LDS Freedom Forum

Theodore Schroeder, a Wisconsin attorney who moved to Salt Lake specifically with the goal of taking down Mormonism, wrote a sophisticated apologia promoting and defending the Spaulding theories. Both his work, and B.H. Roberts's detailed critique, are book-length, and both of them are printed in Roberts's "Defense of the Faith and the Saints" (volume 2). Here is my synopsis of Roberts's main points.

Iterations of Spaulding theories:
1. "Manuscript Story" was just a crude rough draft, and Spaulding wrote a second (or multiple) re-writes that closely resemble the Book of Mormon and contain BoM names. Unfortunately, these re-writes are missing and will never be found.
2. There is a close structural resemblance between later Spaulding iterations (unavailable to examine, but witnesses are claimed to say so) and the Book of Mormon.
3a. A later Book of Mormon-esque Spaulding manuscript was left with printers in Pittsburgh, and Sidney Rigdon either stole it and never returned it. . .
3b. . . . or he borrowed it, copied it, and returned it to the printer, but it is now lost.
3c. Several versions of Spaulding's story were left at the printer's, and Rigdon stole the one most resembling the BoM, and Joseph Smith stole a less-polished version (Clark Braden theory). 
4. Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon using the unfinished Spaulding manuscript (now missing), and Rigdon supplied the religious content.
5. Sidney Rigdon directly or indirectly, with Parley P. Pratt acting as a go-between, collaborated with Joseph Smith to write the Book of Mormon.

E.D. Howe, upon his wife and sister being baptized Mormons, sent Philastus Hurlbut to collect affidavits from Smith neighbors in Palmyra and from Spaulding witnesses in Ohio. These affidavits are the basis for the first anti-Mormon book, "Mormonism Unvailed" (sic). We now know that Hurlbut obtained Spaulding's story, but he and Howe's expectations for it were disappointed, and he purposely suppressed it instead of publishing it (which is why it was found in Hawaii when someone bought his papers, hoping to find material on slavery and abolition). [The Palmyra witnesses are also insightfully problematic, as detailed by Hugh Nibley in "Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass." --- Rubicon]

Spaulding's other writings include "The Frogs of Wyndham" and "infidel disquisitions" (Roberts's phrasing) [Rubicon:  I remember transcribing a Spaulding "infidel disquisition" while waiting for my fourth child to be born. We were in for an induced labor, mom was sleeping peacefully, and I had some time. Long and short of it --- Spaulding, despite being a minister, was caustically anti-religion (mockingly atheistic/agnostic) in other papers found with "Manuscript Story." Evidence of Spaulding writing anything dealing with ancient Israelites in scriptural language *before* Hurlbut came to Conneaut looking for dirt on the Mormons would be invaluable for anti-Mormons, "but it does not exist." (Roberts)

The second wave of Spaulding witnesses all testified decades after Howe's initial attempt ***after it was clear that what Spaulding had written was clearly no good in terms of being the source for the Book of Mormon*** These testimonies now, decades later, suddenly remember that they heard it read aloud by Spaulding and had names like Lehi, Nephi, Moroni, Zarahemla, and phrases like "and it came to pass."

Spaulding theory apologists insist that "from the beginning it was asserted that this manuscript, now at Oberlin, was not the one from which the Book of Mormon was alleged to have been plagiarized" (Schroeder). "But from what 'beginning' was it so asserted? Not previous to the bringing to light of the Oberlin manuscript by Hurlbut, but from the time that this manuscript --- the only one we have any real knowledge of Spaulding having written on the subject of ancient inhabitants of America --- not previous to this discovery having disappointed the hopes of the conspirators against Mormonism" (Roberts).

Roberts acknowledges the seriousness of accusing those who originated the Spaulding theory of dishonesty, fraud, and conscious deception.

