(Newspapers of Iowa, Wisconsin & Minnesota)

Misc. Iowa Newspapers
1850-99 Articles

RLDS "Brick Church" Lamoni, Iowa  (finished in 1893)

1838-44  |  1845-49   |  1850-99

FGd Jan 23 '50  |  FGd Feb 06 '50  |  BHk Feb 07 '50  |  BHk Mar 21 '50  |  BHk Apr 11 '50
FGd Apr 17 '50  |  FGd Jun 26 '50  |  BHk Sep 05 '50  |  BHk Sep 12 '50  |  BHk Sep 19 '50
FGd Dec 11 '50  |  FGd Feb 07 '51  |  FGd Mar 07 '51  |  FGd May 16 '51  |  BHk Jun 12 '51
FGd Jun 13 '51  |  Bgl Apr 28 '52  |  Bgl Jun 02 '52  |  Bgl Jun 09 '52  |  Bgl Jun 16 '52
Bgl Jul 07 '52  |  Bgl Oct 09 '55  |  Bgl Sep 09 '56  |  ISR Aug 16 '70  |  BHk Sep 15 '77
DDG Apr 05 '79  |  DDG Dec 23 '80  |  SAd Feb '84  |  DDN Oct 16 '86
IndP Dec 25 '90  |  IndP Jan 08 '91  |  IndP Mar 05 '91  |  IndP Mar 12 '91  |  IndP May 14 '91
IndP May 21 '91  |  IndP May 28 '91  |  IndP Jun 04 '91  |  IndP Jun 11 '91  |  IndP Jun 18 '91
IndP Jun 25 '91  |  IndP Jul 02 '91  |  IndP Jul 09 '91  |  IndP Jul 16 '91  |  IndP Jul 23 '91
IndP Jul 30 '91  |  IndP Aug 06 '91  |  IndP Aug 13 '91  |  IndP Aug 20 '91  |  IndP Aug 27 '91
IndP Sep 03 '91  |  IndP Sep 10 '91  |  IndP Sep 17 '91  |  IndP Sep 24 '91  |  IndP Oct 01 '91
IndP Oct 08 '91  |  IndP Oct 15 '91  |  IndP Oct 22 '91  |  IndP Oct 29 '91  |  IndP Nov 05 '91
IndP Nov 12 '91  |  IndP Nov 19 '91  |  DCA Jan 07 '97  |  UDM Aug 04 '97

Wisconsin & Minnesota papers have been moved to a new location

Articles Index  |  Michigan Newspapers


By O. Hyde.                       Kanesville, Jan. 23, 1850.                     Vol. I. No. 26.

We have just received a new paper, published at Greencastle, Pa. We will write its name; but we are not without our fears that we might break our jaw if we should attempt to pronounce it. It is not exactly the fever and ague, though it produces a chill when we think of its Editor who was Mr. Rigdon's right hand man until Mr. R.'s virtue set him crazy. But the name! Coacontague -- No! "Conococheague Herald." We have tried to pronounce it until our tongue feels like a cork screw. But our devil has just explained the whole affair. He says it is the grand key word that Rigdon introduced in his memorable sermon from these words: "Ye shall see as ye are seen, and know as ye are known." delivered near Chambersburg. The Herald is published by Ebenezer Robinson & Co., and is of the milk and water order, if we have translated its head correctly.

Note: About 150 of Sidney Rigdon's followers moved to the region of Greencastle, Antrim twp., Franklin Co., Pa in 1849 and established there a farming and manufacturing community. The Conococheague Herald (first issue published on Sept. 19, 1849) was owned and operated by Elder Ebenezer Robinson and was probably printed upon the same press that had previously issued forth Rigdon's Messenger and Advocate at Pittsburgh. Robinson's paper was the precursor to the modern Echo-Pilot published at Greencastle.


By O. Hyde.                       Kanesville, Feb. 6, 1850.                     Vol. II. No. 1.

Cause for which William Smith was
excluded from the Church!

It is the law of the church that its members shall pay over one tenth part of their property which they may have at the time they join the body, and annually thereafter, one tenth part of their increase. This is called the law of tithing. This tithing is appropriated for the benefit of the poor, for public purposes, &c. The temple at Nauvoo was built by the tithing of the people. After the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, the Twelve came into power, and they formed the council that were to apply this tithing, or to create a bishop to apply it. William Smith was, at that time, nominally one of the Twelve, and he claimed that it was his right to have one-twelfth part of the tithing set off to him, to be appropriated to his own individual use, or in any way that he thought proper. This was not allowed any one of the Twelve; and he was the only one that ever asked or expected such a thing; and we were conscious that none but a prodigal in every sense of the word, (which we considered him to be,) would indulge such a wish. This being positively denied him, he went up to Galena and published there, or at some other place, a pamphlet, in which he laid out many false and grevious charges against the whole Twelve; but more particularly against Elder Brigham Young. This pamphlet was read in part to a large collection of people in the Temple, and he was then and there excluded from the society and fellowship of the church by a unanimous vote of the entire body, whom were assembled, almost the entire authorities of the whole church. To present the cause of his expulsion from the church in a few words, it is this. A wish to appropriate the public funds of the Church to his own private use -- for publishing false and slanderous statements concerning the church; and for a general looseness and recklessness of character which ill comported with the dignity of his high calling.

Satan Shooting Himself.

William Smith has procured the publication of the following, which he asserts is the oath sworn and subscribed to by all the principal Salt Lake Mormons:

"You do solemnly swear in the presence of Almighty God, his holy angels, and these witnesses, that you will avenge the blood of Joseph Smith on this nation, and teach the same to your children; and that you will, from this time, henceforth and forever begin and carry out hostilities against the nation, and to keep the same intent a profound secret, now and ever. So help you God."

If any person has taken the above oath, that person has violated it by divulging it; and if he has broken such an oath, can his word be relied on when he swears to its truth? Again; if the hostile intention against the United States is to be kept a profound secret, now and forever, according to that oath, how far could the Mormons carry hostilities against the government before they would reveal the secret themselves? If the Mormons would ever keep that intent a secret, we believe that the Mormons and the oath would be perfectly harmless; for if they once began to shed rivers of blood, and to make a bluster of opposition, their intent is not kept a profound secret now and forever. Again; when the Mormons were driven out of Nauvoo what was the first act of hostility against the nation, that they were guilty of? Och mon! do ye not know? Why, to raise 500 volunteers for Santa Anna to fight against Gen. Taylor. Can't you see how we have fulfilled the oath to the very letter? Answer a fool according to his folly, said Solomon: But to the point. We have before contradicted it, and we now say, that it is the very gangrene of revenge and malice. William Smith has proven himself unworthy the confidence of any upright and moral person. He was lawfully excluded from the Church in Nauvoo, as thousands of witnesses can testify in this country, and as the general church records now at the Salt Lake Valley will testify to any one who will search them. But it is no use to reason or talk about the affair further. The devil would not acknowledge, we p[resume, that he was legally and righteously expelled from Heaven; and if he thought that he could enlist the whole nation on his side to break down the Almighty, he would doubtless be as patriotic and as much attached to Republican institutions as William Smith. In the days of Solomon two women contended for a certain child: one was its mother and the other was not, and as they could not agree, the wise king of Israel called for a sword to cut the child in two and give half to each one. She that was not the mother sanctioned the proposition, while the other shrieked with horror at the idea of cutting the child in two. "Ah!" says Solomon to the latter, "the child is yours." So also with William, because he cannot be the ruler or leader of the church, he seeks to destroy it, and that too, by the most glaring falsehoods that disappointed ambition can utter. But we here predict that his influence will be of short duration, and his race will soon be run. He will come out and deny his present position, and those who may now be his friends, will become his enemies; and such as support him the strongest now, will turn to be the most potent against him. When these things come to pass, then know that he has most wickedly and maliciously lied against those who would rather be his friends than his enemies, if his conduct were such as to merit our friendship.

Note 1: LDS Apostle Orson Hyde appears to say, that if the Twelve had simply agreed to set aside one-twelfth of the church's tithing for William's needs as Patriarch to the Church, he would have been perfectly happy to have followed and obeyed Brigham Young, henceforth and forever. William's conflict with the Brighamite leadership was far more basic (and complex) than a simple argument over finances. Hyde knew this, of course, but he had no desire to open his newspaper up to public disclosures of what it was that William and the Twelve had argued over in private chambers, back in Nauvoo.

Note 2: It seems passing strange that LDS Apostle Orson Hyde was able to expend nearly 650 words of protest, over William Smith's allegations regarding a certain secret endowment oath, and, in all of that rhetoric, never once make the simple statement that no such oath was ever administered to Mormons, either in the Temple at Nauvoo, nor in the sacred apartments of Great Salt Lake City. The reason that Hyde was unable to issue such a clear, unequivocal denial of the oath, was the simple fact that many hundreds of Brighamites had indeed sworn such promises against the government of the United States. Since William Smith had probably not quoted the words of the temple oath perfectly and exactly, Orson Hyde was in a position to at least make a "lawyer's denial" of that precise text forming any part of the temple endowment -- however, the Apostle avoided opening up that journalistic can of worms in the columns of his quasi-official LDS newspaper. Instead, Hyde offers the hint, that William himself had gone through the endowment ceremonies, prior to his split with the Twelve, and that William could not have taken such an oath and then subsequently acted as he had in the months and years following that sacred event. This is a thin line of reasoning, to say the least, but in William's particular case it worked. William Smith was not about to admit in public that he ever personally uttered such an oath, to "avenge the blood of Joseph Smith" upon anybody. And, since William was known to make periodic attempts to rejoin the Utah Mormons, there was a good likelihood that either by words or actions, he would, sooner or later, effectively deny his own "grevious charges." Hyde's guess in that regard never proved quite true -- at least William did not rejoin the Brighamites, nor ever admit in the public prints that his accusations against the Utahans were false. Rather, William's prophetic mantle and religious confrontiveness were soon passed on to the fledgling "Reorganization." As for William Smith, as late as 1857, when the Utah Expedition was yet in the planning stage, and Johnston's Army was yet to be drawn together, William was still voicing his claims concerning the Mormon temple oath, Danite murder oaths, etc., etc.


Vol. XI.                               Burlington, Iowa, February 7, 1850.                             No. 38.

The Iowa Contested Seat.

The Gazette of yesterfay discourses pretty largely on the article which it extracts from the Missouri Republican, in reference to Dan. F. Miller's claims to a seat in Congress. That article states that "Mr. Miller claims that he received 6,591 votes and Mr. Thompson 5,471 votes; and that he has a majority of 120 votes." Mr. Thompson endeavors to neutralize this majority and thus retain his seat, by declaring the vote of Kanesville illegal, and asks for a longer time to procure evidence. Mr. Miller, to avoid such delay, proposes that the committee lay all the papers before the House, accompanied by a resolution that the election be referred back to the people...

Notes: (forthcoming).


Vol. XI.                               Burlington, Iowa, March 21, 1850.                             No. 44.

The Stolen Poll Books.

Everybody has laughed over the story of the borrowed kettle. While in possession of the borrower the kettle was cracked, and returned to the owner in a damaged state. The latter was obliged to resort to the law for redress. The plea set up by the defendant's lawyer contained three distinct specifications, viz: 1. The kettle was cracked when it was borrowed. 2. It was whole when he returned it. 3. His client never borrowed it. -- We presume J. C. Hall knew all about this story, and since the accidental finding of the stolen poll book, he has concluded to borrow the idea, and enter up the sam class of specifications in his defence before an outraged public. His late communication in the Gazette certainly amounts to this. -- He declares 1. That the Pottawatiamie votes were of no account when they were stolen, 2. "One thing was certain," he says, "that either the friends of Thompson or Miller must take charge of (steal) the poll book." 3. The poll book was not stolen at all....

Whatever the result may be in their attempts to cover up this iniquitous proceeding by hunting up evidence to prove that the Clerk refused to receive the returns and that Kanesville is north of Monroe county -- on which they rely to secure to Thompson his seat -- the plague-spot will still rest upon them. The evidence that the poll book was stolen, is too glaring to be made a joke of...

All we will now say to combat them is, that the acting Sheriff of Pottawatiamie did deliver the Pool Book to the Clerk of Monroe county, and that the locofoco leaders were electioneering with those same Mormons for their votes... The locos will hardly make a point of that while they know that it can be proved that certain loco foco leaders offered Babbitt one thousand dollars to go to Pottawatiamie to secure the vote for their party, besides the promises to others of surbeying contracts, and a certain ferry privilege to one Townsend by act of the Legislature, O, no, they will hardly make that a point, although they have taken testimony in relation to it. We shall be gald when the ninty days are out.

"Mr. Warren admitted, in a publication over his own signature, that he paid out a large sime of money -- some hundreds of dollars, if we mistake not -- to Pickett, to pay the election officers, &c." -- Gazette.

This renewed attempt to prove bribery on the Whigs, when it was all on the other side, is reiterated now to throw dust in the eyes of the masses and turn attention from the main question at issue. The question now is, who stole the Poll Book? The other questions about the boundary, right of the Mormons to vote, &c., have nothing to do with the criminality of stealing the poll book. They will be settled at Washington. All the money expended by Mr. Warren was one hundred and forty dollars. -- This was given to Pickett to pay his own expenses, and was voluntarily and publicly acknowledged by Col. Warren. It was no bribery. But it was bribery for loco focos to offer Mormon Babbitt one thousand dollars to go to Pottawatiamie and secure the Mormon vote for his party...

A CASE FOR THE LAWYERS. -- An ingenious [casuist] in the Providence Journal wishes to be informed, supposing it to be true, as charged, that Brigham Young, of Deseret, the Mormon leader, has twenty-six wives, whether the establishment of this new and peculiar institution of polygamy or Brighamy in Deseret, would entitle Brigham to remove to Massachusetts or Rhode Island with his twenty-six wives? The Journal thinks it certain that, according to the Calhoon doctrine, he would at least have the right to carry them into any territorial government.

Notes: (forthcoming).


Vol. XI.                               Burlington, Iowa, April 11, 1850.                             No. ?

Begging pardon of the Mormons.

The letter of Judge Mason, which our correspondent furnishes is a real political gem. After keeping the stolen Poll Book in concealment, and being otherwise instrumental in showing his zeal against the Mormons, he now turns round, and asks their pardon, indicates that he did not mean to hurt them, and invites them to come into the locofoco fold again! Well, that's cool, isn't it? In vain is the net set in sight of any bird. As a neighbor, we like Judge Mason right well; but in view of such a political espistle as this to the Mormons, we cannot help exclaiming, in the language of another, "Truly Toadyism has riz."

Correspondence of the Burlington Hawk-Eye.

                     Kanesville, Pottawattamie Co., Iowa,
                     March 20th, 1850.

The Mormon Vote -- Judge Mason --
"Honor to whom honor is due."

J. G. Edwards, Esq., -- Sir: You are aware that Judge Mason, of your City, is one of the counsel appointed by Thompson to impeach the votes cast in this county at the August election of 1849. It is sought to impeach these votes by showing that the Mormon population are not entitled to vote any where.

The object of this communication is to do justice to Judge Mason... The Judge has written to a prominent citizen of this county a letter, (brought I believe by Col. Hall, another of Thompson's counsel.) which does so much justice to the Mormon population, as well as shows his own equity of disposition, that it is tho't advisable that the same should be published, and I therefore send you a copy for publication.
                     Respectfully, Yours, &c.

The following is the letter referred to:

                                          Keokuk, Feb. 26th, 1850.
Dear Sir: -- The accompanying letter was written by Mr. Babbitt upon the supposition that I should go to Kanesville. Being prevented from making this journey by other engagements, I forward the letter of Mr. Babbitt, in the hope that it will be of some service to the gentlemen who make the journey. It is not desirable to do any thing more than prove the full truth. If this will give Mr. Miller his seat, I am perfectly willing he should have it. But, if as has been strongly intimated there were a sufficient number of illegal votes cast at Kanesville... to change the majorities and give the seat to Thompson, he ought to keep it. I hope you will follow Mr. Babbitt's recommendation and send delegates to the nominative conventions next spring....

I became satisfied when I was in Kanesville last fall, that many erroneous notions had been imbibed by our friends in this section in regard to the Mormon population on our western frontier. -- These have given rise to misunderstandings to which it is unnecessary now to allude. I hope they will not be known hereafter. I do not wish to hold out the idea that the democratic party will feel disposed to do any thing more than measure out strict justice to your people. But you are entitled to justice, and I hope you will receive it. I desire to see the people of the western frontier placed upon the same footing with all other citizens, and so far as I have any influence it shall be exerted to that end.
                   Yours,                    Charles Mason.

Notes: (forthcoming).


By O. Hyde.                       Kanesville, April 17, 1850.                     Vol. II. No. 6.

William  Smith.

This notorious profligate has published the following article over his own signature. He is surrounded by about a dozen men who are ready to manufacture evidence at his bidding to suit any emergency to which he may be driven. The increasing prosperity of our Church stings him so keenly that he finds it necessary to resort to Evidence of home manufactory to check our progress. It is all right. By the time he publishes a little more against the Saints on the strength of manufactured evidence, -- particularly things like the following, which every western man knows to be false, he will open the eyes of every person, and show himself in his true light; a poor degraded, miserable, debauched man. "The wrath of man shall praise the Lord, and the remainder of wrath He will restrain." The Saints shall see and acknowledge that his exertions against Deseret, shall turn to their good, and to his condemnation. Ye wise men at Washington City, mark what we have said; and when it comes to pass, come out to Deseret and see us if you can. We will not butcher you, if you will come, but give you our best "dodger," and "smoke the pipe with you." If this should not be convenient for you, remain in Washington City when our words come to pass if you can, We are accused of burning the Temple at Nauvoo by this notorious Bill Smith, the accuser of the brethren, when we were many hundred miles from it at the time. But it is all right. We give place to his article.

I am in possession of evidence that bands of these Salt Lake Mormons, armed, dressed and painted -- having the appearance of Indians -- are stationed on the way to California and Oregon, for the purpose of robbing the emigrants. Many murders and robberies have already been committed by these demons in human shape, which have been published to the world and attributed to the Indians.

The people at the Salt Lake govern their church by a secret lodge of 50 men. It is in this lodge that Brigham Young is crowned as a king, and is there seated upon a throne prepared for him.
                                          WILLIAM SMITH.

This said William Smith is in possession of no such evidence as he claims. We hold ourself in law and in equity bound to pay him five hundred dollars, on his producing good and substantial evidence that the Salt Lake Mormons are robbing, plundering and murdering emigrants in the garb of Indians; and we will do the same also, if he can prove that the Mormons at Salt Lake are governed by a secret lodge of fifty men; or if he can prove that Brigham Young is crowned king at all. The testimony of his crime steeped clan will not be admitted in this case at all; though we challenge him to publish that evidence, let it come from what quarter it may, that the Mormons are robbing emigrants. Bill Smith has followed lying so long, that if a truth should happen to get into his mouth, through mistake, he would let it drop as "quick as a dog would a hot potatoe." It was not the phosphorus that induced him to leave Strang's Church. Phosphorus is just as good [a] Holy Ghost as he wants if. in the light of that, he can only gratify his sordid ambition to gain money and power without the use of honorable means. He will not find everything to his liking, even in Texas, for any great length of time. Something will be out of joint with him there very soon if he goes at all.

Note: Apostle Orson Hyde was no doubt correct in his denial of the story that Mormons were dressing up as Indians and systematically plundering the emigrant wagon trains between Council Bluffs and Fort Bridger. Conflicts between the emigrants and the Mormons were few and far between -- at least until they reached the fringes of Brigham Young's domains. On the other hand, the modern reader can only wonder if Hyde's associates and assigns ever paid out the $500 he had promised to William Smith, after the Utah Mormon leaders finally admitted to the fact that a few of their overly zealous members did participate in such secret and horrific activities, during the latter part of 1857. As for the Council of Fifty, Hyde was correct in his insinuation that Brigham Young did not make exclusive use of that secret Mormon institution in his management of Church affairs in Deseret and abroad. Rather, President Young co-opted the means and motives of that secret quorum and superseded its mission with his own. personally directed ecclesiastical and geopolitical projects.


By O. Hyde.                       Kanesville, June 26, 1850.                     Vol. II. No. 11.

Bill  Smith.

This character, notorious for nothing but lying deception, laziness, intemperance and debauchery, has at length come to the end of his chain. Sheen, his faithful ally and co-worker, has turned against him. Because he has had a plain manifestation of his villainy and corruption too near his own home. We cannot have much sympathy or charity for Mr. Sheen, for he just as well knew Smith's villainy and corruption before as he does now. And when his lying slanders were poured out against the Church with mitigation, Mr. Sheen could then embrace him and it was "Br. William, Br. William, President Smith, &c., &c." But since this, Br. William has invaded his domestic circle, and the fangs of the minister pierced the fountain of his most sensitive feelings, he cries against Br. William! Ah! Ah, friend Sheen, remember "poor tray." You recognized this scoundrel as your brother, when he was lying against the church and slandering it; and we recognize him now as your brother and you as his. And you may thank yourself for the misery you endure.

The following prediction, concerning Bill Smith was published in this paper of February 6th, last. "But we here predict that his influence will be of short duration, and his race will soon be run. He will come out and deny his present position, and those who may now be his friends, will become his enemies; and such as support him the strongest now, will turn to be the most potent against him. When these things come to pass, then know that he has most wickedly and maliciously lied against those who would rather be his friends than his enemies, if his conduct were such as to merit our friendship."

The following from the Cincinnati "Daily Non-pariel," shows whether Bill's nearest friends have turned against him and published his private and confidential letters.

Wm. Smith -- The Imposter.

Eds. Nonpareil: The subjoined letter will show that the statements which the imposter, Wm. Smith, is now circulating concerning me are false, and will in some degree explain the cause of my renunciation of him and his Church. The iniquity spoken of in the letter is a vindication of adultery and fornication by Wm. Smith. He claims that he has authority from God to raise up posterity from other men's wives, and says it will exalt them and their husbands in the eternal world. His repentance is base hypocrisy, which he proves by his late conduct.
                                            ISAAC SHEEN.
Covington, May 20, 1850.


                                                  Shelburn, Lee Co., Ill., April 29, 1850.

Brother Sheen: -- Do not let the devil triumph over us now; we have done a good work, and a very small matter would destroy it all. Br. Sheen, I claim protection at your hand; If I have done wrong in any respect I am willing to make restitution to the last farthing. I claim a right of trial according to the law of God face to face; if I have committed an offence show me my error in a christian spirit -- not the spirit of a savage. I can do no more than offer my body and life as a sacrifice. I shall come to see you -- I must have a talk with you. As to the letter you refer to, like many others, it was written with a view of your correcting what was wrong in doctrine. I am not a good scholar, nor am I a good writer. You was appointed my counselor not to destroy me, but to save me by counsel, and counsel is what I ask of you; and then if I commit an error in judgment I will retrace my steps. Now, Brother Sheen, I ask you in the name of God to hold until I can see you. I will, upon my sacred honor, make all things right.

I was wrong, and confess my error; will you forgive me? I ask it in the name of Jesus Christ. I have always esteemed you as an honest man, and have therefore entrusted you with my affairs and with my letters. I am more inclined than ever to favor your opinion about many things, yet it seems that I must learn by experience, and by the things that I suffer. I wish to do right, when I am made sensible of what is right. *  *  *  Now, Br. Sheen, I ask you again, give me a chance for repentance. *  *  *  Do not understand that I justify myself; no, not in the least. *  *  *  Brother Sheen, I want to see you now more than ever. I am determined by the grace of God to set my face against all sin, and do the full works of the law, God being my helper. I will do as I have said in this respect, if it takes my life. Every evil shall go by the board. I am resolved, so give me a chance, and I will do all that is in my power to reconcile your feelings. My letters, Brother Sheen, do not open them, but keep them safe for me. I do not wish that my wife should have the perusal of all my letters, She is easy excited; keep then those things sacred until I come. I hope that none of our difficulty will be named to her; that all may remain in quiet. As to the letter on marriage, I wrote it when I was quite sick, and I wish you to correct the errors, if any, and do it for my good and not for my injury. I can do no more than to offer my life as a sacrifice, which I am willing to do, and claim your protection.
                                          WILLIAM SMITH.

In the Guardian of April 17th last, the following concerning Bill Smith was published. "The Saints shall see and acknowledge that his exertions against Deseret, shall turn to their good, and to his condemnation. Ye wise men at Washington City, mark what we have said; and when it comes to pass, come out to Deseret and see us if you can. We will not butcher you, if you will come, but give you our best dodger, and smoke the pipe with you. If this should not be convenient for you, remain in Washington City when our words come to pass if you can."

The following from the Washington Union of May 17th will show if Bill's doings will not recoil upon his own head and condemn him; and whether his exertions against Deseret are not likely to turn in favor of the Salt Lake Mormons. It is our testimony before Heaven and earth that the sayings of the notorious villain against the Salt Lake Mormons, are the product of a malicious and revengeful heart. The spirit of falsehood alone has prompted him to do as he has done.

The Mormons.

To the Editors of the Union:
  I shall consider myself under particular obligations to you, if you will have the goodness to give a conspicuous place in the Union to the note, of the Hon. Richard H. Stanton, of the House of Representatives, and of the Hon. Joseph R. Underwood, of the United States Senate, and to the accompanying extracts of a letter from Mr. Isaac Sheen, of Kentucky.     Respectfully yours,
                                           JOHN M. BERNHISEL.
Washington, May 16, 1850.

                            House of Representatives, May 14, 1850.
Sir: It is proper I should submit to you the enclosed letter from Mr. Isaac Sheen, one of the signers of a petition which I presented to the House at an early part of the present session, remonstrating against the admission of Deseret into the Union, and charging the Mormon population of that Territory with immorality, treason and other crimes. Mr. Sheen, I presume, desires by this recantation to remove all prejudices against the interests of the people of Deseret which may have been produced by that memorial; and I know of no more effectual means of accomplishing his wishes than by publishing so much of his letter as may be necessary to show his withdrawal of the charges and his reasons for doing so.     With much respect,
                            your obedient servant,
                                  R. H. STANTON.
Dr. J. M. Bernhisel.

                                    May 14, 1850.
Sir: Having seen a letter from the Hon. R. H. Stanton to yourself, in which you propose to publish, containing an extract of a letter written by Isaac Sheen, I deem it [best] to the Mormons in Great Salt Lake Valley to [state] that I have received a letter from Mr. Sheen of the same purport with that addressed by him to Mr. Stanton. You are authorized to publish this statement, should you think proper to do so.     Yours respectfully,
                            Your obedient servant,
                                  J. R. UNDERWOOD.
Dr. J. M. Bernhisel.

                              Covington, Kentucky, May 4, 1850.
Dear Sir: About 5 months since a memorial was sent to your address signed by William Smith and several others, to which my name was attached, remonstrating against a State organization for the people of Deseret. Now, sir, permit me to say that although I cannot fellowship the religious doctrines of the people resident there, known as Mormons, yet I have become satisfied that there are many false statements in that memorial, and also in the memorial of Wm. Smith and others from Illinois. It was my firm belief at the time that the representations of William Smith, on which those false statements were based, could be relied on; but I have ascertained that I have been greatly deceived in regard to his veracity. His complaints against the Deseret Mormons are unworthy of any attention. I cannot think of troubling you with a detail of all the disclosures which have been made concerning the hypocrisy, licentiousness, treachery, deceit, slanders, and lies of William Smith. *  *  *  I find that his accusations against the Deseret Mormons are the ebulitions of a malicious heart, and have been made by him to divert attention from his own outrageous villainy and licentiousness. I have been credibly informed that to the memorial which William Smith sent from Illinois he attached the names of persons who never authorized him to do so.     I have the honor of being
                            Your obedient servant,
                                  ISAAC SHEEN.
Hon. R. H. Stanton, Washington, D. C.

Note 1: Apostle Orson Hyde must have been overjoyed to receive the news that William Smith and Isaac Sheen had parted ways, after the disastrous Smithite church conference which was held at Covington during the first week of April, 1850. It is unclear whether Smith ever made it to Covington to participate in the conference, and the precise details of what transpired between those two men at that time have never been published, but Orson Hyde insinuated that William had inserted his debauched "corruption" into Elder Sheen's "domestic circle" in a seduction or molestation "too near his own home" for Sheen's comfort. In less Victorian language, President William Smith was being charged with a sexual indelicacy, perpetrated upon a member of the Sheen household in Covington -- probably with Drucilla Babbit Sheen, the Elder's wife. The telling statement from Isaac Sheen, is that William "claims that he has authority from God to raise up posterity from other men's wives, and says it will exalt them and their husbands in the eternal world." This sounds very much like the words Sheen had published in the Cincinnati Daily Commercial on May 22, 1850, that William Smith was a "hypocritical libertine," who, though he "has professed the greatest hostility to the plurality wife doctrine... on the 18th [of April]... told me that he had a right to raise up posterity from other men's wives. He said it would be an honor... and that they would thereby be exalted to a high degree of glory in eternity.... He offered me his wife on the same terms that he claimed a partnership in other men's wives." Sheen is not explicit in his letter, as to whether William Smith's legal wife, Roxie Ann Grant Smith, was ever present in Covington, to participate in such a holy wife-swapping program -- probably she was not. The most straightforward interpretation of Sheen's remarks is that he caught William Smith in the initial stages of a seduction (or learned of an earlier, consummated seduction) with Mrs. Drucilla Babbit Sheen, and that Smith offered Sheen similar intimate access to the person of Mrs. Roxie Ann Grant Smith, as a sort of celestial compensation. Three years later, William Smith would accuse Roxie of having been a Nauvoo initiate into "'seven degrees' in spiritual wifery," implying that the lady was a sort of John C. Bennet-style "sacred Cyprian." Prior to marrying Roxie, William Smith divorced a previous Mormon wife, in Illinois, on the complaint that she functioned as a "common prostitute."

Note 2: Apostle Hyde had sense enough, not to speculate in print, just how William Smith came to hold such unorthodox "religious" views on relations between the sexes. Given the fact that William's elder brother had once carried on an intimate, Priesthood-sanctioned relationship with Hyde's own wife, perhaps the LDS Apostle decided that the less said of such "sacred things" in public, the better. Roxie Ann Grant Smith's LDS brother was less reticent to relate such bygone adulterous amours in public; see his remarks of Feb. 19, 1854: If Joseph had a right to dictate me in relation to salvation, in relation to a hereafter, he had a right to dictate me in relation to all my earthly affairs... What would a man of God say, who felt aright, when Joseph... came and said, 'I want your wife?' 'O yes,' he would say, 'here she is; there are plenty more.' ... Did the Prophet Joseph want every man's wife he asked for? He did not, but in that thing was the grand thread of the Priesthood developed."

Note 3: It is difficult to believe that Elder Isaac Sheen suddenly felt morally compelled to renounce his previous accusations against the Utah Mormons, just because he had renounced William Smith and his church. True enough, Sheen could no longer hope to hold the moral high ground, in publicized denunciations of Brighamite spiritual wifery, secret combinations, and treasonable intentions -- but he might have at least stood his previous position in regard to Brigham's usurpation of power and to Mormon tampering with the mails in and around Council Bluffs. Sheen reportedly received a $1000 payment (in gold?) from his Utah Mormon brother-in-law, Elder Almon W. Babbit, just prior to his May, 1850 letter writing project. The modern reader might be forgiven for wondering aloud whether this Pillar of the Reorganization might not have lined his own pockets at the Smith family's expense, ten years before he nominated Joseph Smith III to be the first RLDS President, at the Amboy Conference.


Vol. XI.                               Burlington, Iowa, September 5, 1850.                             No. ?


We are induced to refer to that thieving affair again, in consequence of certain friends of William Thompson having circulated the report that before Mr. Niller went on to Washington he was informed by Mr. Hall where the poll books were, and could have the possession of them if he desired them. -- This new coined lie is as bad as the original thieving and has no foundation in the printed testimony to rest upon....

Thompson has become so bold in has rascality, and his successful concealment thus far of the poll books, that he actually denied their existence before the Committee of Elections in the winter of 1849.... but on the 19th day of February last, Judge Mason, another of the attorneys of the sitting member in attempting to serve at his own office a notice on the contestant to take testimony in the case, accidently -- as is supposed -- served on him the original poll book of the Kanesville precinct!! [several paragraphs of similar material follow]

Locofoco Effrontery.

The Keokuk Dispatch intimates that it is out of place for papers in other districts to advocate the election of Miller. Now this is cool. Who began this interference between the two districts? Who stole the poll book? Who went on a pilgrimage from Burlington, District No. 1, and dictated to the Clerk what to do?... What shall we say about the famous letter of Judge Mason, of the 2nd District, to the Mormons in the 1st District? Or of the barefaced but locofoco applauded, interference of the famous Mormon would-be delegate Babbitt from Utah, in the late election of Council Bluff? ...

Our hope is that the "Stolen Poll Book District" may be redeemed from the odium that now rests upon it, by the election of D. F. Miller to Congress on Tuesday the 24th instant.

Notes: (forthcoming).


Vol. XI.                               Burlington, Iowa, September 12, 1850.                             No. ?


Under the above caption, the Gazette of yesterday comes forth with a labored article, in hopes to prevent the citizens of Pottawotamie county from exercising the privelege of electors. This we consider the height of impudence, and the last resort of political knavery...

After a great flourish in defence of the right of A. W. Babbitt, Esq., to come from parts beyond the limits of the State, and having no interest in common with the people of this commonwealth, except perhaps, those common to the loco foco party; "the cohesive attraction of public plunder," and to interfere in the elections of this State; the editor goes on to say that that paper has always refrained from calling the Mormon population on our western border hard names. It has always advised them (they being mostly whigs) "not to interfere in State or Congressional elections. This he tells them is the only "safe" course for them to pursue.

The editor labors hard to show the people of Kanesville that Thompson is on their side in every thing, he had done many wonderful works, "proving to them in the most substantial manner that he was willing to aid them all in his power."

The article then winds up to reiterating its condition to the Mormons not to attempt to exercise the elective franchise at the coming election.... Following the Gazette's remarks is a circular to the citizens of Pottawotamie county, from A. W. Babbitt, endeavoring to disprove certain charges made against him in the Frontier Guardian, by Mr. Miller, the whig candidate for Congress in that district. It appears from the circulart before us, that Mr. Babbitt, has been charged with using certain language, disrespectful to the citizens of Pottawotamie county, and that it has been proven against him, yet he brings in rebutting testimony, and triumphantly refutes the whole charge. But how? -- In the same way in which a man proved himself clear of the charge of stealing a spade:

A man was brought before Justice _____ on a charge of stealing a spade, two credible witnesses testified that they saw him steal the spade. Upon which the Justice asked the prisoner what he had to offer in his defence. To which the prisoner answered: "I have here twelve witnesses, ready to swear that they never saw me steal it." The Justice said it was too clear a case to admit of doubt, twelve against two, and dismissed the case.

Notes: (forthcoming).


Vol. XI.                               Burlington, Iowa, September 19, 1850.                             No. ?


The "Warsaw Commercial Journal" is urging the priorpety of organizing a company, under a charter granted by the Illinous Legislature sveral years ago, for the construction of a Railroad from Warsaw, by way of Nauvoo, to Rockford, Illinois.

Notes: (forthcoming).


By O. Hyde.                       Kanesville, Dec. 11, 1850.                     Vol. II. No. 23.

[first paragraph illegible] ... He attempted to do just what Miller declares that Babbitt said he would do. He tried to break Hyde down, and to frighten the boys in the office in various ways to prevent them from publishing...

If Miller, as a opposite lawyer, had to abuse Paine because he was a Mormon; most likely it was to counteract an influence that deserted friends had raised against him by calling him a Mormon: Or if this is untrue, Mr. Babbitt cannot be altogether a stranger to the fact that lawyers sometimes blow hot and cold according to the "size of the pile," and the interests of the client.

We now prophesy politically, not religiously, (for we will not desecrate religion so much as to lug it in here) that Mr. Babbitt will not again be elected representative of the people of Utah Territory, particularly after offering such a gross insult to the people as to recommend them to give their votes to the very man who is so intimately connected with that stolen Poll-book affair. Then it will be seen whether certain Senators in Congress will reject every measure of the people of Utah, if it does not come with the endorsement of A. W, Babbitt, Esq.., according to what his vanity has led him to intimate. How can he be a representative from Utah when he resides in Illinois, and never resided in Utah? He needs still to learn the Mormon Creed; "mind your own business!" and not to seek to divide the people of another's charge upon any subject, neither attempt, by threats or flattery to control the individual property of another in his absence; the Press. But Mr. Babbitt was angry because the boys would not hold still and allow him to break down Hyde and destroy his influence without opposition, according to "Dan Miller's" letter.

Notes: (forthcoming)


By O. Hyde.                       Kanesville, Feb. 7, 1851.                     Vol. III. No. 1.

We are a little surprised to see this old, dead and buried fable resurrected again, and going the rounds of the papers. Well it reminds us of the return of the Sow that was washed to her wollowing in the mire again. The world, or at least the enemies of Mormonism or truth, are certainly hard up for a "weapon" before they would use such a flimsey self-evident falsehood as D. P. Hulbart's misconception of truth, to screen their sacerdotal position, even if Judge Campbell should say that the Rev. Solomon Spaulding was the author of the Book of Mormon, and we think that they must have considered well the words of the "Preacher" viz: that there is nothing new under the Sun. We consider Spulding's edition too old to be worth revising, and too rediculous to receive attention; but read the following from the New England Puritan, and the answer of Justitia" in the New York Tribune.

Author of the Mormon Bible.

The New England Puritan states that [at] a public meeting lately held in Cherry Valley Judge Campbell said:

"Rev. Solomon Spaulding, one of the earliest preceptors of the Academy of Cherry Valley, was the actual composer of most of what is known as the Mormon Bible. He wrote it during a period of delicate health to beguile some of his weary hours, and also with a design to offer it for publication as a romance. Dr. Robert Campbell, late of Cherry Valley, and foster father of the first Mrs. Grant, of the Nestorian mission, calling some years since upon Mr. Spaulding, had the manuscript of this notable book to be shown to him, and was also informed by Mr. Spaulding that he had hopes of reaping some pecuniary advantage from it for himself and family. Mr. Spaulding has been dead for some years, though it is believed that his wife is still living in the United States. How it passed from the possession of his family into the hands of Joe Smith it is probable that Mrs. Spaulding could tell."

Authorship of the Book of Mormon.

SCHENECTADY, Monday, Nov. 25, 1850.

In your paper of the 19th inst., my attention was drawn to an article headed "Author of the Mormon Bible," wherein it is stated a certain Judge Campbell asserted at a recent public meeting, at Cherry Valley, that the Rev. Solomon Spaulding was the actual composer of most of what is known as the Mormon Bible, and that he (Mr. S.) wrote it intending to publish it as a romance. A Dr. Robert Campbell is stated to have seen this celebrated manuscript. Mr. Spaulding has been dead many years, but how it got into the hands of Joe Smith the writer of said article knoweth not, but it is probable Mrs. S. can tell. Now, Mr. Editor, I am very averse to public writing or speaking, but being a humble member of that much calumniated and grossly persecuted community, I cannot suffer the above erroneous statement to pass current in spite of its endorsement by Revs. Drs. Judges, and high sounding titles, without endeavoring to throw a little more light upon the subject than the author of the assertion is capable of doing.

In the first place I would say that the term Mormon Bible, in the sense used, is inappropriate, and proceeds from the ignorance or prejudice of the speaker or writer. The Bible of the Mormons is that in common use, containing the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, in which they fully and sincerely believe, as any person who has had any conversation with them or at all examined their doctrines, must be quite convinced of; that they are more consistent in the belief thereof might be also asserted. But herein they differ from the professors, they do not regard them as all the revelation of God to man, or that revelation is necessarily confined to bye-gone days.

