An Unpublished Manuscript & Book of Mormon

[Norman]

From wiki:

The Spalding–Rigdon theory of Book of Mormon authorship is the theory that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized in part from an unpublished manuscript written by Solomon Spalding. This theory first appeared in print in the book Mormonism Unvailed [sic], published in 1834 by E. D. Howe. The theory claimed that the Spalding manuscript was at some point acquired by Sidney Rigdon, who used it in collusion with Joseph Smith to produce the Book of Mormon. Although Rigdon claimed that he was converted to the Latter Day Saint movement through reading the Book of Mormon, Howe argued that the story was a later invention to cover the book's true origins.

Contemporary Mormon apologetics state that the theory has been disproved and is discredited and argue that "few historians—whether friendly or hostile to the truth claims of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)—believe that the historical data support the Spalding manuscript hypothesis."

Norman: Not true at all.
This interpretation initially appeared in the first anti-Mormon book, Mormonism Unvailed, a work published by Eber D. Howe and, most believe, authored by Philastus Hurlburt, an apostate. This hypothesis for the formulation of the Book of Mormon can best be summed up thus: “The Book of Mormon is the joint production of Solomon Spaulding and some other designing knave.” They conjectured this “knave” to be Sidney Rigdon.16

This explanation, originating in 1834, has been repeated by many anti-Mormon writers ever since. Because of this, Francis Kirkham spent a great deal of time in both volumes of A New Witness for Christ in America discussing this argument. The historical portion of the Book of Mormon, the proponents of this theory insisted, came from Solomon Spaulding’s novel, Manuscript Found. They contended that the fictionalized account became “scripture” as part of a careful scheme to defraud and deceive unthinking people. This explanation became an excuse for attacking the new religion. Brother Kirkham explained that, in addition to creating the Spaulding theory, Hurlburt gathered many affidavits from the residents of Palmyra, New York, talking of Joseph Smith’s ignorance, delusion, and superstition. This, the anti-Mormon writers believed, added additional weight to their “true” explanation of the origin of the book.

While this theory is still occasionally appealed to, most current anti-Mormon writers have abandoned this explanation. The reason is very simple. In 1884 the original of Spaulding’s Manuscript Found was discovered in Honolulu, Hawaii. When this document was then published, it very obviously bore no relation to the Book of Mormon. Significantly, the theorized link between the works of Joseph Smith and Spaulding was further discredited by Spaulding’s statement attached to the manuscript “that he did not accept the Bible‍ as the revealed word of God to man” and that “the Bible’s only value is its ethical teachings.” Francis Kirkham pointedly proclaimed, “How could a confessed unbeliever in the Bible be the author of the Book of Mormon?”17

Brother Kirkham quickly refuted this argument, pointing out that Solomon Spaulding’s wife and daughter both stated that the Spaulding manuscript (the only one that would have been available for Sidney Rigdon to plagiarize) had been returned to the family from the printing shop where Manuscript Found was published. Later it was examined by Philastus Hurlburt—the anti-Mormon writer—who took the manuscript and never returned it despite repeated requests by the family.18

Source:

Francis W. Kirkham: A “New Witness” for the Book of Mormon - Ensign July 1984 - ensign

 

[Norman]

How do you know the manuscript doesn't exist? Several people signed affidavits affirming its existence, after all.

Norman: Because, it doesn't exist and never has, take some time and understand the facts. I am an active member of the LDS Church for thirty years now, and apologetic to my faith. You can read the facts for yourself. As far as the affidavits they were bogus by anti-Mormons. Hurlburt gathered many affidavits from the residents of Palmyra, New York, talking of Joseph Smith’s ignorance, delusion, and superstition. This, the anti-Mormon writers believed, added additional weight to their “true” explanation of the origin of the book.
This interpretation initially appeared in the first anti-Mormon book, Mormonism Unvailed, a work published by Eber D. Howe and, most believe, authored by Philastus Hurlburt, an apostate. This hypothesis for the formulation of the Book of Mormon can best be summed up thus: “The Book of Mormon is the joint production of Solomon Spaulding and some other designing knave.” They conjectured this “knave” to be Sidney Rigdon.16

This explanation, originating in 1834, has been repeated by many anti-Mormon writers ever since. Because of this, Francis Kirkham spent a great deal of time in both volumes of A New Witness for Christ in America discussing this argument. The historical portion of the Book of Mormon, the proponents of this theory insisted, came from Solomon Spaulding’s novel, Manuscript Found. They contended that the fictionalized account became “scripture” as part of a careful scheme to defraud and deceive unthinking people. This explanation became an excuse for attacking the new religion. Brother Kirkham explained that, in addition to creating the Spaulding theory, Hurlburt gathered many affidavits from the residents of Palmyra, New York, talking of Joseph Smith’s ignorance, delusion, and superstition. This, the anti-Mormon writers believed, added additional weight to their “true” explanation of the origin of the book.

