Mr. Schroeder's next development of his attempted "cumulative evidence and argument" is to establish a connection between Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, through Parley P. Pratt. He first deals with the movements of Pratt from his birth until he is established in Amherst, Lorain county, Ohio, a few miles west of Cleveland, in 1826. In order to lay a foundation for his conclusion Mr. Schroeder gives an exaggerated idea of the notoriety of Joseph Smith at this time "as a 'peep-stone' money digger, through mention made of him in papers published in several counties in southern New York and northern Pennsylvania."^[129] For authority of this statement Mr. Schroeder cites only Tucker, author of "Origin and Progress of Mormonism," and the Rev. Clark Braden, in the "Braden-Kelly Debate." He might just as well have only cited Tucker, for Braden but repeats, in slightly altered form what was said by Tucker. The latter in his work produces not a single newspaper item, nor gives a single reference to any publication in justification of his statement. There was none to give prior to 1826. Joseph Smith's "notoriety" was purely local up to that time.

[Footnote 129: American Historical Magazine, Jan., 1907, p. 58. Ante p. 49.]

Mr. Schroeder represents that Parley P. Pratt was a peddler "who knew almost every body in western New York,"^[130] therefore he very likely knew the Smiths previous to 1826. For the statement that Pratt was a peddler, and "ubiquitous," Mr. Schroeder can only cite an address, before the Union Home Missionary meeting in 1881, by Mrs. Horace Eaton, of Palmyra;^[131] and she was evidently repeating one of the many idle rumors from the vicinity of Palmyra, as there is no evidence for the statement of Mrs. Eaton, and the story is refuted by the facts as stated in the first chapters of Pratt's "Autobiography," where his struggles to secure and clear a farm, in partnership with his brother, are detailed. This farm was near the then small town of Oswego, on Lake Ontario, in Oswego County. It is true that Pratt in the autumn of 1826 visited his uncles, Ira and Allen Pratt, in Wayne—then Ontario—county, New York,—exact location not given. There is nothing "ubiquitous" about his movements, or any evidence of his wide acquaintance with people.

[Footnote 130: "Hand Book on Mormonism" (1882), p. 3.]

[Footnote 131: American Historical Magazine, Jan., 1907, p. 58. Ante p. 49. Also "Hand Book on Mormonism," p. 3.]

To give a coloring of dishonesty to the character of Pratt, Mr. Schroeder writes the following passage:

"One of the temptations inducing Pratt's departure from New York was to get a country where, as he himself expresses it, there is 'no law to sweep (away) all the hard earnings of years to pay a small debt.' The ethical status of an average country-peddler who is willing to leave his native State to avoid the payment of his 'small debts' furnishes a fertile immorality in which to plant the seeds of religious imposture."^[132]

[Footnote 132: American Historical Magazine, Jan., 1907, p. 59. Ante pp. 49-50.]

Mr. Schroeder conceals the fact that the "small debt" not "debts" as put by him, was merely a remainder due to Mr. Morgan of whom Pratt had purchased the farm near Oswego, and which owing to his brother's failure to meet his share of the payments, as also bad markets for the crop of 1826, Mr. Pratt could not pay. Whereupon the farm it had taken years to clear of timber, and the crop was seized by Morgan for that debt. Is Mr. Schroeder justified in giving a sinister aspect to this matter?

We have Pratt located in Amherst, 1826. Sidney Rigdon makes his second journey from Pennsylvania and arrives at Bainbridge, Ohio, in 1826, and in capacity of "Disciple" preacher visits the surrounding towns where he becomes acquainted with Pratt. All this is granted. Mr. Schroeder in trying to fix upon the exact time and circumstance of their first meeting, resorts to a jugglery of facts, and builds on the distorted mass such conclusions as can be characterized only by the term shameful. I quote Mr. Schroeder:

"The date of their first meeting is nowhere given, but may reasonably be inferred from an address delivered by Parley P. Pratt in 1843 or '4. In this discourse Pratt tells of an occurrence which transpired on his way to his future Ohio home, which occurrence furnishes the key to his first connection with Mormonism. On his way he stopped at a humble cottage, the name of whose occupant he carefully fails to give. Here, while asleep (so he says), "a messenger of a mild and intelligent countenance suddenly stood before me (Pratt) arrayed in robes of dazzling splendor." According to Mormon theory, an angel is but an exalted man. Of course Sidney Rigdon was an exalted man; why not, then, an angel? This angel claimed to hold the keys to the mysteries of this wonderful country, and took Pratt out to exhibit those mysteries to him. Pratt then had portrayed to his mind the whole future of Mormonism; its cities, with inhabitants from all parts of the globe; its temples, with a yet unattained splendor; its present church organization was, with considerable definiteness, outlined; its political ambition to establish a temporal kingdom of God on the ruins of this government was set forth with quite as much definiteness as in the subsequent more publicly uttered, treasonable sermons. I conclude from the exact manner in which this "Angel of the Prairies" foreknew the ambitions, hopes, and future achievements of the Mormon Church and the similar admitted fore-knowledge of Rigdon and the subsequently established connection between Rigdon, Pratt, and Smith, that the "Angel of the Prairies" who outlined to Pratt his then contemplated and now executed religious fraud, was none other than Sidney Rigdon himself, and that this fact accounts for Pratt's failure to give the name of his host or the date of his first meeting with Rigdon."^[133]

[Footnote 133: American Historical Magazine, Jan., 1907, p. 59. Ante p. 51.]

"THE ANGEL OF THE PRAIRIES."