As regards the Book of Mormon, they look upon it as a written revelation to another portion of the House of Israel on this continent, and equally worthy of our belief as the Bible with which it fully coincides in the expression of doctrinal truth. So much for that part of the subject which may dispel in some measure a very popular error.

As regards the main subject in hand, the Authorship of the Book of Mormon, there are various conflicting statements, and all backed by very reverend and respectable authority, and each asserted with equal force. First and foremost, it is attributed to the Rev. Solomon Spaulding, from whose possession as MSS. was obtained by some unknown process, and subsequently converted into the aforesaid Book. Again another report or affidavit, asserts that Joseph Smith was the author, and that he translated the plates, when they were in the woods, and he in the house, same as when he looked for the money diggers with a stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, and Oliver Cowdery acted as Secretary or Scribe. Here is an evident contradiction, but the latter statement is so extensively absurd as to deserve no attention. The former is more plausible. But facts and dates are stubborn things, and these will completely demolish the whole affair. The story was started by an infamous character named D. P. Hulburt, who was cut off from the Church for immoral conduct, and whose disappointed ambition prompted him to a wrongful retaliation. He heard of this romance entitled "The Manuscript Found," and thinking it would suit his malicious purpose, obtained it from Mrs. Davison (widow of Mr. Spaulding) to get it out of the way, under pretence of having it published, and so destroy the Book of Mormon, promising to pay her half the proceeds arising from the sale thereof. He then writes her that the Manuscript does not read as he expected, and he should not print it. Hulburt finding little or no affinity between the writings to cover his retreat, endeavors to make out that Sidney Rigdon, during a temporary stay in Pittsburgh, where Mrs. S. formerly lived, obtained the Manuscript, but there the dates disagree. Mr. R. did not live in Pittsburgh until 1822, and resided there until 1826. Mr. Spaulding wrote his romance in 1812, in New Salem, Ohio; removed to Pittsburgh, according to Hulburt's statement, the same year, and thence to Amity in 1814.

Mrs. Davieson says, in the "Origin of Mormonism," published by La Roy Sunderland, "At length the MSS. was returned to its author and we removed to Amity. The MSS. then fell into my hands and was carefully preserved." -- so that the only time Mr. R. could possibly have obtained it was between the years 1812 and 1814, for since that time it has been carefully kept by Mrs. D. until delivered to Hulburt. Mr. Rigdon was then a mere lad, far distant and engaged at home in agricultural pursuits, and moreover the Book of Mormon was not published until after an interval of eighteen or tweny years. Thus we see the publishers of the Book of Mormon had not the benefit of the Reverend novel writer's production, and it remains with Mrs. Davieson or Mr. Hulburt to bring it to light. They have or should have it between them -- bring it forth, publish it to the world as the Book of Mormon is published, and let us see the indetity of the two publications, or let the advocates of the imposture forever hold their peace, and invent a story that is more consistent and plausible.

Now, Mr. Editor, the imposition is transparent. The story is long since exploded, and will not bear investigation, and as my only object and aim is to expose a popular error, operating adversely to our community, against whom calumny and falsehood have been too generally disseminated by the pulpit and press, which have eventuated in hostile acts of bloodshed, arson and expatriation, I trust your natural feeling of justice and benevolence will permit the insertion of this statement in reference to the former published article.   Very truly, Yours,

Note: The Robert Campbell piece was reprinted from the New England Puritan into the Nov. 19, 1850 issue of the New York Daily Tribune and was responded to by "Justitia" in that same New York paper on Dec. 6, 1850


By O. Hyde.                       Kanesville, March 7, 1851.                     Vol. III. No. 3.

From the Millennial Star.

Remarks on the Book of Mormon.


(from Sept. 15, '50 issue of The Millennial Star)

Notes (forthcoming)


By O. Hyde.                           Kanesville, May 16, 1851.                         Vol. III. No. ?


Indian Depredations Again. -- Emigrants who encamp along and near the river, we are told, make presents to the Indians -- feed them, &c., thus presenting to them the very inducements they most desire, to continue their rambling on this side. A few days ago, they killed a number of cattle, and cut out what beef they wanted and passed on. We know not whether they were emigrants' or citizens' cattle. If men will not hickory them out of the country when they see them, we hope they will never complain to us if they kill all their cattle -- rob and plunder their houses and wagons. Emigrants should not feed them, neither suffer them to come about their camps, on either side of the river. Their own safety depends upon it as well as the safety of the property of the citizens on this side. Some of them got a hickorying in town a short time since, and if they will use proper caution at all ferries and not allow them to cross, and the citizens generally do their duty according to the resolutions of a Public Meeting for their protection, we shall not long be troubled with their depredations.

The Government Agents have all advised us to whip them and send them back when they come on this side; and when this advice is put in force, some persons are so very feeling and sympathetic for them that they feel almost like fighting in their behalf. If they would sympathize a little more with some poor widows whose last cow has been slaughtered by them, and several poor men whose entire teams have been butchered by the red skins, they would manifest some sensible sympathy to the cause of justice, mercy and truth. Bad as it may seem, therefore, our only safety is to flog them away when they come, until they will learn not to shoot down cattle on the prairie. The Government Agents have repeatedly told us to do it, and our experience proves it to be necessary.

Those who were flogged and run out of this place a short time ago, were run from their camp on the same day a little while before, and forced into Mosquito Creek. Several beef hides lay about their camp, skeletons of animals, &c. These same Indians are exhibiting recommends, purporting to be signed by several of our citizens, among whom was the name of Jos. Kelley, stating that they were good Indians, &c. We pronounce these recommends all a base forgery, so far as our citizens are concerned. The Mormon community have suffered too much by them to give them any letters of recommendation.

Emigrants are free in this region, and will not be molested in any way we trust, yet we do not consider them free to interfere in our mode of discipline with the Indians which was recommended by the Government Agents, and established by the unanimous vote of a public meeting held in this town by the citizens of this Frontier county. If emigrants are not disposed to profit by the experience of those who have lived among them, and near them for years, they may adopt their own modes of treatment when they get among them; but do not interfere with our mode here. When emigrants have had the same experience that we have, and suffered the same that we have suffered, they will feel about as we do. But we are sorry to see men who profess love for this community, espouse, so warmly, the Indians' cause and secrete them! All they gain by their traffic with them in moccasins, &c., will be like the canker and mildew upon their future prosperity, and not save them from a dishonorable close of their business. If men have so much disinterested benevolence for the Indians, just send them over a few beef cattle, a few sacks of flour, meal, &c. But do not induce them to come over to this side by giving them protection.

Note 1: It is indeed remarkable that this "Apostle of Jesus Christ," the highest ranking Mormon authority east of Great Salt Lake City, would make such an abusive verbal assault upon the very "red skins" who provided the fugitive Mormon "camp of Israel" with the location and natural resources with which to sustain themselves at their "Winter Quarters," only a few short seasons before. The Indians that the Editor, Apostle Orson Hyde, refers to were hunter-gatherers, used to ranging over large tracts of land in search of wild game and other food. Their right to cross the river in search of such sustenance had been granted by treaty. Laws were then in force to bring them to justice, if any of their number killed or appropriated the Iowa Mormons' livestock -- a foreseeable problem, in the case of hungry native people whose access to wild game had been drastically lessened with the passage of ever increasing numbers of armed, white emigrants through their tribal lands in Nebraska.

Note 2: It appears that Apostle Hyde had forgotten his church's earlier zeal to "restore" the rights and "inheritance in Zion," of the "Lamanite remnant of Jacob," and was suggesting to the Kanesville Mormons, that when these famished "red skins" came seeking "a loaf," to instead give them "a stone," a severe beating, and a one-way trip back into Nebraska Territory. It is doubtful, given his apostolic "counsel," that very many of the Kanesville Mormons elected to demonstrate individual "disinterested benevolence for the Indians," by freighting over to them any substantial provisions -- either as acts of charity, or in trade for the leather footwear and other hand-made items the local Indians were wont to supply as trade goods. Hyde's portrayal of the U. S. Government Indian Agents' purported advice, in this particular matter, does not appear to conform well with historical documentation. See General T. J. Sutherland's 1851 letter to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, in regard to Orson Hyde and his illegitimate, abusive policies and churchly counsel.


Vol. XIII.                               Burlington, Iowa, June 12, 1851.                             No. 4.


STRANG, the Mormon leader of Beaver Island, was recently brought to Detroit on a charge of counterfeiting and trespassing on the public lands.

Notes: (forthcoming).


By O. Hyde.                       Kanesville, June 13, 1851.                     Vol. III. No. 9.


As this is probably the last article that we may write previous to our departure for the City of Great Salt Lake, the spirit by which we are actuated, leads us to give the Saints a little caution.

On Friday night, May 30th, we dreamed a singular dream. A manuscript book was presented to us, about the size of common letter paper. It contained about three quires. It was legibly written, and purported to be a translation from that portion of the sealed plates found by Joseph Smith, which he was forbidden to disturb. We read it, page by page, in the vision of the night. It contained nothing very exceprionable; Nay; much of it was excellent teaching. but it was also shown us that it was a cunning trick of Satan's Ministers to cause the Saints to let go the "Iron Rod," or true Priesthood of the Holy One. We spoke of it to several of our friends, and told them that we felt confident such a depection would soon be attempted from some quarter; and on Tuesday, June 3d, we delivered quite a lecture in our "Sanctum" in relation to it, and spoke warmly, and with some emphasis. We told the listeners that if such a thing did not soon make its appearance, they might say that no confidence could with safety, be placed in our impressions. At about nine o'clock P. M.. of the same day, our Mail matter was brought into the Office, when Lo! and Behold; a proclamation from Gladden Bishop, of Kirtland, Ohio, was laid upon our table, announcing that he had obtained the said records, and many more also: His proclamation breathes the same spirit that we noticed in the Manuscript Book that we saw and read in our sleep. It contains many good things, -- sympathizes with the Saints -- takes their part, &c. But says; you must follow me, (Gladden.) Now before we can do all that he required us as an Editor, &c., we must first see the fruits of his alliance with Queen Victoria, according to his previous declarations.

The Saints should watch and pray that thry may not become the subjects of deception and imposture; and those who retain the spirit of the Lord, we are confident, never will. Pray also, that speedy Judgment from Heaven may come on all who give false revelations to deceive and beguile. Attend to your own business and duties -- to your prayers and blessings in their season -- to your labors temporal and spiritual while it is called to-day -- to your fastings before you are compelled -- to your alms while you have something to bestow; and help no man to make a calf for you to worship while your Moses is gone to the mountains to see his Moses.

Friend Gladden has had too many false revelations in by-gone times to be successful in his claims to greatness now. The Saints know him too well and his sicjening and foolish pretensions, to listen for a moment, to his vanity, wickedness, and folly. Gladden will not prosper. His revelations will not take with the Saints, neither will the consequences and curses be answered upon the head of any, but his own. Look at him, all who will; and behold an example! The Lord will make him a sign and a warning to all who may claim to have sacred things, and have them not, but do lie. When a man's abominations, falsehoods, deceptions and intrigues, stamp him with infamy, and render him a just outcast from the pale of all good society; and he attempts to re-instate himself by claiming great power and authority, by sympathizing with the Saints in their troubles, by declaring that he possesses many sacred and valuable things, will find himself sadly mistakeb, and his words will recoil upon his own head. One strong evidence of the truth of Mormonism is, the great exertions that are made by men and devils, through every stratagem. craft. device and oppression to overthrow it. But it moves on, and will continue to do so until all its enemies are confounded and put to shame....

From the Plains.

Our latest accounts from the Elk Horn River are rather more favorable than those contained in our last. Hon. A. W. Babbitt and company had left the place where they were surrounded by water on the Island, but met with some loss. Mr. Babbitt had the greater part of his paper damaged, by water getting into his wagon beds. Our readers will recollect that this is the paper he brought to Kanesville, to start in opposition to us, to vindicate his character, which he considered was in no small degree tarnished.

The last accounts received from Mr. B. and company say, that they were at, or near the Loupe Fork of the Platte, prosecuting their journey as well as they could. Upon the authority of an Orefon emigrant, who returned to this place a few days since, we here say; that three emigrants were downed at, or near the Elk Horn, while attempting to cross some sloughs, also one was struck dead by lighyning, but the names of those drowned, and the latter, we have not yet learned

The Church emigration from this place this season, has got along remarkably well, circumstances considered. We have not heard of any accidents or losses, sustained by any of them; upon the whole, we have every reason to believe that the adverse circumstances they have been placed in at first, will only render them more submissive, and more patient the rest of the journey.

Notes (forthcoming)


Vol. XIII.                               Burlington, Iowa, July 24, 1851.                             No. 10.


From Detroit we learn that the jury in the case of the United States vs. James J. Strang and others, for obstructing the United States mail, came into court with a verdict of "not guilty" as to all the prisoners. Under the charge of Judge Wilkins no other verdict could have been rendered. The prisoners, or some of them, still remain under indictment for depredations upon Government lands and for counterfeiting coin of the U. States upon which indictments they will be tried at the fall term, and in the mean time they will be released on bail.

Notes: (forthcoming).


Vol. I.                               Kanesville, Iowa, April 28, 1852.                             No. 1.


For the Bugle.    
Kanesville, April 2, 1852    
Mr. Editor: Observing, in a late Savannah Sentinel, a correspondence between myself and the Rev. William Simpson of this town, and perceiving that my reply to his last letter has not appeared, I crave, this once, your indulgence, in allowing my reply to his last letter to appear in the "Bugle," as it is presumable that Mr. S. may not find it convenient to furnish for publication that document.

I should have no anxiety whatever to have this letter published, were it not for the fact that Mr. Simpson took the liberty and responsibility of publishing my other letters, without my knowledge, request or consent. It would seem that he felt our correspondence to be a matter of more importance than "childrens play" when he sent it for publication.

It is my candid opinion that Mr. Simpson never wrote the "Frog Sermon," neither any letter addressed to me over his own signature. I think I am prepared to establish this fact in the eyes of the :literati" by publishing "verbatim st literatim," a letter of his in my possession addressed to another person. But I think that he has suffered himself to become a tool or catspaw in the hands of a more learned, but less honorable man than himself, whose singularly sly and down cast look is not an index to the most elevated and capacious mind. Thus has he been led into a snare and left in the nett. -- This reminds me of the doings of another distinguished old gentleman who is said to lead folks into difficulties, but never helps them out.

The following letter is copied, in part, from memory, and may differ in a very few words from the original; but the sentiment is the same.     Truly Yours,

Kanesville, March 24, 1852,    
Rev. W. Simpson -- Dear Sir: Your favor of yesterday is now before me. It is true, sir, that my relations disowned me or rather turned their backs upon me because that, for conscience sake, I became a Mormon. But the fountain of natural affection has not dried up in my breast, though the same may be true of my Methodist relatives. Joseph was disowned by his brethren and but little correspondence was carried on between them; yet this did not prevent the tide of natural affection from flowing through a brother's heart while excluded from his father's house.

So far as the Methodist doctrine and usages correspond with the Bible, so far I revere them for their own sake, and also for the sake of myself and my relatives. I have not slid over the strong points of your sermon; neither could I, if I would, from the fact that it contained no such points. Scurrility, low blackguardism and gross mis-representation are the main features in your sermon, and the congregation who have heard my expositions of it are satisfied of your want of a correct knowledge of the bible, or of a disposition to correctly apply the knowledge you possess.

I told you that I had been requested to publish my exposition of the "Frog Sermon" by several persons, and that if time and circumstances would allow, I might do it. I also stated that you might see the time when you would not be so proud to own the Frog Sermon as now. You wickedly intimate that it may be when the Mormons have gained universal sway, then you think that you may see hard times. -- "How can ye, being evil, speak good things?"

A moral rebuke, it appears, you cannot contemplate. It must be the infliction of some corporate castigation that alone can arrest your attention. I addressed you as an intelligent man. -- But if I am mistaken, your boundless charity will doubtless extend to me the indulgence and pardon that I crave. On this point I throw myself upon your mercy.

I bless my enemies when they are such ignorantly, and might say, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do," But the ancient disciples hardly left blessings upon the person, city, or people against whom they cast off the dust of their feet. I, indeed, may bless my enemies who are made auch through your misrepresentations; but, sir, I cannot bless you while you persist in your present course to my injury, unless I do it hypocritically for form's sake without faith or power; and in that case, it would be sin to me. "For what is not of faith [is] sin."

I know of no one who prophecied the death of Gov. Boggs, -- neither do I know of any emisary being sent to do him harm. Joseph Smith was charged of the latter offence, tried before the United States Court at Springfield Illinois, and was acquited. I was present at the trial. Rockwell who was accused, was tried in Missouri, but was acquitted. When men have undergone judicial examinations on charges of crime, and been acquitted, fairly and honorably, my mind is not narrow enough to screw down upon them the load of guilt and condemnation that some would gladly lay to their charge. -- You may draw such inferences and ask me such questions as you may think will best enable you to avoid your dilemma. But sir, you are involved whether you see it or not.

I have never taught, neither can you prove it, that this land all belonged to the Mormons and that you, Gentiles, were all to be cut off, either by God himself or by Mormon agency. This charge is as wicked as it is false. I utterly deny it. You say you have been a reader of the Guardian; but sir, you can never make me a witness to prove your false and wicked position. I have taught, sir, that the wicked who reject the truth, Jew or Gentile, will in due time, destroy one another, or be destroyed by the hand of Providence. "Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and when Christ shall come to make an end of sin and bring in everlasting righteousness, you will be cut off if you are not like him, and I also. The true Israel of God alone will stand in that day, and the land will be theirs -- all theirs.

No person was ever cut off from our church for disobeying the counsel of its leaders, unless there was some violation of the acknowledged law of God coupled with that disobedience. -- Never has there occurred an instance, to my knowledge, in our church, in which any member has been re-baptized for being guilty of either of the sins you mention. Now sir, if you are that honest, happy minded man who is ready to yield any point when proven false, you will certainly make a confession here or point me to the instance wherein any person has been re-baptized under the circumstances you mention, or rest under the just imputation of falsehood yourself.

You say, "if any of them" (the Mormons) shall interrupt your concerns, you will hold me responsible. This is a little better sense than your other letter contained upon this subject. -- That said if you, your family or property was in any way molested, you would hold me accountable. This was not only unjust, but rediculous! Your last version is unjust but not so rediculous. A Mormon might possibly molest you or your property, and I be as innocent as John Wesley of any participation in or knowledge of it. But to show you that you took a low and sensual view of what you called "the Mormon curse," I here say: that if you, your family or property shall be wantonly and maliciously interrupted by any Mormon under my influence, you may hold me accountable, and I will give myself up into your hands without evasion or resistence, to be dealt with as you may direct.

The Mormons may have an established name for black mail operations in your mind: but we have lived here now nearly six years and have never been charged with it by any of our honorable Gentile neighbors who have been here with us all the time.... We do not expect to rest in peace much in this world, even in the most remote places. Our fathers had no abiding city -- our ancient brethren wandered about in sheep skins and in goat skins, and even hid themselves in the caves and dens of the earth. They were subjected to these hardships and privations because of their accusers who falsified their principles, misrepresented their doctrines and practice, and procured the martyrdom, in this way, of the wisest and best of men that ever lived. This class of false accusers are those who bring upon themselves all the righteous bllod that has been shed. Far preferable is a life of persecution and compulsion to flee before the Sirocco of such men, than to be carried in the lap of hypocrisy and float upon the tide of popular favor. Jesus said: The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests; but the son of man hath not where to lay his head, neither have the Mormons, if your testimony can be relied upon. You have ascribed to us sentiments that we never owned or avowed, and then say that we were driven from Missouri and Illinois because of those sentiments, and the same sentiments will not allow us to love in peace any where. What would you think of the man who would place a black mark upon a sheep and then cut the sheep's throat because it had that black mark? Would you think that the man marked to butcher, or butchered to mark? Have your rights, Mr. S., been disrespected since you have lived at the "head quarters" of the Mormons east of the Rocky Mountains, by me or by my people? If so, wherein? If we have not loved you as you could wish; we think we have loved you as much as you have us, -- "so there is no love lost," and if your misrepresentations of our doctrine and practice have weakened our nerves to do you good, we will avoid doing you harm as far as we can. -- The honorable Gentiles of this town who have been acquainted with us from the beginning -- have said over the signature of the most responsible men in the country, that we were a peaceful, industrious and law-abiding people; and that they were and have been living in peace and harmony with us; and they ["]hoped that no persons, either at home or from abroad would seek to distirb our amicable relation."

Now friend Simpson, listen to the advice and counsel of a Mormon. It will do you no harm, and may do you much good. Mind your own business, preach your own doctrine if you will. Let the Mormons alone, and you will gain more lasting credit and honor than by all the war you can wage against us. If this is not good counsel to you, and does not turn out to be correct, then say that Elder Hyde has not the spirit of God. You can never manage the Mormons, and every attack you make upon them, you will come off with disgrace.

I perceive, by comparing your late letters to me, with former ones addressed to persons remote from this place, that you are not my real correspondent. Nevertheless, you have the same right to enlist the co-operation of a friend that Br. Holly had. But tho' error call to her aid a union of interest and talent, and ingeniously erect a fortress -- a temple in which her most devoted sons hope to find security and refuge, -- she may see her walls prostrated, herself and her adorers exposed to the shafts of truth, and born down by the heavy and resistless column of light and knowledge.
Faithfully, your ob't. serv't.
                                ORSON HYDE.


The undersigned will publish a family news paper bearing the above cognoman, at Kanesville (Council Bluffs,) Iowa, to be devoted to the Arts and Sciences, Literature, General Information, Agriculture, Domestic Economy, and the news of the day, Foreign and Domestic, Poetry, Amusements, &c., and paricularly to the wants, interests, improvements, developments, resources, geography, and history of the West. The BUGLE will be issued weekly, on an imperial sheet, and executed with new and well selected press type, and fixtures purchased expressly for this purpose.

It will be Democratic in politics and will support such measures and such men for State and Federal offices, as may be agreed upon by the legal conventions of the party.

We shall take no part in Religious or Sectarian controversies, but will defend the conscientious worship of all, under the Constitution and laws of the State and of the United States. It shall be the aim of the BUGLE to encourage Western Literature, Western Authors and Writers, and its columns will be open to publish original, well written articles upon all scientific and interesting subjects, making the he BUGLE one of the most interesting Political and Literary Family Newspapers in the United States. What will greatly add to the value and importance of this paper is the fact that from this point all overland emigration to Oregon, California, and Utah, make their outfit, and here take their final leave of civilization, and launch out upon the vast ocean plains, midst the numerous eild Indian tribes; and upontheir return, 'tis here they first place their feet upon the soil of the pale-faces, with news interesting from the emigrant upon the plains, and from those far distant, new, and interesting western countries.

The WESTERN BUGLE will be published at two dollars per year, invariably in advance. Address (post paid) A. W. BABBITT, Kanesville.

Note 1: It would not be unreasonable to conclude that Elder Orson Hyde (President of the Twelve and functional President of the LDS Church east of the Rockies) submitted his letter to fellow Mormon (as well as persoanal and political rival) Almon W. Babbitt, as a sort of test of Babbitt's Mormon loyality and of his stated policy of taking "no part in Religious or Sectarian controversies." The fact that Babbitt chose to print such arrogant and scathing religious communications may serve as some measure of Hyde's continuing influence over his wayward ecclesiastical subordinate.

Note 2: Mormon Apostle Ezra T. Benson, who was visiting at Kanesville during the spring of 1852, penned the following comments regarding Babbitt's new enterprise (as preserved in the LDS "Journal History of the Church) -- March 12, 1852: "Last Saturday and Sunday we held a meeting for the purpose of hearing reports concerning emigration... Elder Orson Hyde was present and delivered a good discourse and all seemed determined to gather to the mountains this coming spring.... Elder Hyde has sold his [Frontier Guardian] press, building and fixtures for two thousand dollars to James Dawson and Co., of Fremont County, Iowa. The Hon. Almon W. Babbitt is on his way from Washington with his press to publish a democratic paper, called the ďWestern BugleĒ to be established in this place." April 20, 1852: "The Hon. Almon W. Babbitt has just started a press to blow the western bugle. He leaves here for Utah the 10th of May."


Vol. I.                               Kanesville, Iowa, June 2, 1852.                             No. 6.

An Editor in Arms.

We see from the last Guardian that its editor recommends himself as being quite a military character. He has passed through the schools of Comstock and others and is a great professor in the science of warfare. Yet he leaves us ignorant as to the kind of arms he uses; but if we can judge from the firing of his weekly platform they can certainly be of no greater calibre than pop-guns and paper-balls. -- And perhaps he was taught the use of these deadly instruments during his collegiate career in the schools of his favorite authors. We may soon expect to see this new-fangled chieftain in his full suit of armor, mounted upon his war steed, with pop-gun in hand, fighting for the sinking cause of whiggery -- striking terror into the ranks of the foe -- making their "knees smite together like Beleshazar's of old," -- and if he should be so fortunate as to do one or two bright things, who knows but his Whig friends -- ever ready to appreciate heroes -- will have him up for President!


We have received our files of "The Deseret News" to Feb. 21, nearly three months later than our previous advices.

The Legislature of Utah assembled on the first Monday of January, and closed its session on the 15th of February. A special session had been called by the Proclamation of the Governor, much remaining to be done for the complete organization of the Territory.

The Message of Gov. Brigham Young to the Legislature presents a variety of information on the present condition of Utah.

During the past year the settlements have continued to extend, until now the line extends from near Bear River on the North, unto within about twenty-five miles of the Southern rim of the Great Basin...

Some idea of the growth and prosperity of this Territory may be formed, by comparing the Revenue for the year 1850 with that for the year 1851. The total amount of taxes for the year 1850 was $8, 116, while the amount of taxes for the year 1851 amounts to $23, 971; showing an increase of $15, 855, or nearly 200 percent., a sum which, if all collected, would be amply sufficient to pay all the Territorial debts, and leave a handsome balance on hand to prosecute the business for the coming year.

The books of the Utah Library, purchased by the United States, and received as donations, through the agency of Dr. Bernhisel, have recently been removed from the boxes to the shelves in the north-east room of the Council House, and are found in a high state of preservation. The selection is spoken of by learned gentlemen as of the highest order. The catalogue, classification, and arrangement of the library, are not yet completed, neither have the Legislature established by-laws for the management thereof, as they probably will at this session. Mr. Wm. C. Staines is the librarian. -- Tribune.

Notes: (forthcoming)


Vol. I.                               Kanesville, Iowa, June 9, 1852.                             No. 7.

Started Out.

Our friend and predecessor, the Hon. A. W. Babbitt, left our bustling little borough for the western mountains -- for Utah, on the morning of our last publishing day. His only outfit was one horse, one mule, buggy and harness, two blankets, one gun, and a watering-bucket; but no implements for cooking or eating, and no provisions, -- and some aver that he, in the hurry of starting out, left his coat and boots; but this is doubtless untrue. He is expected to return this fall, but will stop at the Lake a month. Very few men would undertake such a journey under the same circumstances; but energy and perseverence sees no dangers, and meets but few. -- We presume no person has as yet undertaken to cross the plains with so scant an outfit.

We wish him success and shall be happy to see him resume his quill and shears, and give us a detail of his bear fights, buffalo hunts, and Indian warfare upon the plains and through the mountains. It will doubtless be interesting.

We have received a copy of the "Western Bugle," published by A. W. Babbitt, at Kanesville. It is democratic in politics, double medium in size, and printed on new type. It makes a handsome appearance, is conducted with ability, and we doubt not will do good service in the cause... -- Muscatine Dem. Eng.

Fillmore and the Mormons.

After a winter's meditation, the President has at length determined to sustain the Mormons, and repudiate the absconded Judges from Utah Territory!

This announcement will be received with surprise by the whigs of this vicinity, but there is now no doubt of the fact. Young is to be retained in his office as Governor, and allowed to squander the government funds, and fill his harem with as many 'spirituals' as his heart may lust after, receiving his support from the national government, while he is breathing out 'fire and brimstone' against its members!

The Editor of the 'Deseret News' -- a Mormon paper published at Salt Lake -- is appointed Secretary of the Territory, in place of the chivalrous Harris, who so gallantly headed Young in his attempt on that $20,000, and the money will be again duly remitted to 'Filmore city,' for the benefit of his excellency, and the Church of 'Latter day Saints.'

As the President has determined on this policy -- of surrendering Utah Territory into the hands of the Mormons -- we are glad that the claims of Bro. Hyde have not been overlooked. He is appointed Judge of the Supreme Court in place of Judge Brocchus, and will look very graceful with the 'judicial ermine' around his ample shoulders. We presume he will consider this appointment a sufficient endorsement of his character, and will withdraw his slander suits against the luckless wights [sic] who figured in the celebrated 'Fremont meeting.'

We esteem Elder Hyde an honest man, and if not corrupted by his present associations, will discharge the duties of his new position with more satisfaction than any other Mormon. However, the ides of November next will change this whole 'order of things,' and the incoming Democratic Administration will Americanize the Utah Government. -- Savannah Sentinel.

Notes: (forthcoming)


Vol. I.                               Kanesville, Iowa, June 16, 1852.                             No. 8.


Kanesville as it Was and Is.

June 13.      
This town is situated two and a half miles from the eastern bank of the Missouri river; the steamboat landing is four miles distant, at a little settlement along the bank, called Council Point. St. Joseph, Mo., is one hundred and fifty miles below, and St. Louis, by water, is near one thousand miles, and by land about five hundred. Five years ago, a few Half-breeds and Indians were the only inhabitants, who resided in miserable cabins, huts and wigwams. Its soil -- naturally rich, productive and easy of cultivation -- laid unbroken by the plow of the husbandman, and the rude tones of nature, mingled with those of almost savage barbarism, were all that echoed thro' the fastness of the surrounding solitude. Such, briefly stated, was the condition of this place when the Mormon emigration from Nauvoo, Ill. -- so famed for the uniqueness of its history -- penetrated thus far through the prairie wilderness, and made a location here. The whole region of country was then owned and possessed by the Pottawattamie Indians; but the Government about this time concluded a treaty with them -- the whole tribe removed to other locations, and their old possessions here reverted to the Government. Then began the busy hand of industry to convert the "forest into a fruitful field" and the "desert began to 'blossom as the rose.'" ... We have had heavy emigration for the last three years; but this spring['s] has outstripped that of any preceeding year in point of numbers. No less than fifteen thousand have passed through and crossed the Missouri at the different ferries, near this place, within the last two months, bound, the majority of them, for California and the remainder for Oregon... The Mormon emigration will continue for two weeks to come, during which time we may expect trade to keep up brisk, but not so heavy as heretofore.

Such was Kanesville, five years ago, when the Red-man was lord of its resources, and such is Kanesville now, under the control of its enterprising and enlightened citizens.... Kanesville will doubtless continue an outfitting post for California, Utah and Oregon, for years to come, and each spring will make it a better market for all kinds of produce than almost any other point on the Missouri....

From Utah.

The Deseret News of the 20th of March has been received. It is occupied with the details of a legislative festival, held at the residence of Gov. Brigham Young, at which dancing was the chief item of entertainment. The Governor led off the dance, and the members of the Legislature, of all degrees, followed, and thus cavalier brave and lady fair, kept up the exciting scene, tripping it on the light fantastic toe, in perfect harmony, until, says the News:

"The halo of a heavenly embassy seemed to be spread over the whole."

Then followed supper, after which Governor Young made a quaint oration, in which he declared that he danced and shook himself that his body might exercise and his mind rest. He also declared his intention to devote his time henceforward to mental labor only, with intervals of dancing, and to do no more manual labor, as has been his wont....

The Western Bugle.

A. W. Babbitt, Esq., the former talented delegate from Utah, has established at Kanesville, Pottawattamie county, a democratic paper under this title. For this enterprise Mr. Babbitt merits the encouragement of the Democratic party in this State. The "Bugle" will blow long loud and clear, the notes of Democracy in a section destined to become one of the most flourishing and prosperous in Iowa. Its local news alone will most amply repay the price of subscription, $2.00 per annum. It is interesting to read of the rapid progress of the population and civilized pursuits upon our south western frontier. Our Burlington friends should recollect that is a section of the State, with which we expect before long to be very intimately connected. We have received the first and second numbers of the Bugle, and will take pleasure in showing them to any who desire it. -- State Gazette.

Notes: (forthcoming)


Vol. I.                               Kanesville, Iowa, July 7, 1852.                             No. 11.

News from Utah and the Plains.

By the arrivalof Thomas Margetts, J. C. Armstrong, and others, from Utah last week, we have adices up to May 8th.

They report nothing of material interest since our last dates. Crops looked uncommon well, a very large amount of land planted and sowed. A wollen factory had just been put into operation, under the superintendence of Mr. Mathew Gaunt.

A large emigration was looked for -- good health prevailed -- new settlements were being made in a number of the surrounding vallies -- a large amount of sugar beet had been sown in anticipation of the arrival of the machinery under the charge of Elder John Taylor. Governor Young and suite had started upon an exploring expedition, through the vallies of the Colorado, Green River and their tributaries. -- We were favored with a letter from Mr. A. W. Babbitt, from a point this side of Laramie -- his health was good, and ere this is at Salt Lake City.

They met with the emigrating companies this side of Laramie. Considerable sickness had occured with some of the companies. Capt. Gibson's company, from Pike co., Ill., lost 19 of their number in one week, but all were well that remained when our informants passed.

But very little sickness prevailed among the emigrants. The number of graves the whole distance was something over 150, but no how to exceed 200. Hundreds of wagons were crossing the Platte from the South to the North side, on account of better health prevailing on that side.

The grass is plenty and of a goodly quality the whole distance to Salt Lake. No Indians on the route. The buffalo are scarce most of the distance. On the Sweet Water river the herds were large, and deer, elk, or antelope, are found the remaining distance.

The horses, mules and cattle of the emigrants were in good order and doing well, and most of the emigrants were in good spirits, and passing onward.

The widow and family of F. J. Wheeling returned with this company. These gentlemen with their associates, 10 in all, are missionaries to the old world, whom we believe have ere this, left our place for their posts of duty.

"The Mormon's Daughter.

A Romance of the town and Wilderness." Such is the title of a book I am at work on, which will soon be published. It is the best work I have ever written. If not purchased by a publisher soon, it will be printed in this paper -- Buntline's Novelist.

Note 1: The above first report was reprinted in the Illinois Alton Weekly Courier of July 23, 1852 and in the Missouri Republican.

Note 2: It is uncertain whether or not Edward Z. Judson (aka Ned Buntline) ever published his "Mormon's Daughter" tale in Ned Buntline's Own... or any other contemporary dime novel magazine. A story with practically the same title saw publication in England, in 1861, however.


Vol. 5.                               Council Bluffs, Iowa, October 9, 1855.                             No. 31.

The Mormons in the South.

From San Bernardino we glean no news of importance. Their crops being gathered in, our Mormon friends are now devoting themselves to the task of raising means to pay for their lands. They propose to sell lots and farms at fair prices to those who desire them, and for this purpose have sent out their members through every portion of the State to preach the faith and represent their difficulties. As far as soil, climate and natural features are concerned, no point in the State furnishes more attractive inducements, and however much people may differ on the subject of Mormonism, no umbrage can be taken against the settlers at San Bernardino, as citizens and neighbors. They pursue the even tenor of their way, minding their own business, pursuing quietly their vocations; and in many things furnishing an example worthy of imitation. They have few or no lawsuits; no drunkenness, no rioting, no murders, no thefts. They work together and assist one another, and are building up for themselves a city which will be an ornament to the country and a source of pride to themselves. -- Southern Californian.

Notes: (forthcoming).


Vol. 6.                               Council Bluffs, Iowa, SEptember 9, 1856.                             No. ?

(article on the murder of Almon W. Babbitt --
under construction)

Notes: (forthcoming).


Vol. ?                                   Des Moines, Iowa,  August 16, 1870.                                 No. ?


A witness to the Book of Mormon. -- The main facts, or fiction, as the case may be, relative to the discovery of the golden plates from which was translated the present, Book of Mormon, are doubtless as familiar to many of our readers as to ourselves. None of us can claim to have been an eye witness, and few have heard the incidents connected therewith related by those who claimed to have been there, to have seen and handled the tablets of gold, and afterwards, under the divine commission, to have assisted in the translation of the mystic characters inscribed upon them.

A few days since we acknowledged a call at our sanctum, from Martin Harris, who was on his way from Ohio to take up his residence at Salt Lake City, to spend the remainder of his days with the "chosen people." Mr. Harris was now in his 88th year, though still quite vigorous and sprightly, and he is Mormon, soul and body. He, as he claims, and as Mormons claim, together with two others, Oliver Cowdery deceased, and David Whitmer, now an apostate living in Missouri, were the divinely appointed witnesses to the Book of Mormon. The old gentleman evidently loves to relate the incidents with which he was personally connected, and he does it with wonderful enthusiasm.

In September, 1828 [sic], as the story goes, Joseph Smith, directed by an angel, proceeded to a spot about 4 miles from Palmyra, New York, and upon the point of a hill, extending northward, dug up a very solid stone chest within which were the tablets of gold, inscribed with the characters which no man could read. Joseph Smith was the first to handle the tablets, and Martin Harris, one of the appointed witnesses, the second. Mr. Harris describes the plates as being of thin leaves of gold, measuring seven by eight inches, and weighing altogether, from forty to sixty lbs. There was also found in the chest, the Urim and Thummim, by means of which the writing upon the plates was translated, but not until after the most learned men had exhausted their knowledge of letters in the vain effort to decipher the characters.

It had been revealed to Joseph Smith that the writing upon the tablets contained a history of the aborigines of this country down to the time of Columbus' discovery, and after, all human means had failed to secure a translation, Smith was commissioned to undertake the task. By means of the Urim and Thummim "a pair of large spectacles," as Mr. Harris claims to have written, of the translations as they were given by Smith, "116 solid pages of cap." The remainder was written by others.

Soon after the finding of these plates of gold, Mr. Harris sold his farm, of which he owned a large one, and consecrated himself to the new religion, to which he has adhered himself tenaciously throughout a long life, and still adheres to its tenets and advocates its genuineness with all the earnestness of an enthusiast. He believes in visitation of angels in bodily form, he has seen and conversed with them, as he thinks and is satisfied.

The old gentleman related some incidents, which, could one feel that they were verities, would be interesting, but as they seem largely imaginative they lose interest.

Note 1: The above clipping's text does not make it clear whether the original report came from Des Moines, or whether it was reproduced from some other newspaper's columns.

Note 2: In 1878, the Salt Lake Tribune accused the late Martin Harris of having "in Salt Lake City in the year 1870" told "more than one person, that the 'story of the stone box being found in the hill,' was a fiction, and there were a good many more fictions connected with it." Perhaps the Tribune writer was providing a true recollection of some of Martin's 1870 statements -- but, if so, its does not match well with the reporting in the Iowa paper.

Note 3: The following statement is attributed to Elder Edward Stevenson, as reproduced in Joseph Grant Stevenson's 1955 BYU Master's thesis, "The Life of Edward Stevenson": "Martin Harris related an incident that occurred during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet possessed a seerstone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seerstone. Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seerstone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say, "Written," and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used. Martin said, after continued translation they would become weary, and would go down to the river and exercise by throwing stones out on the river, etc. While so doing on one occasion, Martin found a stone very much resembling the one used for translation, and on resuming their labor of translation, Martin put in place the stone that he had found. He said that the Prophet remained silent, unusually and intently gazing in darkness, no traces of the usual sentences appearing. Much surprised, Joseph exclaimed, "Martin! What is the matter? All is as dark as Egypt!" Martin's countenance betrayed him, and the Prophet asked Martin why he had done so. Martin said, "to stop the mouths of fools," who had told him that the Prophet had learned those sentences and was merely repeating them, etc. -- Martin said further that the seerstone differed in appearance entirely from the Urim and Thummim that was obtained with the plates, which were two clear stones set in two rims, very much resembling spectacles, only they were larger. Martin said there were not many pages [116] translated while he wrote, after which Oliver Cowdery and others did the writing. Brother Martin visited many of the wards, continuing to bear his testimony both of what he had beheld with his own eyes, and verily knew to be true. He publicly said that many years ago, in Ohio, a number of persons combined and sought to get Martin to drink wine for the purpose of crossing him in his testimony. At the conclusion they asked him if he really believed the testimony that he had signed in the Book of Mormon to be true? He replied no, he did not believe it, but, much to their surprise, he said he knew it to be true! -- Soon after receiving his blessings in the house of the Lord, he went to Smithfield, Cache Valley, and lived with his son until he left this mortal life. Just before he breathed his last he sat up in his bed holding the Book of Mormon in his hand, and bore his last testimony to those who were present. Edward Stevenson.