The existence of later, more extensive Book of Mormon-esque Spaulding manuscripts is never claimed until *after* the only one in existence was found. Howe did not publish his book until Hurlbut returned from his affidavit trip, and none of the eight Spaulding witnesses in Howe's book say a single word about second or multiple Spaulding manuscripts. After Spaulding's manuscript was found, Howe then said that the witnesses said that Spaulding had "told them that he had altered his first plan of writing, by writing in the old scripture style in order that it might appear more ancient. They say it bears no resemblance to 'Manuscript Found' " Roberts points out: "This is only what Mr. Howe says these witnesses said, and is not their testimony at all . . . One marvels that in a case so important, Mr. Howe did not get a statement direct and over the signatures of these Conneaut witnesses, instead of contenting himself by reporting what he alleges they said to him."

Spaulding lived in Conneaut less than three years. His neighbors claimed to have heard him read aloud to them from his manuscript, which they assume 24 years later to be identified with the Book of Mormon. "Are we not asked here to accord to human recollection a vividness and power which, to say the least, is very exceptional?" (Roberts).

Contrast of the growth of the Church in northeastern Ohio with Howe's book's dismal sales (it took until 1840 to print his second edition). In other words, local contemporaries voting with their feet appear to have found the Mormon witnesses and responses much more convincing. 

Thought experiment: what would the second wave Conneaut witnesses have said if asked about Spaulding's manuscript(s) before 24 years had gone by, and crucially, "before anything had been heard about the existence of the Book of Mormon?" (Roberts). Everyone knows the answer! There would have been no mention of names like Lehi, Moroni, Zarahemla, Nephi, etc. before that. It is only after Mormonism had swept the Western Reserve that witnesses "now" remember such things.

Ellen Dickinson's (Spaulding's wife's grand niece) 1885 book is the most quoted on Spaulding, but it contains an "odd" (her word) detail that no one quotes for obvious reasons. "Of the odd stories told at Conneaut in 1834 in connection with Solomon Spaulding, was one to the effect that he told his neighbors at the time he entertained them with his romance that his 'Manuscript Found' was a translation of the 'Book of Mormon' . . ." This is never quoted, for obvious reasons. Not even the most enthusiastic of Spaulding advocates dare claim that Spaulding referred to his story as "The Book of Mormon." She is obviously making this up.

A purported statement by Matilda Davidson, Spaulding's widow, is hopelessly snarled in a web of contradictory statements about it. It first appeared in the Boston Recorder in 1839, and was intended to shore up obvious deficiencies in Howe's 1834 claims about the Spaulding theory. This is the origin of claims that Spaulding tried to publish it in Pittsburgh, and it attempts to introduce Sidney Rigdon as the intermediary between Spaulding and the Book of Mormon. The Davidson "statement" originated when Reverend John Storrs became upset with conversions to Mormonism in Holliston, Massachusetts. When Storrs heard about the Spaulding theory, he wrote to Reverend D.R. Austin, who lived near where Mrs. Spaulding-Davidson lived with her daughter, Mrs. McKinstry. Storrs urged Austin to get a statement from her connecting her late husband with the Book of Mormon. Austin submitted notes from talking to her to Storrs, and Storrs published these notes as a signed statement from her. John Haven of Holliston, MA visited Mrs. Davidson, and sent a letter to his daughter, Elizabeth Haven in Quincy, Illinois containing his interview with Davidson (this was published in the Quincy Whig). He reports that a Dr. Ely and Mrs. McKinstry were present.

Mrs. Davidson stated that she did not write a letter or sign any statement. The first she heard of her purported signed statement was when it appeared in the Boston Recorder. She confirmed that Austin visited her and asked her questions. She confirmed that Hurlbut asked her for her husband's story manuscript, and that she gave it to him, but her description of it exactly matches the manuscript at Oberlin and not the extended version of later Spaulding theories. She said Hurlbut promised her half of the profit from publishing it, but that he told her in a letter that ***"it did not read as expected"*** She estimated that the manuscript she gave Hurlbut was "about one third as large as the Book of Mormon."