The work here quoted for these supposedly historical incidents, is entitled "The Angel of the Prairies," and is a work of pure fiction, a product of the author's imagination, professedly and confessedly so.^[134] It was never delivered as a public address in Nauvoo, though Mr. Schroeder in the above calls it successively an "Address delivered by Parley P. Pratt," a "discourse," and in his notes a "sermon."^[135] It was merely read in the presence of Joseph Smith and "a general council," most likely the First Presidency and Mr. Pratt's associates of the Twelve Apostles, as "a curious and extraordinary composition in the similitude of a dream." Such is its author's characterization of it. "It was designed," he continues, "as a reproof of the corruptions and degeneracy of our government, in suffering mobs to murder, plunder, rob and drive their fellow citizens with impunity. It also suggested some reforms."^[136] It is no more history, or even prophecy than Johnson's "Rasselas" or Sir Thomas Moore's "Utopia" is history or prophecy. Yet this fiction, and I charge that Mr. Schroeder knew it to be fiction—for he could learn the facts from its preface—must be pressed into service as solemn prose history in order to complete and sustain the vagaries of the Schroeder-Spaulding theory! At first on meeting with this shameful perversion one is inclined to an outburst of vexation. On second thought he remembers that this fragment is but a piece of the whole fabric of the Spaulding theory, and smiles.

[Footnote 134: "Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt," edition of 1874, p. 367.]

[Footnote 135: Note 101 American Historical Magazine, Jan., 1907, p. 74. Ante 51.]

[Footnote 136: Same as note 134.]

But let us follow Mr. Schroeder further into the realms of his deductions built upon this piece of literary fiction, the "Angel of the Prairies." Parley P. Pratt returned to the home of his aunt Van Cott in Canaan, Columbia county, New York, for the purpose of marrying a Miss Halsey to whom he was engaged. This was in the summer of 1827. Mr. Schroeder makes Pratt's visit to New York for the above purpose, the occasion of placing the Spaulding manuscript in the hands of Joseph Smith, and all the connections are perfected for revamping this old manuscript story into a pretended volume of scripture. And this is the way of it as per Mr. Schroeder:

"Pratt was married September 9, 1827. On September 22, 1827, a 'heavenly messenger' appeared to Joseph Smith and unfolded to him the scheme of the Book of Mormon, and disclosed the where abouts of the 'Golden Plates.' This 'heavenly messenger' is called the Angel Moroni. According to Mormon theology, 'God may use any beings he has made or that he pleases, and call them his angels, or messengers.' 'Gods, angels, and men are all of one species, one race, one great family.' 'God is a man like unto yourselves; that is the great secret.' Why of course! 'That is the great secret.' God is but an 'exalted man,' and may call Parley Parker Pratt his angel. Parley Parker Pratt was the 'heavenly messenger,' the angel who, on that day (September 22, 1827), appeared to Joseph Smith and told him where were the golden plates, that is, Spaulding's 'Manuscript Found.' Sidney Rigdon for Smith's purposes, was the 'exalted man,' the 'God' who sent this 'heavenly messenger,' Parley Parker Pratt, just as the Mormon people now look upon Joseph Smith as the 'God to this people.'"^[137]

[Footnote 137: American Historical Magazine, Jan., 1907, pp. 60, 61. Ante p. 53.]

One might well consider himself under no obligation to treat seriously such a palpable perversion of Mormon ideas as is here presented. But this taking a piece of Mormon fiction, the "Angel of the Prairies," and misrepresenting it first as a "discourse delivered by Parley P. Pratt at Nauvoo;" thence elevating it from fiction to a sober historical document; thence building upon it this misrepresentation, and perversion of Mormon ideas and historical facts, exhibits in the person of Mr. Schroeder that order of intelligence that could conceive of others following the same process in relation to the Spaulding manuscript, until it was converted into a pretended revelation. I think Mr. Schroeder will not gain much for his "evidence" or his "argument" by this wicked perversion of Mormon ideas and facts of history, since it must suggest the innate weakness of a cause that requires such intellectual dishonesty, as is here exhibited.

It is true that the Mormons are anthropomorphists in that they believe that Jesus Christ is the "brightness of God's glory and the express image of his person"^[138] the revelation of God as well in form as in spiritual attributes; they believe that Jesus Christ is not only divine, but Deity; that he exists now as he did after his resurrection from the dead, an immortal personage of flesh and bones and spirit—hence that God is an exalted man; that he uses other men, perfected and glorified, such as Noah, Moses, Elijah, and others, as his angels and arch-angels and messengers, to aid in the accomplishment of his purposes. But to represent the Latter-day Saints as believing in or accepting such jugglery as that which Mr. Schroeder charges is an outrage and a direct and conscious misrepresentation of the faith of a people. Joseph Smith indeed proclaimed that God appeared to him; in fact he claims that both the Father and the Son appeared to him, but it is blasphemy to think of Rigdon impersonating them, or either of them, in the manner and for the purpose represented by Mr. Schroeder. This revelation moreover was given in 1820, not 1827.^[139] Joseph Smith said an angel visited him and revealed to him the existence of the Book of Mormon; but this was declared to be a very definite personage, a man who had lived in America in the fourth century of the Christian Era, now raised from the dead and sent to make this revelation of the American volume of scripture; he was not Parley P. Pratt; and he revealed the existence of the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith in September, 1823, not 1827.^[140]

[Footnote 138: Hebrews, 1, 3.]

[Footnote 139: See Joseph Smith's own account, "Pearl of Great Price," writings of Joseph Smith and many other Mormon works.]

[Footnote 140: Ibid.]

THE SUPPOSED MEETINGS OF JOSEPH SMITH AND SIDNEY RIGDON BEFORE THE PUBLICATION OF THE BOOK OF MORMON.