...a little incident or two that he [Martin] related to me [Stevenson] while we were on our journey from Ohio to Utah. He said that Joseph Smith, the Prophet, was very poor, and had to work by the day for his support, and that he (Harris) often gave him work on his farm, and they had hoed corn together many a day, Brother Harris paying him fifty cents per day. Joseph, he said, was good to work and jovial and they often wrestled together in sport, but the Prophet was devoted and attentive to his prayers. Brother Harris gave Joseph $50.00 on one occasion to help translate the Book of Mormon. This action on the part of Martin Harris so displeased his wife that she threatened to leave him. Martin said that he knew this to be the work of God, and that he should keep the commandments of the Lord, whatever the results might be. His wife, subsequently, partially separated from him, which he patiently endured for the Gospel's sake. He also stated that the Prophet translated a portion of the Book of Mormon with a seerstone in his possession. The stone was placed in a hat that was used for that purpose, and with the aid of this seerstone the Prophet would read sentence by sentence as Martin wrote, and if he made any mistake the sentence would remain before the Prophet until corrected, when another sentence would appear.... [explaining] the manner in which the plates containing the characters of the Book of Mormon were exhibited to the witnesses. Brother Harris said that the angel stood on the opposite side of the table on which were the plates, the interpreters, etc., and took the plates in his hands and turned them over. To more fully illustrate this to them, Brother Martin took up a book and turned the leaves over one by one. The angel declared that the Book of Mormon was correctly translated by the power of God and not of man, and that it contained the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the Nephites, who were a branch of the lost sheep of the House of Israel, and had come from the land of Jerusalem to America. The witnesses were required to bear their testimony of these things, and of this open vision to all people... Martin Harris was very zealous, somewhat enthusiastic, and what some would term egotistical..."


Vol. ?                               Burlington, Iowa, September 15, 1877.                             No. ?


The Religion of Joe Smith and Brigham Young
Sprung from a Romance.
Springfield Republican.

(see original article from Massachusetts paper)


Notes: (forthcoming).


Davenport [ Daily ] Gazette.
Vol. XXV.                               Davenport, Iowa, Sat., April 5, 1879.                             No. 138.

Origin  of  the  Mormon  Bible.

Sunday Afternoon for April.

The real author of this book of Mormon was Rev. Solomon Spaulding, a graduate of Dartmouth College in 1785. His health failing, he engaged in business, and in 1809 was living at Conneaut, O., where there are numerous Indian mounds. He then wrote a romance, setting forth the not new theory that the North American Indians were representatives of the lost tribes of Israel. Mr. Spaulding took advantage of his surroundings and connected his story with the relics which were found in the mounds. In a fictitious introduction to his novel, which he entitled "The Manuscript Found," he speaks of the book as one of the exhumed relics of a past age. He makes use of the Scriptural style of expression. He tells of the departure from Palestine of a Jewish father, Lehi, and his four sons, Laman, Samuel, Lemuel and Nephi, of the various journeys and of their voyage to this Western Continent. Dissension and division are frequent. The descendants of the brothers develop into hostile tribes. Then came quarrels and wars and finally a decisive battle, and in short the substance of all that is found in the "Golden Bible" of Joseph Smith. Indeed the Book of Mormon seems to be only a modified but mutilated edition of Rev. Mr. Spaulding's "Manuscript Found." There is abundant internal evidence that the later is a reproduction of the earlier work. Spaulding used to read the chapters of his story to his neighbors, who were deeply interested in its progress and were greatly entertained by the ingenuity of the author. He worked upon it three years, or until 1812, when he moved to Pittsburg, Pa. There he put his manuscript into the hands of a printer by the name of Patterson. He expected to publish the book and it was announced in the papers in 1813 as forthcoming. It never was published, however, probably because Spaulding had not the money to pay the bills. Spaulding died in 1816. The original copy was returned to his widow who kept it until the Book of Mormon was published, and then she produced it in proof of her assertion that Joseph's pretended revelation was a fraud. In the Boston Journal of May 18, 1839, she told the story of the Manuscript. The evidence is complete that Smith discovered only what he and some associate had hidden in a box of their own making in a hole of their own digging. Smith came into possession of a copy of the work of Spaulding made by Sidney Rigdon, a workman in Patterson's printing office. Rigdon confessed the fact afterward when he was cut off from the Mormon Church by Brigham Young. The three witnesses also quarreled with Joseph and Rigdon and confessed to having sworn falsely. Rigdon on leaving the work of printer became a preacher of peculiar doctrines. Smith had quite a large following in certain views peculiarly his, and these two religious Ishmaelites coming together set to work to give the world a new Bible. Smith, adding what was suited to his purpose, dictated Spaulding's story to Oliver Cowdrey from behind a screen and the work was done, and palmed off upon a company of poor deluded fanatics as divine.

The new prophet seems to have had but vague notions of what doctrines the new church should hold. Rigdon held to some doctrines which Smith did not. But they both agreed on the question of the Second Advent, then exciting their section of country. They made that doctrine prominent in their Bible. The idea was "the end is at hand, the Indians are to be speedily converted; America is the final gathering place of the saints, who were to assemble as near the center of the continent as possible." This was a doctrine and this they preached and this chiefly at first. It may be said in brief that the religious teachings of the Book of Mormon relate to very modern questions. The discussions of 1830 and thereabouts seem to furnish the new leaders with themes. Millinarianism is the main question. Infant Baptism, however, quite an ancient institution, is denounced and wonderful to relate polygamy, a much more ancient and for this country a very modern institution, is emphatically and repeatedly condemned. Polygamy as a duty was proclaimed by a revelation much later in the prophet's life.

Note 1: The above article was reprinted from Sunday Afternoon: A Monthly Magazine for the Household, Vol. III, No. XVI, pp. 290-291.

Note 2: The above article was largely paraphrased from Vol. XI of Ripley and Dana's 1861 New American Encylopedia. The Boston Journal (cited in both sources) did not exist in 1839. Its predecessor, the Boston Journal of Commerce, is not known to have published a Matilda Spalding Davison document on May 18, 1839. However, the Illinois Quincy Whig did reprint her statement on that date, and this is the date that Sidney Rigdon cites in his letter to the latter paper's editors, in his communication of May 27th, published in the July 8, 1839 issue of the Whig. Numerous early sources mis-identify the Quincy Whig reprint as being an apparently non-existent "Boston Journal" article or reprint.


Davenport [ Daily ] Gazette.
Vol. XXVII.                               Davenport, Iowa, Thurs., Dec. 23, 1880.                             No. 58.

General Garfield on Early Mormon History.

From Interview with Syracuse Journal Correspondent.

At 2 o'clock a bell rang in the hall, and we all went out to the adjoining room to dinner. The dinner once under favorable progress, the western gentleman made a leading remark on the state of affairs in San Francisco. The general answered politely and immediately said: "Mr. Blank, are you aware what interesting ground you are on? The first Mormon temple that was built is about four miles from here, at Kirtland, and this farm formerly belonged to a Mormon, indeed, the first Mormon settlement was here at Mentor."

"Ah is that possible?" answered the politician, with a look of disappointment, but a gleam shot through his eyes as he quickly added: "You visited Salt Lake City, I believe, general?"

"Yes," said the general, "I visited Brigham Young, and he told me a queer story. I asked him how he came to chose that particular spot for a town. 'Well,' said Brigham, 'we were traveling along one hot summer's day; I was lying in my canvas-covered wagon half asleep, when all of a sudden I raised up and said: Halt! Here's the chosen spot for our settlement! And as I said that I looked up to that hill yonder, and an angel stood there pointing right down to this valley. So I knew the inward voice was right.'

While Brigham was telling me this we were on the platform of the railway station and the train I intended to take my departure on had commenced to move off. Brigham shouted 'Wait!' and with a wave of his hand, he said: 'Don't move that train until I tell you to.'"

"How strange!" interposed the elder Mrs. Garfield.

"Yes, mother, Brigham was a queer man, and he controlled everything at Salt Lake city, even the departure of the railroad trains."

Here the conversation became general at table, but the writer was conscious that the politician was saying something of San Francisco, the great snowstorm that had followed him all the way east until he reached the town of Fremont, the home of President Hayes. He was evidently verging toward some topic Mr. Garfield did not desire discussed, and he caught up the word "Fremont."

"You know, Mr. Blank, that place was named in honor of Gen. Fremont." Without waiting for a reply, Gen. Garfield ran on: "Fremont made a survey of Utah once, and he reported the discovery of a wonderful lake, which at one end was salt and the other fresh. The truth was, there were two lakes, with a small stream connecting them. It is a pity he did not make a more careful investigation of that country, in which case the Mormons might not have made their discoveries there."

"We were acquainted with Rigdon," said Mrs. Garfield," one of the leaders, perhaps the inventor of Mormonism. He used to live in this vicinity, and he taught my father Greek and Latin. Rigdon was a preacher after he left Joe Smith and separated from the Mormons, and he was very eloquent, indeed."

Note: Sidney Rigdon's instruction of Zeb Rudolph (Mrs. Garfield's father) in Latin and Greek must have occurred between 1826 and 1830. The same claim was made by Ellen E. Dickinson in her 1885 book, on pages 54 and 59. According to Mrs. Garfield (writing in 1900), she had often heard her father speak of the winter of 1827-28, which "he spent in Mentor studying the Bible with Sidney Rigdon." Mrs. Garfield also recalled: "I have heard him say that they were a good deal puzzled with Mr. Rigdon's absences from home, of which he never gave any adequate reason, and of his preocuppied manner. His course later explained it to their satisfaction...." During the 1850s James A. Garfield was himself a professor of Latin and Greek at Hiram College in Ohio. Since he did not contradict his wife's reminiscences, it is reasonable to assume that Sidney Rigdon knew enough Latin and Greek to teach young scholars during the 1820s.


The Saints' Advocate.

Vol. VI.                           Lamoni, Iowa, February, 1884.                      No. 8.



Eds. Tribune: -- It is not a pleasure for "an old Mormon" to lift the veil of the past and disclose the errors and evils of the Mormon leaders in any degree; but when a great crisis in Utah affairs is imminent, it is highly proper for all classes to know something of the causes leading to it, and so be able to speak and act intelligently in regard thereto.

It will be no news to your readers to say that the Utah leaders and the press disclaim anything like hatred of the United States Government and its institutions, yet our proofs are of such a character as to fully support our charge of hate, and fix it, not primarily with the rank and file, but with the Mormon people. The extracts we present your readers furnish valuable matter just now, and they serve to fasten the cause of the evils complained of where they belong. They lay bare the designs and purposes of the Mormon leaders as far back as 1845, soon after Brigham Young became President of the Church.

In the Times and Seasons, then the Church organ, John Taylor editor, under date of December 1, 1845, we find the following taken from the New York Sun:


William Smith, brother of Joe Smith, the Mormon prophet, states that it is their (the Mormons) design to set up an independent government somewhere in the neighborhood of the Rocky mountains, or near California. That the plan has been maturing for a long time, and that, in fact, with hate in their hearts, skillfully kept up by the Mormon leaders, whose pockets are to be enriched by their toil, the mass of the Mormons will be alike purged of American feeling, and shut out by a barrier of mountains and church restrictions from any other than Mormon freedom. That the design of Brigham Young and the twelve is to build up a sacerdotal tyranny, the spirit of which will be more repugnant to the spread of republican principles than could possibly be the rule of Europe. These are William Smith's views. He is opposed to the plan of organization and its leaders.

Verily, this is like reading the accomplished facts of history. How well Brigham and the Twelve have worked out their original "designs," all may know who are conversant with their history since the time William Smith made them known to the Sun. If they have failed in any point, it has been because they simply lacked power and opportunity.

William Smith had been one of the Twelve and knew what their intentions were, and it would seem he would not betray the church to such an evil course, nor turn traitor to his country, but turned informer against those who would.

We understand William Smith is still living at Elkader, Clayton county, Iowa, and that he faithfully served under the Stars and Stripes in the late war of the Rebellion. His testimony is first class to the designs of Brigham Young and his colleagues, whom he denounced and abandoned.

If further evidences were needed of the alienation of the Utah leaders, and if their purpose to alienate their followers and get them entirely out of the limits of the United States, it may be found in the "Farewell message of Orson Pratt to the Saints of the Eastern and Middle States," dated [Dec. 1], 1845, Times and Seasons, Vol. 6, pps. 1042-3.

Mr, Pratt said:

"Brethren awake! be determined to get out from this evil Nation next spring. We do not want one Saint to be left in the United States after that time. Let every branch in the East, West, North and South, be determined to flee out of Babylon, either by land or by sea, as soon as then. Judgment is at the door; and it will be easier to go now, then to wait until it comes."

Take with these facts the un-christian, barbarous Endowment oath to avenge the blood of Joseph and Hyrum Smith upon this Nation, also the constant, persistent statement, falsely made by the Utah leaders, that the United States Government demanded the Mormon battalion, and that the Mormons furnished it, on peril of their extermination; and add to this the slurring of the Gentiles, the cursing of apostates, Brigham's "proclamation" of war against the United States army, in 1857; the fact that the Mormon leaders and their henchmen have for nearly forty years been in trouble with the National Government and with the non-Mormons, and it is easy to see the origin and cause of Mormon hatred, at least in their chief outlines.

It is high time that we who have suffered through the blinding and ruinous leadership of Brigham and his colleagues, should speak and act for the truth and the right.

The disloyal attitude of the Mormon church, from 1845 till now, is easily traced to the leaders, While the leaders have professed to the world great respect for the Government and its laws, their teachings and their acts prove the contrary. Men's deeds tell who and what they are!
                              THE OLD MORMON.

Note: Prior to the middle of 1881, this RLDS newspaper was published at Plano, Illinois. For an interesting letter by Elder William Smith, see the issue for Dec., 1879 among the on-line Illinois newspaper articles for that period.


Des Moines Daily News.

Vol. ?                               Des Moines, Iowa, Sat., October 16, 1886.                           No. ?

(see the Salt Lake Tribune of Oct. 17, 1886 for this David Whitmer interview)

Notes: (forthcoming)


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  Dec. 25, 1890.                             No. 5.


Clark Braden passed through Lamoni Saturday on his way to Mt. Ayr, where he was to lecture for a week. We interviewed him on the train, and were informed that he had received a letter from Elder E. L. Kelley suggesting May 5th as the time for the commencement of the debate. This suggestion of Mr. Braden informed us he had accepted. So the time is at last agreed upon as the fifth of next May, and Lamoni as the place. An effort will be made to induce the railroad company to run an extra each way during the debate to accommodate those from near points who wish to hear the debate. It is almost certain that notwithstanding the time of year, the sessions of the debate will be at night.

Notes: (forthcoming).


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  Jan. 8, 1891.                             No. 7.


We have handed to us by mail by Elder Clark Braden a certificate of certain ministers of Leon, Mt. Ayr, Davis City, etc., with the request that we publish. THE PATRIOT has received matter of a personal character both attacking and defending Elder Braden. From the first we refused to publish any attacks upon the Elder's character or standing, and have independently and unflinchingly maintained that he should be treated in accordance with the most scrupulous and exact sense of justice. As, therefore, we have refused to open our columns to an attack, it would be eminently improper to now open them to a defense, which would necessitate, as an act of justice to Mr. Braden's opponents, the publication of the whole matter. Justice has two sides, and we have endeavored to see them both and direct our course accordingly.

As we said in refusing to publish the attacks upon Mr. Braden, so we say now, "THE PATRIOT is open for the discussion of principles and principles only." It is a matter of grand concern to Mr. Braden that his life should be such as shall commend him to the favorable notice of the great judge; but whether his life is of that character is not of prime concern to other people. They are much more interested in finding out the principles by which they may develop and fashion their own lives acceptably. THE PATRIOT's columns so far as space will permit, are open to the discussion of these principles, but not to slander and misrepresentation, whether couched in the form of a certificate, or put in a more manly or direct charge.

Notes: (forthcoming).


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  March 5, 1891.                             No. 15.


In answer to earnest inquiries from various sources, representing many shades of religious faiths, with reference to the publication of a report of the Braden-Kelley debate in the PATRIOT, we are now prepared to state, that a complete synopsis of this debate will be furnished to our readers. We shall not attempt a verbatim report: but promise a carefully made synopsis, that will present the points made by both speakers, on which if carefully read and considered an intelligent judgment may be based.

The PATRIOT will be the only Lamoni paper that will furnish this report: and we hope our agents and friends everywhere will take notice of this matter at once, and see that this report is placed in the hands of as many people as possible.

The report will be published in weekly installments, and a six months' subscription will be sure to secure it all.

The debate is to begin May 5th. Do not delay, but make up your lists and send them in at once.

This is a rare opportunity to test the PATRIOT as a family newspaper, and also to secure a report of the debate.

Elder Clark Braden is a representative of the Christian Church, and Elder E. L. Kelley of the Latter Day Saints. Both are experienced debaters, and have met each other in discussion three times before. The debate will be held in the large Brick Church in Lamoni, and is expected to be a pitched battle.

Notes: (forthcoming).


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  March 12, 1891.                             No. 16.


In answer to earnest inquiries from various sources, representing many shades of religious faiths, with reference to the publication of a report of the Braden-Kelley debate in the PATRIOT, we are now prepared to state, that a complete synopsis of this debate will be furnished to our readers. We shall not attempt a verbatim report: but promise a carefully made synopsis, that will present the points made by both speakers, on which if carefully read and considered an intelligent judgment may be based.

The PATRIOT will be the only Lamoni paper that will furnish this report: and we hope our agents and friends everywhere will take notice of this matter at once, and see that this report is placed in the hands of as many people as possible.

The report will be published in weekly installments, and a six months' subscription will be sure to secure it all.

The debate is to begin May 5th. Do not delay, but make up your lists and send them in at once.

This is a rare opportunity to test the PATRIOT as a family newspaper, and also to secure a report of the debate.

Elder Clark Braden is a representative of the Christian Church, and Elder E. L. Kelley of the Latter Day Saints. Both are experienced debaters, and have met each other in discussion three times before. The debate will be held in the large Brick Church in Lamoni, and is expected to be a pitched battle.

The following are the propositions to be discussed:

I. "All that Joseph Smith gave to the world, purporting to be revelations from God, were entirely of human origin, and frauds; and Joseph Smith was an impostor." Elder Braden affirms.

II. "All that Joseph Smith gave to the world, as revelations from God, were true revelations from God; and Joseph was a true prophet of God." Elder Kelley affirms.

Notes: (forthcoming).


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  May 14, 1891.                             No. 25.




All that Joseph Smith gave to the world, purporting to be revelations from God, were entirely of human origin, and frauds; and Joseph Smith was an impostor.

Clark Braden of the Christian Church affirms: E. L. Kelley of the Latter Day Saints denies.

Elder J. D. McClure, of Tabor, Ia., acted as Elder Braden's moderator, and Elder R. M. Elvin of Lamoni as Elder Kelley's moderator,


Gentlemen moderators, ladies and gentlemen: It devolves upon me to undertake to establish this proposition.

Some years ago the Cardiff giant was dug up. Two ways of proving it a fraud were at hand, one of which was to show that it was placed there in modern times. If this were shown no farther proof was needed. The Bok of Mormon may be proven false in two ways: If we prove that Sydney Rigdon and Joseph Smith concocted it, we need not prove the fraud any other way. The nearer a bill is like the genuine, the more dangerous it is. The Book of Mormon being like the Bible, if true, does not prove it to be genuine. If it agrees with the Bible in word, and is a fraud, it is all the more dangerous. I shall not appeal to the Bible to find what it says about a fraud of this century. Counterfeits are the more dangerous as they approach to the character of the genuine. The Book of Mormon being like the Bible does not prove it genuine. Imitating the Bible makes the fraud the more dangerous. The question is, Did Smith steal his doctrine and give it to the world for deception? The man on trial for counterfeiting will not be allowed to prove anything but his innocence. The agreement of his bill with the genuine will not help him if he has made the counterfeit bill. Logging in anything but proof he did not make the bill is the trick of a pettifogger. When you have a bad case, abuse the opposing witnesses, and blackguard the opposing counsel.

Mormons usually insist upon two propositions. They will affirm that their church is in harmony with the Bible, and then demand that their opponents do the same for their church. This gives them an opportunity to assail and vilify their opponents, and parade all things in which they agree with others and keep in the dark Smith and his revelations. Mormons dare not face the real issue, the claims of Smith to be a prophet, and are his relevations revelations from God.

There is no issue concerning the prophets and revelations of the Bible. There is no issue concerning the interpretation of the Bible, only so far as that interpretation affects Smith and his revelations. Other attempts are Mormon twaddle. Let Mormons prove that prophets and revelations were to be continued in the church but that does not prove that Smith and his revelations are a part of such element. It is not my business to affirm a negative. Let them make out their own claims and I will attend to them then.

Mormons have sought to evade the real issue, have asserted that I would not meet them; but I have at last driven them to the wall. They have struck their heels out far enough so that I have gotten my foot on their necks. I shall prove that Smith concocted his revelations, and that they are fruads, Smith claimed that Moroni gave him plates on which were certain characters, the translation of which is the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith gave other revelations including the revelation on plural marriage. We care nithing about what your councils have accepted; the question is, Are the revelations which Smith gave to the world true revelations from God, or are they frauds; not, Are the revelations your councils have accepted true, or are they frauds. The issue over what Smith gave to the world, and over what you have accepted.

(A long list of questions was here propounded to Elder Kelley by the speaker, which we find it impossible to condense without injustice to the questioner, and as they are protected by Elder Braden's copyright, we are obliged to omit them altogether. The points involved are discussed in the body of the speeches. ED.)

These records which Smith claimed to have received gave an account of several great peoples, who are said to have come to America at several different periods of the worl's history. These peoples are said to have destroyed each other in great battles, and finally a favored survivor, Moroni, hid up the record, and Smith got it, and the translation is the Book of Mormon. We shall show that Solomon Spaulding concocted the manuscript, Sydney Rigdon stole it; and then with the aid of his peep stone gave it to the world as the Book of Mormon.

Spaulding was an inveterate scribbler. He conceived the idea of writing a history of the ancient peoples of America, and giving it to the world as a manuscript found, and thus making money. His first manuscript is what the Josephites have published. But he wrote another, or re-wrote the first, and left it in the printing office where Rigdon stole it. Finding it gone, Spaulding began rewriting it. The people of Conneaught, O., remember so much about these things, because they listened to the reading of the old manuscript in those days of a scarcity of periodicals as they would not listen now. Sydney Rigdon was in Patterson's office where Spaulding left the manuscript so much that it was complained of. Rigdon was an ignorant, spreak eagle ranter. When he first became converted he joined the Baptists, then the Campbellites, then at last the Mormons. While a Campbellite he undertook to Mormonize the church. Another character I shall present is Joseph Smith. His mother and father were dupes. Joe was to be a prophet. He told fortunes, had a peep stne. Rigdon was strangely converted, and the Book of Mormon given to the world.

Another character is Hurlbut. He was converted, quarreled with Smith, left the church, lectured against Mormonism. He got one of the manuscripts of Spaulding, sold it to the Mormons, and it was finally published by the Reorganized church. But that publication is a fraud.

I thus state to you my belief, as a lawyer would before a court. The first issue is, What are to be regarded as the revelations of Smith. I shall speak plainly about the acts of Joseph Smith, but I do not intend to call names. I shall speak plainly of the dishonest work done in connection with Smith's revelations.

Notes: (forthcoming).


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  May 21, 1891.                             No. 26.




All that Joseph Smith gave to the world, purporting to be revelations from God, were entirely of human origin, and frauds; and Joseph Smith was an impostor.

Clark Braden of the Christian Church affirms: E. L. Kelley of the Latter Day Saints denies.

Elder J. D. McClure, of Tabor, Ia., acted as Elder Braden's moderator, and Elder R. M. Elvin of Lamoni as Elder Kelley's moderator,


Gentlemen moderators, ladies and gentlemen: It devolves upon me to undertake to establish this proposition.

Some years ago the Cardiff giant was dug up.... [Note: the next several paragraphs just reproduce the same text that was printed in this newspaper on May 14th.]

... the dishonest work done in connection with Smith's revelations.

(We give the following statement from the pen of Mr. Bradeb that he may be thoroughly understood upon the question. We also reprint our report of his speach as it appeared last week, in order to supply new subscribers with our full report. ED).



Spaulding, during a period of more than eight years wrote (A) a fragment of a manuscript in regard to shipwrecked Romans. (B), a manuscript containing the Nephite story, (C), a manuscript in which he added to the Nephite syory the Zarahemlite story. (D), a manuscript which he took to Patterson's office, in which he added to the Nephite-Zarahemlite story the Jaredite story. (E), a fragmentary manuscript on which he was writing when he died. Rigdon stole manuscript D from Patterson's office, Hurlbut obtained manuscripts A, B, C, E from Mrs. Davison. He sold B, C, E to Mormons. He retained A to deceive the people and cover his betrayal of his trust. Left it with Howe. Rice got it. Mormons published it in 1885,



I am not surprised that my friend should assert that he had us cornered for the first time. He knew he never had cornered us before although he asserted it. But he wouldn't let the people know that he didn't have us cornered. I published in our book that if he desired more, my address was Kirtland, O. I offered to meet him in Blythsdale on the issues raised there. After meeting him as I have done, it seems to me that he is the man that is in the corner himself. I am ready to meet him here or anywhere else, and so are dozens of our ministers.

I am not required to meet the dogmatic statements of my opponents, which I know ro be frauds as much as he states the Book of Mormon to be.

I am glad to meet this audience. If our faith is sound we can afford investigation. Listen to him while he grinds out the biggest grist that can be ground out with reference to this matter.

Our propositions are distinct, let us read them. 1. All that Joseph Smith gave to the world purporting to be revelations from God were entirely were entirely of human origin and frauds, and Joseph Smith was an impostor. 2. The revelations that Joseph Smith gave to the world are true, and Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God.

If he does all he promises he won't have his case. All are to be proven to be frauds. But he will not prove a statement he has made. He will not prove that Spaulding wrote two manuscripts. He will not prove that Joseph Smith and Sydney Rigdon were nearer to each other than 250 miles till after the Book of Mormon was published.

The translation of the Book of Mormon was made by Joseph Smith as a translator. If statements are made contrary to the account given by him they are made by those who have no knowledge of the matters they speak of. Certainly Joseph Smith claimed to give other revelations, and the first authorized edition of the Book of Covenants was published in 1835, and by that we will stand. The others agree with it in all important matters.

(The speaker's answers to questions are omitted because the questions had to be omitted for reasons stated in connection with Mr. Braden's speech. ED.)

The authorized compilation of the revelations was presented to the church and endorsed. Yes sir, we accept the present Book of Doctrine and Covenants. What Smith has given and we have accepted as revelations are what we are to be bound by. We look upon Joseph Smith the same as any other man. Peter could be inspired at one time, and curse and swear at another. I deny that Smith ever gave a revelation on plural marriage and challenge the proof. What Joseph Smith gave as revelations from God I will defend. We are here to discuss the propositions we have formulated. My opponent has always tried to discuss what was not before us. The proposition refers to the revelations Joseph Smith gave to the world, that have the stamp of having come from him. When I introduce a witness, I am bound by all that he says upon the point he is introduced for. We will see who will seek to deny the testimony of the witnesses they introduce. We will not undertake to introduce a witness and then deny his testimony.

(Questions presented, but omitted because others have been for reasons before stated. ED.)

My opponent is willing to try Smith's work by tales rather than by the word of God. Will he compare his works with the Bible? If this is not the correct standard, what is? If Joseph Smith's work compares with the Bible, is he a fraud? Should he not be tried by that standard? He says this is a fraud of a late date, and he need not go back further. Then if he cannot prove this, according to his own confession he must go back farther. This Bible comparison he calls Mormon Twaddle, but it is Twaddle from the New Testament. It is better than slanderous stories and tales on which Mr. Braden lies. Mr. Braden has gone just far enough to see that by a comparison of Joseph Smith's work with the Bible he must lose, hence his attempt to escape it.

We should listen dispassionately. This requires effort, because preconceived ideas have to be removed. Some have erroneous ideas with reference to prophets.

It would be a fallacy for me to state something as evidence that is not true. I will try to present evidence that will do what I say it will. I will bring the proof and you can examine it. Evidence should come as evidence, and not as tales.

Notes: (forthcoming).


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  May 28, 1891.                             No. 27.



All that Joseph Smith gave to the world, purporting to be revelations from God, were entirely of human origin, and frauds; and Joseph Smith was an impostor.

Clark Braden of the Christian Church affirms: E. L. Kelley of the Latter Day Saints denies.

Elder J. D. McClure, of Tabor, Ia., acted as Elder Braden's moderator, and Elder R. M. Elvin of Lamoni as Elder Kelley's moderator,


The first thing is his reference to certain statements in one of the questions I asked him concerning Harris's and Whitmer's statements, and he says if they stated so and so their statements are not true. If they lied in one instance they lied in the other; so away go your three witnesses. He accepts the Book of Covenants, but not the Book of Commandments. The question is not what he accepts, but what Joseph Smith gave. He thinks the Kinderhook plates are genuine, but not inspired. I am not talking about the inspiration of the plates, but about Joe's inspiration. We know the Book of Abraham is a fraud. What business have you to publish a part of Joseph Smith's work and reject a part? If Joseph was deceived in one thing, what reason have you to believe him reliable in other things? By what rule do you determine which part of Joseph's inspiration you are willing to accept, and which part you are not willing to accept? Tell us why you introduce Joseph Smith as a witness, and then reject a part of his testimony. The proposition does not say what Josephites are willing to accept, but what Joseph Smith gave to the world. What did he give? The Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, Kinderhook plates, Salem revelation, the revelation on plural marriage. You can't dodge the issue. He thinks the revelation on the rebellion was a true revelation. The proposition is, "All that Joseph Smith gave to the world purporting to be revelations from God." If Joseph Smith lied in giving some, how do you know he did not lie in giving all? What business have you to accept one revelation Joseph gave to the world and deny another? That is like spiritism. Now it is and now it aint. When does Joseph tell the truth?

He says he is not dependent on these witnesses. But if they lied in one instance, how do you know they did not lie in all instances?

He says if a man teaches as the Bible teaches we are to accept it. But the devil quoted scripture, but did Christ accept his doctrines? A man may preach a splendid sermon, but that don't prove him to be a good man. The devil may claim he is inspired, but that don't make him a prophet. I shall introduce witnesses to prove my case, and we shall see whether I shall be ruled out.

Solomon Spaulding wrote several manuscripts, one of which, containing the Nephite-Zarahemlite story, with the Jaredite story added, he left at the printing office of Patterson in Pittsburg. While it was there, Sydney Rigdon, who was hanging around the office a great deal, stole it, and was engaged for a long time while revamping it, and adding the religious part.

I think my opponent and I will be agreed that Solomon Spaulding wrote a manuscript called manuscript found. The issue is, which of the two books is the manuscript found, the Book of Mormon, or the little thing you have over in the printing office. I claim it is the Book of Mormon. The little book you have is not manuscript found; the title page that says so is a lying fraud, concocted over in that office. I have the statement that there was no title page. You concocted that over there. Spaulding was eight or nine years writing. It is silly to assume that al he wrote was that little manuscript, a hundred pages in eight or nine tears. Do you expect people to believe any such stuff as that? He got his manuscript story dramatized, and all the witnesses say it was in scriptural style; is yours that wat? Then it is not true that your little thing is the manuscript found. Persons heard this read and gave 25 features like the Book of Mormon, but which are not in your little book. Witnesses heard the manuscript read and describe it, and their testimony shows you have not got that manuscript. The Josephite mountain has labored and brought forth a considerable mouse. But I am glad you are fast. You can't go back upon your own title page. I shall show by witnesses that a manuscript was written by Spaulding, that Rigdon had it, and prophesied about it. That he preached, baptized, and tried to Mormonize his congregations. Mormons have claimed Rigdon was a printer. He was not. He had not the necessary edication. Rigdon lounged around Patterson's office until it was complained of. He speaks about some such book before it came out. We shall show all this by witnesses. My opponent may stand up and call them names; he may denounce them, men and women of high and honorable positions and reputations. Well, he may say, you will denounce my witnesses. Yes I shall, and with your own evidence. This is the work before us. I shall introduce these witnesses to-morrow night. Remember the issue is, which of these is the manuscript found, the Book of Mormon, or that little thing over here in the printing office,



I hold in my hand that which he says is a fraud, because it says on the title page, "manuscript found." None of this title page purports to have been found in the manuscript. Can not the Herald office give a title page to a book, by its own title page? It don't say this was in the original. It simply gives this as a title page of its own, and then begins a reproduction of the manuscript. So my friend is mistaken.

I notice a statement with reference to his witnesses. He says that this book could not be a copy of the manuscript found, because his witnesses say it does not agree in style. It reminds me of a story a boy was getting off on his father once. He said he met a boy and the boy said his father had a brother, and yet he was no relation to his father's brother. He wanted his father to guess how that could be. The old man studied a while, gave it up, and asked the boy how it could be. The boy answered, "Well father, he just lied about it, that's all." Here is the manuscript story, proven to be such, and it speaks for itself. They simply lied, that's all. I saw an questioned Mrs. McKinstry about her testimony, and she said she was only a little girl, and did not know anything about it. I asked her how she knew these names were in the manuscript, She said she did not know until they told her they were in it, and then she thought she remembered them.

But he states that I have lost my three witnesses. If Harris and Whitmer say it was transmitted in a certain way and I now say it was not, away goes my three witnesses. Has he proved they did say so? He says Whitmer said so and so. I say if he said so, he was not in a position to know. If we must take witnesses for all they say let him accept D. Whitmer as a witness for all he says. In those times there was a good deal of household gossip. Those who actually looked through the Eurim [sic] and Thummim and saw how it was done are the ones who know. Harris never claimed to know just how it was done. I accept the testimony of those who were in a position to know.

But I have lost my witness Joseph Smith too. I said everything that he held out to be a revelation, I would defend as a revelation. Did Joseph Smith claim to translate the Book of Abraham by the Eurim and Thummim? No. The Book of Mormon was translated by means of Eurim and Thimmim. My friend would like to make it out some other way, because he wants something to strike.

He says it is not for the Josephites to say what they will accept and defend, Who are to say then? The Christian Church? The Utah Mormon Church? For ages the world was running after this and that as the work of Peter or Paul. My friend cannot make me accept everything that has been asserted Joseph Smith gave to the world as revelation.

He never goes to the Bible but he puts his foot in it. Jesus did not say to the devil, I will not accept what you have quoted, but he said, "it is written." He answered him by reference to the standard to which the devil appealed. Will you go with me the rest of the way? Will you accept the rest? We ask that my friend shall do the same.

We are willing to go upon the platform and prove that Joseph Smith's teachings were in accordance with the Bible, that all of them were. "He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ hath both the Father and the Son." It is an error to suppose that inspiration must necessarily be in the best language of the times. The early Christians did not so speak. Joseph Smith was not a learned man. He was inspired to translate, and the Eurim and Thummim was the power or means which gave the word or the idea. His mind was lit up, and the Eurim and Thummim was to him a lexicon. When I explained this to Prof. Hornby, of Logan, Ia., who has been a candidate for state superintendent of Iowa, he said, "I can understand that way of translating." This is an evidence that what he did he did right -- he put it in the vocabulary of Joseph Smith; not that of the president of Dartmouth college. In volume 1, page 90, of Horne's introduction, you will find this principle laid dowm. Horne explicitly declares, that when the Holy Spirit spoke through Paul, Jesus, Peter, etc., it came not in classic Greek, but in the vernacular of the times. See also volume 2, pages 22, 23.

Taking up the debate I had with him before, you will discover that I took a position, and the coming out of this manuscript story has been to my aid.

This debate should be founded upon proof. Bring out your evidence and let us have something to work on.

Note: One of Elder Kelley's replies to Braden's accusations is an example of what James T. Cobb, in the Salt Lake Tribune, in 1879 called "resorting to the Mormon's ever ready rejoinder... 'it's all a lie!'" Braden says that numerous eye witnesses testified that Solomon Spalding had written an historical novel composed in the style of the biblical scriptures. These witnesses include several of Spalding's old neighbors in the Conneaut area, a man who claimed to have been his proofreader, Spalding's wife, a neighbor of Spalding's from Amity, and the Rev. Robert Patterson, Sr. himself. Rather than hold open the sight possibility that Spalding wrote such a story, Elder Kelley makes the pronouncement that the manuscript published by the RLDS Church in 1885 was "the only tale that Spaulding ever did write," and that the joint testimony of the several eye witnesses, about the scriptural style of the "Manuscript Found," is best explained by saying: "They simply lied, that's all." Kelley then goes on to document an example of such "lying" on the part of some of these old witnesses by providing his own anecdote of an interview he reportedly held with Matilda Spalding McKinstry in 1882. Mrs. McKinstry, nowhere in any of her known statements on the subject, ever admits to telling lies about her foster father and his writings -- but that fact does not stop Elder Kelley from implying that the woman is a liar. He reinforces this particular implication when he says that Solomon Spalding only ever wrote one manuscript, leaving behind with the audience in the 1891 debate the clear impression that those witnesses who testified to Spalding's having written more than just that one (as Mrs. McKinstry testified, saying that he even wrote short stories for her benefit) were patent liars. How it came to pass that so many wicked witnesses happened to tell the exact same "lie" about the "biblical style," Elder Kelley does not see fit to reveal.


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  June 4, 1891.                             No. 28.


(As we have given place to Braden's Theory of Spaulding's MSS. we are requested as an act of justice to give place to the following. ED.)



The story was hatched in 1834 by one D. P. Hulburt who had been cut off from the Church of the Latter Day Saints in Kirtland, for immoral conduct, and he swore he would have revenge on Joseph Smith for it.

He learned that this fanciful story of a shipwrecked crew on the lake coast of northern Ohio, and he started out to find some parties who had lived in Spaulding's neighborhood to get them to say the story Spaulding wrote was like the Book of Mormon. He soon found willing tools of [J.] N. Miller, A. Wright, N. Howard, and a few others who hated Joseph Smith as much as Hulburt, and with the Book of Mormon on his hand he read to them and they would pretend to identify it as what they had heard Spaulding read 23 years before. While doing this he found out that Mrs. Spaulding was living, and so he returned to Kirtland and got the Presbyterians to call a meeting in their church and raise him money enough to go to Massachusetts and get the manuscript from Mrs. Spaulding. They subscribed liberally, for Hulbert told them he would down the Mormons with it. He got his money and left for the manuscript and sure enough found it. He came back in triumph to those who sent him, and the manuscript was put in the hands of E. D. Howe, Hulbert's partner, and who was also bent on destroying the Latter Day Saints because his wife joined them, and he was terribly mad. Howe read the manuscript and lo! not a word in it like the Book of Mormon. To publish it would never do, so a hasty consultation was had and they resolved that the manuscript should be hid and the pretended affidavits of Miller, Wright, Howard, etc., should be printed.