Ellen Dickinson lists 27 documents in her book purporting to have a bearing on later Spaulding theories, but the Davidson statement is not one of them (because it contradicts Dickinson's theories in many areas). She does indirectly refer to it in her book when she relates John Spaulding (Solomon's brother) saying that he was overcome with emotion and cried when the Book of Mormon came out and he recognized direct plagiarism from his brother's book (the Davidson statement was the source for this --- no other source has this). Dickinson cites footnote 13 for the source, which lists "John Spaulding's statement --- see note 4." But footnote 4 only cites John Spaulding in Howe's book, where he makes no mention of his emotional reaction to the Book of Mormon. Dickinson tries to use the Davidson statement without referencing it because it contradicts her theory.

The Davidson statement is also clearly ghost-written by those pushing Spaulding theories, and is clearly not a statement written or dictated by an elderly woman. Roberts cites Parley P. Pratt: "A judge of literary production who can swallow that piece of writing as the production of a woman in private life can be made to believe that the Book of Mormon is a romance . . . The production signed 'Matilda Davidson' is evidently the work of a man accustomed to public address." On this point, Theodore Schroeder actually agrees with Roberts and Pratt. While admitting that the Davidson statement was a fraud, Schroeder nevertheless tries to allow items in it that help his theory, while discounting things that don't. 

Sidney Rigdon as a go-between is the all-important means of salvaging this mess for proponents of Spaulding theories. #1 Joseph Smith himself stole the manuscript from William Sabine's home in 1823 (John Hyde theory). #2 Rigdon copied it at the Patterson and Lambdin printing office (Storrs-Austin-Davidson theory). #3 Joseph Smith copied it while working for William Sabine, but leaving the original there (Mrs. Davidson's brother). #4 Spaulding copied a printer's manuscript, while leaving his original home. All theories absolutely depend on the veracity of the Davidson/McKinstry statements for other reasons, but both of these statements vindicate Sidney Rigdon, because both of these declare that the Spaulding manuscript was in their possession in 1816.

There are multiple problems with the theory that Rigdon stole or borrowed Spaulding's manuscript from the Patterson and Lambdin print shop in Pittsburgh. When Howe asked Patterson in 1834, Mr. Lambdin had been dead for eight years. Howe wrote: "Mr. Patterson says he has no recollection of any such manuscript being brought there for publication." Later Protestant ministers, such as Samuel Williams, reported that Patterson told them that Patterson had told them otherwise, and linked a manuscript left there with the Book of Mormon. "Then why is that not in the statement Robert Patterson signed? The manifest dishonesty of these preachers grows tedious!" (Roberts)

Anti-Mormon Thomas Gregg cited in 1882 a 91 year old man named Joseph Miller (born in 1791) who he alleges said that Rigdon was thought to have stolen the manuscript from the printing office (the Cincinatti Gazette gleefully wrote that this is "the one man in the United States who can give the Book of Mormon's origins!"). Roberts again: "How much reliance is to be placed upon the early recollections of such an aged person after all the talk and newspaper and magazine articles and discussions that have been published . . . what value, I say, is to be given to the recollections of a very aged person under these circumstances, must be finally determined by the reader." (Roberts)

(Schroeder) "Last but not least, John C. Bennet" endorsed the Spaulding theory. "For which I had almost said, 'thank God!" For nothing could so completely damn a thing as John C. Bennett's endorsement." (Roberts)

[A very extensive and drawn out laying out of Sidney Rigdon's timeline in Pittsburgh, along with the Spauldings being in Pittsburgh, does serious damage to the possibility that Rigdon could even hypothetically have stolen/borrowed the manuscript]. This is bolstered by the fact that Robert Patterson Jr., son of Robert Patterson, wrote an extensive article called "Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?" for the "History of Washington County," and he rejects this theory completely. 