Mr. Schroeder after getting the Spaulding manuscript into the hands of Joseph Smith, via Parley P. Pratt, proceeds next to bring Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith together for the necessary collaboration on the manuscript. The chief, and I may say the only, authority that Mr. Schroeder really gives for this charge is that of Pomery Tucker, author of "Origin, Rise and Progress of Mormonism," (1867). Tucker having brought his narrative down to the year 1827, announces the appearance of a "mysterious stranger" at the Smith residence. No name or purpose of this stranger is given out even to the nearest neighbors, but it was observed that "his visits were frequently repeated." Afterwards Tucker makes out this mysterious stranger to be Sidney Rigdon. The other "witnesses," Mrs. Eaton (1881), as also J. H. McCauley, in his "History of Franklin County, Pa.," together with Abel Chase and Lorenzo Saunders, neighbors of the Smiths (the last three are the "witnesses" named by Braden in the "Braden-Kelly Debate," and for which that disputant gives no authority) merely repeat the statement of Tucker. Mr. Schroeder himself in another matter, however, discredits Tucker. In his note 115, he says: "Tucker * * * * says Rigdon officiated at the wedding of Joseph Smith and Emma Hale, but he fixes the date of the wedding in November, 1829, when in fact it seems to have occurred Jan. 18, 1827. Tucker therefore may have been misinformed."^[141] And Joseph Smith, who ought to know, says that he and Emma were married by Esquire Tarbill.^[142]

[Footnote 141: "Origin and Rise and Progress of Mormonism," pp. 28, 46, 75, 121.]

[Footnote 142: "History of the Church," Vol. I, p. 17.]

Lucy Smith, in her "History of the Prophet Joseph," makes mention of a stranger coming to the home of the Smiths in company with Joseph about the time Martin Harris lost 116 pages of the translation of the Book of Mormon. The reason for the stranger accompanying the prophet to his home was the dejection of spirits and illness and physical weakness of the latter, and out of kindness the stranger insisted upon accompanying Joseph home from the point at which he left the stage on which he had traveled from his home in Harmony, Pennsylvania. Mr. Schroeder, of course, seeks to press the incident into service as an evidence of the acquaintance and co-operation of Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon before the Book of Mormon is published; hence as seen through Mr. Schroeder's eyes, the "stranger" is Sidney Rigdon. There is nothing, however, in the narrative of Lucy Smith to warrant the conclusion that this stranger was Sidney Rigdon; and Mr. Schroeder is certainly in error as to the "stranger" being present at the interview between Martin Harris and the Smiths on the next day—the only circumstance that could have made the coming of the "stranger" in any way significant in Mr. Schroeder's theories.^[143]

[Footnote 143: The incident of the "stranger" and Joseph, the prophet is found in chapter XXV of Lucy Smith's "History of Joseph, the Prophet," Mr. Schroeder's reference to the incident is in his note 113.]

Of course, this allegation of the appearance of Rigdon at the Smith home, resting upon no other basis than the fabrication of Tucker, comes in direct conflict with the express statement of both Parley P. Pratt and Sidney Rigdon, but I am not trying this issue upon the per contra testimony of "interested" witnesses. I hold that this particular charge 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 breaks down under its own weight of absurdity. The movements of Joseph Smith and of Sidney Rigdon are too well known to allow of that association taking place, to say nothing of its being kept secret. The distances separating them during those years are too great to be covered by Sidney Rigdon, even if his falsely alleged occasional absences from Ohio were allowed to stand unchallenged. This matter of distance that separated them, together with the slow modes of travel—by carriage or horse-back—badness of roads, etc., seem not to be taken into account at all in the fabrications of Tucker. Sidney Rigdon is operating exclusively in Ohio, in Kirtland and vicinity from 1827 to 1830. Mr. Kelly in his debate with Braden thus summarized the movements of Rigdon during these years from Hayden's "History of the Disciples:"

"The Disciple (Campbellite) history sets forth, that Rigdon was their standing minister for the year 1825, at Bainbridge, Ohio; for the year 1826 at Mentor and Bainbridge; for the year 1827 at Mantua; for the year 1828, at Mentor, and this year is the time when he met Alexander Campbell at Warren, Ohio, at their assembly, where the famous passage at arms took place between Campbell and Rigdon of which so much has been said. The next year, 1829, Rigdon continued the work in Mentor, and at Euclid, and founded the church in Perry, Ohio, Aug. 7th. The next year, 1830, he continued as their minister, (and the ablest of them all), at Mentor, Euclid, Kirtland, and occasionally at Hiram, Perry, Mantua, and Plainsville."^[144]

[Footnote 144: "Braden-Kelly Debate," p. 100.]

Joseph Smith's movements during the years named are between Manchester, New York, Pennsylvania, and Fayette township (where the Whitmers lived), New York; a distance from Ohio points, where Rigdon was operating, by the nearest roads traveled, of from 250 to 300 miles. Does any one believe that the necessary collaboration was possible under such circumstances as Mr. Schroeder's theory of origin for the Book of Mormon calls for?

On this whole question of collaboration, and conspiracy by Rigdon, Pratt and Smith in the production of the Book of Mormon the following paragraph from the writings of Elder George Reynolds is most convincing:

"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 wide spread 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 Whitmers, Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery; further, to carry out 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 [off] 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), 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 retraced 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!"^[145]

[Footnote 145: "Myth of the Manuscript Found," (1883) pp. 35-6.]

The last matter of argument in the quotation above, the unwavering adherence of the witnesses to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the relationship they sustained to that work, has peculiar force when applied to the case of Sidney Rigdon. He claims to have known nothing of the Book of Mormon until it was presented to him (as we shall see later by a statement of his) by Parley P. Pratt and Oliver Cowdery, some six months after its publication. But let us suppose for the sake of the argument, that he really took the part assigned to him by Mr. Schroeder in bringing into existence the Book of Mormon; that he stole the Spaulding "Manuscript Found" about 1816; that hearing of Smith through Pratt, he then sent the said manuscript to Smith to be announced as a revelation from God; that afterwards he collaborated with Smith to produce the Book of Mormon out of it. It will go without saying that a thief, and especially such a thief as Rigdon is here represented to be, is a very ignoble character; and it will not be too much to say that if such a character is hard pressed by his associates, or is, what he might consider, ill treated by them, he will very-probably betray them. Sidney Rigdon certainly considered himself both hard pressed and positively wronged by his brethren—but he never "revealed" the "fraud" in which Mormonism is supposed to have had its origin. Joseph Smith sought to be rid of him as his counselor at the October Conference of 1843. He directly charged Rigdon with treachery, of being leagued with his deadly enemies, and that he had no confidence in his "integrity and steadfastness;" that Rigdon had been profitless to him as a counselor since their escape from Missouri in 1839. By virtue of a vigorous denial on the part of Rigdon as to some of the charges, and a plea for mercy as to some delinquencies confessed, he was sustained by the conference in his office of counselor to the Prophet, notwithstanding the latter was not satisfied with the conclusion of the matter reached by the conference. "I have thrown him off my shoulders," said he, "and you have again put him upon me. You may carry him, but I will not."^[146]

[Footnote 146: Millenial Star, Vol. 22, pp. 215-16.]

