
Vol. 30. Lamoni, Iowa, March 17, 1883. No. 11.

LETTER FROM R. PATTERSON.
"PRESBYTERIAN BANNER."
Pittsburgh, Pa., Dec. 28th, 1882.
MR. JOSEPH SMITH,
Dear Sir: -- You are of course acquainted with the claim advanced in behalf of Rev. Solomon Spaulding, as the author of the historical part of the "Book of Mormon." I mail to you herewith a statement of the evidence in support of this claim, so far as I have been able to collect it. I solicit your careful and candid examination of the testimony here presented, and shall esteem it a favor to have any errors pointed out, and mistakes corrected. I shall be glad to hear from you personally upon the subject; but if you think proper to notice the pamphlet in your paper, please send me a copy. I mail you two copies of the pamphlet, as you may wish to scissor some portions for extracts.
The truth has nothing to fear from honest, impartial discussion; and in gathering evidence I have been careful to note down and publish as well what conflicts with common opinion, as what sustains it. I pray God to open your mind to the entrance of the truth, and to give you the courage to avow it. Your position is a very peculiar one; I realize its embarrassments; at the same time there is a peculiar responsibility also resting upon you to do what you can to rectify a great wrong. I shall be glad to hear from you on the subject of this pamphlet.
With sincerest wishes that you may be guided into the truth,
I am yours,
R. PATTERSON.
No. 198 Penn Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pa.
The foregoing letter was received by us some time ago, and as soon after its receipt as practicable, we wrote and mailed to Mr. Patterson an article, of which the following is a copy. This is not published as an exhaustive treatise upon the subject, but in the belief that it contains a sufficient answer to the pamphlet referred to by Mr. Patterson; and that the thoughts suggested can be made available in the defense of truth.
LETTER TO R. PATTERSON.
LAMONI, Ia. Jan. 20th, 1883.
MR. R. PATTERSON,
No. 198 Penn Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Your letter of December 28th, 1882, was duly received, but by reason of busy cares I have not been able to reply.
The pamphlet sent by you came two or three days after the letter reached me.
One sentence of your letter you would probably resent as an impertinence, or attribute to fanatical cant if I were to repeat it, with a request for you to make it of personal application to yourself.
"I pray God to open your mind to the entrance of the truth, and to give you the courage to avow it."
Believe me I do not refer to it to resent it, or to refuse to acknowledge the force of the admonition, or to ignore the good influence with which God endows the mind to examine and receive the truth.
You will pardon me when I state that no man living has a greater interest in the question whether the Book of Mormon is a fabrication from Rev. S. Spaulding's romance, or a discovery of deposited records of early inhabitants of this country as it purports to be, and came into being as my father, Sidney Rigdon, Martin Harris, Peter and David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and others, claim.
If the religious teachings and principles that the book contains are true, and comport with the New Testament Scriptures, I am interested in maintaining them and the book because of them. If those principles are false, I am interested in abandoning them and inducing others to do so too. If I become satisfied that the statement respecting the manner in which Joseph Smith became possessed of the records is true, I am interested in maintaining it; and if I become convinced that he was a bad man, and foisted a falsehood upon the world, deliberately, persistently and wickedly, I am interested in denouncing such act.
I have examined every work published against Joseph Smith, Mormonism, and the Mormons, that I could procure; from E. D. Howe's book to the last confession of John D. Lee, and Ann Eliza's exposure. I have given them all a close, and so far as I could, an analytical consideration; and will do the same with your pamphlet. The results I will write to you, and you will no doubt read what I send carefully and thoughtfully, whether you do prayerfully or not.
Like all who have essayed to write upon the subject you have taken Howe's work as the basis, and have considered what is stated there as proved. If, therefore, discredit is thrown upon that work, the premise upon which your argument rests is destroyed.
So far as Joseph Smith's possible access to the manuscript of Solomon Spaulding is concerned, whatever previous writers may have done, the theory is abandoned by you.
This leaves the question confined to Sidney Rigdon and his possible connection with those manuscripts.
The possession of the manuscript is accounted for in the statement of Mesdames Davison and McKinstry, daughter and wife of Rev. Spaulding, from its inception until its committal to Dr. Hurlbut in 1834, except the possible time it may have been in the care of Silas Engle, as stated by your father, "some weeks," and returned as he supposed, and Mrs. McKinstry states, and as it must have been, because Mrs. McKinstry states that she had access to it at her Uncle Sabine's after Mr. Spaulding's death, after the removal of the family from Amity, Pennsylvania, and before their arrival in Monson, Massachusetts.
This narrows the time in which Sidney Rigdon could have had access to the "Manuscript Found" to these "some weeks" that they were in Engle's or your father's care; the identity of the manuscript insisted upon as the origin of the Book of Mormon and the one left at the office of your father being admitted. If Rigdon had access to it at this time he must have copied it, as Engle returned the original.