This worked like a charm for a time, and Howe printed and sold the affidavits instead of the manuscript, by the thousand. Finally dold his printing press and fixtures to L. L. Rice of Ohio, who took the materials to Honolulu of the Sandwich Islands. Long years after President Fairchild of Oberlin College, Ohio, was in Honolulu to visit his old friend Rice, and while overhauling the old papers got with this printing press when they found the old Spaulding Manuscript Story. It is now published and resembles in no respect the Book of Mormon. Not only this, but it is quite evident that the man who wrote it never could have been the man who wrote the Book of Mormon. This is the only tale that Spaulding ever did write, and it shows him to have breen a man of meagre ability in any line, and not a man capable of writing extensively on anything. No evidence exists that he ever did write more than this. What Spaulding did write was never out of the family possession from 1816 to 1834, and no possible chance for any body in the world to make a story from it at the time the Book of Mormon was discovered and published except the Spaulding family. The story is only kept up now by disappointed preachers who cannot meet the Latter Day Saints upon Bible grounds, and hence they talk of this to deceive.



All that Joseph Smith gave to the world, purporting to be revelations from God, were entirely of human origin, and frauds; and Joseph Smith was an impostor.

Clark Braden of the Christian Church affirms: E. L. Kelley of the Latter Day Saints denies.

Elder J. D. McClure, of Tabor, Ia., acted as Elder Braden's moderator, and Elder R. M. Elvin of Lamoni as Elder Kelley's moderator,


If Joseph Smith was in harmony with the Bible it does not follow that he was a true prophet. When my opponent furnishes the evidence that he was in harmony with the Bible it will be time enough for me to attend to it. It is not my business to affirm a negative. Can you not see that you are trying to dodge the real issue by attempting to get me to affirm a negative. Impostors frequently preach the truth of the Christian doctrine, preach what the Bible teaches more closely than good men do it. An uninspired man may teach what the Bible teaches and be an impostor and villain. The Bible teaches that "He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ hath both the Father and the Son," but that means more than in utterance. An impostor may teach in harmony with the truths of Christ, and yet be as false as the devil. If a man claims to be inspired, and that God gives him revelations and God did not do so, then he is a false prophet, though he copy every word from the Bible. His claim that God gave him the revelations which he copies from the Bible is false.

The next thing is that little matter of manuscript found. He pretends that it is not a fraud to put this title page onto that little book. Everybody in taking it up and reading that book would understand that Solomon Spaulding was responsible for that, and Mormons have so urged it. But Mr. Rice says that all that was on the manuscript when it came into his possession was, "Manuscript Story, Conneaur Creek." I denounce it as a lying fraud and forgery. I don't care who got it up. It was done with the intention of deceiving. My opponent tells you there was a "manuscript found" and this is a manuscript found and therefore it is the manuscript found. He tells you there was a certificate attached showing this was the "Manuscript Found." It is false, and not a word of truth in it. What shall we say of a man who will stand up and make a statement like that. Manuscript Found is not in or about the certificate, and you know it.

Mrs. McKinstry makes an affidavit, and then Kelley goes to playing witness. Don't you do that Kelley, or I'll impeach the witness. I would not be allowed to do that in court. Don't you do it Kelley, or I'll teach the witness a lesson.

Now about te translation of the Book of Mormon. David Whitmer says on page 12 of "An address to all the believers in Christ," that Joseph Smith had a seer stone, which he placed in a hat. Looking at it the writing appeared, and under it the English translation which was given to the scribe, repeated by him to Joseph to see if it was correct, then it disappeared and another character and the translation appeared. The statement of Harris which I have here and read to you is the same. The translation was given word for word, and kept before the eyes of the inspired Joseph until he got it correctly transcribed by the inspired Oliver. Kelley says Whitmer and Harris didn't know how it was done. I think Harrius did, for he wrote [1]16 pages of it. If these men lie in saying they know how the translating was done, they lie about seeing the plates. Remember I don't introduce them as my witnesses.

The issue in regard to the Book of Abraham is not as to how Smith translated it, but did he lie in saying he translated it correctly. If he lied concerning this he did concerning the Book of Mormon. That just simply demolishes Joseph's claim. If he told a falsehood concerning this he did concerning the others.

Now then with reference to the devil and Jesus. Did you notice how he dodged the point? Did Jesus admit the devil to possess the Father and the Son because he repeated Scripture? Does it prove that Smith possessed the Father and the Son because he repeated scripture?

But, O wonder of wonders! The Eurim and Thummim is a lexicon; Joseph says they were spectacles. A couple of stones fastened to the rim of a bow, a lexicon! Alexicon is a book in which the meaning of words is pointed out on a printed page. The Eurim and Thummim, those spectacles, were a lexicon! It's rich! What does he take you for when he gets in such stuff as that. The witnesses say he looked through the spectacles and saw a word appear before him. Who made that word appear before him? God. He saw no lexicon, didn't look into one. To say a pair of spectacles was a lexicon is an insult to your intelligence. There is no parallel at all between the writing of the New Testament and the translation of the Book of Mormon. The writers of the New Testament wrote out ideas, sentences, Joseph Smith saw a word appear before him as he looked through his spectacles.

My opponent wanted to know about testimony; we are ready for that now. We must notice the issue: The character of the manuscript Spaulding wrote: did Rigdon get possession of it? Did he falsify the appearance of the book? Was Rigdon in the vicinity of Smith's? Did he assist in perpetrating a fraud that was perpetrated in getting out that book?

(All testimony condensed.)

The testimony of Mrs. Matilda Davidson-Spaulding, Spaulding's widow, Braden-Kelley debate, page 41: "Spaulding conceived the idea of writing the history of the race that produced the antiquities surrounding his home. He wrote in Bible style. His neighbors came in from time to time and heard portions read. It claimed to have been written by one of the lost nation, and to have been recovered from the earth. Spaulding, from his acquaintance with the classics and history was enabled to introduce many singular names, which were noticed by the people, and could be easily recognized by them."

Mrs. McKinstry, Spaulding's daughter, testifies. New Light on Mormonism, page 237.

My father read the manuscript to the neighbors and a clergyman. Some of the names I have never forgotten. They are as fresh to me today as though I heard them yesterday. They are Mormon, Moroni, Lamanite, and Nephi, etc. I did not read it, but looked it through. Was about 11 years old.

Oliver Smith. Braden-Kelley debate, page 35: "Solomon Spaulding boarded with me six months and occupied all his time writing a historical novel on the first settlers of this country. Said he intended to trace them from Jerusalem to America, and describe their arts, and sciences, and thus account for the mounds. Nephi and Lehi, were the leading characters."

The next is J. Spaulding, S. Spaulding's brother. Same page, Braden-Kelley debate: "I visited S. Spaulding in 1810. He was writing a book in which he endeavored to show that the American Indians are the descendants of the Jews, or the ten lost tribes. He wrote in the old style, and began almost every sentence with "and it came to pass," or "now it came to pass."

The next is Henry Lake, Spaulding's business partner:

Spaulding read hours to me from a manuscript he was writing which he called "manuscript found." It represented the Indians as descendants of the lost tribes of Israel. It gave an account of their leaving Jerusalem, of their travels and great wars. I told Spaulding so frequent a use of "And it came to pass," made it ridiculous.

Aaron Wright, same page of Braden-Kelley debate:

Spaulding showed to me and read a history he was writing, which he said was to account for the ancient mounds, etc. He claimed the Indians were descendants of the lost tribes of Israel.

Artemus Cunningham, same page of Braden-Kelley debate:

Spaulding read to me from his manuscript. He had adopted the ancient style. It purported to be a record found in the earth or a cave. Nephi was the principal hero.

Dr. Nahum Howard, same page of Braden-Kelley debate:

Spaulding told me that he was writing a history of the people who built the mounds, etc.

J. N. Miller, same page of Braden-Kelley debate:

I perused Solomon Spaulding's manuscripts, more particularly the one he called "Manuscript Found." It purported to be a history of the first settlers of America, which he described as coming from Jerusalem.

A. Jackson, Gregg's "Prophet of Palmyra," page 445:

Spaulding frequently read his manuscript to his neighbors. He wrote in Bible style. "And it came to pass," occurred so often he was called "old come to pass." The names Mormon, Moroni, Nephi, Lamanite were in it. The closing scene was at Cumorah where all the righteous were slain.

[Jos.] Miller, 42 page of Braden-Kelley debate:

I heard Spaulding read most, if not all of his manuscript written on foolscap. I have heard the Book of Mormon read. When I heard the account of the soldiers placing a red mark on their foreheads, it seemed to reproduce the words of Spaulding's manuscript.

Ruddick Mc[Kee], same page:

"I boarded at Spaulding's tavern in 1814. Heard manuscript read which was written on scraps of paper torn from a book. It was a history of the tribes that inhabited Canaan. He called it "Lost Manuscript" or some such name.

In Patterson's "Who wrote the Book of Mormon?" is the statement that Rev. Cephas Dood told Mr. G. M. French, that Rigdon was the agent in transforming Spaulding's manuscript into the Book of Mormon.

There was published in the "Saints Herald" a statement of Col. Leffingwell, that the manuscript was written in scriptural style and that he employed him to dramatize it for him.

The foregoing testimony is positive, clear and direct. I ask you, Could any Mormon get up and give a better outline of the Book of Mormon than they give in describing Spaulding's manuscript?


I am more surprised at my friend' than I was last evening. The idea that a man will get in the stand and pretend to read what he says are affidavits, when he has not given you a date, nor the place where one was taken, nor by whom one was taken; and yet he stands up and reads them and expects you to receive them as you would smething that you had reason to have confidence in. Did he give the name of the person who took this evidence, and where it was originally published and where he got it to place in this Braden-Kelley Debate? Has he not simply read from what he stuck into the Braden-Kelley Debate? Is this testimony to be received? Can you ascertain any facts from such evidence? Dont you remember that he referred last night to a gentleman by the name of D. P. Hulbert, and afterwards he referred to him as one of the biggest liars in this country, and Howe was his partner in lying. Did you know that all that matter was got up by this D. P. Hurlbut and first published in a work by E. D. Howe. It first appeared in this work by Howe, and was gotten up by this Hulbert who he says was one of the biggest liars in this country. He did not give you the time and place and who took the affidavit, because he knew he could not. He has acknowledged that Hulbert who got them up was one of the biggest liars in the country. But he is going to impeach me! If Braden has not found me out yet, let him begin his impeachment. Let him go on with his impeachment, it will be just as applicable to this question as what he has read. Let him proceed, he will come just as near impeaching me as Joseph Smith, and no nearer. He might drum up some lying man that would tell a lie on me and that is just what has been done with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

Now I want him to show where these pretended affidavits came from. Before whom were they taken?

Let him name his blunders in the Book of Mormon. When he does so I will tell him how they came there. He asks me to give reasons for errors when he has not pointed out a single one. There is not a single contradiction in any material between the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

I have challenged him to prove a single contradiction between the doctrine presented to the world by Mr. Smith and the Bible, and his answer is, he is not here to prove a negative. The rule of the Bible is. if a man "abides in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." Yet he stands before you and says that a vile impostor may preach to doctrine of Christ. It is simply Braden against the Bible. He is trying to lead your minds away from the Bible, from the rule. He contradicts Christ. Christ says if you are of God you will accept the word of God. "He that is of God heareth God's word." "He that abides in the doctrine of Christ hath both the Father and the Son." Braden comes along and says a man can preach this and yet be a rascal. Paul says, "No man knows the things of a man but by the Spirit of man which is in him; even so no one knows the things of God but the Spririt of God." As no man knows the things of a man except by the spirit of man, so no man knows the things of God except by the Spirit of God. So my friend Braden is entirely out with the Bible. Impostors have preached the doctrine of Christ in some things, in many things, but not in everything. Jesus tells us how to detect them. "By their fruits ye shall know them." Turn to Matthew 23 and you will find what the fruits are. "From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." Jesus says they speak their fruits. Braden says they may come along and preach the truth and be impostors. Here Braden contradicts Jesus' statement. He is contrary to the Bible. No wonder he is not going back to the Bible. He can't go back to it without contradicting its principles. By their fruits or teachings we may know whether they are Christians. This is what I propose to try Joseph Smith upon before this audience. That is what Jesus says to do with reference to it. "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." Men should be tried by this rule, not by what some lying person may say against them. They speak evil of and lied about the Christ; they lied about Stephen and stoned him to death. They persecuted the reformers and every one of them had to suffer; but they didn't try these men by the standard God set up. God says they should be tried by the rule, "If any man come unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not." The converse would be, if he brings this doctrine receive him.

He has tried to make you believe that this title page was put in this book and represented to be part of the original manuscript. He said it did not contain ":Manuscript Found." But why did he not tell you it did contain "Manuscript Story." This title page was printed at the Herald Office, and does not purport to be a part of the manuscript. The story has gone through the world that Spaulding had written a manuscript called "Manuscript Found," and when this manuscript of Spaulding's was gotten, the title page called it what it had been called before, Manuscript Found." The witnesses had spoken of it as "Manuscript Found," but on the outside of the wrapper was written, "Manuscript Story, Conneaut Creek." It is given to the world as a verbatim copy by Pres. Fairchild, a copy he made for me and said it was verbatim. This is the long lost story. The only one that has ever been found. So when the Herald Office printed it as they had a right to do, they called it "Manuscript Found." It is a manuscript found over there in Honolulu, and so it has been known to the world. This is the work and it is perfectly legitimate.

The statement I made with reference to Mrs. McKinstry saying she did not know anything about the matters of which she testified was published in 1882, where she or anybody else could read and contradict it. It was true. She was only eleven years old, and knew nothing about the matters she testified about.

With reference to the translation of the Book of Mormon,. I told you that I did not accept the work he read from. I don't know whether Harris made that statement or not. As far as the translation is concerned, he did not understand it. He may have told the truth so far as he understood it, and the same way with David Whitmer. The only way they could know was from Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery. Mr. Braden, instead of going to the best testimony, goes to secondary testimony. None knew how it was done but the men who did it. The third volume of Times and Seasons, page 154 shows that the translation was done by Eurim and Thummim. The revelation to Oliver Cowdery in regard to his attempt to translate, shows that he was to exercise his own powers of mind. "You must study it out in your mind." That is the way I told you. The length of time they were engaged on the translation shows it took a power of mind, and exercise of mind to do the work. They were 60 days translating 116 pages. I did not say the spectacles were a lexicon. He has placed words in my mouth in his speeches time and time again. I said the Eurim and Thummim answered in place of a lexicon by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He said I said they were a lexicon, and made a great noise about it. He is wrong in his position and he has to do something. There is not a word in English answering to a similar word in another language. The thought or word of the original was presented to Joseph Smith, and the translation was "studied out in his own mind," and it was to the fact of the correctness of the translation that Harris and Whitmer testified. God said to them that it was correctlty translated, and that is the way they knew it.

According to Mr. Braden's claim that an uninspired man may teach corrctly the whole doctrine of Christ, there is no way to tell whether a man is inspired, unless I suppose running around and hunting up some stories against him. That's the way the devil used to do and the way he always did. Paul said, "if a man claims to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write are the commandments of God." He says, Did the Savior accept the devil? No, but he met him on his own ground. He answered him with scripture. The Savior did not deny what was true, but he said it is also written. Jesus came to teach and keep the law. If he had not kept the law of God he would not have been Christ. Jesus says that Satan abode not in the truth. That is the reason he was Satan. If my friend can find that Mr. Smith did not abide in the truth, I will throw up Mr. Smith just that quickly. God's work is the truth, and men must abide in that truth.

Note 1: Elder Kelley makes some interesting allegations as to how the Solomon Spalding claims for Book of Mormon authorship originated, but he gives his auditors no references to any source establishing these allegations. Kelley says that the claims were first "hatched in 1834" by the ex-Mormon, D. Philatus Hurlbut -- that Hurlbut learned of Spalding's old "shipwrecked crew" story (subsequently published by the RLDS Church in 1885) and then found some persons who "hated Joseph Smith" and persuaded them to "say the story Spaulding wrote was like the Book of Mormon." If this was indeed what happened "in 1834," is seems passing strange that this same D. P. Hurlbut relied upon the 1833 testimony of these same old residents of the Conneaut area to seek out and establish contact with Solomon Spalding's widow, in order to procure from her the loan of her husband's fictional writings. The only possible explanation of why Hurlbut would do such a thing (at least, in the reconstruction of events given by Kelley) was so that he could obtain and destroy Spalding's extant writings -- so they might not ever compromise the lying testimony of "the pretended affidavits" he had concocted with the old associates of Spalding who "hated Joseph Smith." Again, it seems odd that, having gone to all this trouble to fabricate some very specific testimony providing a plausible alternative origin for the Book of Mormon, D. P. Hurlbut would have returned to Kirtland "in triumph" and then simply handed over to Eber D. Howe the useless "shipwrecked crew" story. Kelley's reconstruction of events next has Howe discovering that Hurlbut did not give him a Spalding manuscript suitable for "exposing the Mormons;" however, after "consultation" Howe inexplicably decides to both suppress the "shipwrecked crew" story and to publish its synopsis, along with Hurlbut's "pretended affidavits" in his 1834 book, Mormonism Unvailed. Had Kelley wished to cite any supporting evidence for these imaginative allegations, he might of made reference to Elder Benjamin Winchester's 1840 pamphlet on this subject. The fact that he does not offer any such reference perhaps indicates that Kelly was more interested in espousing rhetoric at this point than in exposing "the truth."

Note 2: Elder Kelley, having rejected the Conneaut witnesses' 1833 statements as nothing but "lies," suddenly finds at least one component of their compiled testimony believeable, when he says that Solomon Spalding wrote a story called "Manuscript Found." See Kelley's Fifth Speech for more of the same rationalization. Kelley further asserts that this same story was published by the RLDS Church (in 1885) and therefore, the Church was justified in naming the Spalding story it printed: "Manuscript Found." Furthermore, Kelley sees nothing wrong in the Church's editors having affixed a title to the published work which it did not bear in its manuscript nor in the typescript Oberlin College President James A. Fairchild furnished the RLDS in 1885. Why Kelley chooses to believe the same Conneaut witnesses he elsewhere calls liars, on this one point in their common testimony, he does not say. The reason for his making this exception is quite obvious. Many books and periodical articles published between 1834 and 1885, concerning the Mormons, contained references to a certain Solomon Spalding story called "Manuscript Found." By their ascribing this same name to the sketchy, unfinished tale published by their church in 1885, the RLDS leadership could palm off their booklet as being the exact same story referred to in all those books and articles. The RLDS were totally unjustified and rather deceitful in pulling off this little trick. The less daring Utah Mormons were content to publish their 1886 edition of the same Spalding text under the more truthful title: "Manuscript Story."

Note 3: Elder Kelley states that he interviewed Mrs. McKinstry and that "the matters if which she testified was published in 1882, where she or anybody also could read it and contradict it." Exactly when and where Kelley first published the transcript of this interview "in 1882," he does not say. He quoted from the same transcript during the 1884 Braden-Kelley Debate (see page 82 of the published 1884 debate). President Joseph Smith III was seeming unaware of the availability and content of such an interview with Mrs. McKinstry, at least as late as 1883. In his Saints Herald article of Mar. 17, 1883 he speaks only of her 1880 affidavit in Scribners' Monthly as supplying him with information on her experiences, memories, and testimony.


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  June 11, 1891.                             No. 29.



All that Joseph Smith gave to the world, purporting to be revelations from God, were entirely of human origin, and frauds; and Joseph Smith was an impostor.

Clark Braden of the Christian Church affirms: E. L. Kelley of the Latter Day Saints denies.

Elder J. D. McClure, of Tabor, Ia., acted as Elder Braden's moderator, and Elder R. M. Elvin of Lamoni as Elder Kelley's moderator,



Gentlemen, moderators, ladies and gentlemen: I have not for a long time seen any body labor quite so hard as my opponent has in that speech.

A number of the witnesses' testimony which I have read was first published in Howe's "Mormonism Unveiled" in 1835 or 36 [sic]. But I will remind my friend, as he says his statements have been published, that these statements have been republished in hundreds of books all over the country, just as you have your statement. They have been quoted and appealed to and never have been set to one side. Further than that my good friend, I will towards the close bring in evidence of the genuineness of this testimony. I am loaded in that regard. He says Hulburt took most of these affidavits and he was a liar. I have never yet learned that a witness's statement was to be set aside because the lawyer was a rascal. Hulburt may have been a rascal, but hundrds of these books were published and put right into the hands of these men, and the evidence was never set to one side. It was published right there under the very noses of your leading representatives, and they never said a word against them. never tried to impeach them.

In reply to his scriptural argument; I just ask the question, if the devil repeats the words of the Bible, is he in the Father and the Son? He is compelled to say no. If Joseph Smith repeats the words of the Bible, is he in the Father and the Son? Does it prove more in one case thanthe other? That is just the way that things stand. What's the use of carrying it further. Can't a scoundrel get up and repeat scripture for the purpose of deceiving? What is the use of insulting your intelligence with such stuff as that. Out upon such balderdash! Don't insult us with such stuff as that again. The question is did the Savior accept the devil as being in the Father and Son because he quoted scripture. Why not grapple with it like a man, and answer it. Does it prove Joseph Smith to have possessed the Father and the Son because he repeated Bible?

Now that title page. Rice says the manuscript as he turned it over to Fairchild was as he received it, and it had no manuscript found about it, it was :Manuscript Story, Conneaut Creek." They took out Conneaut Creek and put in Manuscript Found; that's just what they did. There was a manuscript known as Manuscript Found, but that which was put into their hands has not the words Manuscript Found about it anywhere. It had Manuscript Story, Conneaut Creek, and you took out Conneaut Creek and put in manuscript found, a lying fraud upon the face of it. Yes, it was found! O Kelley, Kelley, It was a Manuscript Found; You know that was not what you meant in that title page. You might as well own right up that you have delibertly put out upon the world a fraud. That's the simple truth, and you can't wiggle out of it.

That certificate by D. P. Hulbert is taken by Kelley because it's on his side; but when Hulbert testifies on my side, he's a liar. The words Manuscript Found were not in that manuscript, and you knew when you put them there that you were forging. You knew that you were prepetrating a fraud. I intend to rub this thing in, that's all. 

I have read you the statements of D. Whitmer and Harris about the translation of the Book of Mormon. He says those statements are false. If they lied concerning how the translation was made, they lied concerning the plates from which it was made. Away go your witnesses, that's all. That is just what I expected him to do. He has lopped off two witnesses to the Book of Mormon by impeaching their testimony. Cowdery never translated. Your revelation says, "Thou shalt have no other gift than to write." Deny that and I will give you chapter and verse. All right you shall have it. Cowdery never translated. Harris wrote 116 pages, and do you pretend that he didn't know how the translating was done? Whitmer says he knew how it was done.

The Lexicon. He says I didn't state him correctly. Well there's a wonderful difference between wheele dum and wheedle dee. How can those spectacles take the place of a lexicon? He knows that he insults the intelligence of this audience when he comes up and talks such stuff as that. Joseph saw only an individual word, then he translated it himself. Was that it? Then the spectacles did not help him translate at all. Did he not see the English translation? If Smith looked through the spectacles and saw a word he didn't originate that word did he? Fix it up again, give another turn to that crank.

You can't detect an impostor he says. No sir you can't by his claims, nor by the words he utters. The devil can give revelations in the same way that Joseph Smith did, by imitating the Bible, but that's no proof that he's a prophet. A counterfeit is as much like the genuine as possible.

Now we call your attention to further testimony. "Who wrote the Book of Mormon," p. 10. Joseph Miller, Amity, Pa., My recollection is that Mr. Spaulding left a transcript of the MSS. with Patterson, of Pittsburg, Pa., for publication. That publication was delayed until Spaulding should write a preface, and in the meantime the transcript was spirited away: Spaulding told me that Rigdon had taken it, or was suspicioned for it.

Redick McKee, same page: Spaulding told me he submitted the work to Patterson for publication, but it was not printed. I also understood he was occasionally rewriting and he improving his descriptions of supposed battles. He spoke of Rigdon as an employee in the establishment of Patterson and Lambdin.

Dr. Dodd who examined Spaulding in his last sickness took Mr. Geo. M. French to Spaulding's grave, and there told him Rigdon was the agent in transforming Spaulding's MSS. into Book of Mormon. Patterson's pamphlet, p. 10. The statement of Rev. Jno. Winters; p. 11, ibid: Dr. Winters was in Rigdon's study when the latter took down a manuscript and identified it as a Romance of the Bible, which a Presbyterian minister, Spaulding, took to the printer to see if it would pay to publish it. The authority for the above is Rev. A. G. Kirk, to whom Dr. Winter communicated it in conversation, 1870-71.

Mrs. Mary W. Irvine, daughter of Dr. Winter, writes from Sharon, Pa., April 5, 1881. Have frequently heard my father speak of Rigdon having Spaulding's MSS. Father always said Rigdon helped Smith in his scheme by revising and making the Mormon Bible out of Spaulding's MSS.

"Rev. A. J. Bonsall, stepson of Dr. Winter, authorizes the statement that he repeatedly heard Winter say that Rigdon had shown him the Spaulding MSS,, purporting to be a history of the American Indians, which he had received from the printers." Patterson, pp. 11-12.

[Mrs.] Amos Dunlap, Warren, O., Dec. 7, '79, writes: Visited Rigdon's family when quite a child. On one occasion Rigdon brought out a MSS. and commenced reading. His wife said she meant to burn it. He said, No, you won't; it will be a great thing some day. Patterson, p. 12. Geo Clark, son of Jerome Clark, Braden-Kelley Debate, p. 42: Shortly before Hulburt got the MSS. from father's, Mrs. Davidson gave to my wife a MSS. to read, saying, "The Mormon Bible is almost a literal copy of this MSS."

I have also the statement of Clark in "New Light on Mormonism," in substance to the same effect. 

Ja's Jeffries, Braden-Kelley Debate, p. 42. Forty years ago I was in business in St. Louis. Knew S. Rigdon. He acted as business manager of Mormons in business with me. Rigdon told me there was in the printing office in Ohio, a MSS, tracing the Indians from the lost tribes of Israel. He and Smith looked it over together. Smith took the it and said "I'll print it," and went off to Palmyra N. Y. These statements trace the MSS. into the hands of Rigdon. Winters, Mrs. Eichbaum, Mrs. Dunlap and Mrs Treadwell, (see "New light on Mormonism," p. 241, knew it was talked about, its contents known, and they recognize the similarity between it and the Book of Mormon.

Rigdon foretold the appearance of the book, its contents, etc. A. Bentley, Millennial Harbinger for 1844, p. 39: Rigdon told me there was a book to appear, which had been found engraved on gold plates, two years before Book of Mormon made its appearance, or had been heard of by me.

A, Campbell, ibid: The conversation alluded to in Bro. Bentley's letter was in my presence, and my recollection of it is the same as his excerpt a year's difference in date.

Rev D. Atwater, "History of the Disciples on Western Reserve," Hayden pp, 239, 40: That Rigdon knew before of the coming of the Book of Mormon is to me certain from what I heard him say. On his first visit to my father's he said a book was to be published containing an account of the aborigines.

A. B. Green: Rigdon preached fully the restoration of the gospel. He spoke well of the Disciples but claimed they had not fully accomplished that work. He advocated the restoration of the spiritual gifts of the apostolic age.

E. [Dille]: My father repeatedly said he was afraid Rigdon would leave the Disciples. He preached about great and marvelous things, and talked of leaving the church. 


What has he said upon the question he is affirming. It is his duty to prove this question, "All that Joseph Amith gave to the world as revelations from God are frauds, and Joseph Smith was an impostor." He must construct a perfect chain of evidence in order to do it. He must not miss a single link. He has brought in one or two witnesses not in Howe's book; but with the exception of these, they all come from that work, and I will meet him on that. I will prove to every honest man and woman that he has not a bit of testimony. I will also meet him on his Sidney Rigdon claim. I will show that Rigdon was not in the state of New York until after the publication of the Book of Mormon. I will offer an affidavit of Jno. W. Rigdon, son of Sidney Rigdon, a lawyer of Cuba, New York. This affidavit was given a short time ago and sworn to before me this 17th of April, 1891. W. F. Bement, Notary Public. Seal. I read this to show you where his witnesses are with reference to this matter. Now I read: (All testimony condensed,)

About 1832, while my father was preaching at Mentor, O., Martin Harris [sic] and Oliver Cowdery called upon him and presented to him the Book of Mormon, and told him it was found by Joseph Smith engraved on gold plates, and that Smith translated the engravings, and the book was a true translation. That they had seen the plates, that Harris had written the translation given by Joseph Smith. They asked him to read it and give them his opinion of it. He gave them permission to preach in his church, and went to hear them. At the close he told the congregation that they had listened to some strange doctrine, but it was their duty to investigate. Cowdery and Harris left next morning, but returned in about six weeks [sic]. They asked my father if he had read the book, and he said he had. They asked what he thought of it. He asked if Joseph Smith was a man of intelligence. Cowdery said Smith had about as much knowledge as he had. Father replied if that was the case Smith was not the author of the book.

Sometime after this father met Joseph Smith for the first time in the state of New York. After being in Smith's company for sometime, he joined the Mormon Church, removed to Kirtland, and began preaching Mormonism. He afterward went to Missouri, thence to Nauvoo, Ill. After Smith's death, my father claimed it was his right to lead the church, but B. Young was chosen. In 1847, father removed to Friendship, N. Y., where he remained until his death. July 14, 1876, aged 84. He retired to private life after removing to Friendship. Would occasionally lecture. Large crowds always came out when it was announced he would speak. By his calm and dignified demeanor he gained the respect of all.

In answer to the statements of Clark Braden in "Saints' Herald," under "Christianity vs. Mormonism," I have only to quote Horatio Seymour who pronounced Rigdon a very eloquent man; Martin Grover, one of New York's greatest jurists, who said Sidney Rigdon's knowledge of the history of the world, and the political history of our country, was perfectly surprising to him, and that he was a very learned and eloquent man. Prof. Hatch frequently said Rigdon was the best historian he ever saw and one of the most eloquent men he ever listened to. Also Rev. Braden's statements about Rigdon's extravagant yarns, highfalutin rant, his visions, the power while speaking, and falling in trances in the pulpit, have no truth in them whatever.

Sidney Rigdon was a devout Christian from his youth to his grave. He preached and talked the Bible on all occasions when necessary, to his children and all. He died having a firm belief in the Christian religion. I never knew one who was a stronger believer in the Christian religion than he. I therefore pronounce such assertions as positively untrue.

I am probably better acquainted with S. Rigdon than any living person. Had better opportunities through business and family relations to know the character, history, and religious belief than any one else. Religion was his favorite theme.

On returning from Salt Lake City in 1865, where I had interviews with the leading dignitaries of the Mormon Church at that place on the subject of Mormonism and the Book of Mormon, I asked my father to tell me the facts as to the production of this book. My father stated that all he knew of the origin of the book was what Harris, Cowdery and J. Smith told him. That Smith during the fifteen years he was intimate with him, never stated anything else than that he found it engraven on gold plates which he found in a hill in New York. He said after investigation he was confident that the story about Spaulding writing the Book of Mormon was untrue. He said the same story about his writing the book was false. That he never saw the book until it was presented to him by Oliver Cowdery at Mentor, O. Knowing my father as I do, I am confident he told me the truth.

My father never saw Solomon Spaulding in his life, nor did he steal any of his MSS. as stated by Rev. Braden.

My mother survived my father about ten years. After father's death, in conversation with her about the Book of Mormon, she always told me that my father obtained it from Cowdery and Harris [sic] at Mentor, O., and that the stories about father having written it were untrue. Father and mother told me this same story in my youth and manhood, and they told me in their old age, and they never told any other. I am not a member of any religious denomination, and do not pretend to say how that book came into existence. But I am as certain as that I exist, that S. Rigdon never wrote any part of the Book of Mormon, and that he never saw it until Harris [sic] and Cowdery presented it to him at Mentor, O."

This affidavit shows up all these tales from Howe's work. The man testifies to nothing but what he knows. And the way he writes and the intelligence he [has] shown in getting up his own affidavit that his father might be placed correctly before the world show that he is a gentleman in the highest sense.

The publication by D. P. [sic] Howe from which he acknowledges he got much of his testimony, and in which this Spaulding tale was first published, I will show you is false. Internally, and you must acknowledge it too, when I read you the evidence. When these witnesses were procured their statements were published, the manuscript suppressed, which was the manuscript found, the only thing ever found that answered to it, the only thing ever written by Spaulding that answered to it. Then this gentleman gets up and reads from the Braden-Kelley Debate these statements, but he had to acknowledge they were from Howe's work. He wanted to get them from the work of Braden and Kelley, but Howe's work is at the bottom of it. Now I'll show you just what is in Howe's work. On page 27 Howe represents Nephi as making plates without ore, which is a flat contradiction of the Book of Mormon which he is pretending to represent. On the same page of Howe's work he represents Nephi as having a commandment from the Lord for the special purpose of making a record of his own ministry and his own people. This is a misquotation also as will not be denied. These misrepresentations are resorted to to make a case against the Latter Day Saints. He pretends to quote from the Book of Mormon but does not do so. He puts in things that are not in the book, and leaves out things that are in there. Howe it is evident can not be relied upon in anything. Same page of his work he says "Our hero introduces himself as a minister." Book of Mormon, "Now I Nephi proceed to give an account of my reign and ministry." See how he misrepresents the Book itself.

This man wants you to accept the testimony of these witnesses furnished you by this man. He also quoted from Patterson's work. But nearly all Patterson's witnesses are taken from Howe's book.

Again, Howe page 32, represents them as traveling until they same to the borders of the Red Sea. The Book of Mormon says not a word about Red Sea in the passage referred to. Yet you are asked to take a publication in that book of pretended witnesses and believe it. Howe 35, says he can'r inform his readers how the ship was propelled, for it is not stated. The Book of Mormon states that they put forth into the sea and were driven forth before the wind. Page 41. On page 38 Howe says there is an exact copy of the 48th and 49th chapters of Isaiah to be found in the Book of Mormon. But an examination shows that the statement is false. There is no exact copy of these two chapters in the Book of Mormon. Page 42 Howe says the Nephites warred until they exterminated the whole race except for three who were immortalized. Book of Mormon, p, 492, states that there were twenty-four, and a few who escaped into the south country, and a few dissenters who were spared. So you see the wilful and glaring falsehoods of Howe's work. Howe page 44, argues that any book whose author is the Holy Ghost would be so clear and perfect in all its parts that a wayfaring man need not err. I suggest that Braden try John's revelations by this rule. Howe, p. 52, represents the Book of Mormon as saying that the plates should be sealed up, found by an unlearned man, and shown to just three others. How different from the true reading, which declares it shall be shown to these three and a few others. Howe deliberately misrepresents again. On page 65 Howe argues that the Book of Mormon by a prophet whom it represents as living before Christ presents the resurrection as past and finished. In order to do this he deliberately garbles, puts in a part and leaves out a part. Howe on pages 68-9 represents Mosiah as revising and transcribing the records. All the record says he did was to translate certain records found by his people. Not a word about revising any other record. Howe takes the ground that nothing was translated by the Eurim and Thummim. Cowdery says that he continued to write day after day as Joseph translated with the Eurim and Thummim.

I said the Eurim and Thummim were the instrumentality used in place of a lexicon, to give the original language and the interpretation of a word as a lexicon would to a translator, and when Mr. Smith received these words in this way he had to arrange them in sentences, just as a translator would take a lexicon and do the same. A translator takes a lexicon, and after the meaning of the words is ascertained and after the idea is presented to the mind the translation is made, the words arranged in proper sentences. He speaks of Mr. Smith as looking through a pair of glasses, spectacles. He would like to make everything look ridiculous. When he introduces his witnesses he tries to keep back the facts as to where he gets his evidence. He is like a man tried for larceny. He was told by the judge that he might get out of the scrape if he told the truth, and that the chickens were found right in the flaps of his coat pocket. The prisoner replied that it was pretty hard if he was to be made responsible for what went on behind him. That's the way with Braden. It's hard to make him responsible for what goes on behind his back. He is only publishing what somebody else published. Howe published it, and I have shown you he can't be relied upon. You will find by reference to Braden-Kelley that I tried to get him to bring Howe there for examination and he would not do it.

Note 1: John W. Rigdon's 1891 statement was given some further exposure and comment by Elder Rudolph Etzenhouser, on page 389 of his 1894 book, From Palmyra to Independence. Concerning John's statement, Etzenhouser says: "This affidavit shows up all those tales from Howe's work. This man testifies to nothing but what he knows. And the way he writes and the intelligence he [h]as shown in getting up his own affidavit that his father might be placed correctly before the world, show that he is a gentleman in the highest sense." In the 1890s John W. Rigdon prepared several lectures on the life and work of his famous father, for delivery before audiences in western New York. The text to one of these still survives in the Archives of the Washington State Historical Society. Out of John's lectures of the 1890s grew a lengthy manuscript biography of Rev. Sidney S. Rigdon, which LDS President Joseph F. Smith purchased from John in 1900. Although that biography is open to inspection in Salt Lake City to Church-approved researchers, its text has never been published by the Utah Mormons. For some family recollections regarding Sidney Rigdon, which are very much at variance with the opinions voiced by John, see a report of what his cousin, Walter S. Rigdon, had to say in 1888.

Note 2: Elder Kelley attempts to show that Eber D. Howe's 1834 Mormonism Unvailed is a tissue of lies, by presenting some minor errors in the book's summary of the Book of Mormon story. This summarization was written, probably almost entirely from scratch, at a time when very very few commentaries of the Book of Mormon text were available for consultation, The summary was probably written or compiled by Howe's ghost-writer, Esek Rosa, (Braden identifies the writer as Matthew S. Clapp of Mentor) and it comes as no surprise to find that it is not an entirely correct representation of the complex and tiresome Book of Mormon narrative. Kelley might have pointed out a dozen other early synopses of the "Nephite record" as given by Gentile writers, in which similar errors can be found. If the samples of "misrepresentations" provided by Elder Kelley are the best indications of dishonesty on the part of E. D. Howe that he can come up with, Howe's book and its assertions are left largely unimpeached. In fact, Mormon apologists have never been willing to give Howe's 1834 text a close scrutiny, in order to establish, item by item, where he "lies" or "misrepresents." Such a critique of Howe, offered by a competent Latter Day Saint historian would be a valuable contribution to the knowledge of early Mormon history -- but it is doubtful that any qualified critic will ever undertake the task of demonstrating how, why, and where the 1834 book is such a terrible collection of falsehoods. Elder Kelley's efforts in that direction appear to resemble unavailing pettifogging more so than learned analysis and commentary. He does not, for example, show what portions of the eight Conneaut witnesses' statements are lies and representations -- probably, because, having branded the entire book with that obloquy, he feels he need not waste his time looking too closely at any particular portion of its contents.


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  June 18, 1891.                             No. 30.



All that Joseph Smith gave to the world, purporting to be revelations from God, were entirely of human origin, and frauds; and Joseph Smith was an impostor.

Clark Braden of the Christian Church affirms: E. L. Kelley of the Latter Day Saints denies.

Elder J. D. McClure, of Tabor, Ia., acted as Elder Braden's moderator, and Elder R. M. Elvin of Lamoni as Elder Kelley's moderator,



The first to which I call attention is J. W. Rigdon's affidavit read in your presence by Lelley. Permit me to say that I think the children of Rigdon or any such parent, are to be pitied. I state that Rigdon was an illiterate, spread-eagle ranter, and that he had fancies and told big yarns, a fact notorious wherever he spoke. His being at times eloquent is no proof of education. Rigdon's letter in reply to Mrs. Davidson shows that he was illiterate. If the files of the Rochester papers are referred to you will find that one of his last lectures is an infidel lecture. He was driven from Nauvoo in '44, saw Jeffries at St. Louis as he was passing, exposed Mormonism in Meadville in Western Pennsylvania, and was attacked for this in the "Times and Seasons," and finally silenced by the Mormons. J. W. Rigdon testifies to things he knows nothing about except what others told him. Rigdon had been guilty of fraud and deception, and family pride leads his son to take the course he does. He testifies to what parties told him.