After the death of the prophet, Sidney Rigdon put in a claim for precedence in authority, claiming that right by virtue of his office as counselor to the prophet now martyred. The priesthood of the church assembled as a body to hear the cause, President Brigham Young presenting the counter claims of the Twelve Apostles as the proper presiding authority in the absence of the First Presidency. Sidney Rigdon was rejected by that body of the priesthood;^[147] and shortly after left Nauvoo full of disappointment and bitterness; but he never in those trying days, or in any of the subsequent years of his life, by hint or direct charge or confession, revealed any "fraud" in which Mormonism is supposed to have had its origin; but on the contrary, as we shall see, emphatically reaffirmed his true relationship to the work, and his faith in it.

[Footnote 147: Millennial Star, Vol. 25, pp. 215, 279.]

There is one person, however, who undertakes to say that Sidney Rigdon "revealed" the secret concerning the origin of the Book of Mormon. This is Clark Braden, who quotes one James Jeffries of St. Louis, as saying in substance that in the fall of 1844, Rigdon in several conversations admitted to him the existence of the Spaulding manuscript; that it traced the origin of the Indians from the lost tribes of Israel; that the manuscript was within his reach for several years; that "He (Rigdon) and Joe Smith used to look over the manuscript and read it on Sundays. Rigdon said Smith took the manuscript and said 'I'll print it,' and went off to Palmyra, New York." On this "testimony," the Reverend Clark Braden comments: "On his way from Nauvoo to Pittsburg (in the fall of 1844) he (Rigdon) called on his old acquaintance, Mr. Jeffries, in St. Louis, and in his anger at the Mormons, he let out the secrets of Mormonism, just as he told the Mormons he would if they did not make him their leader."^[148] This "evidence," however, since it costs him nothing to set aside such palpable absurdity, Mr. Schroeder, with a show of bigness and condescension, discredits by saying: "an alleged admission of Sidney Rigdon to James Jeffries I consider of doubtful value."^[149] In this case, as in that of the item presented by Mrs. Ellen E. Dickinson, to the effect that it was "remembered" by some of the Conneaut witnesses in 1834, that the "Spaulding manuscript was the translation of the Book of Mormon"—the "evidence" manufactured in support of the Spaulding theory of origin, becomes a little too raw for Mr. Schroeder, and his gorge rises at it, and with an air of superiority he "considers it doubtful!"

[Footnote 148: "Braden-Kelly Debate," p. 42.]

[Footnote 149: American Historical Magazine, Jan., 1907, p. 75 and note 115. Ante p. 55 and Note.]

Closely connected with Sidney Rigdon's relationship to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is another matter several times alluded to by Mr. Schroeder, in common with all other advocates of the Spaulding theory of origin, namely, the assumption that "Joseph Smith, the nominal founder and first prophet of Mormonism, was probably too ignorant to have produced the volume unaided." It is because of this assumed inability of Joseph Smith to produce the book that the Spaulding manuscript and Sidney Rigdon are brought into the scheme of production. And yet it is clearly demonstrable that Joseph Smith did not need the assistance of either Spaulding or of Sidney Rigdon in the production of a book equal, if not superior, to the Book of Mormon from a literary standpoint. I refer to the "Book of Doctrine and Covenants." It is true this book was not published until 1835; but the revelations of which it is composed began in 1828, and by the close of 1833, one hundred and one of the revelations forming the major part of the book, were received and are of record.

There can be no question as to the authorship of this book. Joseph Smith—under a divine inspiration, as Latter-day Saints believe—dictated these revelations, and in this way he is their author; and they disclose a literary force and beauty far ahead of the Book of Mormon. If any one shall doubt it, let him read and compare sections 20, 42, 76, 84, 88, and 107 of the "Doctrine and Covenants," with the Book of Mormon. Any part of the book would demonstrate what is here claimed, but these sections particularly demonstrate it. Moreover in all published documents in the current periodicals of the Church, those that may be referred respectively to Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, will disclose the superior excellence in every respect of those produced by the former, over those produced by the latter.

This Spaulding theory, moreover, supposes the necessity of a superior intelligence to Joseph Smith in the production of the Book of Mormon—in the inception of the "Mormon fraud." But will some one explain—for Mr. Schroeder fails us at this point—how it is that Sidney Rigdon, as soon as the Book of Mormon is launched, though having been up to this point the "master Spirit" of Mormonism, now suddenly falls into second place in the development of Mormonism, and becomes merely the scribe of the Prophet, as Mr. Schroeder himself points out. It should be remembered that in 1827, the year in which Mr. Schroeder brings them together for the work of collaboration, Rigdon was thirty-four years old, Joseph Smith but twenty-two; and when the Church was organized, Joseph was but twenty-five and Rigdon thirty-seven. With Rigdon's better education (which is granted), how comes it that this man, superior in education and knowledge of the world, and of greater age, consents to occupy second place to Joseph Smith? If Rigdon was the great moving spirit of Mormonism during its incubation, why did he not continue so after the Book of Mormon was printed? The answer is that Sidney Rigdon never was the prophet's superior in talents or even in literary power of expression.