The theory that S. Rigdon copied it is untenable for two reasons. One is the time allowed for the work, and the circumstances do not favor it. The other is that Rigdon was not at Pittsburgh till 1821-2, five or six years after Spaulding's death and the removal of the family with the manuscript in their possession from that place. This theory of Sidney Rigdon's getting possession of the manuscript through Lambdin subsequently, upon the supposition that Spaulding had transcribed it for the printer is ingenious; but is a supposition only, unsupported by any proof, and shows the first theory to be of doubtful character, or it would not have been resorted to.
The statement that Dr. Hurlbut sold the manuscript of the "Manuscript Found" to the Mormons is disposed of by the Doctor himself, who placed it as he says, in the hands of E. D. Howe, of Painesville, Ohio. The force of these points is seen when you take up and consider one by one the statements made by the witnesses cited by Mr. Howe in his works, respecting the similarity between the names, plot of the work, and history of Mr. Spaulding's suppositious romance, and the Book of Mormon. All these witnesses certify upon their memory, and you should in justice in the absence of direct testimony upon the point, apply your note number 1, page 11 of your work.
The possession of the manuscript being accounted for until long after the publication of the Book of Mormon, and always in the hands of the antagonists of Mormonism, the opposers of Joseph Smith, the principle of the law of evidence holds good that a party is precluded from proving the contents of a written instrument, unless it is shown that such instrument is lost, or destroyed, or in the hands of the opposite party. In this case, so far from proving that the manuscripts are destroyed, or lost, or in the hands of the Mormons, it is distinctly shown as a material fact, that they were in the hands of the original owner, and his heirs and successors, until after the publication of the Book of Mormon, and then went into the hands of E. D. Howe, the publisher of a work against the Mormons, and in ostensible refutation of their theory of the origin of that book. Mr. Howe in direct violation of this well known rule of evidence, proceeds to introduce several witnesses who testify to their own recollection of this manuscript, as having heard it read by Mr. Spaulding, all the way from twelve to sixteen years after his death, and this, too, when the manuscript is shown to be in the possession of Mr. Howe. *
----------------
* Mr. Howe, we are informed, was himself a lawyer, and is presumed to have known, and without a doubt did know, that while the manuscript in question was in his possession, or under his control, or in existence anywhere where it could by legal process be reached, oral testimony in regard to its contents was incompetent, and therefore inadmissible; and the fact that he knowingly introduced incompetent testimony to make out his case, is conclusive proof that he knew that the introduction of the manuscript, the only competent evidence under the circumstances, would, instead of supporting his claim, overthrow it entirely. No man can practice law in our courts in this way without being regarded as a low pettifogger, wanting either in the knowledge or honesty necessary to the proper practice of his profession. Lawyers do not resort to such dishonorable "tricks of the trade" as this, except where there is no possibility of making a case without them.
When therefore, the Mormon resorts to the plea that the better and more conclusive way to have proven the plagiarism charged, would have been to produce the manuscript, and print it in juxtaposition with the portions of the Book of Mormon said to have been plagiarized from it, that a faithful comparison of the two might be made; he does but insist upon the observance of one of the commonest rules of evidence known to the legal mind. And instead of being himself liable to the charge of resorting to a "dishonorable plea," he shows the weakness of the claim made for the Spaulding romance, and makes apparent the "uncommon straits" to which those who claim the "Manuscript Found" origin of the Book of Mormon, are driven to maintain that claim. And this plea is a just and good one, both against Mrs. McKinstry and Mrs. Spaulding, and all others who claim the manuscript as the origin of the Book of Mormon, for these last make themselves parties to the case upon the side in whose possession the manuscript is found to be. When you present the statement that such a plea is dishonorable, you unconsciously allow yourself to become partisan, and adopt the language of avowed enemies of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; and if the evidence of Mormons, and those friendly to them is to be disposed of as unworthy of belief, because the witnesses are interested, and therefore partial and biased, the rule must apply, and with equal propriety and force, to those at enmity with the Mormons as interested, prejudiced, and biased against them. This only results in leaving the matters at issue to rest upon testimony equally worthy, or unworthy.