Sidney Rigdon wrote in a published article in the Boston Journal in 1839: "If I were to say that I ever heard of the Rev. Solomon Spaulding and his wife, until Dr. P. Hurlbut wrote his lie about me, I should be a liar like unto themselves. Why was not the testimony of Mr. Patterson obtained to give force to this shameful tale of lies? The only reason is, that he was not a fit tool for them to work with; he would not lie for them, for if he were called on he would testify to what I have here said." Mr. Patterson did not die until 1854. Patterson's son completed his treatment of the theories involving his father and Sidney Rigdon as follows: "If any one would learn an impressive lesson upon the transitory nature of man's hold upon the remembrance of his fellow men, let him engage in an investigation into some matter of local or personal history dating back a half century ago. So rapidly, in the very places where a man has lived and labored, does the recollection of him fade into rumor, myth, or oblivion. The candid reader will doubtless suspend his judgment on this hitherto accepted theory of Rigdon's printership, or set it down as, at most, only probably, but certainly not proven." 

A Dr. Winters claims that Rigdon, around 1822-1823, showed him a large manuscript and said that a Presbyterian minister named Spaulding had brought it to a printer to see if he could get it published. "It is a romance of the Bible," Winters claimed Rigdon told him. When the Book of Mormon was published in 1830, Winters "remembered all about it." While Winters didn't write his account until 1878 (!), Schroeder believes that we have "something just as good" --- Dr. Winters' daughter writing in 1881 what she says her father told her. This was after Dickinson's article in Scribner's Magazine came out. 

Of similar character is the recollection of Mrs. Amos Dunlap (Mrs. Rigdon's niece) in 1879. She wrote that her uncle was reading a manuscript, when Mrs. Rigdon chided him with "reading that thing again?" 'or something to that effect.' She then added, 'I mean to burn that paper.' He said, 'No, indeed you will not. This will be a great thing some day.'"  Mrs. Rigdon, of course, give no indication of feeling this way about the Book of Mormon when she converted. 

Roberts: "I refer to these things merely as illustrations of how variations and additions multiply upon myths when once started. And so it will continue to be as long as there is a relative who has a relative who heard something about what someone else had said of Rigdon's connection with Patterson and Spaulding; that is, new variations of the story will constantly be appearing." 

Schroeder's strongest evidence, which "must be met at its full height and value" (Roberts). Adamson Bently, one of the Campbellite leaders along with Alexander Campbell, which Rigdon was also prominent in, claimed in 1841 that Rigdon had told him about the Book of Mormon coming out years before it was printed (and therefore years before it was brought to the Campbellites). Campbell himself wrote: "The conversation alluded to in Brother Bently's letter of 1841 was in my presence as well as in his . . . he placing it in the summer of 1827; I, in the summer of 1826. Rigdon at the same time observing that in the plates dug up in New York there was an account not only of the aborigines of this country, but also stated that the Christian religion had been preached in this country during the first century." 

Alexander Campbell wrote the most extensive and arguably the most effective criticism of the Book of Mormon ever in 1831. It dissected the book in great detail (internal and external evidence, theological items, the eleven witnesses, etc.). Roberts asks: "And now a question to Mr. Campbell and Mr. Schroeder: could the conversation Bently and Campbell described have happened in 1826 or 1827 without Mr. Campbell remembering it in 1831 when he wrote his scathing review and critique of the Book of Mormon? Let it be held in mind here how explicit the charge of Bently is. More than two years before the Book of Mormon made its appearance Rigdon told Bently [all about the Book of Mormon coming forth in a few years]." But . . . there is not a word of any of this in Campbell's extensive critique. 