Then, again, in this connection, I call attention to the fact that if the Book of Mormon had been produced as charged by Mr. Schroeder, it would not have been so full of petty errors in grammar and the faulty use of words as is found in the first edition of the Book of Mormon. While entertaining no exalted opinion of the education of either Mr. Spaulding or of Mr. Rigdon, and the works of both are before me, on which to base that judgment, yet I cannot conceive it possible that they, even though but half educated, would make such language errors as appear in the first edition. Take for example the following passages from said first edition of the Book of Mormon—speaking of the Urim and Thummim it says:

"And the things are called interpreters; and no man can look in them, except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he had not ought, and he should perish; * * * but a seer can know of things which has past and also of things which is to come * * * and hidden things shall come to light, and things which is not known shall be made known by them." (Page 173.)

"Blessed are they who humbleth themselves without being compelled to be humble." (Page 314.)

"Little children doth have words given unto them many times which doth confound the wise and the learned." (Page 315.)

"But they had fell into great errors, for they would not observe to keep the commandments of God." (Page 310.)

Such errors as the foregoing occur frequently throughout the first edition of the Book of Mormon. They are ingrained in it; they are constitutional faults. And while perfectly explicable on the supposition that one unlearned in the grammar of the English language, as confessedly Joseph Smith was, obtaining the thought from the Nephite characters in which the Book of Mormon was written, but left to express said thought in such faulty English as he was master of;[150]—yet utterly inexplicable on the supposition that the manuscript from which the Book of Mormon was printed was written by Solomon Spaulding and revamped by Sidney Rigdon. The errors in grammar and the occasional wrong use of words are just such errors as would be made by Joseph Smith, an unlettered youth, in working out the translation, but just the errors that such educated men as Spaulding and Rigdon would pride themselves in avoiding. I am of the opinion that this consideration alone would be sufficient to convince a candid mind that whoever wrote the Book of Mormon, neither Sidney Rigdon nor Solomon Spaulding ever wrote it, or any part of it.

[Footnote 150: For an exposition and defense of this theory of the translation of the Book of Mormon, see the author's treatise of the subject, in "Defense of the Faith and the Saints," Vol. I, (1907) pp. 249-311.]

In this connection I also call attention to the fact that it is utterly impossible that the Book of Mormon should be the Solomon Spaulding story, "Manuscript Found," plus the religious matter supposed to have been supplied by Sidney Rigdon. This is the claim of all Spauldingite theorists, including Mr. Schroeder. It is based upon the assumption of Joseph Smith's lack of knowledge of theological subjects and controversies. If the book, however, was constructed as the Spaulding theorists claim it was, the line of cleavage would be apparent; the necessarily incongruous parts must be discernible: but no critic has yet appeared bold enough to point out which was originally Spaulding's, and which the Rigdon addition. The fact of the matter is there is no line of cleavage; no point at which one ends and the other begins. You might just as well talk about a line of cleavage between what the element of earth and what the element of sunshine has contributed to the coloring of the pansy or the rose, as to try to indicate what is the religious part added to the Book of Mormon by Rigdon, and what the historical part supplied by Spaulding. The religious and historical parts of the Book of Mormon are perfectly fused. They can no more be separated than sunlight and sun-warmth can be separated from our earth's atmosphere. As the sun's rays penetrate and permeate our earth's atmosphere, so the religious elements, incidents and spirit alike, permeate the Book of Mormon—in it they are one and inseparable.

OF THE CONVERSION OF PRATT AND RIGDON.

As part of Mr. Schroeder's chain of evidence, by which he hopes to establish the cumulative proofs that Pratt, Rigdon and Joseph Smith connived in palming off upon the world the Spaulding manuscript as a revelation—the Book of Mormon—he points to discrepancies in the published accounts of the suddenness or slowness of Pratt's and Rigdon's conversions. Holding that the accounts of their sudden and miraculous conversion, had to be modified, and, in fact, concealed lest they should lead to the suspicion of connivance, if Rigdon and Pratt should be found giving too ready a credence to the Book of Mormon. Of the variations pointed out in Pratt's conversion it is only necessary to say that they are such variations, so slight and unimportant, that if it is considered that they are made by different persons, or, as in the case of Pratt himself, on widely separated occasions, the variations are the sure witnesses that the account is not a concocted one. In the case of one of the authorities quoted, Lucy Smith, mother of the prophet, and author of the "Life of the Prophet Joseph," Mr. Schroeder should be corrected. He states, following a misapprehension of Orson Pratt's, in order to make his statement of more force, that Lucy Smith's book was written under the supervision of Joseph Smith.^[151] This is not true, as Lucy Smith did not begin to write her book until after the martyrdom of her son Joseph. It was in the fall of the year of 1844 that she began her work, and the prophet was killed in June of that year, all of which could have been learned by Mr. Schroeder by consulting the foot notes of the edition of Lucy Smith's book published by the Reorganized Church, in 1880.^[152]

[Footnote 151: American Historical Magazine, Jan., 1907, p. 67. Ante p. 61.]

[Footnote 152: "Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet," by Lucy Smith, p. 90, foot notes.]

The discrepancy as to the time element in the conversion of Sidney Rigdon—as to whether it was two days after Pratt and Cowdery's arrival at Kirtland, or two weeks—may not be as satisfactorily accounted for as in the case of Parley P. Pratt. Still the chief authority for Mr. Schroeder's whole theory of the Spaulding origin of the Book of Mormon favors the longer period for the conversion of Rigdon, since Mr. Howe represents that the "sudden" conversion of Rigdon occurred "after many pretensions to disbelieve it."^[153] Furthermore, in view of the whole question here debated, and the overwhelming evidences educed against the contentions of Mr. Schroeder, the matter of the time it took to convert Sidney Rigdon to Mormonism is of but slight importance.

[Footnote 153: "Mormonism Unveiled," Howe, p. 290.]

THE DENIALS OF RIGDON.