Mesdames Davison and McKinstry both aver that the trunk and manuscripts contained in it, were in the possession of the family, the trunk never out of actual or constructive possession, and the manuscript always except the time referred to, when somewhere about 1814 it was presented to your father and Silas Engle for publication, and by them returned to Mrs. Spaulding. It was in the trunk at the time Mrs. McKinstry had access to it at Mrs. Sabine's house. It must have been there when the trunk went to Monson at Mrs. Spaulding's marriage to Mr. Davison; and there it must have been found, when in 1834 Mr. Hurlbut procured it upon the order of Mrs. Davison. Here then is the unbroken chain of its possession found. What follows. Dr. Hurlbut turns the manuscript over to E. D. Howe, with the manuscript copy unfinished of the Mormonism Unveiled,
and the affidavits, etc., which Mr. Howe worked into the book afterwards published. The avowed purpose for which the manuscript was asked for by Hurlbut, was that a comparison should be made with the Book of Mormon then published. The widow "with great reluctance" authorized the loan of the manuscript to Hurlbut upon the solicitation of Mr. Sabine. There can be no doubt from this straight relation that the parties to this transaction, Mrs. Davison, Mr. W. H. Sabine and Dr. Hurlbut, all were satisfied that the manuscript then delivered to Hurlbut was the original "Manuscript Found," the romancing narrative of a suppositious people, whose mythical history a reverend gentleman dying of consumption wrote for amusement, with the hope that it might sell well enough to help him pay his debts. When this manuscript is next heard from, Mr. Hurlbut informs Mrs. Spaulding that it "did not read as he expected, and he would not publish it." It is claimed that it was not returned by Hurlbut, or Howe, up to as late as 1844, when, as stated by Miss E. Dickinson, an effort was made by Mr. Spaulding's family to get possession of it by demanding its return. No part of this manuscript thus obtained by Hurlbut, was ever published by E. D.. Howe, in whose possession it is left by those who account for its continued existence; and I believe both E.D. Howe and Dr. Hurlbut are living, the latter at Sturgis, Michigan; the former, at Painesville, Ohio. This is strong presumptive proof that the "Manuscript Found" would not bear out the claim that it was the origin of the Book of Mormon. If it had done there is no more certain conclusion to reach than that Messrs. Hurlbut and Howe would never have contented themselves with attempting to prove from the memory of those who "heard portions of it read" that the manuscript and Book of Mormon were one and the same thing in essence, but would have at once put the manuscript in print and thus silenced the claim to Divine inspiration for all time. It will not do to say that there was "a transcript made by Spaulding," and that from this transcript the Book of Mormon was written and published. This only complicates the difficulty and would have rendered detection all the more certain, if Mr. Howe held the original. One of two conclusions is inevitable, that the "Manuscript Found," the possession of which has been traced, was not the original of the Book of Mormon, or that no manuscript bearing such similarity to the Book of Mormon from which it could have been so plagiarized was ever written; and that the mythical romance referred to, suppressed as it has been, has been made to do mysterious duty by those opposed to and at enmity with Joseph Smith and Mormonism, and who have not the honesty to return the manuscript to Mrs. McKinstry, or to publish it themselves, that the infamy of their course may be made plain; or the presumption of the plagiarism fully established.
The point which you attempt to make on page 14, that it is "adding insult to injury to call on Mr. Spaulding's daughter to collate the Book of Mormon with her father's manuscript of which she has been so shamefully robbed," is very much out of place. Mrs. Spaulding and her daughter and Mr. W. H. Sabine were Particeps criminis in whatever robbery was committed; and were parties in an endeavor to fasten gross fraud upon Joseph Smith; and if Hurlbut did not get the "Manuscript Found" it was not the fault of Mrs. Spaulding and her daughter; and it sounds very like a whine of chagrin at the apparent failure of the scheme, to what Hurlbut essayed to do for them or any one else, to put in such a plea of indignation against a sound charge, that the natural guardians and custodians of that remarkable document, the alleged origin of the Book of Mormon, should either produce the original, or show conclusive and good reason why they do not.
That the "Manuscript Found," either in the original, or a transcribed form, was ever in the hands of Sidney Rigdon, is a matter of assumption only, and based upon the peculiar sort of proof that characterizes the whole affair presented by Howe and others, viz: "It would not be strange if Spaulding, being a man of leisure, and fond of writing, had made out a revised copy for the printer, retaining his own first sheets, and that these latter were what he took to Amity, leaving the other at Patterson's office," etc. From this presumption, the existence of two copies is taken as proved. If this were so, it is in proof, and that from the statement of your father and Mrs. Spaulding, that whatever was left at the printing office was returned to Mrs. Spaulding; thus tracing original sheets and transcribed copy into the hands of their rightful owners. Which of these did Hurlbut get? If the original sheets, the transcribed copy was still left with Mrs. Spaulding and whether the original or transcribed copy the difficulty of Sidney Rigdon's securing either without detection is increased materially.