Kelley objects to the statements of witnesses published in Howe on the account of the publisher. But these statements were never denied by the parties. I object to what he presents on account of the publisher too. There is not a word in the testimony about that little manuscript he has, it is always the manuscript found. I will give my friend some information about Howe's book. Hurlbut collected the evidence; Dr. Roser [sic, Rosa] wrote a history; Booth wrote his experience among the Mormons; Clapp made a criticism; Howe made the book, and three thousand of them were scattered all around where these witnesses lived, and no one charged Hulburt with manufacturing these affidavits. Mormons made no such charge. Rigdon never published rebutting evidence. He wrote and used abusive language and told falsehoods.

He said there was no such printing office in Pittsburg as Pattersons. It's false. Patterson says there was. Kelley attacks the witnesses because Clapp's criticism of the Book of Mormon is unjust. Clapp's criticism is one part of the work, and the collation of evidences of witnesses another part. Why didn't Rigdon reply? What he told his son is of no consequence. Why didn't Mormons reply?

What I read from Patterson is not in Howe's book. He can't find them there.

That Lexicon. What did Smith see when he looked through those glasses? Did he not see an English word as a translation of a Nephite word? 

We now present evidence to show that Rigdon foretold the coming of the Book of Mormon. First the statement of R. E. Bell, sworn to before a proper officer, in May, 1885. Those who heard Rigdon before he was a Mormon would readily detect his principles in the Book of Mormon. Martin Bentley: Before the Book of Mormon appeared, Rigdon told father a man named Smith was about to publish a wonderful book which he described as similar to Book of Mormon.  

Isaac Langer: During Rigdon's residence here he was frequently absent for days and weeks at a time. This was four years previous to appearance of Book of Mormon. After the book appeared and he joined the Mormons, it was generally believed at those times he had been with Smith in New York helping to get out the book. He preached community of goods and other Mormon ideas. 

S. H. Harp, Mentor, O., '89: While preaching at Mentor, O., Rigdon slapped the Bible on his desk and said in time it would be of no more use than an old almanac. There was to be a new bible and a new revelation that would entirely do away with it.

S. F. Whitney: This is dated Willoughby, O., March 6, '85. All these subscribed abd sworn to before A. T. Barby. [sic, A. P. Barber]. I heard Rigdon preach in 1827-8 in regard to a forthcoming work, and from the way he spoke he undoubtedly referred to the Book of Mormon.

Storm Roser [sic, Rosa]. "Gleanings By the Way, 316: In the earlier part of this year, 1830, I was in company with Rigdon. He stated o new religion would spring up, and something new would make its appearance. He said he was going away and should be absent for some months. I thought it strange as he was a minister of the gospel. 

Now we have shown that Rigdon previous to the appearance of this book prophesied of, and anticipated its appearance. Now I am ready to show you that Rigdon was at Smith's before the appearance of the Book of Mormon. I hold in my hand the affidavit of Lorenzo Saunders, subscribed and sworn to before J. D. Winthoper [sic. Winthrop], Notary Public, October 2, 1884: Born in Palmyra, N. Y., 71 years of age. At the time or origin of Mormonism lived half a mile from Smiths, lived there 40 years, was well acquainted with the whole family. Joseph Smith, Senior, was a drunkard, most of the family had habit of getting drunk. Joseph was noted for lying and getting frunk. After he claimed he was inspired to translate the Book of Mormon I went there in March, 1827, and saw a stranger who I was told was a friend of Joseph's from Pennsylvania. Did not see the stranger again until late in the fall of same year, when I saw some man in company with Jos. Smith, Junior, and was informed it was S. Rigdon. I don't remember seeing him there again till 1830.

Able Chase: Mormon portraits, p. 230: Lived at Palmyra, N. Y., well acquainted with Smiths; was about 12 or 13 years old. During my visits at Smith's I saw a stranger who they said was Rigdon. First saw him in 1827. Some time after this tales were circulated that Joe had a book, or plates got out of the earth.

O. Sanders: This is subscribed and sworn to before Justice of the Peace, June 12, 1884:

At the time of the excitement about the Book of Mormon, I frequently took part in the discussions which occurred, and remember that the names Jos. Smith, Martin Harris, and Sidney Ridon were all spoken of as leading persons in the organization, and interested in the publication of said book, which was first published in 1830. My best recollection is I heard name of S. Rigdon before Book of Mormon was published, but do not recollect personally seeing Rigdon.

H. E. Bell, the man who prepared for the press most of Howe's book: While in conversation with me about Rigdon, Mr. Rosa told me that when going from Pennsylvania to Rochester, N. Y., he was invited to hear a man preach in Rochester and on entering the room heard Rigdon preaching Mormonism. This is dated May 7, '85.

Mrs. S. F. Patrick: Several times while visiting one of the Smiths she told me that the stranger I saw there was Sidney Rigdon. I didn't read much of the Book of Mormon, because I didn't have much confidence in Joe. Dated June 24, '87. 

Frank Rosa Have often been in Kirtland, O. on business, and visiting relatives and with father. Often heard father say that he had heard Rigdon whom he had seen at Mentor and Painesville, preaching Mormonism in Rochester, N. Y. This he stated was several months before Mormons preached in Ohio. He said Rigdon used to meet Joseph in Ashtabula, O. Dated Nov. 19, 1884. 


I call your attention again to what the question is. I see why my opponent did not have it read before he began to speak, he didn't have anything to say upon the question. He had some papers to read. I will notice the statement of Dr. Rosa. His son says that Dr. Rosa says he heard Rigdon preach Mormonism in Rochester, N. Y., a few months before it was preached in Ohio. That might all be so far as Dr. Rosa's knowledge is concerned. Dr. Rosa didn't know just when the first Missionaries went to Ohio. The whole thing to my mind bears the stamp of that that is gotten up as a wilful falsehood. I will show you enough to show you that. This statement of Lorenzo Saunders I know personally to be a wilful falsehood. I have another affidavit that he made that contradicts the one he has offered so I know that he didn't know anything about it. He told me all he knew about it, and I will show you from the evidence that he did not know anything about it. But first I will notice one or two things I was about to notice last night when time was called, then I will notice those presented here.

With reference to this manuscript found, the position I first took was the correct one. I said the words manuscript found were never written upon this, but it came to be known as manuscript found by people talking about its being found in a cave. Turn to twelfth page of this work where he said there was no such word, and we find he was mistaken, but no more so than he is in forty other things he has stated before this audience.

"My mind filled with awful sensations which crowded fast upon me would hardly permit my hands to remove this venerable deposit, but curiosity soon gained the assendancy, and the box was taken and raised to open it. When I had removed the cover I found that it contained 28 rolls of parchment, and that when ... which appeared to be manuscrips written in elegant hand with Roman letters and in the latin language."

This is what gives it the name manuscript found. Mrs. Spaulding herself shows this fact, as shown in the history of Smucker. She says it claimed to have been written by one of the lost nations and assumed the... little manuscript found. Assumed that, it was not written upon it.

Spaulding's brother John says he frequently heard the whole of Spaulding's story read. Mrs. Davison says Spaulding grave his manuscript to Patterson who, after reading it, notified Spaulding that if he would maje out a title page and preface he would publish it. It might be profitable. So the title manuscript found was never written upon it, for she says he refused to make out a title-page and preface. It simply obtained this title page from reports that have gone out. Then she goes on to show how reliable is his witness McGee [sic, McKee]. His witnesses contradict each other and he is contradicting the entire lot. McGee identified it by reason of somebody's face being painted. She says: Rigdon, who has figured so largely in the history of Mormonism was at that time connected with the printing office of Patterson. Braden said he never was. Mrs. Spaulding that he was.

She continues: Rigdon frequently said he became acquainted with Spaulding's MSS, and copied it.

The original says he had the privilege of copying it.

She continues: It was a matter of notoriety that the MSS. was returned to its author, and soon after he returned to Amity, Pennsylvania where Spaulding died in 1816.

What did he make McGee swear to last night? He says he heard it read in 1811, when according to his own witnesses it was not written till 1814 [sic]. Turn to the 42nd page of Braden & Kelley Debate, and you will see. This is wonderful testimony to get before you to make you believe something id false just because he wants it false. It is not because there are not facts enough to show it true outside of all these false claims and lying stories. The Book of Mormon proves itself true by its own internal evidence, and when that is the case if every man in the state of Iowa swears he saw Rigdon in the state of New York I would not believe him. It stands investigation, and don't need the assistance of a thousand lying affidavits that came through such villainous hands as Howe's to sustain it.

What some of these witnesses state, with reference to Rigdon's preaching might be true. Something was going to stir the religious world. Rigdon doutless preached that and all the reformers did. I can prove as much on A. Campbell as he has on Rigdon. He says "the light of the primitive gospel in its effulgent power is about to shine out in its original splendor to regenerate the world." Here it is from Campbell. He is a prophet and predicting the coming forth of just such a work as the Book of Mormon. I can connect Scott in the same way, as predicting that something was going to shine out in some way. My friend can read these statements about Rigdon, but not about the others. He brings up Frank Whitney who was not four years old at the time. Frank Whitney when he was a little boy went around and drank into all the stories there were.

A bumber of witnesses have testified about seeing Rigdon in New York in 1827. I am going to show you that every one of these statements are lies and wilful ones too. I will show you the whereabouts of Rigdon in 1827, that is where he is left now. Then let him name another date, then I will go on.

March 1st, 1827, Rigdon preached the funeral sermon of Hannah Turner, at Chester, O. In March and April 1827, had revival meetings at Mentor, O., and continued it six weeks. These individuals gave their names to be baptized: Nancy Sanford, M. Clapp, of Mentor, O. This my friend knows very well. Wm. Davison and wife, of Painesville, O. She says she knows what time she joined because it was when the spring rains had raised the creeks, the waters were muddy and it was a bad time to be baptized. June 5, at Painesville, O. The probate record shows he solemnized a marriage, as shown by the properly certified copies of records and certificates which are read to you. Most of the witnesses read last night undertook to locate Rigdon in New York in 1827 from March on. We locate him right here in Ohio. This evidence from the court records shows he was right here in Painesville, O. It was 250 miles from Painesville, to where Smith lived in New York. To make this journey as they had to travel then, it would take at least six weeks. They had to go by way of Buffalo, and old settlers often refer to the fact that they were from six weeks to two months in moving from New York State to Northern Ohio.

Now we have him fixed there from March first to June seventh. July 3d to 12th at Mentor, O., as probate records show. So you see he was not in New York any time in the summer of 1827. July 19, 1827, he solemnized another marriage at Mentor, O., as the court records show, certified copies of which I read to you. August 23d, 1827, he was at New Lisbon, O., preaching. Hayden's History of Western Reserve, pp. 55-57. So in June, July and August it is impossible to get him away into New York. Through August and into September the meetings continued, and in September he returned to Mentor, O., October 9, solemnized a marriage at Mentor, O., as the probate records show. The last part of October, same year he was at Warren, O., see Hayden's history, 137. In November '27, at Lisbon, Hayden, 72, 76. December 6, 1827, at Kirtland, O., as shown by probate records. December 13, at Concord, O., solemnized another marriage there, as shown by probate records. These evidences my friend or any one else can examine. So we can reach through 1828, and 1829, and show where Rigdon was outside of the state of NewYork,

He said last evening that these things when they were given to the world by Howe were not denied. They were denied as you will find in "Messenger and Advocate" published in 1836, soon after Howe's book made its appearance: "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." This was published right there in Kirtland. These pretended affidavits were published and circulated in sheets four years [sic, months?] before the book was published. In the New Era, in 1839, before [sic] the publication of Howe's book, Parley P. Pratt denounced these statements as false and said: The person or persons who got them up, would do well to repent. Sidney Rigdon embraced the truth through my instrumentality. I saw him baptized, and I was not acquainted with the system for some months after its organization in April, 1830. Then Pratt demands that if Howe has such a thing as manuscript found that it shall be presented and published to the world. Then in '39, when it was in Howe's hands and all the witnesses living, it was demanded. Why was it not published? Because there was not a words in it similar to Book of Mormon. Why should there be no similarity at all between this manuscript and Book of Mormon and a great similarity between some other imaginary manuscript and that book?

Howe says Smith's own story is that Eurim and Thummim were taken from him before he had translated a word. Smith's story is that he translated with the Eurim and Thummim. So you see what a lying garbler this man Howe is.

Note 1: Braden states that there was a printing office managed by Patterson at Pittsburgh. This is almost certainly untrue. It appears that Robert Patterson, Sr., when in the publishing business with partner John Hopkins, relied upon the printing equipment of his cousin, Silas Engles for his press work. The same is true for his publishing work in the successor to that partnership, Robert and Joseph Patterson. When the second firm failed it was replaced by Patterson and Lambdin, who made use of the press of Butler and Lambdin for book publishing in Pittsburgh. Robert and Joseph Patterson were principally book sellers, who supplemented their sales stock by some occasional publishing of their own -- but they were not printers and Rigdon was probably correct in saying that Robert Patterson, Sr. never ran a "printing office" in Pittsburgh. Sidney Rigdon was an eccentric but largely "literate" man. By his middle years he probably had an elementary knowledge of Latin and Greek. A visitor to his home in Nauvoo found his library to be an extensive one.

Note 2: Braden asks why the Mormons did not reply to the various charges made against them in E. D. Howe's book. Actually, here and there, in the LDS periodicals of the 1830s and 1840s there are some brief references to the book. In general the Mormons seem to have felt that Howe's book was so vilifying of them that it was not worthy of their notice. Apostle Orson Hyde went to the Conneaut region of Ohio and Pennsylvania and interviewed people there, probably a few weeks after Mormonism Unvailed first appeared. Hyde (and his superiors in the Church) apparently did not feel that the results of that fact-finding trip were worth their publicizing. See Hyde's brief 1841 reference to this little known episode in Mormon History for more information.

Note 3: The person listed as "R. E. Bell" and "H. E. Bell" in the Independent Patriot's somewhat faulty transcript was, no doubt, Ketchel Aeneas E. Bell, who made out an affidavit for Braden's former research assistant, Arthur B. Deming., on May 6, 1885. Clark Braden visited Oakland, California in June, 1888, shortly after Deming's short-lived, anti-Mormon newspaper ceased publication there. It is likely that Braden met with Deming and obtained from him several of the affidavits he collected during the mid 1880s that Deming had been unable to publish before his paper ceased publication. This procurement may account for the several previously unpublished statements Braden cites in his fifth speech. Martin Bentley (1823-aft. 1885) was the third son of Sidney Rigdon's brother-in-law, Adamson Bentley. The "S. H. Harp" cited in the text was Stephen H. Hart, who made out an affidavit for Arthur B. Deming in Nov. 1884

Note 4: The Oct. 1884 affidavit of Lozenzo Saunders is not elsewhere reproduced. The condensation provided by the Independent Patriot generally corresponds to other recorded statements from Saunders. The "O. Sanders" cited by Braden is Orlando Saunders, the brother of Lorenzo. "Mrs. S. F. Patrick" should read "Mrs. S. F. Anderick," that is, Sarah Fowler Anderick, who lived near Jiseph Smith in her youth. Frank Rosa was the son of Esek Rosa, the ghost-editor of Howe's 1834 book, and nephew of Dr. Storm Rosa, a prominent "botanic physician" in northern Ohio during the 1830s and 1840s.

Note 5: The Rigdon chronology presented by Elder Edmund L. Kelley was researched and compiled by him between 1891 and 1894. See his 1894 article, "Story of Sidney Rigdon." Kelley ignores the gap in his own chronology for Rigdon, stretching between the first part of April (when the six-week revival ended -- Rigdon might have left it earlier) and the first part of June, 1827. Gaps of that length (there are several in his tabulation) apparently do not worry Kelley, as they are far too short to catch his notice -- he is patently ridiculous when he asserts that it would have taken Sidney Rigdon "from six weeks to two months" to travel one way from Mentor, Ohio to Palmyra, New York. Such extended treks might have been the case for whole families, moving their worldly possessions westward by sluggish oxen teams, in the days before the Erie Canal was constructed. But, after 1825, Sidney Rigdon could have easily traveled from Mentor to Buffalo in three days (or in one, when the boats were running on the lake), and from Buffalo to Palmyra or Rochester in another two or three days, at most. He (or one of his trusted associates) could have made the round trip to the Smiths' cabin in Manchester in less than two weeks, and still have found sufficient opportunity to stay over two with them in New York for a few days. Of course, if Rigdon had any business to attend to in eastern Ohio, he might have made the round trip between the two states in even less time. Again, in September of 1827, Rigdon could have slipped away from the New Lisbon meetings for a two weeks' visit to New York. There is no documentation in the Mahoning Association records of his having been there all through September.


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  June 25, 1891.                             No. 31.



All that Joseph Smith gave to the world, purporting to be revelations from God, were entirely of human origin, and frauds; and Joseph Smith was an impostor.

Clark Braden of the Christian Church affirms: E. L. Kelley of the Latter Day Saints denies.

Elder J. D. McClure, of Tabor, Ia., acted as Elder Braden's moderator, and Elder R. M. Elvin of Lamoni as Elder Kelley's moderator,



We have some rich things in that last speech. Frank Rosa is not the son of Dr. Rosa, but the son of E. Rosa, the doctor's brother.

In the next place, as to the little book, and finding on the 12th page that a manuscript was dug up out of the earth. That is the way it was found, but the witnesses say that Spaulding called his manuscript, manuscript found. Several make this statement. This was the title he gave to it. There is a vast difference between a book being called a manuscript found, and being found in a cave and dug out of it. The title on your little book was manuscript story, Conneaut Creek. They took out Coneaut Creek and put in Manuscript found, a lie on the face of it. A fabrication, a falsehood, and there is no getting out of it. My friend may try as much as he pleases, there is no use, manuscript found was not the name, and you quoted it in your publication as though it was, Now try that again.

Jno. Spaulding heard it read. S. Spaulding was engaged eight or nine years writing it, and his brother John heard one of the first or shorter manuscripts read. The title of the manuscript was manuscript found.

Now then again, it's rich! Hurlbut got affidavits; they were published to the world and never contradicted and I will show them to be genuine; but because Jurlbut lied, therefore these affidavits are lies. The persons who gave these statements never contradicted them, and they were never challenged by the Mormons in that region. I suppose if a lawyer is shown to be tricky and dishonest the evidence he presents is to be discarded. My friend if that rule were to be applied, a good many lawyers would be left without much evidence. Don't let us have any more such balderdash as that.

My friend has jumped a little quick about the age of S. F. Whitney. He says: "I was born at Fairfield, Match 17, 1804." I think he was more than the age you gave. Know what you are talking about.

But the richest of all rich things is his attempt to prove an alibi. The first witness says he saw Rigdon there March 31, and another saw him there about the beginning of 1830. He is going to prove a universal alibi. When he undertakes to prove where a man was for all the time covered by this testimony, and drops out periods of two or three months at a time, again and again, you know it don't amount to anything. He is attempting to cover three years and eight months, and bringing in dates to show where Rigdon was all this time, when he was traveling all over the country. We will be there when he does it. His '27 dates don't go back of June, and there's a good deal of time between March and June.

He says these statements were denounced as lies in the "Messenger and Advocate." Yes, you are a liar. That was the whole matter. Where was the evidence brought, where were the witnesses and proof? You simply stood back and called names. There is the testimony of 16 witnesses, Where is your rebutting testimony? What do we care about Pratt's balderdash, or about the names they called people thriugh the "Messenger and Advocate." What witnesses do you introduce to set these things to one side? Pratt's talk amounts to nothing. We will show you what became of the manuscript found and why it was not produced. 

The witnesses give 25 features of the manuscript found like the Book of Mormon. Now come right up and face this work.

Now we have that nonsense again, that because Howe published falsehoods in one part of his work, therefore the testimony published in another part is false. That is the thinnest way to undertake to impeach witnesses I ever heard of. My friend drop that, it don't accmplish anything one way or another. That is all we have had in this half hour's splurge of a talk.

When my friend introduces Saunders' affidavit, I have something to say about that. I know the lying rascality practiced in obtaining it. Introduce it if you dare, I have got that thing down. There was a time when you did not dare to introduce it because it would have sent a certain Notary Public of Michigan to the penitentiary. Bring that in if you want to, and we will attend to it.

Now for further testimony. Isaac Butts, Newbury, O.: Many persons I knew in New York joined the Mormons and came to Kirtland. They told me Rigdon was much with Joseph Smith before he became a Mormon. 

Amanda Reed: sworn to and subscribed the 12th of June, 1888: She participated in discussion of Mormonism before the publication of Book of Mormon, and to her best recollection heard Rigdon mentioned as a leading spirit among them at that time.

Mr. Shiley, New Light on Mormonism, p. 251: Heard Smith and Rigdon preach in New York before publication of Book of Mormon.

This corroborates Frank Rosa's testimony about Rigdon preaching at Rochester, N. Y. It also corroborates the testimony of Saunders, Bell, Rosa, Mrs. Andrick, Amanda Reed. All of this testimony agrees in showing that Rigdon was at Smith's. 

Now I will show Hulburt got MSS found, used it in exposing Mormonism, in lectures etc.

V. I. Pickdew, Kirtland, O., September 6, '84: Dr. Hulbert when about the country exposing Mormonism, stated in my hearing at a public meeting in school house No. p, that he had obtained MSS found, it was in Spaulding's writing. He read portions and portions of the Book of Mormon. The history part was the same. He said Rigdon was seen at Smith's before B. of M. came out. He read also a statement as to character of Smiths. 

Almoran Young: Oct. 21, '84: Hulburt said he learned at Conneaut about [Spalding's] MSS. and that Rigdon had dishonestly obtained and added to it from the Bible, and Joe Smith, his tool, gave the book to the people. He held up a manuscript so the audience could see it and said he got it from the Spaulding family. He read from it, and the same thing from the Book of Mormon. 

Mr. Thomas, Oct. 10. '84: Knew Hulbert intimately, and talked with him about the Mormons a great deal. Told me he had obtained Manuscript of Spaulding, and its names and B. of M. were identical. Attended Mormon meeting at the school house. At close Hulburt arose and began telling the audience that B. of M. and S. Spaulding's MSS. were identical. Joe Smith called on God to curse him and told the audience to leave, which they did. 

C. Morse, sworn to and subscribed: Was present and heard Hurlburt lecture in a church. He said he had obtained Mss, found some place in New York. Said he held it in his hands, and held it up before the audience, and read portions of it, and the B. of M., showing that the historical portions were the same. He read many affidavits showing character of the Smiths.

Charles Grover, subscribed to, date not given: I heard Hulburt lecture and show origin of B. of M. was a fiction. He said Spaulding wrote a fiction and called it manuscript found. He said had been to Pittsburg and learned that Rigdon stole the manuscript and prepared B. of Mormon from it. He said he had obtained another copy, from which he read selections and then the same from the B. of M. The historical portions were the same. After the lecture he invited the audience to examine the MSS. I read a little in it. It was plainly written on letter sized paper, two inches thick.

W. R. Hine: Heard Hulburt lecture. Said B. of M. was founded on Manuscript found, written by Spaulding, which Rigdon stole from a printing office in Pittsburg and copied.

Jacob Sherman, subscribed and sworn to before A. B. Barber" Myself and wife heard Hulburt lecture, and say that he had Manuscript found, and read from it and B. of Mormon and show that historical part of the latter was taken from the former. A man in the audience arose and said he knew Hulburt was right.

I have presented the statements and affidavits of men who heard Hulburt lecture and compare the MSS found with B. of M. and show them identical as to historical parts. It will not do for my friend if he can not meet this evidence, to get up and call these witnesses names, or vilify the men who obtained these affidavits; that will not dispose of the testimony. 


When my friend finds a court either in the state of Iowa or any other place which will permit a lawyer to run out and interview his witnesses and then state what the witnesses say, or get an affidavit from the witnesses and read that before the court it will be time enough for him to talk. There is no court but would say: You get out, and he would be put in jail if he refused to obey. It would be insulting the intelligence of the court and insulting the jury, and insulting to everybody that had any sense at all, because that is not a matter of evidence to be presented vefore the judge or jury. I knew when he began he was not reading facts. I know the man who got up these affidavits, Deming, just as well as I know Braden. I offered to go with him to these parties through that country and he would not go. Then for a man to go before an audience like this with these things that have been obtained clandestinely. This man Deming wrote to parties and asked them if they knew anything against the Mormons, we want it. Don't want any thing in their favor. He stayed around there until he run himself out entirely and had to leave, and then went to Oakland, Cal., and published his blow there. I suppose it is from that publication that he got it. He sold out to an Advent conern there; and if Braden has the originals, then there must have been two originals. I make this proposition. I will go with him to every one of these witnesses in Lake Co., O., and I will pay him ten dollars for every one that will stand examination and show that he knows anything about these things. Let him accept it now. There is not a witness whose statements he has read that will stand examination. I know all about these matters and that is why I speak as I do. He objects because it is my statement; but my word is good, better than some men's oaths. My word is taken all over. No man dares to dispute it; if he does I will put him some places where the dogs won't bite him. One thing I have always tried to keep good is my word. He can have the expense too if he goes with me to these witnesses. No man ever got up before an audience and read manuscript found and compared it with the Book of Mormon, because we have it right here and there is nothing in it like the B. of M. We can make the camparison, so it makes no argument in this case. This man Deming who took these affidavits stayed in that country until his clothes had to be seized for board, and then tried to steal them and was caught at it, and then he said, "Don't let Kelley know it." When we debated in Kirtland and Braden asserted he could prove so and so I defied him, and told him not a man would swear to what he said they would. He brought some of them up and we have their testimony here in the book. There is no one swears to what they said they would. He was going to have Wm. Smith swear that he heard polygamy in Kirtland, but he did not do it. Braden can't insinuate upon this audience any such trash as that. 

Now I will show you reasons in the Book of Mormon why men should believe none of these things brought forward. The evidences of the book itself prove it true. In the first place notice the statement it contains that in an early time there were two civilizations upon this continent, prior to historical times. There was no such statement in any other book at that time. This statement has been corroborated, and the statement verified. Stephens and Baldwin testify that remains of two civilizations now exist upon this continent. Thus we can take the book and show that long before science brought this fact to the notice of the world, this book plainly stated it. And from the time of its publication until 60 years thereafter, every scientific discovery bears witness to its truth. So when men stand up and swear that it came in this way and that way, we know it's false.

He has fixed the summer of 1827 as the time when Rigdon was seen in New York. I told him to fix another time and I would look into it. It will be time enough for me to cover three years and a half when the evidence demands it. A man who had set appointments as Rigdon had at so many different places can be located. When he had these appointments and filled them as he did it was impossible for him to have been absent in the state of New York as these witnesses state.

The Book of Mormon speaks of brass plates. Lately within the last two weeks they have [been] brought to light in connection with ancient remains, tools so sharp that they cut through steel. This corroborates the book, and contradicts my friend.

The Book of Mormon located a vast civilization in Central and South America in 1829. In 1841 Catherwood and Stephens explored Central America and Yucatan and published the evidence of this book's previous declaration. In 1870 they obtained without dount the place of the oldest settlement, which is exactly in accord with the Book of Mormon which located it in 1829. The next oldest settlement is conceded to have been made in Peru, just where the Book of Mormon located it in '29. The book locates one of the greatest cities of South America at the head of a river it calls Sidon. Since the publication of the book remains of a great city have been found in this locality.

The book says plants and animals were brought from the eastern continent. This when it was first published was declared false, because no such remains had been found. But now the remains are known by all to exist. In the face of such facts, affidavits cunningly devised to bring discredit upon something they want to prove false weigh nothing. In 18[52?] Col. Gunnison discovered the remains of cliff dwellers. The Book of Mormon spoke of them in 1829. 

Yet my friend says there is no proof of this book. I have asked Braden forty times to produce any other book with such light in it published at the time it was, but he has never done it. If he has any such now in his possession let him bring it before the audience. No such things were known and published to the world. There was a work in 1787, but it contained no such ideas. Hundreds and thousands in both Europe and America now are willing to testify to the truth of this book.

With reference to the land of Palestine the utterances of the book have proven true. After its publication this land began to bring forth its fruits in their time, and the Jews are returning to-day and gathering back just as the book said they would. Such declarations and descriptions could not have been made and proven true from the standpoint of human wisdom. No matter if ten thousand men swear it is false, we know their testimony is not true; for no man can forecast the future without successful contradiction.

My position with reference to doctrine is not as he states it to pull the wool over your eyes. My position is that a man must preach the doctrine of Christ from beginning to end, the whole doctrine and nothing but the doctrine. It is the Bible rule Braden is opposing, not mine. I am standing for the rule laid down in the Bible, and he is opposing it.

Note 1: Amanda Reed provided previous testimony useful to Clark Braden. See her 1881 statement from the Kirtland Braden-Kelley Debate. The statements of "V. I. Pickdew," "Almoran Young," "Mr. Thomas," and "C. Morse" are otherwise unknown in historical soures relating to the Spalding claims. They were likely solicited by Arthur B. Deming but not used in his 1888 newspaper. The Independent Patriot transcript probably misspells one or more of the attestors' names here. Mr. Thomas' recollection of D. P. Hurlbut having attended a Mormon meeting in or near Kirtland is an interesting piece of testimony. Although Thomas does not provide a date for this event, it probably occurred late in Dec., 1833, just before Smith filed legal charges against Hurlbut in Kirtland. Smith's cursing Hurlbut is elsewhere attested to -- in his Apr. 1, 1834 personal journal entry Smith says: "The Lord shall destroy him who has lifted his heel against me, even that wicked man, Doctor P. Hurlbut; he will deliver him to the fowls of heaven and his bones shall be cast to the blast of the wind... the Lord shall destroy him." Despite Smith's damning divine prophecy, Hurlbut lived to a ripe old age and died in his bed.

Note 2: Elder Kelley refuses to respond to Braden's quotations from statements claiming that D. P. Hurlbut exhibited the "Manuscript Found" in and around Kirtland at the end of 1833. Kelley's reason for refusing to respond, is that Braden's quotations from these statements would not be admissible in a court of law. He also faults Braden for having obtained some of this testimony from his (Braden's) old research assistant, Arthur B. Deming. Finally, Kelley says he will personally examine and destroy the testimony of all these witnesses if only Braden will accompany him on the interviews in Ohio. Why he makes the last demand is unclear -- presumably Kelley could have located and interviewed these people on his own, had he really desired to do so. Kelley's refusal to look at the testimony because it does not meet courtroom evidence standards is hypocritical, as he himself in his debate speeches frequently cites and quotes from similar sorts of evidence, when it suits his purposes. Kelley's pronouncement -- that D. P. Hurlbut absolutely never exhibited the "Manuscript Found" and compared it to the Book of Mormon before an audience -- is an absurd manifesto. Kelley was certainly aware of James A. Briggs' various published statements, in which Briggs presented eye-witness testimony that Hurlbut exhibited BOTH the "Manuscript Found" AND the unfinished "Roman Story" later published by the RLDS Church. In the end, Kelley falls back upon his Mormon testimony: that his readings in the Book of Mormon "prove it true." Elder Kelley's rebuttal here appears to be practically the only high-level RLDS response ever offered against the various reports saying that D. P. Hurlbut exhibited Spalding's "Manuscript Found" in Ohio in late Dec., 1833 -- and, as such, it is a pathetically inept and cowardly reply.


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  July 2, 1891.                             No. 32.



All that Joseph Smith gave to the world, purporting to be revelations from God, were entirely of human origin, and frauds; and Joseph Smith was an impostor.

Clark Braden of the Christian Church affirms: E. L. Kelley of the Latter Day Saints denies.

Elder J. D. McClure, of Tabor, Ia., acted as Elder Braden's moderator, and Elder R. M. Elvin of Lamoni as Elder Kelley's moderator,



As I wish to get in all the evidence I have to present, the first thing will be to read to you some additional evidence.

Alexander Phelps, dated Nov. 1. '84: Have resided in or near Kirtland since early days of Mormonism. Heard Hulburt lecture on character of Smiths and origin of Mormonism. He showed the audience a copy of MSS found which he obtained in New York, and read from it and B. of M. He said history part of B. of M. was the same as MSS. found.

Cha's Grover, March 5, '85. Born in New York in 1804. Heard Hurlbut lecture on origin of Mormonism. He read from MSS. found and then from B. of M. and showed the similarity. He invited the audience to examine it. I took it and read it some. 

W. W. Aldernut, Dec. 25th, '84: I saw the house in Mentor, O., where they told me they saw Joe Smith translate the Book of Mormon by a peep stone in a hat, and Cowdery wrote it down. Sidney Rigdon stole the MSS. from a printing office from Spaulding who had written it. He said Joe ought to have been killed. They called themselves Latter Day Saints, but he called them Latter Day Devils.

The next evidence is corroborative of the Conneaut witnesses.

Rachel Derby, daughter of Jno. N. Miller, signed December 9, 1884: My father lived near Conneaut, O., in 1804. Was an Elder of the Presbyterian Church. Often heard father mention Spaulding living there in 1811, and the fact that he read his manuscript to the neighbors. Father said he read it himself. This was before B. of M. was published. I well remember Hulburt taking evidence. Father said MSS Found was not near all of Spaulding's writing. I saw father sign a statement. 

Hyrum Lake, Conneaut, Dec. 23, 1880:

Am 69 years old. I remember the great excitement concerning Mormonism. Father read the B. of M. or heard it read, and was familiar with its contents. He told me it was unquestionably derived from the Spaulding MSS. He told me all along from the toime Howe's evidence was published in 1834, that they believed the B. of M. was derived from MSS. found

I know Hyrum Lake, whose statement appears above and believe the statement to be true. I know Henry Lake and Jno. N. Miller, also, and have heard them all say B. of M. was undoubtedly taken from a MSS. written by Spaulding, which they had heard Spaulding read in 1811 and 1812.   LORIN GOULD. 

Pheobe T. Randall, December 20, 1884. Was born in '32 [sic, 1819]. One of the Smiths preached in our neighborhood and quoted from B. M. Father, having heard Spaulding's MSS. read, quoted passages from it which the neighbors recognized as the quotations made by the Mormon preacher. When he was tld what they had heard, he said it was old Spaulding's MSS come to light again. He went on and quoted from memory what he had often heard Spaulding read. This greatly suprised the neighbord, and caused great excitement. Then they got a copy of the Book of Mormon and had him to repeat what he had heard Spaulding read, and saw how they agreed. Father said he repeated chapter after chapter which was the same as in the B. of M. He had heard Spaulding read as he progressed in writing. And often others were present who took much interest in Spaulding's work. Spaulding said some day he would make money out of it. I well remember Hulburt coming to our house. He was investigating origin of B. of M. Father took him to see Aaron Wright, from whom he obtained a statement; also from Henry Lake, Oliver Smith and others, which he delivered to Howe, of Painesville, O., who published them with other statements. 

Anna H. Taking, Father, Oliver Smith, came to Springfield, Pa., 1798. Well remember S. Spaulding, who frequently came to our house and remained several days. There was but few settlers, and the latch string always hung out. Often heard father, McGee, Dr. Howard and others talk about Spaulding reading his writings years before the B. of M. came out. And when the Mormon preacher came along they all knew S. Spaulding wrote the history part of the Book of Mormon. 

W. H. Payne, attested by his daughter" No person who knew Cunningham would question the truth of his statement in Howe's book about the Spaulding MSS. His family was as highly respected as any in this part of the state.

Jno. Brown, attested by his son: I was imtimtely acquainted with Henry Lake, Oliver Smith, Dr. Nahum Howard. They were among our best citizens. Often talked with Lake about S. Spaulding's MSS. years before B. of M. came out. After it came out he claimed the two were identical.

E. B. Haskell: A, Cunningham was one of our best neighbors. I after heard him make the same statements about Spaulding's MSS as are contained in Howe's book. Dated Nov. 4, 1884. 

T. B. Howard: Have read the statements of H. Lake, O. Smith and my father, Dr. N. Howard in Howe's book, and have often heard them make the same statements in conversation. They said the history part of Spaulding's MSS. was the same as B. of M.

E. Edward: Often heard Rigdon preach in '19 and '20. Fluent Speaker. Often heard H. Lake, N. Howard, A. Wright, who were among the best citizens and held responsible positions, say that Spaulding wrote the history part of the B. of M.

Mr. Gibson, Dec. 4, '84: Have read Howe's book on Mormonism, and have often heard H. Lake, N. Howard and A. Wright state that Spaulding often read his MSS. to his neighbors; and also that the history part of B. of M. is the same as that Manuscript. 

T. W. Crane: Knew Cunningham, who was regarded as one of our best cirizens

N. B. Keyes: Conneaut, O., Dec. 8, '84. I have heard nearly all the witnesses whose testimony is in Howe's book, (the witness names them) state the same in conversation. They claimed that the history part of B. M. and Spaulding's manuscript were the same. All these persons were among our most highly respected citizens. 

We might give you the testimony of Dr. Hall, from "Gleanings by the Way." He was one of the best known preachers in Northern Ohio. He says it is believed by good and respectable people, that Mr. Howe's book "Mormonism unvailed" is very correct, and the witnesses are believed to be creditable and respectable persons.

I have now given you our evidence and placed it before you. Sixteen witnesses name 25 features in which Spaulding's Manuscript and Book of Mormon agree. My friend claims because Clapp's criticism of Book of Mormon is unjust therefore the testimony of witnesses in another part of the book is false. But Mormons did not deny them. They wrote blackguard articles and spattered the witnesses with filth. I read fifteen witnesses to show Rigdon remodled it; and seventeen to show he prophesied of the coming forth of such a work. His contemptible offer about going to see these witnesses is simply bluster. 

He read a part of Harris's statement, and deliberately left out a part, and said he had read it all. What estimate shall we place upon the statements of a man who will do that. A man who will stand up here and perpetuate a deliberate falsehood, let me ask of him what regard shall we have for his testimony.

This is the man who is going to put me where the dogs won't bite if I dispute his word. I say that was a deliberate falsehood, now bring on your Mormon dogs just as fast [as] you want to. Now I have caught you right in that and there is no getting out of it.

Instead of meeting my work he got into a rant on chronology and a rant on prophecy and all that kind of thing borrowed from the Bible, and then says there's nothing to answer. I have presented affidavits of more than 60 witnesses, and he declines to notice or answer them. 

He insults your intelligence by stating that if the state of Iowa should swear to my position he would still believe the Book of Mormon. He is beyond the reach of reason. It don't make any difference to him what the evidence is. Argument indeed!


I am not surprised that my friend should get excited and should boil over; he has reason for it. I will just state how that matter came up last night. I was in the right then and I am in the right now, and the charge of falsehood falls the other way. When he presented it as the statement of Martin Harris I said it was not the statement of Harris, but of Stevenson, published in the "Deseret News." Now he wants to make you believe I said the statement was not there at all. I said no such thing. I only presented it to show you that he presented something as the statement of Harris which was not the statement. After I had read it I said I had read it to the end. He said have you read it all? I said yes, for I had read to the end, and I offered him the book that he might read it to the end. He did not ask if I had read what he read. He wanted to know if I had finished it to the end, all of it, and I said I had, and I had. I am right and you are qrong as you were last night. This is not Harris's statement, it is Stevenson's, hearsay after hearsay. So his evidence with reference to Harris amounts to nothing.

That misrepresentation with reference to the whole state of Iowa. I made no such statement as he puts it. I stated that these proofs can not be denied or gainsayed; and when that is so, no matter if the whole state of Iowa should testify so and so, I would myself believe the Book of Mormon. I presented those indubitable proofs as the basis of my bellet. Has he answered them? Not at all. The great head of the Christian economy was persecuted and dtiven from place to place on account of the falsehoods circulated about him, and was finally taken and crucified. His leading disciples were persecuted in the same way; and it is plainly stated that they suborned witnesses to testify against them. That is the way this case has been gotten up. These things he has been reading for truth bears such a stamp of iniquity upon them that they cannot be believed.  Take Henry Lake. I will show you how his witnesses agree. In Patterson's pamphlet fourth page he says: I spent many hours in hearing him read said writings and became well acquainted with them. He wanted me to assist in publishing them but after our forge failed I declined. His book represented the American Indians as the descendants of the lost tribes of Israel.