Mr. Schroeder throughout his argument, intermittently seeks to add force to his "evidence" by saying that Sidney Rigdon never denied this, that, or the other statement though made in his life time. He notices only Rigdon's denial published in the Boston Journal in 1839, and represents it as "absolutely the only recorded public denial ever made by Rigdon, though from 1834 to 1876 he was almost continually under the fire of this charge, reiterated in various forms and with varying proofs."^[154] Of course, Mr. Schroeder is allowed to speak with some degree of authority upon the anti-Mormon side of this controversy; but for all that there are some things he does not seem to know about Sidney Rigdon's denials and affirmations. It may be that of the several statements to which Mr. Schroeder attaches the remark of Rigdon's silence, Rigdon never saw one of them; and there is one denial made by Mr. Rigdon that Mr. Schroeder has failed to note, made in 1836; and which, since it is general in its character, may be made to cover the whole period in which Mr. Rigdon is said to have made no denial. In the January number of the Latter-day Saints' Messenger and Advocate, after denouncing Howe's book and those who advocate it, and referring to Mr. Scott, Mr. Campbell and other professed ministers, he says:

[Footnote 154: American Historical Magazine, Nov., 1906, p. 527.]

"In order to avoid investigation this brotherhood will condescend to mean, low subterfuges, to which a noble-minded man would never condescend; no, he would suffer martyrdom first. 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."^[155]

[Footnote 155: Messenger and Advocate, Jan., 1836, p. 242.]

Inasmuch as Howe's book, published in 1834, charges Rigdon's complicity with the whole procedure by which the Book of Mormon is alleged to have been produced out of the Spaulding manuscript, and Rigdon above denounces Howe's book as "a batch of falsehoods," we may say there has been in existence ever since January, 1836, Rigdon's denial of the whole Spaulding theory of his complicity with a scheme to deceive men in respect of the Book of Mormon.

However, if that is not sufficient to be convincing, then I wish to produce a well authenticated denial of the most sweeping and convincing nature. John W. Rigdon, the son of Sidney Rigdon, has written a somewhat extended biography of his father which he has filed in its manuscript form in the Church Historian's Office at Salt Lake City. In this narrative he relates his own experience in connection with Mormonism, and his attempt to learn the truth from his father respecting the latter's early connection with the Book of Mormon. He tells of his visit to Utah, in 1863, where he spent the winter among the Mormon people. He was not favorably impressed with their religious life, and came to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon itself was a fraud. He determined in his own heart that if ever he returned home and found his father alive, he would try and find out what he knew of the origin of the Book of Mormon, "although," he adds, "he had never told but one story about it, and that was that Parley P. Pratt and Oliver Cowdery presented him with a bound volume of that book in the year 1830, while he [Sidney Rigdon] was preaching Campbellism at Mentor, Ohio." What John W. Rigdon claims to have seen in Utah, however, together with the fact that Sidney Rigdon had been charged with writing the Book of Mormon, made him suspicious, and he remarks:

"I concluded I would make an investigation for my own satisfaction and find out if I could if he had all these years been deceiving his family and the world, by telling that which was not true, and I was in earnest about it. If Sidney Rigdon, my father, had thrown his life away by telling a falsehood and bringing sorrow and disgrace upon his family, I wanted to know it and was determined to find out the facts, no matter what the consequences might be. I reached home in the fall of 1865, found my father in good health and (he) was very much pleased to see me. As he had not heard anything from me for some time, he was afraid that I had been killed by the Indians. Shortly after I had arrived home, I went to my father's room; he was there and alone, and now was the time for me to commence my inquiries in regard to the origin of the Book of Mormon, and as to the truth of the Mormon religion. I told him what I had seen at Salt Lake City, and I said to him that what I had seen at Salt Lake had not impressed me very favorably toward the Mormon Church, and as to the origin of the Book of Mormon I had some doubts. 'You have been charged with writing that book and giving it to Joseph Smith to introduce to the world. You have always told me one story; that you never saw this book until it was presented to you by Parley P. Pratt and Oliver Cowdery; and all you ever knew of the origin of that book was what they told you and what Joseph Smith and the witnesses who claimed to have seen the plates had told you. Is this true? If so, all right; if it is not, you owe it to me and to your family to tell it. You are an old man and will soon pass away, and I wish to know if Joseph Smith, in your intimacy with him for fourteen years, has not said something to you that led you to believe he obtained that book in some other way than what he had told you. Give me all you know about it, that I may know the truth.' My father, after I had finished saying what I have repeated above, looked at me a moment, raised his hand above his head and slowly said, with tears glistening in his eyes: 'My son, I can swear before high heaven that what I have told you about the origin of that book is true. Your mother and sister, (Mrs. Athalia Robinson), were present when that book was handed to me in Mentor, Ohio, and all I ever knew about the origin of that book was what Parley P. Pratt, Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith and the witnesses who claimed they saw the plates have told me, and in all of my intimacy with Joseph Smith he never told me but the one story, and that was that he found it engraved upon gold plates in a hill near Palmyra, New York, and that an angel had appeared to him and directed him where to find it; and I have never, to you or any one else, told but the one story, and that I now repeat to you.' I believed him, and now believe he told me the truth. He also said to me after that that Mormonism was true; that Joseph Smith was a Prophet, and this world would find it out some day."^[156]

[Footnote 156: "Life of Sidney Rigdon," by his son, John W. Rigdon, ms. pp. 188-195. The passages quoted in the text will be found in the "History of the Church," Vol. I, pp. 112-3. Also "Y.M.M.I.A. Manual" for 1905-6, pp. 485-6.]