While this theory is still occasionally appealed to, most current anti-Mormon writers have abandoned this explanation. The reason is very simple. In 1884 the original of Spaulding’s Manuscript Found was discovered in Honolulu, Hawaii. When this document was then published, it very obviously bore no relation to the Book of Mormon. Significantly, the theorized link between the works of Joseph Smith and Spaulding was further discredited by Spaulding’s statement attached to the manuscript “that he did not accept the Bible‍ as the revealed word of God to man” and that “the Bible’s only value is its ethical teachings.” Francis Kirkham pointedly proclaimed, “How could a confessed unbeliever in the Bible be the author of the Book of Mormon?”17

Brother Kirkham quickly refuted this argument, pointing out that Solomon Spaulding’s wife and daughter both stated that the Spaulding manuscript (the only one that would have been available for Sidney Rigdon to plagiarize) had been returned to the family from the printing shop where Manuscript Found was published. Later it was examined by Philastus Hurlburt—the anti-Mormon writer—who took the manuscript and never returned it despite repeated requests by the family.18 . You can read more at the URL stated below.

Source:

Francis W. Kirkham: A “New Witness” for the Book of Mormon - Ensign July 1984 - ensign

 

[Norman]

Yes, there is a lot of names similar, or exactly the same to the ones in the Book of Mormon. Some are Nephi, Lehi, Mormon, Moroni, Akish, Alma.

Norman: Faithful adherents of the Spalding theory now claimed that a second work, Manuscript Found, was the real source of the Book of Mormon. Fortunately or unfortunately, it could not be examined because nobody knew where it was. Nor whether it ever was.

While most critics suddenly became willing to imagine a conspiracy of considerable size that may or may not have included Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Parley Pratt, it was Sidney Rigdon—an experienced clergyman and Bible student, a Campbellite preacher before his conversion to Mormonism—who was the favored candidate forthe role of chief facilitator of what they devoutly believed to be a fraud. The hypothesis received its debut in the granddaddy of all anti-Mormon books, Eber D. Howe’s 1834 cult classic, Mormonism Unvailed. But Rigdon

was not the absolute author of the Book of Mormon, according to this explanation. He was merely “the Iago, the prime mover, of the whole conspiracy”²⁶—the transmitter, to Joseph Smith, of a manuscript originally authored by one Solomon Spalding, a Dartmouth College–educated former clergyman who had, it was said, expressly declared his disbelief in the Bible before his death in 1816.

Howe seems to have been aware, though, that he did not have in his possession the evidence that would establish his case. So he hedged his bets. “That there has been, from the beginning of the imposture, a more talented knave behind the curtain, is evident to our mind, at least; but whether he will ever be clearly, fully and positively unveiled and brought into open day-light, may of course be doubted.”²⁹ Howe’s modesty was compelled by the striking lack of evidence that, today, has led most critics to drop the Spalding manuscript theory of Book of Mormon origins.

The Hurlbut-Howe-Spalding theory—so named to honor its earliest exponent, Doctor Philastus Hurlbut, a former member of the church who became a pioneering anti-Mormon agitator after his 1833 excommunication³¹—dominated skeptical explanations of the Book of Mormon for fifty years, from the publication of Mormonism Unvailed in 1834 until 1884. Even the Reverend Alexander Campbell, he who had proclaimed what he considered the obvious fact that the book had been composed in one ignorant cranium, Joseph Smith’s, soon proclaimed the obvious fact that Spalding of Dartmouth was the author. The theory was not always consistently held, of course. J. B. Turner, for example, wrote that the Book of Mormon was characterized by “uniformity of style . . . in the highest degree.

