
see, that in either case it makes any thing for Mormonism, or in the least
affects the truth of Mrs. Davison's statement. We can readily believe that
a system of imposture like that of Mormonism, would have charms for just
such a man as Hurlbut is described.
2. The assertion that Mrs. Davison did not write nor subscribe the letter
published in the Boston Recorder, furnishes a fair specimen of the
Jesuitical tricks resorted to, to keep up this imposture. A letter is
inserted in the pamphlet above referred to, written by Mr. John Haven, in
which a conversation is related, said to have taken place between Mrs.
Davison and the brother of the writer, and which is calculated and
evidently designed to carry the impression that Mrs. Davison utterly
disavowed the authorship of the letter, published in her name in relation
to the Spaulding manuscript. To satisfy myself on the truth of this point,
I addressed a letter to the Rev. Mr. Storrs, an extract from which I will
subjoin:
"_Hollistown, June 28th, 1841._
"The results of my inquiries from Dr. Ely and from Mr.
Austin confirm me in the opinion the Spaulding
manuscript was the foundation of the foolish affair
called the Mormon Bible. This is my opinion though we
may not be able to prove it directly. I have never
supposed, I have never said that they were one and the
same thing. Only that it was the _foundation_ of the
Mormon Bible: supposing that its story, its incidents,
and names, gave the Mormon leaders the idea of their
own book, and supposing that from it they manufactured
the book about which so much has been said. _So_ then
in using the word '_identical_' in relation to the
manuscript and Smith's book, it must be understood in a
modified sense.
"We may never be able to prove by direct testimony that
such was the foundation of the Mormon Bible. But we
have circumstantial evidence enough. The communication
made to the world by Mrs. Davison, it seems to me
settles the question.
"And then this testimony is not at all invalidated by
the letter written from this town by Mr. John Haven,
and published in the pamphlet you sent me, entitled
"the Origin of the Spaulding Story concerning the
manuscript found." And here observe the sophistry of
this communication. The questions and answers from the
letter are as follows: 'Did you, Mrs. Davison, write a
letter to John Storrs, giving an account of the origin
of the Book of Mormon? _Ans._ I did not. _Ques._ Did
you sign your name to it? _Ans._ I did not; neither did
I see the letter till I saw it in the Boston Recorder:
the letter was never brought to me to sign. _Ques._
What agency had you in having this letter sent to Mr.
Storrs? _Ans._ D. R. Austin came to my house and asked
me some questions, took some minutes on paper, and from
these wrote the letter. _Ques._ Is what is written in
the letter true? _Ans._ In the main it is.' The
quibbling here is palpable. It is very true Mrs.
Davison did not write a letter to me, and what is more,
of course she did not sign it. But this she did do, and
just what I wrote you in my former letter I supposed
she did: she did sign her name to the original copy as
prepared from her statement by Mr. Austin. This
original copy is now in the hands of Mr. Austin. This
he told me last week. But again, mark another and
important thing in this catechism. It is the distinct
avowal after all, and published by the Mormons
themselves that what she had said was true. "Is what is
written in the letter true? _Ans._ "_In the main it
is._" It is just as you or any other honest man under
similar circumstances would affirm such a production
to be the truth. In fact she does not as I understand
from the questions and answers disavow a single
statement made in the communication to which her name
was affixed. But she affirms it all as a verity. I must
confess my wonder that the Mormons should ever have
published the above quotations. It must be that they
thought their quibble about Mrs. D. not signing the
identical piece of paper sent to me, would cover up the
great and important fact that, she affirmed that all
that was sent to me was the truth. So then the
circumstantial evidence contained in the communication
published in the Recorder some few years ago that the
Spaulding manuscript was the origin of the golden Bible
remains sound.
"But another thing: I expect we shall never be able to
lay our hands on the identical manuscript, and thus
prove by comparison in the sight of all that one was
the foundation or origin of the other. But be this as
it may, the very fact that it is lost, is evidence in
my mind that the manuscript was the foundation of the
Mormon book. Dr. Hurlbut took the manuscript. It is
reported in Missouri, that he sold it for four hundred
dollars; that the manuscript is not to be found. I must
confess that my suspicions are, that a deep laid plot
has been consummated to obtain possession of the
manuscript, and thus preclude all possibility of its
ever being compared by competent men with the Book of
Mormon. At least my suspicions will not be removed
until the manuscript--and the _whole_ manuscript--is
returned to the hands of its owner. I am suspicious
that a deep and long game has been played by the
Mormons to obtain and destroy the manuscript. Some one
has got that manuscript and has got it secreted from
the public eye. And if that manuscript cannot be found,
in my mind will be proved that the Mormons have
conveyed it away. The burden of proof is on the
Mormons. To them it belongs to produce the manuscript.