Not only does John W. Rigdon give this valuable statement as to his father's position respecting the Book of Mormon, but he adds the following from his mother:

"After my father's death, my mother, who survived him several years, was in the enjoyment of good health up to the time of her last sickness, she being eighty-six years old. A short time before her death I had a conversation with her about the origin of the Book of Mormon, and wanted to know what she remembered about its being presented to my father. She said to me in that conversation that what my father had told me about the book being presented to him was true, for she was present at the time and knew that was the first time he ever saw it, and that the stories told about my father writing the Book of Mormon were not true. This she said to me in her old age, and when the shadows of the grave were gathering around her; and I believe her."^[157]

[Footnote 157: "History of the Church," Vol. I, p. 123, note.]

THE REAL ORIGIN OF THE SPAULDING THEORY.

A word upon the real origin of the Spaulding theory. It did not originate by a "woman preacher,"^[158] reading extracts from the Book of Mormon whereupon there was a "spontaneous" recognition of Solomon Spaulding's story "Manuscript Found," and an outburst of popular indignation against this deception, as is usually represented to be the case by those who advocate the Spaulding theory, and by Mr. Schroeder in particular.^[159] Especially is Mr. Schroeder insistent upon the "spontaneity" with which the Spaulding work was recognized when the Book of Mormon was publicly read at Conneaut; though to get this "spontaneity" Mr. Schroeder must needs rely upon the Davidson statement which he acknowledges. Mrs. Davidson never wrote, and which he says can have no "evidentiary weight except in those matters where it is plain from the nature of things that she must have been speaking from her own personal knowledge"^[160] and in the matter here to be mentioned Mrs. Davidson could have had no personal knowledge at all. So that Mr. Schroeder throws aside his own limitations within which Mrs. Davidson's statement is to be given evidentiary weight, in the interest of his desire for the force of "spontaneity" in the recognition of the Book of Mormon as Spaulding's work. According to the Davidson statement, then, when the "woman preacher" in a public meeting read extracts from the Book of Mormon, John Spaulding, residing at Conneaut at the time, and present at the meeting—

[Footnote 158: It is claimed that the words "woman preacher" found in the Davidson statement was a typographical error, (see Clark's "Gleanings by the Way,") and should read "Mormon preacher;" bu the typographical error being claimed after it was learned that the mormon Church at that time had no women preachers, gives it the color of one of those "afterthoughts" which are so frequently seen in this Spaulding theory, that one in spite of himself remains doubtful.]

[Footnote 159: American Historical Magazine, Jan., 1907, p. 71. Ante p. 67.]

[Footnote 160: American Historical Magazine, Sept., 1906, p. 394. Ante p. 29.]

"Recognized perfectly the work of his brother. He was amazed and afflicted that it should have been perverted to so wicked a purpose. His grief found vent in a flood of tears, and he rose on the spot, and expressed to the meeting his sorrow and regret that the writings of his deceased brother should be used for a purpose so vile and shocking. The excitement in New Salem (Conneaut) became so great that the inhabitants had a meeting and deputed Dr. Philastus Hurlburt one of their number to repair to this place (Monson) and to obtain from me (Mrs. [Spaulding] Davidson) the original manuscript of Mr. Spaulding."

One marvels that all this was missed by the authors of "Mormonism Unveiled." Dr. Hurlburt was present, too, in that meeting, and was the chief agent and factor in compiling Howe's book. Yet in the statement published in that book, and credited to John Spaulding, there is not a word of this dramatic circumstance—this splendid "spontaneity," so much the joy of Mr. Schroeder. There is no "agony of grief;" no "flood of tears;" no "denunciation on the spot;" no reference to a purpose "vile and shocking;" just a plain statement that he had "recently read the Book of Mormon;" and the claim that he found nearly the same historical matter in it as in his brother's writings; some names that were alike; and that the "Manuscript Found" held to the theory that the American Indians were descendants of the "lost tribes;" evidently supposing that the Book of Mormon held the same theory. Had any such circumstance as described in the Davidson statement occurred, it would undoubtedly have appeared in John Spaulding's statement published by Howe five years before this second version was put forth.

But notwithstanding the bad odor of the whole Davidson statement, and the violation of his own principle, under which only it is to be considered possessed of evidentiary weight, Mr. Schroeder uses this highly dramatic fiction to introduce his "clinching" evidence of the plagiarism charged against those responsible for the publication of the Book of Mormon.

The true story of the origin of this Spaulding theory is as follows: When Dr. Hurlburt was finally excommunicated from the Church he took to lecturing against the Mormons, holding forth first at Springfield, Erie County, Penn., some distance east of Conneaut. Finally visiting the Jackson settlement (presumably in the same county) he learned, from one of the Jacksons, of Solomon Spaulding, and that he had written a story called "Manuscript Found." "Not that any of these persons," says my authority, who was well acquainted in the Jackson Settlement, also with Dr. Hurlburt, and attended his anti-Mormon meetings in the neighborhood—"not that any of these persons had the most distant idea that his [Spaulding's] novel had ever been converted into the Book of Mormon; or that there was any connection between them."^[161]

[Footnote 161: "Origin of the Spaulding Story" (1840), B. Winchester, p. 8.]

It was the conception of Dr. Hurlburt that this Spaulding manuscript could be used in concocting a counter theory for the origin of the Book of Mormon—"a long felt want," by the way, among those who opposed the book and the work growing out of it. With the information he had obtained in the Jackson Settlement, Hurlburt repairs to Kirtland, holds a public meeting, at which there is great joy, and enthusiasm among the anti-Mormons in that vicinity, because of Hurlburt's theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon. One Mr. Newel, a bitter anti-Mormon, promised to advance $300 for prosecuting the work of identification, and others contributed liberally for the same purpose. Out of this meeting grew the public meeting held later at Conneaut;^[162] and which sent Hurlburt upon his journey to Monson, Mass., for Spaulding's manuscript which ultimately he obtained of Mr. Jerome Clark at Hartwicks, New York, on the order of Mrs. (Spaulding) Davidson. This manuscript Hurlburt brought to E. D. Howe of Plainsville, Ohio, for the forth-coming book, "Mormonism Unveiled." It was a disappointment to these conspirators, as already detailed; and as explained by Hurlburt in a letter to Mrs. Davidson, "It did not read as expected, and he should not print it."^[163]

[Footnote 162: Ibid. pp. 6-14.]