Unfortunately for advocates of the Spalding theory, Spalding’s Manuscript Story was recovered from a steamer trunk in Honolulu in 1884. It turned out to be a relatively short yarn—roughly 125 pages long—about a group of Romans who set sail for Britain but were driven onto the coast of America by storms at sea. L. L. Rice, the rather surprisedowner of the steamer trunk, remarked of the Manuscript Story and the Book of Mormon that “There is no identity of names, of persons, or places; and there is no similarity of style between them. . . . I should as soon think the Book of Revelation was written by the author of Don Quixote, as that the writer of this Manuscript was the author of the Book of Mormon.”³⁷

Kirkham has been proven correct. Of course, some extreme anti-Mormons invoke demonic inspiration to account for the Book of Mormon. But among serious writers of a disbelieving bent, the pendulum has clearly swung back to Joseph Smith as the author of the Book of Mormon.

Source:

Editor’s Introduction: “In the Hope That Something Will Stick”: Changing Explanations for the Book of Mormon. Daniel C. Peterson. FARMS Review 16/2 (2004): xi–xxxv. 1550-3194 (print), 2156-8049 (online)

 

[Katzpur]

How do you know the manuscript doesn't exist?

Hey, of course it may exist. We're just all sitting here holding our breath, waiting for Christ's Lamb to have the manuscript supposedly in his posession authenticated, go to the press with his proof, get rich off it, and destroy the Mormon Church. Will you alert me when this happens? I wouldn't want to miss it.

Several people signed affidavits affirming its existence, after all.

Uh... who?

 

[Norman]

The Mormon Church teaches the there is only one manuscript, but Spalding's family says otherwise.

Norman: You wrong again, do you know anything about Spalding's family? It is evident that you received your information from some anti-Mormon website (s). What is the real purpose
of this personal crusade you have against the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

In 1833, Spaulding’s brother, John, in conjunction with seven other residents of Conneaut, signed affidavits attesting that portions of the Book of Mormon were identical to the manuscript that Spaulding had written. Their statements were subsequently published in the 1834 book entitled Mormonism Unveiled by E.D. Howe, in which it was asserted that the Book of Mormon was indeed plagiarized from Spaulding’s Manuscript Found. Several years later, Spaulding’s widow and daughter, other residents of Conneaut, and residents of Amity, Pennsylvania, also signed affidavits attesting that Spaulding had written a manuscript, and that the Book of Mormon was a product of plagiarism. The following evidence, presented by the defense in this case, emphatically refutes the statements signed by critics of the Book of Mormon, in so far as there exist vast differences in storyline and literary styles of writing, proving that there is no connection between Manuscript Found and the Book of Mormon. In spite of the many claims and efforts to discredit the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, neither Doctor Philastus Hurlbut nor any of the other critics published the Spaulding Manuscript, even though they had it in their possession. The manuscript became lost and forgotten for forty-five years. Apparently it was among items that were shipped from the office of the Ohio Painesville Telegraph, owned by Eber D. Howe, but purchased by L.L. Rice in 1839. Rice eventually moved to Honolulu, Hawaii, and discovered the manuscript in 1884 while searching his collection for abolitionist materials for his friend James H. Fairchild, president of Oberlin College in Ohio. Rice and Fairchild examined the manuscript and both concluded that it could not have been the source of the Book of Mormon. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints published Spaulding’s Manuscript in 1886 to prove to the world that it was not the origin of the Book of Mormon, and that the Book of Mormon was indeed translated from ancient records by the gift and power of God.

 

[Norman]

I have recently purchased an unpublished manuscript written by one S. Spolding. It states it is from the early 1800s. It starts off by decribing how the author was investigating indian mounds, then he discovered a set of brass plates and "written on them were histories of glorious men who lived in the days yore." But one set of plates in particular caught the mans eyes. It then descripes a story of a man named "Nephi" who travels with his people from Israel to America to escape Jerusalem before the flood. The manuscript later goes on to describe how the tribes settled America and how the people split into diffrent groups and wars braking out among them.

The story has huge similarities to the Book of Mormon. It is nearly identical to the Books of Alma and Ether, along with parts of Mosiah and Helaman in the Book of Mormon. By identical, I mean whole paragraphs taken from it, with very slight changes.

I'm just wondering, which came first? Can anyone tell me anything about this manuscript? Tried to look it up online, but didn't get to much.

Norman: What is exactly is a "Catholic Mystic?" Are you a member of the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[gsa]

Hey, of course it may exist. We're just all sitting here holding our breath, waiting for Christ's Lamb to have the manuscript supposedly in his posession authenticated, go to the press with his proof, get rich off it, and destroy the Mormon Church. Will you alert me when this happens? I wouldn't want to miss it.

Uh... who?