If they have got the manuscript and will not produce
it, it is plain they fear its publication to the world
will destroy their pretended revelation.
"Your brother in the Lord,
JOHN STORRS."
I also wrote to the Rev. Mr. Austin for information, who returned me an
answer from which I make the following extracts.
"_Sturbridge, Mass., June 28th, 1841._
"The circumstances which called forth the letter
published in the Boston Recorder in April 1839, were
stated by Mr. Storrs in the introduction to that
article. At his request I obtained from Mrs. Davison a
statement of the facts contained in that letter, and
wrote them out precisely as she related them to me. She
then signed the paper with her own hand which I have
now in my possession. Every fact as stated in that
letter was related to me by her in the order they are
set down. (There is one word mis-printed in the
published letter--instead of "woman preacher," on the
second column, it should be _Mormon preacher_.)
"That the pamphlet published to refute the letter
should contain false statements is not surprising. A
scheme got up in falsehood must be sustained by lies.
But the truth of the statements contained in that
letter of Mrs. D. will remain unshaken, notwithstanding
all the Mormons can do. It gives a very clear,
consistent and rational account of the origin of that
abominable piece of deception and fraud.
"Mrs. Davison is now living about twelve miles from
this place; is an aged woman and very infirm. Dr.
Hurlbut was an entire stranger to her, and obtained her
confidence by means of the letters of introduction
which he brought from gentlemen in New-Salem. He
promised to return the manuscript in a short time. Mrs.
D. would only consent to lend it to him. He stated some
time after he had received the manuscript that he had
made $400 out of it. Mrs. D. has not the least doubt
now but that he obtained it in order to sell it to the
Mormons. If Dr. H. can be found, I have no doubt but
that the manuscript may be traced into the hands of the
Mormons--which would be about as satisfactory as to
find it. If they purchased it of him, (of which there
is no doubt) and refuse to present it, the reason is
obvious. I can give no information with respect to the
present residence of Dr. H. I suppose light on this
point may be obtained at New Salem.
"It is really wonderful how this most palpable delusion
has spread. The foundation of it is the most weak and
absurd of any delusion ever palmed upon the world. It
is remarkable how these manias all tend to one point.
Perfectionism, Unionism, and Mormonism, as they have
been developed in this region, have all aimed directly
at licentiousness. They feed and fatten upon one base
passion. Mormonism will doubtless have its day and then
die. Something quite as absurd will spring up in its
place. There is an appetite in the community which
craves such food. If it can be garnished with the name
of religion, it will go into more extensive use.
"This is one of the deepest plots of the devil. He has
placed his golden hook under the name of a "golden
book" in the nose of these miserable fanatics, and is
leading them in the direct way to destruction.
"Yours in the bonds of christian fellowship,
"D. R. AUSTIN."
3. In relation to the assertion, that Sidney Rigdon did not embrace
Mormonism till after the publication of the Book of Mormon; and that he did
not reside in Pittsburgh at the time stated by Mrs. Davison, we have some
remarks to offer in a subsequent chapter.
If Rigdon did not reside there at the time, still in accordance with Mrs.
D's suggestion, a copy might have been made of Mr. Spaulding's manuscript,
which subsequently came into his hands. This copy, even if Rigdon had no
hand in preparing the Book of Mormon, and was wholly ignorant of the
existence of Mr. Spaulding's manuscript, might have reached Smith in some
other way. It is enough to know that the one was the foundation of the
other, no matter who the agents in the imposture are. Even if it could be
proved that Rigdon had no knowledge of the manuscript, and no hand whatever
in preparing the Book of Mormon, this would in no respect invalidate Mrs.
Davison's testimony, or show that Mr. Spaulding's historical romance was
not the foundation of that book. Mrs. Davison merely conjectures that
Rigdon must have been the agent--and that from circumstantial evidence--but
she _knows_ that the outline of her husband's historical romance is
actually the basis--the manifest substratum of the Mormon Bible.
This point is made very clear by her testimony, that, in some way or
other, Smith and his coadjutors obtained a copy of Mr. Spaulding's
manuscript, which evidently forms the basis of this pretended bible, and
fastens upon it the undoubted mark of imposture.
But were not this the case--had Smith and those associated with him no such
basis, on which to build the scheme developed in the Book of Mormon, this
would in no way strengthen the claims which this volume sets up for a
divine origin. The book itself is full of internal evidence of imposture
and fraud.
If the reader can have patience to follow us we will endeavour in the two
subsequent chapters to furnish him with an outline of the principal topics
contained in the Book of Mormon.