The Book of Mormon does not so represent. All those witnesses are giving their recollection 23 years afterwards. I never heard tell of such a memory as A. Wright had. He could repeat whole chapters. This was 23 years after he heard anything of this manuscript.

Lake says further: Some months ago borrowed golden Bible. Carried it home, and thought no more about it, until in about a week my wife found the book in my pocket and began reading. I recognized the same that Spaulding read to me more than 20 years before. I recollect telling Spaulding that so frequent a use of "And it came to pass," rendered it ridiculous. 

Solomon Spaulding's writings as found have nothing of the scriptural style about them. Now to the testimony of Jas Jeffries, B. &. K. Debate, p. 42: Rigdon told me there was in the printing office with which he was conected, a manuscript of Spaulding tracing the Indians from the lost tribes of Israel. Spaulding wanted it printed but had [no] means. He was familiar with it. He [Rigdon] and Joe Smith used to read the manuscript on Sundays. Rigdon said Smith took the manuscript and said "I'll print it" and went off to Palmyra, N. Y.

This witness makes Smith steal the manuscript, not Rigdon; and remember Jeffries is one of his principle witnesses. In connection with this I call your attention to the statement of Mrs. Davison, as found in Gregg's work, p. 417: She says the manuscript had assumed the title manuscript found. Then on page 419 Greff, she says no title was made to it. Then Mrs. E. Dickinson is "Scribners' Magazine" writes of Mrs. McKinstry saying that among other papers she saw a manuscript about an inch thick. She describes it as about an inch thick just as I published she described it to me. She says further: On the outside was written manuscript found. It is not unreasonable that she should make a mistake in trying to reflect and say manuscript found instead of manuscript story.

She says: I didn't read it. I looked through it, had it in my hands and saw the names. I was 11 years of age at the time. Mother was remarried in 1820. I was married in 1828. She then describes what followed until Hulburt came there, and her mother gave an order on Mr. Sabine, and the manuscript was delivered to Hulburt by Mr. Jerome Clark in 1834. Gregg 422. She says when her mother was married the old trunk with its contents reached her in safety. Now notice: What Spaulding wrote was written in 1811 and '12 except what this man assumes he wrote in 1814, which he swears Rigdon talked to him about. In 1814 this was in Pittsburg. This lady traces it from Pittsburg to Amity. It was in Amity in 1816. In 1820 it was in Onondaga, N. Y. Then it is delivered by order of Mrs. Spaulding to Jerome Clark and he delivers it to Hulburt in 1834. It has around it a wrapper that she says had manuscript found but when found has manuscript story. 

One of his witnesses, Mrs. Dunlap says she was at Bainbridge, O., and sawRigdon bring out a manuscript that it is claimed was Spaulding's when both Mrs. Davidson and Mrs. McKinstry testify that it was in that trunk until 1834.

Now Rev. R. McKee is a witness he dotes especially upon, B. & K. Debate, p. 42: I was a boarder in 1824 at Spaulding's tavern, Amity, Pa., Spaulding Spent muxh time in writing on sheets of paper torn from an old book what purported to be a history of the nations or tribes that inhabited Canaan. He called it "Lost Manuscript," or some such name. Noticed the passage referred to by Miller about the Amlicites making a cross with red paint to distinguish them in battle. McKee heard S. read this from 1814-16 at Amity and the first time Rigdon moved to Pittsburg was 1822 as you will find on the 92nd page of Hayden's history. My friend said Rigdon stole it in Pittsburg and Spaulding reproduced it, and the reproduction took place in 1814-16, and the theft after 1822. This McKee identifies it by the red cross made in the foreheads; but turning to this [i. e. 1885 RLDS] reproduction of Spaulding's manuscript we have what he refers to and it says they painted half the face red and the other half black. This witness says it was called "lost manuscript" or some such name; Mrs. McKinstry says "manuscript found," the manuscript had "manuscript story" on wrapper, and on 12th page we find the reason it was called manuscript found, as I have already shown. So I have identified this book published by us by his own witnesses as the document known as "manuscript found." Hulburt didn't start out on his hunt for evidence until 4 years after B. of M. was published. Then with it in his hands he tries to bring up points of identity between it and the manuscript these witnesses heard read 23 years before. He makes A. D. Chase swear with reference to seeing Rigdon in New York in 1827, contrary to the record evidence. In "Mormon Portraits" p. 27 [sic], Chase says: "In the year 1827 I first saw him there," speaking of Rigdon at Smiths. He offers a lot of testimony here to show that Hulburt in lecturing compared "manuscript found" and B. of M. and they were alike, and Hulburt said they were alike. Hulburt himself in his printed testimony contradicts this. Braden makes Dr. Winters figure as a prominent witness in regard to Rigdon etc. But Alexander Campbell, in "Millenial Harbinger" of 1830, p. 174, denounces him as a deceiver and a corrupt man, whom he providentially detected in his villainy. This is one of this list of men above reproach my friend has been talking about.

Note 1: The statements of "Alexander Phelps" and "W. W. Aldernut" are not known from other historical sources; probably they were collected by Arthur B. Deming. The testimony of Aldernut [Alderman?] appears to be either garbled or inaccurate. Perhaps his recollection of a person saying "Joe ought to have been killed," is a reference to D. P. Hurlbut's remarks in Kirtland late in Dec., 1833. Those same assertions were taken by Joseph Smith and the Mormons as contemporary threats upon Smith's person.

Note 2: Beginning with the testimony of Phoebe Randall, most of the statements presented by Braden are unique to this article; as with several of the others, these previously unpublished statements were probably collected by Arthur B. Deming. "T. B. Howard" was Theodore B. Howard, born 1806. He was a boy when Solomon Spalding lived in Ohio, but was 25 or 26 when Samuel H. Smith and Orson Hyde first preached from the Book of Mormon in Conneaut township. "N. B. Keyes" may have been the brother of Elias Keyes, the businessman who took over operation of the Spalding-Lake iron forge at New Salem in about 1815.

Note 3: Elder Kelley refuses to accept the 1833 testimony of Spalding's business partner, Henry Lake, because Lake asserts that Spalding "represented the American Indians as the descendants of the lost tribes of Israel." Perhaps Kelley looked for that information in the Spalding "Roman story" the RLDS Church published in 1885 and was unhappy that he did not find it there and could not thus clinch his allegation that Lake only ever saw that particular manuscript. Kelley overthrows Lake's testimony on the basis that he cannot find the American Indians shown to be the "descendants of the lost tribes of Israel" in the Book of Mormon either. He overlooks the fact that Father Lehi's offspring continued the existence of the "lost tribe" of Manasseh. But he also overlooks the strong possibility of Spalding's having pared down an unweildly number of characters in his story by revisng it, elminating most of the "lost tribes" from the story before submitting it for publication. Just because the Conneaut witnesses in several cases recalled Spalding writing about the "lost tribes," that does not mean that the story of all ten of those tribes was necessarily retained by the author in his final draft. Kelley also expresses faux amazement of the sharp memory of Aaron Wright -- he might have done better to credit the excellent memory of Solomon's brother, Josiah Spalding, in recalling so many details of the "Roman story," forty years after seeing it in Ohio.

Note 4: Kelley says that Rigdon moved to Pittsburgh for the "first time" in 1822, because Amos S. Hayden says so. Actually Hayden does not say that year was the first time Rigdon was in Pittsburgh -- and it seems strange that Kelley would accept Hayden's word on this point regarding Rigdon and reject him on almost all others. In fact, Rigdon's son John places his father in Pittsburgh as early as 1819, after "he obtained a license to preach." Carvil Rigdon says that his brother Sidney "returned to Pittsburgh in the winter of 1821" -- indicating that he had resided there (as John says) at the earlier date. At any rate, Sidney lived within walking distance of the town as a young man, and went there to pick up his mail as early as 1816. Kelley also accuses D. P. Hurlbut of concocting the Conneaut witnesses's statements in 1834, "with it [the Roman story] in his hands." Actually the Conneaut statements were written down during the summer of 1833, several weeks before Hurlbut went east to procure Spalding's writings.


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  July 9, 1891.                             No. 33.



All that Joseph Smith gave to the world, purporting to be revelations from God, were entirely of human origin, and frauds; and Joseph Smith was an impostor.

Clark Braden of the Christian Church affirms: E. L. Kelley of the Latter Day Saints denies.

Elder J. D. McClure, of Tabor, Ia., acted as Elder Braden's moderator, and Elder R. M. Elvin of Lamoni as Elder Kelley's moderator,



If ever I saw in my life a desperate attempt to work down what can not be destroyed, I saw it in the gabble of that last effort. If the weakness of that speech were transferred to my friend's limbs, he would have to be carried around on a stretcher.

Harris made no such statement as he represented him as making. He left out his statement when he read it. That is all there is of it. As to lost tribes, lost MSS, and so forth. We simply have the testimony of other witnesses, persons of unusual intelligence, that it was called MSS found, and described the journeyings of a people from Jerusalem to America.

Ja's Jeffries: Just about the time Jeffries says Rigdon made this statement your "Times and Seasons" was a denouncing Rigdon for exposing Mormonism. Jeffries gave Rigdon's statement. Mrs. McKinstry says she saw a small manuscript and around it a wrapper with MSS. found on it. I have presented O. Smith, Jno. Spaulding, Mrs. Spaulding, R. McKee, Mrs. Dunlap and others, all of whose testimony combined shows that Spaulding was writing a for a period of 8 or 9 years. Then to try to force us to the conclusion that he wrote nothing but this little thing you have over there.

Next he says Rigdon was not in Pittsburg. I call your attention to Mrs. Eichbaum's testimony, p. 10 of Patterson's pamphlet, who says that her father was post master at Pittsburg, from 1804 to 1822. That from 1811 to 1816 she was the regular clerk in the office; that she knew and distinctly remembers Rob't and Ja's Patterson, Harrison Lambdin, Silas Engles and Sidney Rigdon. Also Spaulding. She saw Lambdin and Rigdon often together, and remembers Engles saying that Rigdon was always hanging around the printing office.

Now we have settled that matter, now try that again.  

McKee identifies the B. of M. by its story about a red mark in the forehead. Your little book don't give any such thing, and you don't prove anything by that. The witnesses say, some 8 or 10, that Spaulding called his romance, MSS. found, and it was in Bible style. But is there any Bible style about your little book? Abel Chase was 13 years old and ought to know something about it. He says his testimony was taken from Deming's book. No sir it was not. You don't get around it that way. It is a true affidavit that Abel Chase makes.

I have given you the testimony of a number of witnesses who say that Hulburt stood up and stated before the audience that he had MSS, found, and read from it and compared it with B. of M. and invited an examination and comparison of the two. This evidence is clear direct and to the point. He has succeeded in assailing one out of sixty witnesses at last. All right we can spare him. It don't affect the case one way or another.

We will now answer a few objections to the claim that B. of M. is a reproduction of MSS found. If Rigdon stole the MSS. how could Mrs. Spaulding read it years after. Spaulding was writing from 1808 to 1816. He wrote and rewrote. He was an inveterate scribbler. He conceived the idea of making money out of a book of this kind. He wrote several besides this one you have. He had one dramatized in 1810 or 12. He was writing another MSS. when he died which Mrs. Davidson showed Mrs. Clark. Hulburt obtained one MSS. and then sold it to the Mormons in 1836 [sic] for $400 as stated in "Gleaning, by the Way." Rigdon a printer. He was not, and had not the necessary education. Rigdon never was in Pittsburg. He was there and in Patterson's office so much that Engles, the foreman, complained. Rigdon says there was no such office in Pittsburg. There was; and if he lied about that he lied about his not being in Pittsburg and about the MSS. Of course he was trying to lie out of it.

Rigdon knew nothing of the Book of Mormon before the Mormons called at his house in the fall of 1830.  

We have proved that he foretold the coming forth of the book. That he was preaching Mormonism in New York before it came forth.

Rigdon denies stealing the manuscript. We have proved that he was seen with the manuscript. Dr. Winters saw him with the manuscript. We have proved by many that he foretold the book and preached the peculiarities of the Mormon faith before the book came forth. The B. of M. advocates what Rigdon said in his disputes with the Disciples about the continuation of miracles and contains the views of Rigdon which he preached before it appeared. It is Rigdon all over, Rigdon gone to seed.

I have given you the testimony of witness after witness that Rigdon was seen in New York before Book of Mormon was published. He has attempted to prove an alibi covering a' period of three years and eight months. His dates do not come within months of each other. There was one of the best traveled roads of that time which Rigdon could take and the distance not being over two hundred and fifty miles as I have verified by an examination of the map at the depot, he could go in seven days, return in seven, and be all around inside of three weeks. I know what I am talking about. So much for that. 

The witnesses describe 25 features in which the Book of Mormon is like Spaulding's manuscript. The Book of Mormon has the ear marks of Spaulding and Rigdon. Its ideas about miraculous powers, its anachronisms such as quotations from Shakespeare before he was born, quotations from the New Testament before it was written, Christians and Christian Churches before Christ, reveal the work of an ignorant plagiarist. Greek and Latin names in reformed Egyptian. Anti a Greek prefix. Then the Yankee nick names Sam and Josh. Then again its quotations from the New Testament given in the past tense. Book of Mormon is like Gulliver's travels and other frauds, it does not dare to give place and time. In presenting anything that could be compared with any other history. After you leave Jerusalem, ransack its pages and you can't find anything that interlocks with any other history. It takes you out into the wilderness and you remain in the wilderness, and nobody knows anything about it or heard anything about it. But the Bible dovetails with other history backward and forward, age after age. There is proof that it is a fraud, manufactured; didn't dare to bring it in contact with history or anything we know anything about. My friend may come up and tell you again that if all the people of Iowa should swear to these facts he would still believe the Book of Mormon. I have not seen such great faith, no not in Israel.


The names Sam and Josh are from the Hebrew names Samuel and Joshua, yet my friend contends their origin was with the Yankees, yankee nick names he says. He got this out of Lamb's "Golden Bible," but he don't know anything about Sam and Josh anywhere except among the Yankees, simply because he finds them in the B. of M. Anti is Greek, It is not Latin, simply Greek; and if any body heard tell of Anti at any other time it must have been borrowed from the Greek. If the Greek had never been in existence we never could have had anti.

Now as to the testimony of Jno. N. Miller, p. 4, Patterson: He had designed it as an historical novel, and it would be believed by many people. Having examined the B. of M. I find in it the writings of Spaulding from beginning to end, mixed up with scriptures and other religious matter which I did not meet in manuscript found.

Here is the manuscript reproduced and it does not have the religious matter, so I have identified it by another one of his witnesses. Phoebe Randall, born in '32. of course could tell all about those matters just the same as you can tell about what your father and mother have talked about in your hearing.

Jno. N. Miller could repeat almost the whole thing not having heard of it for over 23 years. 

With reference to the time Rigdon was in Pennsylvania. If my friend had read the previous page in Patterson he would have seen that his witness did not know anything about it. Rob't P. Dubois on page 10 of Patterson testifies that he entered the book store of Patterson & Lambdin in 1818, remained until 1820. I knew nothing of Spaulding, his book, or Sidney Rigdon. This witness was right in the employ of this firm from 1818 to 1820, and knew nothing of Rigdon, so he was not hanging around there.

I have cited him to page 92 of this history, and he pays no attention to it. Goes right along and makes a few assertions with reference to it, and that is all. It says: Sidney Rigdon married myself and Phoebe Brooks Feb. 5, 1818, and after two years moved to Pittsburg.

Now the statement of Sidney Rigdon, Patterson, p. 9: It is only necessary to say that the whole story about Spaulding's writings being in Patterson's hands, my saying I was concerned in said office, is the most base of lies. This is Rigdon's statement published in 1839, before [sic] the publication of Howe's book. R. Patterson was then living, but his testimony although called for by Rigdon, was not secured to refute Rigdon's statement. No, they preferred to hunt around after the stories like enemies of the disciples of old, and try to hound Rigdon to death because he left the Disciple church for a nobler field of work and a nobler cause. This is the reason my friend stands up and makes such a great ado, because they are especially hateful towards Rigdon.  

Now these witnesses about Hulburt's lectures say what Hulburt said. If Jno. Jones says what Jno. Smith said that Jno. Johnson said, we prefer to have it from the mouth of Jno Johnson himself, What Hulburt said we would rather have from Hulburt himself. Now I have followed this manuscript completely and traced it into the hands of Hulburt. Hulburt says in a letter of Aug. 19, '79: I visited Mrs. Spaulding in 1834. Never saw her after. I then received from her manuscript of her husband which I did not read. but brought it with me and gave to Mr. E. D. Howe, who was then preparing his work on Mormonism. Howe received it under the condition under which I took it -- compare it with the B. of M. and return it to her Never received any other Spaulding manuscript and of that made no other use, than to give it to Mr. Howe. Did not destroy it, or dispose of it to Joe Smith or any other person.

If his evidence is worth anything the manuscript went into Howe's hands. Let him bring his second class witnesses. If they base their statements on what Hulburt said, then this statement of his ought to be received in preference to theirs, and would be in any court in America. 

In a late letter of E. D Howe is the statement: I never succeeded in finding out anything more than was detailed in my book of exposure over 50 years ago. Much mist his been thrown around origin of Mormon Bible and manuscript found by the statements of those trying to solve the problem. Every effort was made at the time, and I think it all folly to try to dig out more. Never saw manuscript found, and don't believe Hulburt ever had it.

Now to claim in the face of these statements of Howe and Hulburt that Hulburt was going around lecturing and holding up manuscript found and asking people to read it, is a most ridiculous thing. Braden's evidence begins with Howe. He can't go back on him, because if his collection of evidence is no account Braden's whole case is false. 

I have shown you by clear and direct evidence that Spaulding left Pittsburg in 1814, and took the manuscript with him, and no one claims Rigdon went to Pittsburg before 1817. But in 1814 Mrs. Spaulding says they moved to Amity, Pa. Then we traced the trunk to Onondaga, N. Y., with the manuscript in it, where it remained until it was delivered to Hulburt in 1834, who delivered it to Howe in whose papers It goes to Honolulu, as you will find by reading Rice's letters contained in this book. Then President Fairchild of Oberlin College, O., receives it and brings it back. It had manuscript story on the wrapper, and Mrs. Davison could have been easily mistaken in a word or two, when she stated that it had manuscript found. The contents show it was what was known in the world as manuscript found and Braden may blow over it 40 years and he will make it no different. My alibi. My first date was January 1827, Mantua, O., Hayden p. 237; February 27, at Chester, O. That is before June. March and April, protracted meeting at Mentor, O. June 5-7 Painesville, O., probate records. July 3-12, Mentor, O., probate records, July 19, Mentor, O. August 23, New Lisbon, O., Hayden, 55-57. September returns home to Mentor. October 9, Mentor, O., October last part, Warren, O., Hayden p. 39. November, New Lisbon. Hayden 72-76. December 6, Kirtland, O., probate records. December 13. Concord, O., probate record.

About the first of March he preached a funeral discourse, and could not have been in New York as the witnesses testify. I stated the distance Rigdon would have to travel was about 250 miles, but I learn since it is nearly 400 miles, and it would take more than eight weeks' time. I have proved my alibi and no man can get around it.

Notes: (forthcoming).


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  July 16, 1891.                             No. 34.



All that Joseph Smith gave to the world, purporting to be revelations from God, were entirely of human origin, and frauds; and Joseph Smith was an impostor.

Clark Braden of the Christian Church affirms: E. L. Kelley of the Latter Day Saints denies.

Elder J. D. McClure, of Tabor, Ia., acted as Elder Braden's moderator, and Elder R. M. Elvin of Lamoni as Elder Kelley's moderator,


My opponent made the statement that he knew S. F. Whitney, and he was only four years old at the time Rigdon preached what he refers to. I showed you by his statement that he was 24. Last night I read you a statement of Mrs. Phoebe Randall. My opponent told you she was only one year old. If it had not been for that I don't know what his friends would have talked about today. I just call his attention to the statement. I was born in 1819. Please remember then that she was 13 years old instead of one, and those that snickered over that can snicker again. I hope there will be no more work of that kind.

He read to you a statement of Ja's. Jeffries. We will call your attention to what Jeffries says; but first we will notice what Mrs. Eichbaum says: She says Rigdon was in Pittsburg in 1814-15. I remember an intimacy between Lambdin and Rigdon. They came to the office together. They so came at the hour on Sunday afternoon when the office was required to be open. I felt sure Patterson did not know of this, or he would have put a stop to it.

Rev. DuBois says: I entered Patterson & Lambdin's bookstore in l818, and remained until 1820. The firm had a book store on fourth st., a book bindery, printing job office under name of Butler & Lambdin, and a steam paper mill. I know nothing of Spaulding, his book, or Rigdon.

He entered after '14 and '15, and hence knew nothing of these things. There we have the matter settled. 

Now as to Jeffries. He told you that Jeffries said Joseph Smith took the manuscript out of Pittsburg. He says: Rigdon told me several times there was in the printing office he was connected with in Ohio, a manuscript of Spaulding, tracing origin of Indians from the lost tribes of Israel. This manuscript was in the office several years. He was familiar with it. Spaulding wanted it published, but had not the means. He (Rigdon) and Joe Smith used to read the manuscript on Sundays. Rigdon said Smith took the manuscript and said I'll print it, and went off to Palmyra, N. Y.

Jeffries don't say Smith took it out of the office or anything of the kind.

Now then, as to this alibi. He claims it would take a period of some months to make the journey and return. I got the railroad map and figured it out carefully, and the distance is less than 260 miles, and could be made and return in two weeks. One witness says Smith met Rigdon in November 1826, and from that to Jan. 1st., 1827, a period of five weeks, the trip could easily be made. Then from Jan. 1st to March 1st, nine weeks; from March 1st to June 5th, ten weeks. There is a period in which he could make five trips. As we pass along we have periods of two weeks dropped out right along, and in some places nine weeks From October 9 into December the trip could be made several times. Then from December 13 to February 14, ten weeks. From February 14 to April, the trip could be made. During May and June a period of several weeks. The trip could be made, a consultation held, and he could baptize. So on throughout his whole time in which he seeks to prove an alibi. He had months of time in between the dates of this alibi you heard so much about, in which to make trips, baptize and preach. From November 1820 to November 1830, a period of twelve months is thrown in in which he has no dates, and the trip could be made 20 times. It was during that time he was seen in Rochester by Dr. Rosa. So he is cleaned out on that. When he reads his dates they sound as though he had a great many, but when you come to ask the time between them it is all gone.

I know Samuel and Joshua are found in the Hebrew, but I never knew that the Yankee nicknames Sam and Josh were. Miller says the Bible matter and quotations were not in Spaulding's manuscript. Don t he know the difference between Bible quotations and Bible matter, and scriptural style? 

"Rigdon went to Pittsburg in 1822, therefore could not have been there in 1814 and '15." A host of witnesses testify he was there. He lied in saying there was no such office as Patterson's, for the directory show; there was.

I never introduced Hulburt as a witness. Kelley introduced him. I introduced nine witnesses who tell us what he did, and who heard him and saw him. He showed the manuscript and asked others to examine and compare it with B. of M. Many did examine and compare it. What became of it? Mormons bought it of Howe and Hulburt, and paid them $400 apiece, ad were to pay them more, as told in "Gleanings by the Way." They got the manuscript into their own hands. That is why it is not published.

Spaulding wrote for eight or nine years and when Rigdon stole his manuscript he rewrote it. I have placed before you the testimony of these numerous witnesses, and he simply gets up before you and attempts to vilify them, witnesses whose shoes he is not fit to blacken, and he can't blacken their characters.

The Book of Mormon reproduces the brogue of King James' Translators. It literally copies King James' version in over 1600 passages. There are over 5000 ridiculous blunders In the Palmyra edition. There were over 40 blunders on one page, and 17 corrections were made on one page when it was published the second time. All this proves that it originated with ignoramuses like Smith and Rigdon and Spaulding. It blunders in archaeology, it fails to anticipate a single discovery since that time, it contradicts such archaeology. he facsimile of what was on the plates we present. There are modern figures, capital letters, etc., signs of addition, equality. This is their reformed Egyptian, and it is a flat contradiction of what Egyptologists tell us, and of the hieroglyphics of Central America. Your committee that examined the manuscript in the hands of Whitmer reported many contradictions between it and your present edition of the Book of Mormon. These plates were made from 1100 to 200 years before King James version was extant, and they quote 1500 passages from it. Do you swallow this? Spaulding was illiterate, Rigdon was illiterate, Cowdery was illiterate, Smith was illiterate. By the way I can show you something: there is one of Smith's original shin plasters, issued by the Kirtland Bank, that swindled the people of Ohio out of $25,000. 

The next thing is the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. These revelations of Smith were printed in a little book which I hold in my hands called the Book of Commandments. Years after there was an entire reprint of the revelations in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants and the two books flatly contradict each other. The sheets of the Book of Commandments were thrown out, mostly destroyed, but enough preserved for about ten books. The book of Doctrine and Covenants was printed at Kirtland in 1835.

In Book of D. and C. the revelation about Smith's gifts precludes his ever being a prophet; but in Book of D. and C a change is made and a provision inserted for his prophetic pretensions. This is section 4. Section 6 of B. of D. and C. In that there are about ten lines interpolated. Other interpolations are made in the seventeenth section. Next page 96, where an interpolation about the laying on of hands and baptism of Holy Ghost. In sections 14, 16 and 17 deliberate interpolations occur. In section 16. 43 lines are interpolated. I have the two books right here. Now there is your Book of Doctrine and Covenants.


I am not surprised that it is not in the Book of Commandments. It was not a proper and complete publication of the revelations as originally given. My friend has assumed before the audience that this was the original and authorized publication, and all others were lies, when he has not given you one word of proof that the Book of Commandments was compiled from the originals at all. What do you think of a man that will argue in that way? He must first show that the Book of Commandments is the original of the revelations published in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. Then he will have a basis to start from. But that being not proven, he has no standing whatever. He only stands up and says something is a fraud, and you don't know anything about it. It only shows how ridiculously a man can use these terms; and how men and women can believe them under such circumstances is really more than I can see into.

Last night when I called your attention to Phoebe Randall's age, I said, that's the way he read it. How am I to answer his testimony, if he reads it one way and it is another way. If she was not born in l832 as he read it, then he made a mistake in reading. When he reads 1832 must I and this audience understand him to mean 1819? He has simply got himself, nobody else. If I made my argument upon that, it was because of his mistake. The honorable course for him would have been to have simply said to this audience: I was mistaken in my reading, and I will now read it correctly. But no, he must try to make it appear as a mistake I have made and make capital of it before this audience. With reference to Whitney; I gave my opinion of his age from my knowledge of the man. He was not as gray us my friend Braden the last time I saw him. 

This testimony, or affidavit, as he calls it, says: Mrs. Hulburt spent last summer with me. Said she never had manuscript of Spaulding. Was frequently annoyed by inquiries about Mormonism, her health prevented her from answering. Thinks her husband would have told -- here it is stricken out.

A. B. Deming got that up. It is in his hand writing. I shall have testimony before the debate closes with reference to how this testimony was gotten. I will turn and read what the other part of this testimony was, that was omitted, as found in Mrs. Hulburt's testimony given Feb. 5, 1884: She says, Mr. Hulburt never obtained but one manuscript from Mrs. Davidson, and that he let Howe have. He promised to return it to Mrs. Spaulding, and Howe promised to restore it to her, but he never did. Hulburt spent six months and a good deal of money looking up the manuscript and other evidence, and was disappointed in not finding what he wanted. This was the reason he turned the whole thing over to Howe. While on his death bed he would have given everything he had in the world could he have been certain, that there was any manuscript found as claimed similar to the Book of Mormon.

Now right at the point where the witness whose testimony Deming was getting, was about to state something against them, the evidence stops. That shows the character of the man that got this up. Right where she was about to say her husband would have given everything to have known there was such a manuscript as manuscript found, it stops. Thus Phoebe Randall's testimony is gone. But she wont swear to any such stuff as is here presented, when there is anybody there to cross examine her. That is the reason I have offered any party $500 who will go with me to these parties, if their testimony does not turn out in accordance with the ideas I have presented.

I now call attention to Mrs. Spaulding-Davidson's testimony taken from Quincy Whig, published in a book in 1840, same [sic] as Howe's publication.

I have read some in Book of Mormon and think some few of the names in Spaulding's manuscript and it are alike. The manuscript describes an idolatrous people. D. P. Hurlbut came and got this manuscript. Said he would print it, but received a letter afterwards from him, stating it did not read as they expected and they would not print it. The manuscript was about one-third as large as the Book of Mormon.

Mrs. McKinstry says: I was about 5 years old when my father wrote the manuscript and about 12 when I read it. It described an idolatrous people. I think some of the names of Book of Mormon and manuscript agree, but am not certain that they do. My name was not attached to that letter by my mother, and I never meant that it should be there.

Thus the fraud was exposed, but since then it has been covered up just as it has been in this discussion, but they never have had any evidence to offer to men and women seeking the truth. 

My friend says he never offered Hulburt as a witness, but he offered the testimony of a number of witnesses who say they heard him lecture, present manuscript found, and compare it with Book of Mormon. I answered that by giving his testimony from him, in which he says he made no use of the manuscript but to give it to Howe and his wife says the same. He has introduced Hulburt indirectly. That is the point, and then he denies introducing him at all. Then in following him I introduced him directly. He introduces Jno. Jones to prove what Henry Miller knew concerning a matter and then says he never introduced H. Miller. When you do that you are bound by Henry Miller because he is testifying on your side and against the other party. If he introduces witnesses to prove what Hulburt said against us, then he must take what Hulburt said himself about the matter. 

He says I have not a date from Dec. '29 to Nov. '30. I give him in writing my dates, and he has them, and for this period I referred him to "Millennial Harbinger" for the summer of 1830. You pretended to tell the audience I had no dates between these times, and yet right here I refer you to your own publications where you will find them. See "Millennial Harbinger," page 389. I cited you to this in which you will find a date for every month, and yet you said before this audience I did not have a single date for this time. There is not a particle of proof that Hulburt sold the manuscript to Mormons, but he and his wife both testify that he made no other use of it than to give it to Howe. That story was put in circulation by Cobb, of Salt Lake City, in a little work published under an assumed name.

Note: Unfortunately Elder Kelley neglects to give the title or date for what he calls "a little work published under an assumed name" that was written by Spalding claims investigator James T. Cobb. Apparently Kelley here refers to some small (perhaps anonymous) pamphlet or brochure published in Salt lake City during the late 1880s.


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  July 23, 1891.                             No. 35.



All that Joseph Smith gave to the world, purporting to be revelations from God, were entirely of human origin, and frauds; and Joseph Smith was an impostor.

Clark Braden of the Christian Church affirms: E. L. Kelley of the Latter Day Saints denies.

Elder J. D. McClure, of Tabor, Ia., acted as Elder Braden's moderator, and Elder R. M. Elvin of Lamoni as Elder Kelley's moderator,



David Whitmer is one of their great I witnesses to the Book of Mormon. Now if he is a good witness with reference to that book he is a good witness with reference to the Book of Commandments. Whitmer says all the revelations were published In the Book of Commandments just as they were arranged by Joseph Smith. He says he knows this and this is just as good evidence as you have for the Book of Mormon.

Whitney swears he was born in 1804 December, and then he gets up and gabbles, gabbles, gabbles about what he knows about his age. Do you know who you are talking about? Phoebe Randall was born in l819, and the elders came to her father's place in 1832.

Mrs. Hulburt closes up her sentence with delighted to. I have heard persons close sentences with the word to, and what he says about that is simply the gabble of a pettifogger. Mrs. Hulburt tells us what she did not know. I gave nine witnesses who heard Hulburt lecture, that he held up the manuscript, some of them examined it, and in the presence of a large audience compared it with B. of M.

About cross examination. have I ever cross examined one of your witnesses? Your testimony is just the same kind sir? Did you ever give me a chance to cross examine J. W. Rigdon? Or any of your witnesses? That knife cuts both ways.

About the $500 offer. Yes, when a man's in a corner, "I'll bet you." Yes, you can assail Howe, Hulburt and Dr. Winters instead of answering my questions. Then we have this endless gabble about Howe's misrepresentations affecting the testimony that appears in his book, when we have proved that, that evidence is genuine. Your intelligence has been insulted by this night after night. 

That Quincy Whig article, We have here the statement in "Gleanings by the Way," p. 262, of John Storrs with reference to an interview with Mrs. Davison. She says: I neither wrote a letter to the "Boston Record" nor signed my name to one on the origin of the Book of Mormon. He came to my house, asked me some questions and took some notes, and in the main that is what is in the letter, and in the main it is true.

Mr. Austin says: She signed a paper with her own hand which I have in my possession. Here we have both Storrs and Austin's testimony, and that settles that question. It is a trick they have to go to a person, ask them some questions, and then manufacture a lot of stuff they should have said to them.

His dates" We will go a little slow in this matter. The railroad distance is correct. The first date is Jan. 1st, the next March 1st, period of 9 weeks; from March 1st to June 5th, ten weeks; meetings could be held and the trip made. Then from August 31 to October 9th, a period of nine weeks. October 9th to December l3th, ten weeks. February 14 to middle of April, nine weeks. Then we have periods of four weeks occurring right along. 'Then we have from February 1st to August 14, a period of 26 weeks.

Now about that paper he handed. He just had in that paper a gap from November to November, a period of a year. He says see something in the Millennial Harbinger. Why didn't you copy your dates out of Harbinger and hand them to me like a man. You are to produce your evidence and read it. Why didn't he bring in the dates of the Harbinger like a man? Because your appeal to the Harbinger is a fraud. Is it my business to know what your witnesses will swear to before you introduce them into court? He is a lawyer, he is. I think if he manages cases as he manages this, he would be a singular affair.

Of the sixty witnesses, over twenty give the name manuscript found to this work of Spaulding. Spaulding didn't give a title to his manuscript. She says he didn't give a title page. He turns to this little book and shows it is represented as having been a manuscript found, and undertakes to claim it was manuscript found. It simply tells about having been found. That does not show that the title was manuscript found. If you buy a manuscript it is bought manuscript of course. If you sell a manuscript the name of the book is sold manuscript; and if you find a manuscript the name of the book is manuscript found of course! If he had stolen it the title would have been stolen manuscript. He knows they dropped out the real title and just put in manuscript found. 

I have corroborated the testimony of these Conneaut witnesses by the testimony of a host of others, who testify that they heard them give this evidence, and who testify also of their good character.

He says because Clapp's criticism of the Book of Mormon which is one part of Howe's book is unjust therefore the testimony of the witnesses in another part Is untrue. How often are you going to repeat that nonsense? Get up and gabble, gabble, such stuff as that!

The inspired translation promises to restore lost portions of scripture and correct others. It does neither, as we know by examining old manuscripts. Book of Mormon follows King James, and if the Inspired is correct, the B. of M. is a fraud. The Inspired translation contains a ridiculous interpolation in Genesis about Joseph Smith. The Book of Abraham. Joseph Smith says he translated from an egyptian papyrus roll and he published it just as well as he published Book of Mormon. Egyptologists say it is a monstrous fraud.

He lied about the papyrus, didn't he lie about the plates? Then the Kinderhook plates. Some fellow got up a hoax, in the way of fraudulent plates, and Joseph Smith pretended to translate them. There is a facsimile of one page of the plates. Smith says in his diary that these plates were found near Kinderhook Ill., by R. Wiley and others, and that he translated a portion of them, and found that they contained the history of a man who descended from Ham through Pharaoh.

R. Wiley and others who got up that hoax, testify that they manufactured those plates and they are a fraud.

This you will find on the 207 page of "Mormon Portraits."

Then again that revelation about parties going to Toronto as testified to by David Whitmer. If he gave that lying revelation about going to Toronto, were not all the others lies also

I will say that I will be prepared Monday night to introduce evidence on the polygamy question, and you are simply going to be disappointed. I am not going to introduce a single Brighamite witness. I am going to prove that revelation without Brighamite testimony at all. I know just what I am doing in this case. I am going to stop all this howl, I am going to prove it out of your own books and your own records, and your own statements. That is just what I am going to do.


My friend reminds me of a story with reference to a young man who asked, What shall I do when I get a hard case? What shall I do to get out of it> He was answered, Well you just get up and "holler" that's the best thing for you to do. It seems to me if any body ever got into a hard place my friend has.

I am going to ask you a question. And you can answer it in your own minds. Of all these errors in the Book of Mormon and quotations from King James' Bible, has he read to you a single one? Can any one in the audience name one he has read? On this ground I have nothing to meet, my friend must bring something forward. He speaks of 3000 errors, and of quotations, etc., in the Book of Mormon. Let him bring forward one. He wants me to answer these. I have told him time and again to show one. Let him show his evidence here. If he wants me to answer anything he must present it to the audience.

He says if Joseph Smith received that lying revelation about going to Toronto was not all the others lies. Where is this revelatlon. Why don't he give us an opportunity of examining anything if he has anything? What use is it to this audience for Braden to get up and say a thing is so, or is not so, and me to get up and contradict him. Is that what we are here for? If he introduces his evidence and I reply to it and introduce mine; you can then judge; but if we simply bandy words, one says it's so and the other It's not, so how are you to judge? How much better off will you be when this debate closes if such work as that goes on. Braden says it's so and Kelley says it's not so, and how are you to judge unless the evidence is read to you? Braden says Joseph Smith said so and Kelley says he didn't, and how are you to decide? He should bring his proofs and read them from the Book of Mormon if he has any objections to make. Then I can answer them. But he has never done so in any discussion I have had. Let him take a paragraph and read it and say he is willing to stand upon it. He says there are thousands of errors. I don't ask him to point them all out. Let him show ten. All this talk and bluster about 3000 errors has nothing to do with the case, Let him show five. Let him show five that he is willing to stand upon. Five errors, five contradictions that he is willing to stand upon. Let him place them here upon the desk so that we can have the issue made here before us. My friend makes dogmatic assertions, nothing more. You are not here to take his word or my word, you arc here to consider the proof. You are here to demand evidence Let him show his Toronto revelation and the Book of Abraham and wherein it is wrong. Let him read his evidence, show up his errors. 

In regard to the Book of Commandments, he assumes that it is the original. If he had been posted he would not have made any such statement. The collection of revelations in that book is not complete. Revelations were in existence at the time that are not in it. I can show you that the Book of Commandments was never accepted by the church. All the way for him to do is to produce his proof. He has a great deal to say about David Whitmer as a witness to Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon does not rest for proof upon the testimony of Whitmer and Harris and I have never introduced their evidence to prove the divine authenticity of the Book. Their testimony I have introduced simply to make a prima facie case and not to prove the divine authenticity of the book.

I will read a publication of May, 1834 by Oliver Cowdery, who was of the publishing Company of Phelps, Cowdery & Co. The "Evening and Morning Star," page 364: This is what the publication says:

There are many typographical errors in both volumes (speaking of Elders Journal and Book of Commandments,) especially in the last, which we shall endeavor to correct. There are many typographical errors, and some occasioned by transcribing manuscript. As we shall have access to the original, we shall endeavor to make proper correction.