Well at this point, after the historical debunking of the revelations of the BoM and the revelation of Smith's dubious character and all the rest, nothing short of a divine intervention could destroy the Mormon church. People will believe what they want to believe.

But anyway, is the wiki entry wrong?

In 1832, Latter Day Saint missionaries Samuel H. Smith and Orson Hyde visited Conneaut, Ohio, and preached from the Book of Mormon. Nehemiah King, a resident of Conneaut who knew Spalding when he lived there, felt that the Mormon text resembled the story written by Spalding years before.

In 1833, Spalding's brother John and seven other residents of Conneaut signed affidavits stating that Spalding had written a manuscript, portions of which were identical to the Book of Mormon. Spalding's widow told a similar story, and stated that "the names of Nephi and Lehi are yet fresh in my memory, as being the principal heroes of his tale."[10] These statements were published in E. D. Howe's 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed.[11]

 

[Katzpur]

People will believe what they want to believe.

Yes, you're proof of that, aren't you?

But anyway, is the wiki entry wrong?

There are several wiki links on the subject. Post which one you're asking about.

Latter Day Saint missionaries Samuel H. Smith and Orson Hyde visited Conneaut, Ohio, and preached from the Book of Mormon. Nehemiah King, a resident of Conneaut who knew Spalding when he lived there, felt that the Mormon text resembled the story written by Spalding years before.

In 1833, Spalding's brother John and seven other residents of Conneaut signed affidavits stating that Spalding had written a manuscript, portions of which were identical to the Book of Mormon. Spalding's widow told a similar story, and stated that "the names of Nephi and Lehi are yet fresh in my memory, as being the principal heroes of his tale."[10] These statements were published in E. D. Howe's 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed.[11]

Get a copy of Mormonism Unvailed and read it for yourself. Better yet, read the transcript of Spaulding's manuscript and see what references you can find in it to any of the individuals named in the Book of Mormon. (Chapter 1 actually starts on page 14 of the manuscript.) I have already explained several times that regardless of what Spaulding's brother, widow or friends said, there is no existing manuscript to substantiate your claims. I'm sorry, but I really can't dumb it down any further.

 

[gsa]

Yes, you're proof of that, aren't you?

There are several wiki links on the subject. Post which one you're asking about.

Get a copy of Mormonism Unvailed and read it for yourself. Better yet, read the transcript of Spaulding's manuscript and see what references you can find in it to any of the individuals named in the Book of Mormon. (Chapter 1 actually starts on page 14 of the manuscript.)

I looked at it online, Mormonism Unvailed it is, where it discusses the affidavits. So you are not contesting that there were affidavits affirming the existence of another manuscript then, that mentions Nephi and all that?

 

[Katzpur]

I looked at it online, Mormonism Unvailed it is, where it discusses the affidavits. So you are not contesting that there were affidavits affirming the existence of another manuscript then, that mentions Nephi and all that?

I'm neither contesting it or affirming it. A lot of people have said a lot of things in affidavits that aren't necessarily true. What matters isn't what the affidavits say; what matters is whether what they say can be substantiated -- which they can't.

 

[gsa]

I'm neither contesting it or affirming it. A lot of people have said a lot of things in affidavits that aren't necessarily true. What matters isn't what the affidavits say; what matters is whether what they say can be substantiated -- which they can't.

Well an affidavit is sworn, so there's that. And I think it is clear that the did not have copies of the manuscript, but that doesn't mean it is unsubstantiated. It just means that the matter is contested. So the question I guess is over the credibility of Spaulding's associates on the one hand, and Smith on the other.

 

[Katzpur]

Well an affidavit is sworn, so there's that. And I think it is clear that the did not have copies of the manuscript, but that doesn't mean it is unsubstantiated. It just means that the matter is contested. So the question I guess is over the credibility of Spaulding's associates on the one hand, and Smith on the other.

Yeah, well the only actual manuscript (other than one one Christ's Lamb claims to have) is available for you to read any time you want to be bothered. Read it and you'll know who was telling the truth. If you seriously believe Christ's Lamb is in possession of an entire new, as-yet-unknown-to-the-rest-of-the-world-manuscript, you're seriously more gullible than I'd imagined.

 

[gsa]

Yeah, well the only actual manuscript (other than one one Christ's Lamb claims to have) is available for you to read any time you want to be bothered. Read it and you'll know who was telling the truth. If you seriously believe Christ's Lamb is in possession of an entire new, as-yet-unknown-to-the-rest-of-the-world-manuscript, you're seriously more gullible than I'd imagined.