"Would not such have been his mental process? And would we not, in that event, have had the Book of Mormon criticized by Mr. Campbell in 1831 from quite a different viewpoint than that from which he treated it? . . . I shall never be able to express in words the deep depression that overcame me when the conviction of Alexander Campbell's perfidy was forced upon me. In my early manhood I had read extensively in his works. The evidence he compiled and the argument he made in his great debate with Robert Owen, the English Communist, I regard as the grandest defense ever made of historic Christianity, while his debate with Bishop Purcell on the Roman Catholic Religion is justly called the "battle of the giants." In these and in his debates with William McCalla and the Reverend N.L. Rice, his bearing is admirable; he is the courteous gentleman, the splendid scholar, the patient philosopher, the fair opponent. In discussing the Book of Mormon, he exhibits a vulgarity, a bitterness utterly unaccountable, and entirely unworthy of himself; and lastly and saddest of all, he descends to the low subterfuge of falsehood as in this Bently-Rigdon affair." (Roberts)

(Roberts): "I hold that these particular charges of collaboration between Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon involving frequent association and in fact demanding almost constant association between the two in the years from 1827 and 1830 necessarily break down under its own weight of absurdity. The movements of Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon are too well known . . . the distances separating them during these years are too great."

George Reynolds: "Has it ever entered into the thoughts of our opponents that if Sidney Rigdon was the author or adapter of the Book of Mormon how vast and widespread must have been the conspiracy that foisted it upon the world! Whole families must have been engaged in it. Men of all ages and various conditions in life, and living in widely separate portions of the country must have been connected with it. First we must include in the catalogue of conspirators the whole of the Smith family, then the Whitmer's, Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery; further, to carry on this absurd idea, Sidney Rigdon and Parley P. Pratt must have been their active fellow-conspirators in arranging, carrying out and consummating their iniquitous fraud. To do this they must have traveled thousands of miles and spent months, perhaps years, to accomplish -- what? That is the unsolved problem. Was it for the purpose of duping the world? They, at any rate the great majority of them, were of all men most unlikely to be engaged in such a folly. Their habits, surroundings, station in life, youth and inexperience all forbid such a thought. What could they gain, in any light that could be then presented to their minds, by palming such a deception upon the world? This is another unanswerable question. Then comes the staggering fact, if the Book be a falsity, that all these families, all these diverse characters, in all the trouble, perplexity, persecution and suffering through which they passed, never wavered in their testimony, never changed their statements, never "went back" on their original declarations, but continued unto death (and they have all passed away save a very few), proclaiming that the Book of Mormon was a divine revelation, and that its record was true. Was there ever such an exhibition in the history of the world of such continued, such unabating, such undeviating falsehood? if falsehood it was. We cannot find a place in the annals of their lives where they wavered, and what makes the matter more remarkable is that it can be said of most of them, as is elsewhere said of the three witnesses, they became offended with the Prophet Joseph, and a number of them openly rebelled against him; but they never retracted one word with regard to the genuineness of Mormon's inspired record. Whether they were friends or foes to Joseph, whether they regarded him as God's continued mouthpiece or as a fallen Prophet, they still persisted in their statements with regard to the book and the veracity of their earlier testimonies. How can we possibly with our knowledge of human nature make this undeviating, unchanging, unwavering course, continuing over fifty years consistent with a deliberate, premeditated and cunningly-devised and executed fraud!

Rigdon is seen as necessary because Joseph Smith was ostensibly incapable of providing religious content for the Book of Mormon. Roberts recommends comparing D&C 20, 42, 76, 84, 88, and 107 (all dictated in the presence of witnesses) with the Book of Mormon to settle that claim.

Additionally, no one ever explains why a man like Sidney Rigdon would willingly transition from "master spirit" in the origins of Mormonism to "second fiddle" in willingly participating in a fraud.

Roberts also points out that the "5,913" grammatical, spelling, etc. mistakes in the Book of Mormon critics gleefully point out would have been significantly lessened if a man like Ridgon had had a major hand in writing it.

Roberts also states that if the Book of Mormon were produced in a manner like that suggested by the Spaulding theories, the line of demarcation between "strata" would be obvious [Rubicon: akin to higher criticism's insistence on clear differences between E, J, P, in the Old Testament].

Davidson/McKinstry place the size of Spaulding's manuscript at "about one inch thick," or "one third the size of the Book of Mormon," which accords well with the Oberlin manuscript, but not the claimed extended versions of the later Spaulding theories (112 printed pages vs. 600).

And your thoughts?