This was published in 1834 at Kirtland. O., where the original revelations were. Then this book of Commandments contained many errors, typographical, some of them, and others that occurred in the transcribing. Now my friend wants to go back and try to claim that this is the original; and this is for the purpose of trying to show that the revelations in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants are garbled. But notice here is an editorial by one of the publishing committee, published in the lifetime of David Whitmer, who continued to be a member of the church long after, and who in 1835 held up his hand and endorsed the Book of Covenants as a corrected publication of the revelations. One of the publishers of this was Oliver Cowdery, and Joseph Smith was chairman of the Committee, The committee and the church rejected the publication of the revelation[s] in Book of Commandments and corrected their errors, republished them in a book which the whole church accepted and yet my friend wants to claim this Book of Commandments as the original publication. He is bound to show that the Book of Commandments is the original before he can make an attack of this character. Sam, I repeat is from Samuel, a Hebrew word, and is not to be confined to the Yankees. Josh is from Joshua a Hebrew word. Anti he admits now after I called his attention to it, is either Greek or Latin. Well it is just as much American as it is Latin or Greek. Words run all through different languages, and often it is impossible to tell where they originated.

He say his evidence compares with mine. Certainly. But he is on the affirmative. He must make out his case. This evidence taken by Deming stops just where they did not want any more of it They suborned witnesses in the first century also.

Evidence to be competent at all must have the signature of the officer before whom it was taken and his seal of office. The evidence of J. W. Rigdon shows him to be an intelligent man. 

I sent my data to Braden, referring for this time from November to November to the Harbinger, a publication of their own. He did not send to me and say he did not have the Harbinger but got up and stated that I had no dates in that period.

The statement of the witnesses to B. of M. was a statement of what God said to them, that the translation of the B. of M. was correct. God said to them, my servant Joseph Smith has translated it, and it is correct. Some printer or transcriber may have made some mistakes afterwards, but that has nothing to do with the translation. If there are mistakes and errors, let him point them out. He attacks the Book of Mormon and Book of Doctrine and Covenants just as infidels attack the Bible,

Wiley once stated that the Kinderhook plates were genuine, can we now believe his statement that they were not?

Notes: (forthcoming).


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  July 30, 1891.                             No. 36.



All that Joseph Smith gave to the world, purporting to be revelations from God, were entirely of human origin, and frauds; and Joseph Smith was an impostor.

Clark Braden of the Christian Church affirms: E. L. Kelley of the Latter Day Saints denies.

Elder J. D. McClure, of Tabor, Ia., acted as Elder Braden's moderator, and Elder R. M. Elvin of Lamoni as Elder Kelley's moderator,



The first thing is that Toronto revelation. Ladies and gentlemen please remember that I read to you the proof, and don't go away and say that I did not. David Whitmer's address to all believers, page 31: Joseph enquired of the Lord and received a revelation that some of the brethren should go to Toronto, Canada, and that they would sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon. Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery did go to Toronto, Canada, but they failed to sell the copyright and returned without any money. We were all greatly troubled, and Joseph enquired of the Lord and received in answer, some revelations are of God, some of men and some of the devil.

Don't forget that I have read the evidence.

Now the errors of the Palmyra edition. You can't go back upon the report of your own committee published in your Herald of August 24, 1884. This committee was appointed to go down and investigate the manuscript. The changes in the Palmyra edition are first reported in detail; those that occurred in the following editions it says are too numerous for publication in detail. It also says the punctuation is deficient in a large part of the manuscript. Yet there are pages where the punctuation was made at the time of writing. I have testimony of the printer who handled the manuscript for the first edition of the Book of Mormon. He says that with few exceptions proper names begin with capitals, and sentences generally begin with capital letters where they did not begin with the character "&." Think of sentences beginning with &!

This committee referred to makes a report of the errors of the Palmyra edition, and also the corrections the Kirtland edition makes upon the Palmyra edition and these it says are too numerous to give in detail. It gives over 250 corrections that the Palmyra edition makes upon the manuscript, and the punctuation of the printer that was not in the manuscript. There is the report of your own committee. Have you evidence? Don't forget there is evidence now.

Kinderhook plates, I read Millennial Star of Jan. 15, 1859, Vol. 21. And don't forget that Mr. Braden read this, please bear that in mind: I have translated portion of Kinderhook plates. They contain an account of a descendant of Ham who received his kingdom from the ruler of Heaven and earth.

There's the facsimile. There you see a dollar mark, there is a cross made 17 times. Kelley says they are genuine. I brand them as false. Let us have some proof of this. I demand it. We have that thing brought to time.

Book of Abraham. Dave Area, Egyptologist takes up this book. Don't forget I showed you a facsimile of a part of it, and he contradicts Joseph Smith in every essential particular. 

The Book of Commandments and B. of D. and C. Braden never presented any evidence, no not a bit of it. I want to call your attention to a fact. I called attention to the changes made in the revelations as published in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. I have showed where interpolations had been made. Where new things were introduced paving the way for certain things. I proved by David Whitmer that the revelations in the Book of Commandments were published as Joseph Smith himself arranged them, yet I have furnished no proof! There is your great witness to the Book of Mormon who says they were arranged and correctly printed in Book of Commandments. Joseph Smith and the church received them as correct, so your revelation says. As to what Cowdery said. If my friend will bring forward the original and lay it alongside of the reprint, I will show that they lied in the reprint again and again. You interpolated many things not in the original. This is a lying fraud. You will get all the evidence you want. Where do you find Sam or Josh in the Bible? He talks about Notary Public and Seal. He has just one affidavit with a seal, and I have two.

We are now ready for the work of the evening, namely the question, whether Joseph Smith gave that revelation in favor of polygamy and practiced polygamy.

(A point of order being raised, the moderators decided, that as Mr. Braden by agreement has an opportunity to affirm in a separate proposition that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, therefore evidence upon that point could not be introduced upon this proposition. 

Ladies and gentlemen it hurts, and you are shaking in your boots like dogs. Evolution has not got you above snakes and geese, you can hiss! Keep cool, try and keep as easy as you can, I intend to skin him, but just as easy as I can.

Zenas L. Bennett: While Mormons were at Kirtland I saw and read what Joseph Smith declared to be a revelation from God commanding all of his elect to take spiritual wives.

William Law: Hyrum Smith handed me a document which purported to be a revelation through Joseph Smith authorizing polygamy in the church. I talked with him about it, and he said it was a great privilege given to the High Priesthood. When the revelation was given they were weak, but now being strong they must have meat. He seemed much disappointed at my not receiving the revelation. He used many arguments in its favor. I suppose he dreaded my official influence. Joseph told me he had several wives sealed to him, and that they afforded him a great deal of pleasure.

L. Soble: On or about August 21, 1843, Hyrum Smith came before the High Council in Nauvoo, Ill., and presented a revelation on polygamy and declared it came from God, which was received by the majority of the council because it was presented as coming from Joseph Smith. Sworn to.

Austin Cole [sic, Cowles]: In the latter part of the summer of 1843, Hyrum Smith read a revelation given through the prophet in the High Council, authorizing plural marriage. Sworn to.

These affidavits of Law and Austin were published in the expositor, which was destroyed by order of Joseph Smith.

Saints' Herald, Vol. 1., No. 1. the editor presents the fact that Joseph Smith gave the revelation on polygamy to satisfy the wicked desires of those who came to him. The editors are given as Wm. Marks and Isaac Sheen.


All there is of this from Isaac Sheen is this: It is merely an editorial argument, and not a statement of fact. He gives his conclusions. That is all. When a man gives evidence he must state facts. An argument or conclusion is nothing. Sheen is simply writing an article and stating his conclusions. With reference to Book of Commandments. He cites a revelation of 31 to prove an endorsement by the church of the Book of Commandments, when that book was not published until 1833. I showed you Saturday evening by this statement of Cowdery, that the Book of Commandments contained many errors, and so it was never accepted by the church. How could this revelation endorse the Book of Commandments when it was given two years prior to the publication of the book. So far as this book is concerned my friend will please try it again.

With reference to this Book of Abraham, we have only to look into this book to see that learned men did not know anything about it.

He has challenged me to introduce one learned man who says the Kinderhook plates were genuine. I will give him Gregg, whom he has introduced himself. Dr. Gregg says they were genuine, made of copper, gives their size, says he examined them and don't intimate that they were not genuine. So down goes another statement of my friend. Gregg page 489.

He is not correct when he says certain things were interpolated in the Book of Covenants. Before he can show an interpolation he must show the original, and that he has been unable to do in a single case. The Book of Doctrine and Covenants is the first official publication of the revelations, and by that we are willing to stand all the time. So let my friend produce his original and show the interpolation if he can. He must find the original, that is what we are looking after here.

In relation to the 5000 errors. If he had read the report of the committee in full it would have shown you just the character of the errors; but instead of doing that he gives you statements and garbled portions of it. The errors were largely typographical. I call your attention to the character of these errors. Simply typographical, grammatical, and of that class. You can go to the Bible printed at the best office in America and find typographical and other errors. The American Bible Society claims to have found 20,000 of these at one time. Did that prove that the Bible was not trustworthy? It simply showed some mistakes in printing and the arrangement of sentences. Joseph Smith an illiterate man, translated the Book of Mormon. If it had been translated or written by the Rev. Spaulding as he makes out, who is said to have been a great scholar by some, it would have been in fine flowing language. It is not in that kind of language, and it corroborates the statement of Horne, that God speaks in the humble language of those whom he addresses. God spoke in the New Testament in the simple language of the common people, and Horne says that this proves its inspiration. These 250 errors are typographical. I have examined every one of them, and instead of being 250 there are 312, and not one of them affects the knowledge of a single truth taught in the book. I asked Braden to point out a single paragraph that contains a false idea, or false teaching, where there has been a change in a paragraph of sufficient importance to change the sentiment of the book in any way since it was first published. If he fails to do this he will fail indeed. He has presented certain affidavits that at a certain time in Nauvoo there was in the church given and read a certain paper which claimed to be a revelation, and this revelation was given at the time that Joseph Smith was in Nauvoo.

Leonard Sobie's affidavit shows that he knew just about as little about this as you and I do without reading his affidavit. I will read a statement of his given December 13, 1884, at his home in New Jersey in the presence of W, H. Kelley and E. L. Kelley. He refused to give his affidavit, wouldn't have given his other but he thought it was to be used to help the Utah Church of which he was a member. He says: I went to Nauvoo, Ill., in 1839. I remember one morning Hyrum read a paper before the Council on marriage for eternity. Don't know what words Hyrum used. I think it was about three months before Joseph's death that the paper was read. I never saw a copy of this polygamous revelation until Gurley sent me a copy with his comments.

This copy was sent in 1882; so from the time he heard Hyrum read this document until 1882 he never saw any copy.



In all other cases a publishing committee are held responsible for important utterances of the paper. Let us concede that in the case of the Saints' Herald such was not the case. That the publishing committee of the Herald were mere figure heads. What are the facts. Joseph Smith was prophet, seer, revelator, and president of the church when the first number of the Herald was issued. W. W. Blair was one of the publishing committee. The apostles and leaders of the reorganization were readers of the Herald.

I. In the leader-heading the leading editorial of the first number of the Herald, the statement is made, positively unequivocally, that Joseph Smith the first prophet, gave the revelation in favor of polygamy, and taught polygamy, and practiced polygamy; and was abandoned and slain for this sin, by divine wrath. Did Joseph Smith, W. W. Blair or one of the Reorganized deny, refute or challenge such an astounding fabrication, if fabrication it was? Where oh where was W. W. Blair? Why oh why was he silent, for many long years?

II. In the same number, Wm. Marks declares that Joseph Smith taught and practiced polygamy. Did his son or W. W. Blair promptly deny, challenge or refute such an atrocious slander -- for such it would be, if not true? Why was the author of this letter made one of the First Presidency in 1863? Was the indignation of Smith, Blair and the Reorganized, too great for utterances for many years? Where oh where were their watchmen on the walls of Zion, for lo many years? Why was the slanderer rewarded with the second position in the church?

III. In the same number Sheen prints an article he wrote for a secular paper, in which he declares that Joseph Smith himself declared that he gave the revelation, taught and practiced polygamy, and that it would cost him his life. And Sheen says it did cost him his life. The Lord slew him for it. Was this double dyed slanderer removed from his position as Editor and Publisher? Did Blair as one of the publishing committee deny, challenge or correct such double slander? Where oh where was Blair?

IV. Did not W. W. Blair, page 232, vol. 6, Saints' Herald admit that Smith might have given this revelation to individuals and deny that he gave it to the church? Does not Blair admit on pages 91, 2, 5, that Smith sinned? Did he not refer to the sin of polygamy? Does he not on pages 154-5, again admit that Smith might have given the revelation to individuals? Was that the best Blair could do, after six years of silence? We refer to the reprint, six volumes in one. Will Blair deny these facts? Can Blair cite one square denial of the clear statements of the first number of the Saints' Herald before Dec. 1873?

Did not the reorganizers of the Reorganized confess, in their first action and documents and preaching that Smith gave that revelation, practiced polygamy, taught polygamy -- that they also had believed in and practiced polygamy up to the time of the Reorganization? Did not the present crusade of lying begin in 1872?

We pause for reply.




What is become of the giants of a few years back? This discussion is a most puerile thing, a case of "you're another." Braden is correct, though, when he says that they have not got the manuscript found, for according to the sworn testimony of those who had heard parts of it read, it bore a striking resemblance to the Book of Mormon in the names of the characters, as Lehi, Nephi, etc., and also in the scriptural phrases, "And it came to pass," "Behold," "Lo," "Now," "Behold," etc., so much so that one man when he first heard it, exclaimed, "Why this is old, 'and it came to pass' come to life again." The church, up to the advent of what they call the "Manuscript Found," always accepted this testimony although denying that it, the "Manuscript Found" was the origin of the Book of Mormon. Now they turn right around and claim these men lied when they swore to the fact of the "Manuscript Found" bearing close resemblance to the Book of Mormon in its personal names and scriptural phrases. But unfortunately there is an account of this very manuscript which they have dubbed, the "Manuscript Found" in "Kidder's Mormonism and the Mormons," printed in 1844, which reads as follows: "The trunk referred to by the widow was subsequently examined and found to contain only a single manuscript in Spaulding's hand writing containing about one quire of paper. This is a romance previous to the Christian era. This country being then inhabited by the Indians. This old manuscript has been shown to several of the foregoing witnesses. They say it bears no resemblance to the 'Manuscript Found.'"

So we see that this spurious "Manuscript Found" was known to people in 1844, examined and left in the trunk from where it has been exhumed by who? That's the question. Whoever resurrected it did a bad thing for the church, and those who dubbed it, the "Manuscript Found," did worse.

J. J. S..      

Note: The 1885 William Law affidavit Braden refers to is reproduced in Charles A. Shook's True Origin of Mormon Polygamy, pp. 125-127.


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  Aug. 6, 1891.                             No. 37.



All that Joseph Smith gave to the world, purporting to be revelations from God, were entirely of human origin, and frauds; and Joseph Smith was an impostor.

Clark Braden of the Christian Church affirms: E. L. Kelley of the Latter Day Saints denies.

Elder J. D. McClure, of Tabor, Ia., acted as Elder Braden's moderator, and Elder R. M. Elvin of Lamoni as Elder Kelley's moderator,



There is a wide difference between an honorable opponent and gentlemanly lawyer and a pettifogger. Is it fair that these questions should be thrown down here and I required to take them up at once and answer them, after I have always sent my questions to Kelley hours before hand? That is his idea of decency and courtesy, and what is due to an opponent.

I will say one thing for Jo's. Smith, He is an honorable man in one thing. He said that Kelley ought to answer those questions. That they were fair and right and he ought to answer them as a man. That is the opinion of every honorable man.

(The moderators decided that the questions referred to need not be answered, only so far as a basis for them had been furnished by the evidence.)

My opponent has been interrupting all the way through by calling for references and raising points of order, to raise a disturbance. He has been ungentlemanly and unfair. You can easily tell where I have him. Throw a stone into a parcel of dogs and you can tell the one hit by the one that jumps and yells. Now I hope that a cool seat will be furnished my opponent so that he can sit upon it until I get through.

Now that editorial argument. W. W. Blair, Z. H. Gurley and Wm. Marks, go on to state in that first volume of the "Herald," that the people had set up idols in their hearts, and they came to Jo's. Smith and received from him this polygamous revelation. It is not argument, it is a statement.

The revelation I referred to given in '31, and Book of Commandments not printed 'till '33. The revelations were in manuscript in '31, and spoken of as Book of Commandments. The errors complained of sometimes amount to whole paragraphs. Taking out some, putting others in. Some said liars got up one, and a fraud got up the other. The reprint of the Evening and Morning Star is a fraud. If you dare we will leave that settled.

Book of Abraham. Dave Area and other Egyptologists state what it is and flatly contradict Smith, but Kelley says you can see they were wrong and Smith right. What a glorious thing that Smith has Kelley to defend him. Was Smith inspired in this work? Say that if you dare! If not, what did he know about it? Just as much as Kelley knows, and that is just nothing at all. 

Gregg does not say Kinderhook plates are genuine. Simply says he examined them, and that is all.

The committee of the Reorganization admit many corrections of Kirtland edition upon the Palmyra edition. Then they print about 312 corrections and they don't print all, the principal ones they say. He challenges me to find five. Well I think I have found them.

The man who set up the Book of Mormon says there was no punctuation, and the sentences sometimes began with the character &. He asks for five changes. I have found changes too numerous for publication. Have I met him on this point? 

Now as to L. Sobie. First my friend has engaged in the work of manufacturing testimony. The course he has taken from beginning to end is unfair and ungentlemanly. I give you s little fact with reference to the way this testimony was gotten. I have an affidavit of L. Saunders: In September '84, a man called at my house and represented himself as being a brother of Clark Braden, and had called to get a statement as to what I knew about Mormonism and Smith family. He gave me all the time to understand that he was opposed to Mormonism itself. After getting the statement he went away, but returned next day for more testimony which I gave him, which was minuted down in some sort of a memorandum book. On the day following I was asked to make oath to the statement. I asked if they were not Mormons; they said no, we are opposed to Mormonism. Every statement was read before I made oath to it. I have learned since that the man who took the statement was a Mormon.

Yes, it was W. H. Kelley, one of your saintly Apostles

Now we come back to the work before us. Did Jo's. Smith give the revelation favoring polygamy? One more piece of evidence from Saints' Herald, Vol. 1. Here is an article reproduced from a secular paper, written by Isaac Sheen in which he says after stating what Mormonism was, and mentioning polygamy: Smith repented of his connection with this doctrine and caused the revelation on this subject to be burned. 

I have given you the positive statement of Law that he saw that revelation, read it and talked with Jo's. Smith about it, and Joseph defended it. His wife Jane Law states with equal positiveness that she saw and read it. Leonard Sobie was present and heard the revelation read in the High Council. This evidence of the Laws was printed in the "Expositor" and scattered all over Iowa, Missouri and Illinois, and hundreds of copies in Nauvoo. What was the answer? Sent a mob to destroy the "Expositor." Was ever an affidavit published in reply to these? None.

But he went and saw L. Sobie. I object to any evidence of this kind, after the statement here read as to the kind of work done with L. Saunders. I object to a man standing up and in answer to straight affidavits reading manufactured statements. I object to that kind of work. It is about time it was stopped, ruled out. If it is not stopped I will destroy the effect of it at least. He should bring in documentary evidence. Whenever he is in a corner he goes to fabricating testimony. Kelley knows all about it, and gets up and tells you all about it. I object to his further pursuing that course. Let him keep his place as a lawyer, and not attempt to play witness. It is not a lawyer's place to swear a case through. If it was, we would have a great many cases where we have none now.

Let us have square manly work, just such work as ought to be done. Let Kelley confine himself to this and not manufacture testimony to help himself out. I have not done one particle of it. I have brought in my books and papers and documents right straight along.


It is against the rules of honorable discussion for any speaker to refer disparagingly to another. He has violated the rules of honorable discussion before this audience as I will show you. My friend has got out of soap, that's the trouble.

About these questions. Mr. Braden has submitted his to me in order that I might copy them, his writing being very difficult to read at all. I asked him if he could read my writing and he told me a number of times he could read it readily. This is the reason he submitted his questions to me, and not that I might be prepared to answer them. I am on the negative, he is on the affirmative. I am not supposed to know what he will introduce. He does know. So he can easily frame his questions and send them to me, I don't know until I get here what he will do. He is only trying to take up my time with questions.

Now another question. He misrepresented me with reference to Dave Area. I said it was evident from what appeared, from Mr. Area's own statement that he didn't know anything about it. That is what I stated, and he misrepresented me to make an argument. 

The next thing is with reference to this testimony of Saunders. I was not one of the parties who took that affidavit, was not there when it was taken. He can bring all the evidence he wants against my character and then I will bring him a thousand men who will take E. L. Kelley's word before they will Braden's. He wants to make out I am a pettifogger. It was only last February when I was requested by the Attorney General of the state to sit and advise with him in a case. My friend wants to call me a pettifogger, but it's not worth noticing. I only call your attention to it, that you may know the falsity of these charges. You can telegraph to Red Oak, Ia., and see whether I am telling the truth if you desire to know. My friend simply wants to make out a case in this way when he knows he has none in any other way.

With reference to this polygamous revelation. But first about this statement of Pres. Smith that I ought to answer these questions. I don't believe he ever said what these moderators should decide upon. I am going to ask him and we shall see. If he did say so he was out of the way once, and we shall not spare him because his name is Smith. He never said it. I know him too well for that. He would not say that questions not pertinent to the issue should be answered. If pertinent to the issue I am willing to answer them. But when a man comes up and tries to put words in my mouth, I am not bound to answer. This is the turn my friend takes when he is unable to cope with my evidence. 

Another thing. He wanted you to understand that the lawyer was not to be considered, that is, his character was not to be considered, when I showed the bad character of Howe, Hulburt, Winters and Deming. Now if I am the lawyer on one side and he is the lawyer on the other side, who are Howe, Hulburt and Deming? As one of the lawyers here as he puts it, I have a right to examine the testimony of these witnesses, and follow it into the hands of Braden. I have an affidavit here which I will read to show you that the statements I made with reference to this man Deming and other witnesses were correct. I did not give my own testimony with reference to Hulburt and Howe, but read and showed you that they were unworthy of belief, and my opponent admitted in the beginning that they were the biggest liars in that western country. These are his clients, for he claims we are the lawyers. Now I will show you by this that I was not giving my testimony, he is only trying to make it appear as my testimony. I will show you that the statements I made as to the manner in which Deming went around to get his evidence are sustained by the evidence. Here it is.

My father, Cha's. Grover died six years ago the 31st of this coming August. A little while before his death, one Deming called and interviewed him. Deming asked him questions about the Mormons, and in regard to the Book of Mormon and Spaulding MSS. etc. He took notes or briefs, and wrote a statement for father to sign. Father was sick at the time. He told Deming that he knew personally nothing about the Book of Mormon or Spaulding MSS. except Hulburt's lectures. That all he knew was what he was told by others. He so informed Deming to my recollection. Deming asked me to sign as witness, but I objected. I did not want father to say anything for he was not in a condition to be interviewed, Dell Grover, my cousin, signed as witness. I do not know as my father ever made an affidavit. When Deming asked father about the second copy, he became impatient and said, I do not know who the devil wrote it, maybe he wrote it himself (that is Hulburt.) Deming said that was the main point. Signed M. A. Grover, sworn to, dated Willoughby, O., May 9, '91. At the bottom of this note signed by A. P. Barber, the justice before whom the affidavit was taken: I have no recollection of Cha's. Grover ever coming before me and making a sworn statement in regard to certain transactions as stated by one Deming. 

This shows just [what] I said. I know how these were gotten up. I told you how they were gotten up, and then I told you I would have evidence here to support it.

My friend has been crazy tonight. He has accused me of manufacturing evidence in the case of L. Sobie. Now I hold in my hands the words he spoke. He was an unwilling witness and refused to give his affidavit. This was taken down at the time, and a copy was made out and sent here for publication more than six years ago. That is the way Kelley has gone around manufacturing evidence. I will now show you from his own statement that I Leonard Sobie knew nothing about this. He says: The production read spoke about sealing: it used the term polygamy I think but I can't tell for certain. Neither Joseph nor Hyrum ever talked with me about taking more wives than one. I was a member of the High Council, and believe they would have told me to if they ever told anyone to. I went with Rigdon after Smith's death. Rigdon said he never saw any revelation Jo's. Smith gave on polygamy. I believe in polygamy, but don't practice it. When I told Gurley, Hyrum read the revelation on polygamy before the council he was astonished. President of the Elders quorum told me he was sealed to his wife for eternity.

Now there is his statement. There was such a thing instituted as a man being sealed to his wife not to somebody else's. There is no use talking of this sealing and trying to make it polygamy. You will see whether I have been downed. My friend has been bragging that he would down Kelley. There was no such thing recognized in Joseph's lifetime as a man being sealed to another man's wife.

Note 1: On Sept. 10, 1884 Elder Edmund L. Kelley solicited his brother, Apostle William H. Kelley, to interview Lorenzo Saunders in Reading, Michigan. William conducted the interview on Sept. 17-20, 1884 and wrote back to his brother: "saw Saunders... I fooled him completely, He took me to be Braden's brother... he never knew the difference..." Saunders' statements of Sept. 17 and 20 are on file in the RLDS Archives, along with the correspondence passing between the Kelley brothers on this affair. It is clear from all of the above that William H. Kelley did misrepresent himself as being a non-Mormon, and then allowed Lorenzo Saunders to believe that he was the brother of the anti-Mormon "debater," Rev. Clark Braden (who was even then soliciting what came to be the Oct. 2nd statement from Saunders -- see Edmund L. Kelley's Nov. 12, 1884 interview with Saunders, as published in Dan Vogel's Early Mormon Documents II, pp. 146-164). Edmund's saying in 1891 that he was not present when William conducted the interviews (and misrepresented his purpose and identity) is practical pettifogging and nothing more. Edmund initiated the interviews, allowed his brother to tell lies about who he was and why he was there, and only intimated the truth about William's machinations when he (Edmund) finally interviewed Saunders in person on Nov. 12th. Given all of this highly inappropriate behavior, it is readily apparent why the RLDS Church never published the information William took from Lorenzo Saunders in September of 1884, nor that obtained by Edmund on Nov. 12, 1884. Other non-Mormon witnesses interviewed by the Kelleys during the 1880s complained in published accounts that they were misquoted or otherwise ill-used by these two pernicious RLDS interviewers. A comparison of original witness interview notes taken by William with some of the same witnesses' statements (published in support of the RLDS position) show that the Kelleys indeed manipulated, misquoted and manufactured during their faith-promoting "research" activities. Dan Vogel, chronicler of early documents regarding the Mormons, overlooks Saunders' Oct. 2, 1884 statement, certified by Mr. Winthrop, the same notary public who signed the Sept. 20th Saunders statement -- in Vogel's typescript of the latter document he spells the man's name: "Worshrop?" Perhaps Vogel was looking for the lengthier testimony Saunders had promised Braden, after having given him that of Oct. 2nd, which he calls "not... much of a statement at all..." (E.M.D. II, p. 147). Apparently Saunders never supplied Braden with the intended additional testimony.

Note 2: It is rather amazing that Elder Kelley quoted so much from M. A. Grover's statement explaining Arthur B. Deming's Mar., 1885 interview with her father, Charles Grover. M. A. Grover admits that her father had attended "lectures," D. P. Hurlbut held in places like Willoughby and Painesville, in northern Ohio during 1833. Kelley, in his previous speeches, asserted that Hurlbut held no such lectures -- at least no such lectures in which he exhibited what he purported to be Solomon Spalding's celebrated "Manuscript Found." Yet, even though this new testimony does not support Elder Kelley's previous assertions on the matter, Kelley still quotes M. A Grover as testifying that her father had seen "the second copy" of an alleged Spalding manuscript containing material the same as the Book of Mormon. The implied "first copy" would, of course, have been the one used by the producers of the Book of Mormon, prior to its 1830 publication. All of this testimony places Kelley in the uncomfortable position of implicitly admitting that Charles Grover did see and examine such a manuscript, exhibited by D. P. Hurlbut during his lectures in and around Kirtland at the end of 1833. Having allowed this much, Kelley surprisingly does not seize upon M. A. Grover's report of her father having stated that he did not know who had written the text on "the second copy." Had Kelley taken hold of this bit of evidence and put it to his own use, he might have made a reasonable argument that D. P. Hurlbut forged some manuscript pages and passed them off as Spalding's handwriting during this particular series of anti-Mormon lectures. In fact, M. A. Grover quotes her father as having said: "maybe he wrote it himself (that is Hulburt.)..." However, Kelley apparently felt it was in his own best interests as a Mormon polemicist not to open the door too widely for any additional consideration of what D. P. Hurlbut was doing in and around Kirtland during the last half of Dec., 1833. Justice of the Peace A. P. Barber certified at least six of the statement Arthur B. Deming collected in northern Ohio during the first four months of 1885. He should have kept a record of such certifications. The fact that Elder Kelley did not ask Barber to disclaim his March 5, 1885 certification of Charles Grover's affidavit shows that Kelley was content to rely upon the old man's possibly faulty "recollection" rather than his J. P.'s docket and other official records.

Note 3: The RLDS Elder implicitly acknowledges Mormon "sealings" for eternity at Nauvoo, but he ignores the equally well documented Mormon "sealings" for time. An LDS widower of that period could be "sealed" to a first wife and then later be "sealed" to his second wife, both for eternity, and thus become a bona fide polygamist, "beyond the veil." Or, the same man might be "sealed" to his second wife for time only, allowing some other Mormon man to be "sealed" to her for eternity. The latter instance would certainly allow a Latter Day Saint man to be "sealed to another man's wife," in the very sort of Church-authorized (or LDS priesthood-authorized) ordinance Kelley denies could have ever happened "in Joseph's lifetime."


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  Aug. 13, 1891.                             No. 38.



All that Joseph Smith gave to the world, purporting to be revelations from God, were entirely of human origin, and frauds; and Joseph Smith was an impostor.

Clark Braden of the Christian Church affirms: E. L. Kelley of the Latter Day Saints denies.

Elder J. D. McClure, of Tabor, Ia., acted as Elder Braden's moderator, and Elder R. M. Elvin of Lamoni as Elder Kelley's moderator,



It is a gross violation of all law and justice for a lawyer, when evidence is introduced he cannot meet as a lawyer, to enter the witness stand and manufacture evidence. I introduced Mrs. McKinstry. My opponent entered the witness stand and presented fabricated evidence to get rid of that evidence. I introduced Sobie, and he did the same thing. I introduced the man who got up the Kinderhook hoax and he tells us about the plates being genuine. We have called for the proof upon that.

I have never assailed Kelley when he was presenting the evidence of others as he has assailed Howe as a printer and Hulburt who collected the evidence. I have a right to impeach him as a witness. I sent him questions Friday morning which are yet unanswered. He has undertaken to run my affirmative, in fact he has attempted to be moderator, lawyer, witness, judge and jury.

He has admitted that the Book of Commandments differs greatly from Book of Covenants, Smith, Rigdon and others for the Church prepared the manuscript for the Book of Commandments. Cowdery published them in the "Evening and Morning Star," then they used the galleys for the Book of Commandments. Then Cowdery republished the Evening and Morning Star," and changed it to make it harmonize with the Book of Doctrine and Covenants.

He admits that Smith published Book of Abraham, and tries to defend the translation. He won't tell us whether Smith was inspired. If he was inspired the book is a revelation; id he was not inspired, how could he translate it without education? We have Egyptologists on one side and Kelley and Smith on the other, and there I leave the matter. 

Grover signed a statement of what he saw and heard Hulburt say. M. A. Grover testifies to it in her own handwriting. Kelley visits her or some one else and gets her to make a statement that he knew nothing about something else.

Now I introduce testimony concerning polygamy. First I introduce to you the testimony of one whom my opponent lauded here so much. I hold in my hands the "Saints' Messenger and Advocate," a publication by Rigdon at Pittsburg, Pa. In the issue for March 15, 1845, within nine months of Smith's death. It is about a lecture in Pittsburg. On page 145 he says: I gave a history of Nauvoo, and the events which led to the death of the Smiths, which I traced to the introduction of spiritual wifery. That system led to the death of the Smiths. If it had not been introduced they might have been living men today.

There is the statement of the man he had so much to say about, and whose testimony he has glorified in your presence. 

Then on page 39 we have the statement of assistant editor and one of the permanent writers who was there with Rigdon.

We loved the man. How then shall we describe the anguish and sorrow of heart we experienced, when we found he was running against the teachings of the Scriptures.

Again, page 55, we have Rigdon's explanation as to why he was rejected by the church, in which he says his opposition to the doctrine of spiritual wifery, which he explains as the doctrine by which a man might have more than one wife, was the cause of his rejection by the church.

Jno. Newton page 16: Was at Nauvoo when Rigdon was. Well acquainted with the trouble between him and the Twelve. It was said that they had no objections to Rigdon but his objection to the Spiritual wife system.

Here is Bennett's statements, pages 10, 11 and 12: There had been taught in the church a doctrine which a man with the law of God in his hands might be deemed most damning and daring -- the Spiritual wife system. No sin calls forth more surely the wrath of God than adultery. The Lord declared he would cut off Israel entirely. Was Joseph Smith cut off? The Lord promised he would stand in his office until Christ should come if he did well. If Joseph Smith is not living and the Son of Man has not come, he must have been cut off for transgression. Joseph taught that a man might have ten wives, and that David did not sin only in the case of Uriah.

This is all in that polygamous revelation, yet we are told he had nothing to do with giving it.

The next is J. G. Divine, page 156:

The system of more wives than one as practiced by the Apostate Church at Nauvoo, is based upon the Book of Mormon declaration. "If I will raise up seed unto me I will command my people," and that there has been a revelation given to the church, or part of said church we admit, according to which every high priest is entitled to the modest number of ten wives.

He further says: 157: This revelation claims David only sinned in the death of Uriah. Hyrum Smith said Solomon did not sin in having many wives and concubines, but in worshipping heathen gods.

Here we have the revelation referred to within 8 months of the time when it is said to have been given. 

Another statement quoted in this, from "Boston Investigator" signed H. Rowe; page 142, here: Spiritual wife doctrine I will explain as taught me by Elder W____e, as taught by Jos. Smith and others. Joseph had a revelation that spirits hovering about desired tabernacles, and a way had been provided by the Elders sealing up virtuous women.

This shows the revelation was had and was talked about. The door was left open for polygamy in the Book of Mormon as I have already read in your hearing.

J. K. Sheen, of York, Neb., says in his pamphlet on polygamy; page 21: In this there is a quotation from the Elders Pocket Companion by William Smith, in which he gives instructions to the Elders concerning a law of justification as touching polygamy, and quotes the clause from Book of Mormon, "If I will raise up seed unto me I will command my people," and this is underscored.

You will find in the "Prophet" for 1844, that Elder Winchester and others were expelled from the church for speaking disrespectfully of its authorities.

In "Times and Seasons," of 1843 notice is given by Hyrum Smith that certain ones were cut off from the church for teaching and practicing polygamy, spiritual wifery. How could this be if it had never been heard of previous to this time?

The next is Joseph Smith himself in the "Millennial Star." If my opponent kicks upon this, I will simply refer him to the fact that Joseph Smith his son has endorsed it in the "Herald," and recommended it to the Saints as being good to read.

Under date of October 1843, Smith gives instructions to visit those who were practicing the doctrines of plural wives, not because they were practicing it, but because he was the only man who had the sealing power. "Millennial Star," Vol. 17.


If my friend had only noticed, he would have seen that in regard to the "Times and Seasons" for May 15, 1843, there is no pretense of any revelation by anybody until June 12, 1843. Our agreement was that no evidence shall be introduced except that that pertains to the question. Whether such a purported revelation was given as the revelation upon polygamy is the question.

He has the privilege of showing if he can, at the close of my proposition that Jos. Smith practiced polygamy and was a bad man. This revelation in question bears date June 12, 1843. Now he has introduced evidence bearing date of May 15, 1843, to show this was going to be given I suppose. There are many other things just as applicable to the question as that. He has cited Rigdon. I call your attention to the article written by Rigdon himself in "Messenger and Advocate." As I showed to you last night from the statement of Sobie, Rigdon never saw the purported revelation that was in question. My friend has been talking to you with reference to the fact that Kelley goes around and gets up evidence. This evidence of Sobie was taken in '84 as I showed you. It is no more gotten up for this case than the evidence Braden read you out of Messenger and Advocate.

Rigdon claimed to be head of the church. He claimed because there was a servant spoken of who should fail, be stricken down because he would do something, and polygamy was in Nauvoo after Joseph's death, therefore he states as his conclusion that his death was caused by this doctrine. But he does not show Smith's connection with it. Does he show any knowledge of Smith personally teaching him this doctrine? No. He simply bases it upon an argument in order to prove his claims of leadership to the church. This is the sentiment when he speaks. This doctrine that a man may have more than one wife is what has caused the twelve to set at the defiance the ecclesiastical arrangements of the church. 

Here Rigdon throws it directly upon the twelve.

I now call your attention to the wording of the resolution we are discussing. "All that Joseph Smith gave to the world purporting to be revelation from God, were entirely of human origin and frauds, and Joseph Smith was an impostor."

If he could even show a secret communication with reference to polygamy, it would not prove his case, because it shows that Joseph Smith never gave it to the world nor the church. So my friend fails upon that. I will next notice some testimony because it is in harmony with this statement. It has been said time and time again, that William Smith is one of those who knew about this polygamy revelation. This is dated October 19, 1883, and signed William Smith: The revelation on polygamy was never at any time previous to your father's death, read or presented to the quorum of the twelve in my presence, either by your father or any member of that quorum, Nor was such revelation ever presented to the quorum after your father's death during the time I remained in it, which was about eleven months, No mention was made in the quorum meetings of plural marriage or the polygamy revelation. I never saw that revelation until recently when it was sent to me in the mail. Sworn to.

So the claim that William Smith in this pamphlet referred to by Jno. Sheen, was basing his argument upon a revelation received, by his brother, is not sustained. He must show not only such a revelation but that Joseph Smith received it. So far he has not presented a scrap of evidence showing the latter fact.

To refute the claim that the publishing committee had anything to do with the statement of the editor, Isaac Sheen, I read you the statement of Elder W. W, Blair: During the debate Clark Braden associated my namo with the writing of certain matters contained in "Herald" for January, 1860. This he did in such manner as to convey the idea that I, Z . H. Gurley, Sen. and Wm. Marks were the authors of said matter. This is to say that we were not the authors nor did we endorse it, Isaac Sheen was the editor of the "Herald," and we were simply a committee to provide means for its publication as you will see on pages 23 and 26 of said number of the "Herald."

The audience will notice that there is no sufficient identification of any revelation on polygamy. 

Now my friend is at liberty to impeach Kelley as a witness. This affidavit that he read from Saunders does not complain that the affidavit he had given was not right, but it simply complains because it was taken by those who were friendly to the Latter Day Saints. He didn't wish to give anybody an affidavit unless they would use it to the injury of the Latter Day Saints. It shows that when Braden wants to make a point against the Latter Day Saints, that all he has to do is to send A. B. Deming around for whatever he wants.

I refer you to the 389 page of Millennial Harbinger, Alexander Campbell's paper, in which he gives an account of the preaching and baptizing done by Sidney Rigdon at the time when my friend claims he was making frequent visits to New York.

I call your attention to the statement of R. S. Salyards, with reference to Hulburt's statement: Hulburt stated to Mrs. Sanborn that he never made the connection between the Spalding Romance and Sidney Rigdon and the Book of Mormon, but he made it as hot as the devil for the Mormons.

Now I wish to read here in Gregg's work with reference to the distance to New York State from these places in Ohio from which it is said Rigdon went. Speaking with reference to the fraud he charges, he says: Rigdon had to be consulted, and he was in Ohio several hundred miles away from New York. Hence the several months' intervention and delay.