I have no idea what Christ's Lamb is in possession of. It is entirely conceivable that there is more than one manuscript. Even if he doesn't have it, that doesn't mean that the affidavits are wrong.

 

[Katzpur]

I have no idea what Christ's Lamb is in possession of. It is entirely conceivable that there is more than one manuscript.

That would be highly unusual. We're talking about a handwritten manuscript from the early 1800s. Authors back then did not typically copy their manuscripts in case the original got lost.

Even if he doesn't have it, that doesn't mean that the affidavits are wrong.

Suit yourself. When the document surfaces and become public, we can talk more. Until then, I think anyone else who's interested in early Mormon history (from either a pro- or an anti- position) would tell you that you're on a ghost hunt. Don't wear yourself out. You really need to move on to a more productive endeavor.

 

[Norman]

Well at this point, after the historical debunking of the revelations of the BoM and the revelation of Smith's dubious character and all the rest, nothing short of a divine intervention could destroy the Mormon church. People will believe what they want to believe.

But anyway, is the wiki entry wrong?

In 1832, Latter Day Saint missionaries Samuel H. Smith and Orson Hyde visited Conneaut, Ohio, and preached from the Book of Mormon. Nehemiah King, a resident of Conneaut who knew Spalding when he lived there, felt that the Mormon text resembled the story written by Spalding years before.

In 1833, Spalding's brother John and seven other residents of Conneaut signed affidavits stating that Spalding had written a manuscript, portions of which were identical to the Book of Mormon. Spalding's widow told a similar story, and stated that "the names of Nephi and Lehi are yet fresh in my memory, as being the principal heroes of his tale."[10] These statements were published in E. D. Howe's 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed.[11]

Norman: Give it up dude, all lies, you do not even know what you are posting. Keep going to the anti-Mormon websites and satisfy yourself, claim your victory for yourself. Katzpur and I have stated the truth to everyone on this thread and it is evidently being ignored. I am done on this thread. Later.

 

[gsa]

Norman: Give it up dude, all lies, you do not even know what you are posting. Keep going to the anti-Mormon websites and satisfy yourself, claim your victory for yourself. Katzpur and I have stated the truth to everyone on this thread and it is evidently being ignored. I am done on this thread. Later.

What have I posted that is a lie?

 

[Watchmen]

Why don't you scan and post a couple pages from this supposed manuscript?

 

[Watchmen]

Why don't you scan and post a couple pages from this supposed manuscript?

Of course there was no response.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

... one set of plates in particular caught the mans eyes. It then descripes a story of a man named "Nephi" who travels with his people from Israel to America to escape Jerusalem before the flood.

1.) The flood? As in "Noah's Flood?" The Bible doesn't indicate that anyone aside from Noah and his family were spared, correct?

2.) The Bible also indicates that the entire world was flooded, so even any proposed Israelites that managed to escape the 6,000-odd miles from Jerusalem to the Americas (and also crossed the intervening ocean) would have still perished, correct?

Let's recall that many Young Earth Creationists believe that the Grand Canyon was carved out by Noah's Flood*. If that's true (and I'm not for a moment lending any credence whatsoever to this sort of twaddle), then everyone living in the Americas would have been killed as well, right?

* And don't you dare ask why the entire surface of the planet doesn't look like the Grand Canyon, blasphemer!

The manuscript later goes on to describe how the tribes settled America and how the people split into diffrent groups and wars braking out among them.

Have you ever read The Silmarillion? There are multiple manuscripts of that book that describe how the Noldor came back to the shores of Middle Earth.

It's an epic tale. Do you suppose it all really happened?

The story has huge similarities to the Book of Mormon. It is nearly identical to the Books of Alma and Ether, along with parts of Mosiah and Helaman in the Book of Mormon. By identical, I mean whole paragraphs taken from it, with very slight changes.

Are you saying that some fraudster ripped off Joseph Smith? Would that qualify as irony of the highest order, or what?

I'm just wondering, which came first? Can anyone tell me anything about this manuscript? Tried to look it up online, but didn't get to much.

Try spelling his name as S-p-a-u-l-d-i-n-g. You should find:

This
This
This
This
and
This

And that appears to be just the tip of the whole specious iceberg.

 

[Prestor John]

No "Israelites" existed at the time of the Flood. Abraham, the father of the covenant people (Israel) had not been born yet.

Needless to say, but the city of Jerusalem also did not exist at the time of the Flood.