It is very singular that the method of proof resorted to by Howe, (upon the supposition that he wrote "Mormonism Unveiled)" should have been adopted by you. The witnesses with scarcely an exception are of that class that gives secondary or hearsay evidence. John Spaulding tells what his brother told him. Martha Spaulding, states that having read the Book of Mormon, she has no doubt it is the same historically that she read and heard read more than twenty years ago. Nahum Howard states only what he says Spaulding told him. Artemus Cunningham recollects an expression, "I Nephi," as occurring in the reading of a manuscript by Spaulding -- but pleads the lapse of twenty-two years, as accounting for a failure to remember more fully the general plot. After a partial examination he believes that Spaulding wrote the outlines before leaving Conneaut, The secondary statement of Mrs. Matilda (Spaulding) Davison, was written down by Rev. D. R. Austin, and printed by him in the Boston Recorder in 1839.
In direct reference to this very statement, Parley P. Pratt wrote to the New Era, November 27th, 1839, denying Mr. Rigdon's alleged connection with the getting up of the Book of Mormon. As to the truth of the statement then made he writes: "The person or persons who fabricated that falsehood would do well to repent." Mr. Pratt states further: "Mr. Rigdon embraced the doctrine through my instrumentality. I first presented the Book of Mormon to him. stood upon the bank of the stream while he was baptized, and assisted to officiate in his ordination, and I was unacquainted with the system until some months after its organization, which was on the Sixth of April, 1830, and I embraced it in September following."
Mr. Pratt further notices that "Mormonism Unveiled" makes Mr. Hurlbut to state that the manuscript of the Spaulding romance was "not to be found," while Mrs. Davison in her Boston Recorder letter states, that "it was carefully preserved." Pratt also challenges the production of the manuscript, that its truth may be seen. He writes: "If there be such a manuscript in existence, let it come forward at once, and not be kept in the dark."
Mr. Howe's book was not at that date so old, nor the time and place so remote, but what there was strong probability that such a production of the manuscript might have been had, if it was in existence. Mr. Pratt adds: "The Spaulding story, so far as the origin of the Book of Mormon is concerned, I know to be false."
Jesse Haven passed through Monson soon after the publication of the letter in the Boston Recorder, and to him Mrs. Davison denied signing or sending the letter which you quote from. In the same interview she stated that Dr. Hurlbut did get the manuscript, and afterwards wrote to her that it did not read as was expected, and it would not be published. This Boston Recorder letter was written by D. R. Austin, and you make it do duty as her own.
In January, 1836, the truth of the statements in Howe's book was specifically denied in the Messenger and Advocate, then published in Kirtland by the Church of Christ, or Latter Day Saints, in plain terms, viz: "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." In the same paper for April is another reference to Mr. Howe's book as an attempt to overthrow Mormonism, which is indirectly denominated as "wicked and scurrilous."
Mrs. Spaulding and Mrs. McKinstry, who had personal access to the effects of Mr. Spaulding, including the manuscript left by him, are very careful in their statements respecting the contents of the manuscript called the "Manuscript Found." Indeed, Mrs. Spaulding, does not state anything in regard to her knowledge of that work, and it is certainly reasonable to suppose that she also, if all the neighbors came to hear the manuscript read, would have heard it; but she does not so state. Mrs. McKinstry, however, testifies, only as late as 1880, and then reiterates the names of some that she heard him mention while reading. This is strikingly peculiar; for in the same article written by Miss E. E. Dickinson, from which you quote, Mrs. McKinstry states that she "perfectly remembers the trunk and its contents, one of which was the 'Manuscript Found.'" She had then an opportunity to read it, and if she had so read it could have; spoken from her reading, and not her hearing. She also states: "I remember that the old trunk with its contents reached her [her mother] in safety." This was when it had been sent from Onondaga Valley to Hartswick, New York. You are not at liberty to deny, what Mrs. McKinstry states respecting the safety of the manuscript in the Scribner, for you have quoted from it as competent.
(Continued Next Week)
Note 1: The contents of Joseph Smith III's article in the March 17, 1883 Saints' Herald were reproduced as a small RLDS tract a few weeks later. See the transcriber's comments appended to the e-text of that pamphlet for further information and analysis of Smith's rebuttal of the Spalding authorship claims. The same material is presented in the greater context of early RLDS apologetics in the transcriber's on-line essay, entitled: "When Did Sidney Rigdon Meet Joseph Smith?"
Note 2: During the 1891 Braden-Kelley Debate, held at Lamoni, Iowa, Apostle Kelley stated 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" (see the June 4, 1891 issue of the Independent Patriot). Exactly when and where Kelley published the transcript of this interview "in 1882," he does not say. Kelley quoted from the same transcript during the 1884 Braden-Kelley Debate (see page 82). President Joseph Smith III seems unaware of the availability and content of such an interview with Mrs. McKinstry -- he speaks only of her 1880 affidavit in Scribners' Monthly as supplying him with information on her experiences, memories, and testimony.
|