This is from their side in trying to make the case against the Latter Day Saints. They said it took several months to communicate with Rigdon, to go from New York to Ohio where he was then living. So my statement that there was no communication between Rigdon and Smith is corroborated by his famous witness that he refers to as Dr. Gregg

I introduce for review the statement of Wm. Marks. I also call attention to J. L. Bennett's statement about a polygamous revelation at Kirtland. To refute this I only have to call your attention to a well recognized rule in courts of Justice. It is contrary to admitted facts. No one ever claimed that the polygamous revelation was given at Kirtland. No one claims Smith ever received such a thing before 1843.


In the PATRIOT of the 30th ult., Mr. Braden assumes that the "Publishing Committee" of the church in 1860 were collectively and severally responsible for the editorial matter then published in the "Herald." Your readers need not be reminded that publishers may have little or nothing at all to do with the editing of their publications, and that, generally, they are in no way responsible for the sentiments and utterances of the editor.

Isaac Sheen alone was, in 1860, the editor of the "Herald," and he alone was responsible for the editorial in question,

That the church as an organization, nor its chief ministers, admitted that Joseph Smith either taught or practiced polygamy, is manifest in the following sayings, over the signature of Z. H. Gurley, Sen., the then acting president of the church, and Reuben Newkirk, then one of the Twelve, dated Dec. 1859 and published in the first volume of the "Herald," page 60, in the year 1850, which reads:

"What about the law (polygamous) that Brigham Young got in 1884 claiming this (in Doc. and Cov, Section 42, commanding monogamy) in every point." In this is sufficient evidence that the leading officers of the church did not indorse editor Sheen's views in the editorial mentioned, and is a repudiation of the idea that Joseph Smith was the author of polygamy.

To the above add the fact that, April 6th, 1860, Joseph, the son of Joseph the Seer, in his address to the conference, rejected the theory that his father was the author of polygamy, and we have all that is needed in the way of official denial of that theory. Alluding to polygamy Joseph said: "I have been told that my father taught such doctrines. I have never believed it and never can believe it. If such things were done, then I believe they never were done by divine authority. I believe my father was a good man, and a good man never could have promulgated such doctrines." -- Herald, vol. 1, p. 103.

Mr. Braden asserts that, "In the same number Wm. Marks declares Joseph Smith taught and practiced polygamy;" whereas Marks said Joseph charged him to proceed in the High Council and sever from the church those in that transgression "unless they made ample satisfaction," and that he (Joseph) "would go before the congregation and proclaim against it," also that he, Joseph, "would prefer charges against those in transgression." This is what Wm. Marks said, and there is not a sentence nor a word in his statement that says, or intimates that Joseph Smith either practised or taught polygamy. Is it consistent that Joseph would charge the president of the High Council to sever from the church those teaching or practising polygamy, if himself was the chief offender! Is it consistent that Joseph "would go before the congregation and proclaim against" polygamy, also that "he would prefer charges against those in transgression," if at the same time he were the chief transgressor as Braden alleges!

I have admitted, and now admit, that a prophet of God may give one false revelation, and no more, for the Holy Scriptures teach as much in these words:

But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him, to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. -- Deu. 18:20.

This is sustained by Ezek. 14:6-11, and Jeremiah 28:1-17. Admitting that a prophet of God might give one false revelation, and admitting that he did give one, are two very different things. No one should admit the latter unless he knew, of his own knowledge. I never knew, and never claimed to know, that Joseph Smith was a transgressor in the manner claimed by Braden and others. But I have often been pained to see persons assuming and claiming and admitting matters of which they absolutely KNEW nothing, and I have uniformly opposed that style of doing as both irrational and harmful.

The leading officers of the Reorganized Church, as such, never to my knowledge, admitted that Joseph either taught or practised polygamy, but the most of them were ever active opposers of that theory. Some of them advocating in council that the church, as such, demand of its officials that they officially deny that Joseph had anything to do with it in any way, others claiming it was sufficient that Joseph's teachings and doings be measured by the authentic record of him and his work as we judge the early Christian Ministry and their work. A person is not justified in either admitting or testifying of what he does not know, and this was the attitude of the Reorganized Church from the first, though some individual members did otherwise, as in the case of editor Sheen.

W. W. BLAIR.      

Note: The "R. S. Salyards" that Elder Kelley refers to was Richard Savery Salyards (1857-aft 1910), husband of Joseph Smith III's daughter Zaide Viola, once the assistant editor of the Saints' Herald, and for many years the Secretary of the General Church. Elder Kelley quotes Salyards' 1887 quotation of Daniel Sanborn, quoting his mother, Mrs. Sanborn, as having told him: "...Hurlbut said this to her, in effect, concerning his trip to Massachusetts to get the Spalding Manuscript and his efforts to connect Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon with that manuscript and thus make it the basis of the Book of Mormon: 'I never could connect Sidney Rigdon or the Spalding manuscript with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon before the Book of Mormon was published, but I made that thing tell like hell on the Mormons'" R. S. Salyards wrote down this recollection some time after the first week of April, 1891, apparently at the request of Edmund L. Kelley. In this written statement he also says: " 1891 I saw Mrs, Sanborn going into the Temple... I repeated the [1887 Daniel Sanborn] statement... she replied that the statement was substantially correct." (undated R. S. Salyards letter, RLDS Archives, P19, f87 -- internal evidence shows it was written between April 1891 and April 1897). This lady was the wife of Mr. L. B. Sanborn of Kirtland. In her youth she was "the chief witness against Dr. Hurlbut when he was bound over to keep the peace, at Chardon, Ohio," in April of 1834 (see Elder Kelley's mention of this in the Oct. 4, 1890 issue of the Saints'Herald). The two female witnesses called in that trial were Mrs. [Sarah?] Waite and Mary Copley.


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  Aug. 20, 1891.                             No. 39.



All that Joseph Smith gave to the world, purporting to be revelations from God, were entirely of human origin, and frauds; and Joseph Smith was an impostor.

Clark Braden of the Christian Church affirms: E. L. Kelley of the Latter Day Saints denies.

Elder J. D. McClure, of Tabor, Ia., acted as Elder Braden's moderator, and Elder R. M. Elvin of Lamoni as Elder Kelley's moderator,



The statement in Times and Seasons he says was made before the revelation should have come. Of course that corroborates the editorial statement of "Herald" that this spirit of Adultery was in existence before the revelation came...

Now a word as to Wm. Smith: After this revelation was given your own documents denounced the system of spiritual wifery taught by Brigham Young and the system of whosedom taught by Wm. Smith. This is the writing of Isaac Sheen. There is Wm. Smith and what he did. He preached polygamy...

B. Winchester states in Council Bluffs' Globe: Bennett developed into a libertine, which came from the doctrine of spiritual marriage, which was really polygamy. Hyrum Smith said he had been stromgly opposed to polygamy, but became convinced...

(under construction)



If ever a man lost his case, my friend, as I will show you, has lost his...

With reference to B. Winchester, he does not refer to any statement in which Joseph Smith communicated to him that he had received a polygamous revelation. There is not a word with reference to a polygamous revelation in Winchester's statement, or that Joseph Smith ever received one...

We do not deny that the principle of sealing was practiced, but we can not show it...

(under construction)

Note: What Benjamin Winchester had to say in the Council Bluffs' Globe appears to be rather tame, when compared to his "Primitive Mormonism" article, published in the Sep. 22, 1889 issue of the Salt Lake Tribune, where he speaks openly about "spiritual marriage" -- a teaching he encountered at Nauvoo in 1843, that "had never been preached or inculcated as a doctrine of the church." But in Nauvoo Winchester "became fully conscious of the new departure of the prophet [Joseph Smith, Jr.] in regard to the polygamous doctrine which he sought to ingraft into the church." In an unpublished statement, given on Nov. 27, 1900, to RLDS elders, Winchester says "Yes" in answer to their question: "Did Joseph Smith, the prophet, ever practice polygamy?" Then he goes on to say: "I know he had for wives Ella Kimball, Louisa Beman, Eliza Snow and two Partridges. Also before the revelation came out on polygamy he had a child to a Miss Smith of Philadelphia. She had two children before he sealed her as his wife." Although Winchester does not specifically say that Joseph Smith. Jr. authored the "revelation" allowing plural marriage, he strongly implies that was the case.


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  Aug. 27, 1891.                             No. 40.



The revelations that Joseph Smith gave to the world are true, and Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God.

Elder J. D. McClure, of Tabor, Ia., acted as Elder Braden's moderator, and Elder R. M. Elvin of Lamoni as Elder Kelley's moderator,



The question read is certainly as important a one as anybody could wish to canvass and form a just and right conclusion upon. Smith stands before the world today as an especial character, one who represents a line of principles which have had their bearing and made their impress, not only upon the American nation, bat upon every nation to some extent that we know anything of. As an introduction with reference to the character of Smith, I read from Josiah Quincy, who met him in his lifetime, and who was one of the most eminent of Americans. Page 376: It is not improbable that some future text book for the use of generations yet unborn will contain a question something like this: What historical American of the nineteenth century has exerted the most powerful influence upon the destiny of his country? It is not impossible that the answer made will be, Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet. The man who established a religion in this age is not to be disposed of by pelting his memory with unsavory epithets. He presents a phenomenon, to be explained.

I am here for the purpose of undertaking to explain this phenomenon. The theory of the divine calling and mission of Joseph Smith, I am here to explain. It makes no difference upon which side we set our judgment, if we set it upon the right side; and the question should have such consideration as will insure such a judgment.

The revelations Joseph Smith gave to the world, so far as the name revelations is concerned, are in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. But we are not to be confined to that, but may properly examine, the record of the nations of this continent, known as the Book of Mormon. This is a revelation because it was brought to light, and given to the world by Joseph Smith.

It is also possible that my friend will want to examine what is known as the Inspired Translation of the Holy Scriptures by Mr. Smith; and if so, I shall not object to an examination of any thing in that. I believe in this investigation, you are interested in obtaining facts and understanding the truth of the matter. I shall not attempt to give you anything but facts, such as I believe are calculated to unravel the mystery that is claimed to surround the minds of a great many of the American people, and let you into the secret of the matter with reference to the fact that this man, after spending all his powers to establish among men what he presented as the truth of heaven, "went cheerfully to a martyr's fate."

The prophetic announcements of Jos. Smith are such as are calculated to cause us to have confidence in the fact that he was what he claimed to be.

The first examination I shall make will be with reference to the prophetic evidences relating to the commencement of his work, what brought it out in the world, and try to show that it was in harmony with the declarations of the prophets of the scriptures and the great head of the church, Jesus Christ. With reference to the revelations he has given to the world, I shall take the ground that they are true; true in this, that in the declarations he has made in these revelations so far as we have account of them, they have proven emphatically correct, in that the doctrines and teachings, and prophetic utterances have been brought about in our time, have been proven correct so far as time has elapsed to test them.

The first declaration that went out to the world from Joseph Smith was the statement that all their creeds were wrong. Now lest some one before me may think that statement overdrawn, I shall refer to some things which prove it true. I shall show by the utterances of leading representatives and ministers of the leading churches, that this declaration was true, and it was a grand and good work to bring to light, give to the world this truth. Over 60 years have elapsed since his utterances upon this point, and now these men corroborate his statement. Rev. J. D. Williamson said before the Presbytery at Cleveland, Ohio:

To suppose that those Westminster divines reached the high water mark of biblical statement of truth is to my mind preposterous. I have read and reread chapter third on God's eternal decree, and my moral sense has been no less shocked than when I first read the confession. I find also that the idea of God which this chapter presents is utterly abhorrent. It Is as it now stands a chilling document, instead of being warm with the love of God. -- Cleveland Plain Dealer, Oct. 8, I889.

This is the declaration of one of the most distinguished ministers of the Presbyterian Church. If these are abhorrent to the mind of Dr. Williamson, what must they have been before our heavenly Father, when he said to the young man, Join none of them, for their creeds are an abomination in my sight. Here the minister comes out over sixty years afterwards and says it is abhorrent to his mind even. This I mention because it was one of the societies represented there, and they were holding a protracted revival, and Mr. Smith intended to join with some of them, and his brother Hyrum was then a member.

Rev. T. A. Goodwin, of the M. E. church, said at Indianapolis, Ind., in February 1890:

"For more than seventeen years the church has been tinkering at her creeds, until they are a theological hodge podge, in many cases widely departing from the faith once delivered to the saints. From the time of the apostles creed to this day, creed building and repairing has been a chief occupation, until creeds are as numerous as sands upon the seashore and they all claim to be in harmony with the apostles' creed and the Bible as well. But what of Methodism and some other isms? For nearly 300 years it has been uncomfortably quartered in a house of theological patch work. The whole needs to be torn down and reconstructed from cellar to garret, so as to make a symmetrical and congruous structure consistent with itself by being consistent throughout with the Bible.

This exposes the imperfections of that creed, and of the societies represented at that particular time.

The St. Louis "Globe Democrat" of March 3rd. 1890, contains the following from Talmage on "Why a new creed is needed."

Many have been bound hand and foot by religious creeds, but now that the electric lights have been turned on those creeds, and everything man fashions is found to be imperfect, let us put the old creed respectfully aside and get a brand new one. If you want one glorious church, free and unencumbered, take off the ceremonies of the old ecclesiastical vocabulary, loose her and let her go.

This is sufficient to show you that the statement Mr. Smith made to the world in his boyhood is absolutely true. This young man's declaration to the world at that early time was something calculated to wake up the world to the fact that they were wrong, and this statement of Mr. Smith has been before the American people from that time to the present.

Mr. Smith also demonstrated to the world in that early time that the declaration contained in James 1:5 is true that God does give to those who ask him in the nineteenth century as well as he did in the first century. But when he proclaimed this it was not believed. Men said the heavens are as brass and God will no more speak to humanity. But the young man went upon the platform and he says, God has spoken; and I stand before you tonight to produce the evidence of the truth of this utterance. I have shown you the truth of his first declaration, which will more fully appear in connection with the prophecies.

Again I shall show you that God proposed according to the declarations of Holy Writ to work in his time in revealing the fulness of the everlasting gospel as it was delivered by the Savior to the ancient people upon the American continent. This declaration was made and went out in that early time that the fulness of the gospel should be revealed as it was delivered by the Savior to a people on the American continent. We shall show you that this has been absolutely fulfilled, and that the record known as the Book of Mormon is a record of this ancient people, and contains the fulness of the gospel. This I shall be able to prove. Of course objection may be made that it is not properly worded, is not grammatical; but this is not a valid objection. No objection can be urged against it that is entitled to your respect. The objection must be placed upon the question as to whether it contains the great sentiments of the gospel which was proclaimed by Paul and Peter and James and John upon the Eastern continent. Whether its teachings are such as the Savior presented to the eastern continent -- that if a man would obey the principles of the gospel and abide therein, he should have eternal life by so doing.

In this connection I read Isaiah 62, beginning with the tenth verse: Go through, go through the gates, prepare ye the way of the people; cast up, cast up the highway, gather out the stones, lift up a standard for the people. Behold the Lord hath proclaimed unto the end of the world, say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation cometh. Behold his reward is with him and his work before him,

This declaration shows that in some age of the world a character will arise similar to the one I have shown you who should lift up a standard, God's standard. When God's standard is lifted up, it is seen to be a gospel standard, it brings men and women to the Savior of the [world]. It is also to be raised at a time subsequent to the first coming of Christ; for when this is fulfilled his reward is to be with him and his work before him; but when he came first, be did not have his reward with him, but was as a lamb before the shearer, so be opened, not his mouth.

Also Isaiah 11:12-15. This was quoted by the heavenly messenger in 1823, and he said it was not fulfilled, but soon would be. This prophecy declares an ensign shall be set up, and following the setting up of this, certain notable events are to take place with reference to Ephraim and Judah.

The declarations of the angel to Smith were that an ensign should be lifted up to the nations, and the nations of Israel should be gathered to their own land.

The prophecy quoted in Acts from Moses shows that a special work was to be done at some period of the world. A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, etc.

Notes: (forthcoming).


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  Sept. 3, 1891.                             No. 41.



The revelations that Joseph Smith gave to the world are true, and Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God.

Elder J. D. McClure, of Tabor, Ia., acted as Elder Braden's moderator, and Elder R. M. Elvin of Lamoni as Elder Kelley's moderator,



I recognize the fact that we have important work before us -- the fact that my opponent has preliminary work to do, and time should be given him to develop his line of argument so as to present the issues made between us. Hence it is not to be expected that in his opening speech much will be said concerning what the issues shall be. I shall allow him liberty to some extent, to develop his line of thought before you, doing however certain preliminary work myself.

Before taking that up I feel moved [to] refer to a few things that have transpired, once in a while since they were rather an annex to the debate. I want in the first place to return thanks to certain parties who came on the platform last night, the apostles and presidents and high priests, and undertook to argue the question with me. getting much excited, thus admitting that my opponent had made a failure, and they were under the necessity of patching up for him. I feel like thanking them for making such a confession. I feel like thanking my opponent for this practical confession, that he had made a failure. The handing out at the door of Joseph Smith's pamphlet was a practical confession that he had failed and felt aggravated, and had to call in the prophet to help him out. There has been a great deal of bragging done about what has been accomplished. My friend realizes that if a man bloweth not his own horn, his horn will not be blown. It reminds me of a story. Two of them had a piece of paper and something on it. The old lady put on her spectacles and looked. Daughter that is pretty well done, that is a good picture of a hoss. The other held up hers. What is that daughter? Mother can't you see, it's a horse? Daughter write under it, This is a hoss, for no one would know it by looking at it. I do not have to write under my picture this is a horse, and then say, can't you see any resemblance between the name and the thing before you.

Now then I will do a little preliminary work myself. There is a system abroad in the world sometimes publicly spoken of as Mormonism, and the question here is, What is that system? It is predicated upon this thought: that the miraculous powers described in the Bible, constitute a permanent element of the religion of Christ, and the church is a system designed for the miraculous power. That an apostasy has taken place from the religion of Christ, and all churches without living men possessed of all these miraculous powers and gifts, are included in that apostasy. That these powers and miracles have been restored, with apostles and prophets and the inspiration of them in living men, and this is a system, a church. Also that the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as founded by Joseph Smith in 1830, has these miraculous powers, gifts and inspiration and revelations in addition to the revelations of the Bible. It has apostles, prophets and miraculous signs. It is the only true restoration of the apostolic church, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth with which the Lord is pleased, Doctrine and Covenants, page 65. We are told here that God has called Joseph Smith, Yes, even my servant Joseph, that he might have power to translate the Book of Mormon, and also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation, (Remember to lay the foundation) and bring it forth out of obscurity and darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth with which I the Lord am well pleased, speaking collectively and not individually. This church alone has the new covenant. It alone preaches the fulness of the gospel, Doctrine and Covenants, page 64, wherein it says that the everlasting covenant might be established, and the fulness of my gospel might be proclaimed unto the ends of the world. Then again also on page 93 of this book, speaking of the purported translation of the Book of Mormon as containing the fulness of the gospel of Christ to the Jews and to the Gentiles also. Again [on] page 227 we have a declaration to the effect that upon the observance of the Book of Mormon and former commandments depends their fate and standing with God. Then again on page 94 is a statement made to which we call your attention. Men sometimes speak about the liberality of this system. It says here, that those who reject it (this work) it shall turn to their condemnation, for the Lord has spoken it. Here the world It to be condemned, if it rejects Smith's church. This church is the only true and living church with which God is pleased; and then in the next place this Book of Mormon and the former commandments constitute the new covenant, and if you reject them you shall be condemned.

Smith it is claimed was a true prophet of God, and did a greater work for the salvation of the world than any other man save Jesus only, page 304. This is the. claim made for him: That all spoken or written utterances of Joseph Smith which purported to be revelations from God, in which he claimed he had either inspiration or divine aid and power, were true revelations from God and Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. The question to be settled is, What are to be included in the revelations of Joseph Smith. My opponent in the former proposition said he would accept whatever Joseph Smith had declared in his own utterances to be revelations, and he would defend them. Last night I read to you what purports to be a miraculous story, given by Jos. Smith himself, and his own son has endorsed it in the editorial columns of the "Herald," and there is no going back upon it.

This then is my position: Whatever Joseph Smith in his writings declared to the world were revelations, are the revelations which he gave to the world, and to this I shall hold my opponent. It is not what you are willing to defend. You can not pick out what you think you can defend, and reject what you think can be impeached. That can't be done. When you introduce Joseph Smith as a prophet and declare to the world that the Lord has spoken to him, you have to accept what that prophet says. That is all there is about it. You can't take part of his statements and reject the rest. Then what Joseph Smith presented and claimed he was inspired in receiving are the revelations he gave to the world. In the translation of the Book of Mormon he claimed he had this power, and in the translation of the Book of Abraham he claimed he had this power also. He also claims that he restored lost portions of the Bible and corrected other portions and gave it to the world as an inspired translation. This is claimed to be the only true version of the Bible. In it lost portions are restored and all errors corrected. The proposition involves all the above, all the spoken or written utterances of Smith in which he claims to have been inspired.

Then the first production we shall take up is the Book of Mormon. What claims are made for it? That certain golden plates were by an angel revealed to Smith, and that by inspiration he translated them. Book of Mormon contains that translation. Its contents are true. It was originally given by inspiration, it was translated by inspiration, it is the fulness of the gospel, it is the new covenant. He who rejects it will be condemned as certainly as he who rejects the New Testament. Is it what it claims to be in these respects? That is the issue before us. Then did Smith translate the plates by divine power? I deny. Is the Book of Mormon a translation of such plates? I deny. Are its contents true? I deny. Were they inspired revelation? I deny. These issues must be made clear by competent evidence. That it contains the same teachings as the Bible no more establishes such claims than proof that the counterfeit bill has the same features as the genuine proves it to be genuine. Good teachings in a history does not prove that history to be true. Until proof is submitted Smith is not in court as a prophet, and there is not a revelation in court until these are proven. You can't just simply state a matter and assume the rest. You have not proven the main issue, and I object to your corroborating evidence until you prove the main issue.

The witnesses to the Book of Mormon we will impeach by the testimony of Latter Day Saints, and the fraud of the Book of Abraham, the Kinderhook plates, and the revelation of polygamy will all come in to throw their light on this subject.

Smith never presented to the world the declaration with reference to creeds to which my friend has called your attention until 1842 or '43. He would have us believe that Smith was the only one that made such declarations. He has forgotten that [Ann] Lee and others started out preaching this in 1787 and along down until 1800, when Bible Christians began. Okelley led off in 1793 and his followers were nicknamed Okelleyites. He has forgotten that Stone in 1795 started this question. He has forgotten about the Newlights and Thomas Campbell in 1809. He has forgotten that these men made these claims long before Smith.

Notes: (forthcoming).


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  Sept. 10, 1891.                             No. 42.



The revelations that Joseph Smith gave to the world are true, and Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God.

Elder J. D. McClure, of Tabor, Ia., acted as Elder Braden's moderator, and Elder R. M. Elvin of Lamoni as Elder Kelley's moderator,



I am very glad something was done to give my friend a little consolation. Certainly he had none unless it was in the circulation if that little pamphlet. If the circulation has given him consolation, I am glad we circulated it. This pamphlet contains facts, a brief and argument with reference to the facts we have been discussing, and we took no advantage because the discussion on these questions was ended, that is so far as the Spaulding story was concerned...

(under construction)



I will simply say that the cup of joy was full before what the Mormons did. That was simply thrown in. That's all there is of it...

(under construction)

Notes: (forthcoming).


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  Sept. 17, 1891.                             No. 43.



The revelations that Joseph Smith gave to the world are true, and Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God.

Elder J. D. McClure, of Tabor, Ia., acted as Elder Braden's moderator, and Elder R. M. Elvin of Lamoni as Elder Kelley's moderator,



That you may understand our respective positions, I will notice a few things represented on the negative.

I was challenged to take up the question as to whether Joseph Smith had the plates, as to whether this book is a translation from these plates...

(under construction)



We have a very peculiar line of argument introduced by my opponent. The most singular I think I ever met with in my life. We will endeavor to illustrate and show to you its peculiar character before we are done. He says whether Smith had plates or translated them has nothing to do with the question...

(under construction)

Notes: (forthcoming).


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  Sept. 24, 1891.                             No. 44.



The revelations that Joseph Smith gave to the world are true, and Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God.

Elder J. D. McClure, of Tabor, Ia., acted as Elder Braden's moderator, and Elder R. M. Elvin of Lamoni as Elder Kelley's moderator,



I am not surprised that my old friend should undertake to discuss the revelations of Mrs. White, or any revelations except those of Joseph Smith...

(under construction)



Ladies and gentlemen, we call for your closest attention, as we have some close, sharp work to do...

(under construction)

Notes: (forthcoming).


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  Oct. 1, 1891.                             No. 45.



The revelations that Joseph Smith gave to the world are true, and Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God.

Elder J. D. McClure, of Tabor, Ia., acted as Elder Braden's moderator, and Elder R. M. Elvin of Lamoni as Elder Kelley's moderator,



The question is, Are the revelations Joseph Smith gave to the world true, and was he a true prophet of God...

(under construction)



The first thing is to notice some things my opponent said. He seems to be perculiarly unfortunate. It seems to be impossible for him to understand...

(under construction)




Immediately after the close of the Braden and Kelley debate, held at Lamoni in May, 1891, Elder Braden delivered two lectures in the M. E. Church of that place. The first was delivered on the evening of May 16, and was termed "a literary criticism on the Book of Mormon." The second, on the evening of May 18, and was a criticism on the Book of Doctrine and Covenants.

With but few exceptions, the points which Elder Braden seeks to make against the faith and doctrine of the Latter Day Saints are not new ...

(under construction)

Note: Apostle Joseph R. Lambert's "Clark Braden Reviewed" was an eight-part series of articles in the Independent-Patriot. This first installment in that series was reprinted in the Oct. 24, 1891 issue of the Saints' Herald. Go to installment no. 2.


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  Oct. 8, 1891.                             No. 46.



The revelations that Joseph Smith gave to the world are true, and Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God.

Elder J. D. McClure, of Tabor, Ia., acted as Elder Braden's moderator, and Elder R. M. Elvin of Lamoni as Elder Kelley's moderator,



My friend has been very musical if he has not been argumentative. He wants me to prove that the book came out of the ground...

(under construction)



The first thing I call your attention to is this: Has my friend brought any historic proof? ... I think not.

(under construction)




If Elder Braden's object in making these attacks is to keep people from embracing error, and reclaim those who are supposed to be deluded, we would reasonably expect him to manifest a degree of sympathy and love for the erring...

(under construction)

Notes: (forthcoming). Note: According to the Saints' Herald, debate on the "First Proposition" in this 1891 Braden-Kelley contest began on Tuesday, May 5th and ended on Tuesday, May 12th -- fourteen speeches per debater total, given four per evening over the course of seven week days. Debate on the "Second Proposition" began on Wednesday, May 13th and ended on Friday, May 14th, with each debator giving six speeches in three days. Apostle Joseph R. Lambert's series of articles on Clark Braden were obviously designed to answer a few points not well covered by apologist Edmund L. Kelley. Lambert seems to have been in Lamoni on May 16 and 18, when Braden gave his lectures in the local Methodist church. The article reproduced above is the second in his eight-part series. The third installment appeared the following week. While the Independent-Patriot's Braden-Kelley reports are unique to its pages, the Saints' Herald reprinted the Lambert series in late 1891.


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  Oct. 15, 1891.                             No. 47.




What are the facts in the case? By agreement between Elders Braden and Kelley, each disputant was to have what time he desired on his own proposition Elder Braden had seven nights on his, and could have had seven more had he desired them...

(under construction)

Note: Apostle Joseph R. Lambert's "Clark Braden Reviewed" was an eight-part series of articles in the Independent-Patriot. This third installment in that series was reprinted in the Oct. 31, 1891 issue of the Saints' Herald. Go to installment no. 4.


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  Oct. 22, 1891.                             No. 48.




Elder Braden rejects the Book of Mormon on account of the imperfect language and bad grammar found therein...

But we raise a question here. How does Elder Braden account for these errors in language? According to his theory Solomon Spaulding wrote the historical part of the Book of Mormon, and Sidney Rigdon the doctrinal part. These objectionable phrases and words are nearly all from the historical part of the book, hence Spaulding was the man who wrote them. But according to the testimony of Matilda Davison, Spaulding's widow, who was the leading witness in favor of the Spaulding tale, "Rev. Solomon Spaulding * * * was a graduate of Dartmouth College;" was "an educated man, and passionately fond of history." Did this man introduce into his work such phrases as "enormity of our numbers," "more history part," etc.?

(under construction)

Note: Apostle Joseph R. Lambert's "Clark Braden Reviewed" was an eight-part series of articles in the Independent-Patriot. This fourth installment in that series was reprinted in the Nov. 7, 1891 issue of the Saints' Herald. Go to installment no. 5.


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  Oct. 29, 1891.                             No. 49.




If it be said that Rigdon copied and changed the original manuscript, then, we reply. (1) Mrs. Davison does not claim that Rigdon had changed her husband's romance, or added anything to it, except a few "pious expressions," and (2) if Rigdon introduced into Spaulding's Romance the doctrinal part of the Book of Mormon, and changed the Romance itself, how does it come that Spaulding's old neighbors, including his brother John, when they heard "copious extracts" "read and repeated" from the Book of Mormon, in 1834, (at least 22 years after they had heard the Romance read!) could recognize, at once, the identical work of Solomon Spaulding? The statement of Mrs. Davison is that "the historical part was immediately recognized by all the older inhabitants as the identical work of Mr. Spaulding, which had been deeply impressed years before." In this connection it is necessary for the reader to consider that the doctrinal part of the Book of Mormon constitutes a large portion of the Book, and is closely interwoven with the historical matter all the way through the book.

There is, therefore, no escape for Elder Braden from the position that the "Rev. Solomon Spaulding," "an educated man, and passionately fond of history," who "was a graduate of Dartmouth College," was the man who used in his composition the "egregious grammar" of the Bok of Mormon, held up to ridicule by Elder Braden!

Elder Braden says, "There were 5000 blunders in the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon." Where is the proof? And when that is forthcoming, let the Elder show the character of these blunders...

(under construction)

Note: Apostle Joseph R. Lambert's "Clark Braden Reviewed" was an eight-part series of articles in the Independent-Patriot. This fifth installment in that series was reprinted in the Nov. 21, 1891 issue of the Saints' Herald. Go to installment no. 6.


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  Nov. 5, 1891.                             No. 50.




Next Elder Braden gravely tells us that in three days Lehi and his family traveled from Jerusalem to the Red Sea...

According to the account given in the Book of Mormon, page 438, paragraphs 3, 4, 5, there was darkness upon the face of this land for the space of three days, at the time of Christ's crucifixion. "The Bible says the darkness lasted three hours, but the Book of Mormon three days." says Elder Braden. He then proceeds to ridicule the description given of the darkness, that it was so great that it could be felt, etc., and concludes the point by saying, "Sidney Rigdon wrote this big tale."

Hold on, Elder! Are you getting things mixed? You have told us all along that Spaulding wrote the historical portion of the Book of Mormon, but now, all at once, Sidney Rigdon becomes the historian! Better be a little careful lest you convince all your thoughtful hearers that your theory is but a myth. However, it makes but little difference to us whether you attribute it to Rigdon or Spauldinf. Just fix it up to suit yourself. We are not able to say, but it may be the better way, notwithstanding the testimony of your witnesses, that the historical part of the Book of Mormon, is the identical "Manuscript Found," written by "Rev. Solomon Spaulding," when you find a few pages that you think Spaulding would not have written, to ascribe them to Rigdon; and when you find that which you think Rigdon would not have written, ascribe it to Spaulding. This may be safer than to stick too closely to the witnesses, or to your own stated theory; for who knows but what it may become necessary to attribute the whole thing to Sidney Rigdon, and to do away with the Spaulding "Manuscript Found" business altogether? And, if so, this plicy would have a tendency to prepare the way, you know.

If Rigdon was the author of this account, and it was written for the sole purpose of deceiving, why did he not make it three hours instead of three days, as it would have been more likely to deceive...

(under construction)

Note: Apostle Joseph R. Lambert's "Clark Braden Reviewed" was an eight-part series of articles in the Independent-Patriot. This sixth installment in that series was reprinted in the Nov. 21, 1891 issue of the Saints' Herald. Go to installment no. 7.


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  Nov. 12, 1891.                             No. 51.




"And it came to pass that it did last for the space f three days, and there was no light seen, and there was great mourning...

(under construction)

Note: Apostle Joseph R. Lambert's "Clark Braden Reviewed" was an eight-part series of articles in the Independent-Patriot. This final installment in that series was reprinted in the Nov. 28, 1891 issue of the Saints' Herald.


Vol. 6.                               Lamoni,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  Nov. 19, 1891.                             No. 52.



It would be difficult to find a more sweeping prohibition of polygamy and concubinage than the one couched in the above language...

(under construction)

Notes: (forthcoming).


The  Davis  City  Advance.
Vol. 9.                               Davis City,   Decatur Co., Iowa,  Jan. 7, 1897.                             No. ?



Among the noble industries and true enterprises of Davis City we find the newspapers. Two papers are issued and sent broad cast from Davis City advocating her interests and noting her prosperity as regular as the bell calls the sinners to church. Of course some of the sinners are unmindful of the press and its usefulness.


In which this article is published is the oldest paper in the town, having nearly completed its 9th volume. It is a six column folio, all home print, and is populist in politics, and a live newspaper. It has passed through many vicissitudes, but is still in the ring, and its present editors and owners the Wickes Bro's., though having no previous experience in printing or newspaper work before taking hold of the office, are justly proud of their large list of subscribers, and clean neatly printed paper, which rivals the best in the county in mechanical excellence, while their advertising and job departments are unexcelled by and in neatness of design and execution.

They occupy a fine two story frame structure having a hall on the upper floor, and have the confidence of the business and farming community. The Editor, C. A. Wickes also edits THE RETURN, a monthly paper published in their office in the interest of the Church of Christ, and is custodian of the Library and other property of said Church.

Notes: (forthcoming).


The  Upper  Des Moines.
Vol. XXXII.                             Algona, Iowa, Wednesday,  August 4, 1897.                           No. 20.


Mrs. R. H. Spencer has a rare curiosity in a copy of the of original edition of the Book of Mormon. It belonged to her father, and on the title page are several entries, the first being "the property of Elijah Rowley of Marcellus, Onondagua county, New York." The first date with these entries is 1882, another is 1841, and a third is dated Sun Prairie, Wis., 1863. In dim lead pencil on the fly leaf is "brass Bible," being a concise and pointed estimate of the merits of the book, probably Mr. Rowley's. Mrs. Spencer has paid but little attention to this rare volume as it has lain about among others of her father's library, until recently a newspaper item called attention to its unusual value. Copies of this first edition are very rare, and Lord Beaconsfield is credited with having paid $200 for one. It is reported that two have been sold in England for $700 each and Wm. E. Gladstone is quoted as willing to pay a liberal price for one. Miss C. T. Dodd has written to Mr. Gladstone about this Algona copy.

The Mormon bible was printed in Palmyra, N. Y., where the golden plates were found, in 1830. Daniel Hendrix, one of the few now living who were in at the birth of the new religion, has recently told something of the trials Joe Smith had in getting it into type. The best contract he could get was 5,000 copies for $5,000. He says "Smith told me himself that the world was so wicked and perverse that it was hard to win converts, that he had a vision to print the Bible and that as soon as that was done the work would be prospered wonderfully." An Auburn, N. Y., farmer was finally converted and by mortgaging his farm he raised $3,000 to start the printing. The copy was prepared in a cave near where Smith found the golden plates. No one was allowed to enter the cave but believers and they were not allowed in the inner sanctuary, where Smith translated the plates. He read aloud and a teacher, named Cowdrey, wrote down on the other side of the partition. Smith claimed to have found with the plates a pair of spectacles through which the strange hieroglyphics appeared translated into excellent English.

The Book of Mormon purports to be an account written by the hand of Mormon up on plates taken from the plates of Nephi, written and sealed up and hid, sealed by the hand of his son, Moroni -- dug up and translated by Joseph Smith. In the appendix of this old volume is the testimony of the witnesses that they actually saw these golden plates. Here is one of their curious testimonials: "And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon these plates, and they have been shown unto us by the power of God and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates and the engravings thereon."

The Joseph Smith version was filed for copy-right June 11, 1829, and was printed in 1830. Mr. Hendrix says that when the printing was finished, not a volume was given out, but all were packed in an upper room, like cord wood, and he, Hendrix, at the time called it "a cord of Mormon bibles." Very soon Smith and his converts packed up and moved to Kirtland, Ohio. Many were well-to-do and sold out at great loss, giving what they realized to Smith's care, and moving cheerfully. This migration was not compulsory.

Smith's general reputation in Palmyra makes it very wonderful that he should have secured converts. He was a lazy boy so wholly untruthful that all lies were measured by his phenomenal yarns. Pomeroy Tucker says "the Smith family were popularly regarded as an illiterate, whiskey drinking, shiftless, irreligious race of people" and, he adds, "Joseph was unanimously voted the laziest and most worthless of the generation." He was six feet tall, long limbed with large feet, hair auburn, eyes large and blue gray, nose prominent, face pale. In mature years he was a powerful man. In Nauvoo in 1843 he defeated the champion wrestler of the state, and easily pulled up the strongest man of the region at pulling sticks, using but one hand. He began his career as a diviner of wells and hidden treasure with a witch hazel. He claimed once as a boy to have found a golden bible. The sensation emboldened him to his final effort. He was only 25 years of age when his bible was published. He was at the height of his power in Nauvoo, in 1844. But in that year a newspaper charged him with having 16 wives that were known, and others that were not. The paper was suppressed, the editors kicked out, and the presses destroyed. The editors got a warrant for Smith's arrest, he refused to submit, the militia were called out, Smith was taken to Carthage to jail. Here 100 masked men assaulted the jail and shot him and his brother. He was then but 39 years of age.

A fair sample of the Book of Mormon is the closing exhortation of Moroni. It is certainly remarkable in view of Smith's youth and illiteracy. The 588 pages do not fall below it. Moroni, in his farewell, says: And I would exhort you brethren that ye remember that every good gift cometh of Christ. And I would exhort you my beloved brethern, that ye remember that He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and that all gifts of which I have spoken, which are spiritual, never will be done away, even so long as the world shall stand, only according to the unbelief of the children of men. Wherefore, there must be faith; and if there must be faith there must also be hope; and if there must be hope there must also be charity; and except ye have charity ye can in no wise be saved in the kingdom of God; neither can ye be saved in the kingdom of God if ye have not faith; neither can ye if ye have no hope; and if ye have no hope, ye must needs be in despair; and despair cometh because of iniquity. And Christ truly said unto your fathers: If ye have faith ye can do all things which is expedient unto me. And now I speak unto all the ends of the earth that if the day cometh that the power and gifts of God shall be done away among you, it shall be because of unbelief. * * * And I exhort ye to remember these things, for the time speedily cometh that ye know that I lie not, for ye shall see me at the bar of God, and the Lord God will say unto you: Did I not declare unto you which was written by this man, like as one crying from the dead? Yea, as one speaking out of the dust I declare these things until the fulfilling of the prophecies. Yea come unto Christ and be perfected in him and deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness and love God with all your might and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you."

Smith's widow refused to recognize the leadership of Brigham Young, remained in Nauvoo after the faithful had begun their pilgrimage across Iowa to Council Bluffs, and by keeping boarders reared her son Joseph. He worked on a farm, clerked, was sub-contractor on a railway, and studied law. At 24 years he became leader of the non-polygamous Mormons, settled finally at Lamoni, Iowa, and at last accounts was living there.

Note: The journalist's reliance upon the "Daniel Hendrix," account, with its pious Auburn, N. Y., farmer, etc., was a mistake. See notes attached to the letter of Joseph F. Peck, published in the Springfield Republican of Oct. 18, 1887.

Back to top of this page.

News Articles Page    |    News Articles Index    |    History Vault
Bookshelf    |    Spalding Studies Library    |    Mormon Classics

last updated: Feb. 15, 2013