[Footnote 163: See Haven-Davidson Interview. Ante p. 147.]

In passing, it should be said that Hurlburt never received but the one manuscript. The theory put forth that he obtained two, one the true "Manuscript Found," which it is alleged, he sold to the Mormons,—as is the suspicion of the Spauldings—and a worthless one, the Roman manuscript, now at Oberlin, which he gave to Howe, is one of the many fictions that have grown out of the innumerable surmisings and conjectures associated with the Spaulding theory. Hurlburt himself says on this point, in a signed statement under date of August 19, 1879:

"I do not know whether or not the document I received from Mrs. Davidson was Spaulding's Manuscript Found, as I never read it entire, and it convinced me that it was not the Spaulding Manuscript; but whatever it was, Mr. Howe received it under the condition on which I took it from Mrs. Davidson—to compare it with the Book of Mormon, and then return it to her. I never received any other manuscript of Spaulding's from Mrs. Davidson, or any one else. Of that manuscript I made no other use than to give it, with all my other documents connected with Mormonism, to Mr. Howe. I did not destroy the manuscript nor dispose or it to Joe Smith, or to any other person."^[164]

[Footnote 164: "New Light on Mormonism," appendix, p. 260, No. 17. Letter from Hurlburt; also no. 8, another letter from Hurlburt, and No. 16 a letter from Howe.]

This manuscript received by Hurlburt and given to Howe is the only Spaulding manuscript written by Spaulding, making any reference to the antiquities of America. It is the simon-pure and only "Manuscript Found." Against this it is urged by Mr. Schroeder that "no such title is discoverable anywhere upon or in the body of the manuscript in the Oberlin library."^[165] And yet with strange inconsistency he himself a few pages further on admits—"It is even possible that this first manuscript (meaning the one now at Oberlin), may at sometime have been labeled "Manuscript Found."^[166] But what is better than any "label" on the manuscript inside or outside; better than any admission of Mr. Schroeder's, is the fact that this manuscript is the one Mr. Spaulding feigned to have found, and that he pretended to translate into English. It is the "found" manuscript, and the only one that Spaulding pretended or feigned to have found. It is the one that Mrs. McKinstry says she had in her hands "many times" at Sabine's after 1816; and that "on the outside of this manuscript were written the words, 'Manuscript Found.'"

[Footnote 165: American Historical Magazine, Sept., 1906, p. 386. Ante p. 20.]

[Footnote 166: Ibid. p. 390.]

Perhaps it was this positive statement that drove Mr. Schroeder to the admission that it is possible that this manuscript at Oberlin may have been so labeled. The descriptions of the Spaulding manuscript called "Manuscript Found," by others, who had knowledge of it, agree very nearly as to its size, and their descriptions fit the manuscript at Oberlin and not at all such manuscript as would be required to make the Book of Mormon. Thus, Mrs. McKinstry says that the manuscript she had in her hands many times at Sabine's, and that was tied up with some other stories, and had written on the outside of it, "Manuscript Found," made the manuscript about "one inch thick." Mrs. (Spaulding) Davidson in the Haven interview says her husband's manuscript was "about one third as large as the Book of Mormon." (i.e., about one third as much, Ms. as would be required to make the Book of Mormon). The Davidson statement represents that John Spaulding was perfectly familiar with the work of his brother, "Manuscript Found," "and repeatedly heard the whole of it read," which might be possible with the Spaulding manuscript, which, now that it is printed, makes 112 pages, but scarcely possible respecting a manuscript making a book of about 600 such pages.

This manuscript of Spaulding's has finally been really "found" and published as already detailed; and its publication has resulted in the overthrow of the Spaulding theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon; and that quite in another way than from disclosing the fact that there is no incident, or name, or set of ideas common to the two productions. The publication of the "Manuscript Found" not only demonstrates that this particular manuscript was not the foundation of the Book of Mormon, but it demonstrates, also, that no other writings of Solomon Spaulding's could possibly be the Book of Mormon. Spaulding's manuscript, as published, makes a pamphlet of some 112 pages, of about 350 words to the page, enough matter to give a clear idea of his literary style. I am sure that no person, having any literary judgment will think it possible for the author of "Manuscript Found" to be the author of the Book of Mormon.

Composition in writers becomes individualized as distinctly as the looks, or appearance, or character, of separate individuals; and they no more write in several styles than individuals impersonate different characters. True, by special efforts this latter may be done to a limited extent by a change of tone, costume and the like, but underneath these impersonations is to be seen the real individual; and so with authors. One may sometimes affect a light, and sometimes a serious vein, in prose and poetry. He may imitate a solemn scriptural style even, or the diction of some Greek or Roman author, but underneath it all will be seen the individuality of the writer from which he cannot separate himself any more than he can separate himself from his true form, features, or character. Since we have in this "Manuscript Found" enough of Mr. Spaulding's style to determine its nature, if this manuscript of his was used either as the foundation or the complete work of the Book of Mormon, we would be able to detect Spauldingisms in it; identity of style would be apparent; but these things are entirely absent from every page of the Book of Mormon. Mr. Rice, in whose possession the Spaulding manuscript was found in 1884, does not over-state the matter when he says: "I should as soon think that 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." And again, he is right when he says: "It is unlikely that any one who wrote so elaborate a work as the Mormon Bible, would spend his time in getting up so shallow a story as this"—i. e., the Spaulding Story.

THE MOTIVE FOR PUBLISHING THE BOOK OF MORMON.

It must be said for Mr. Schroeder that his theory of the motive prompting the publication of the Book of Mormon is quite in harmony with his theory of its origin. For it is fitting that a thing founded in fraud should—and it very likely would—have the "greed of gain" as the "dynamics of the scheme;" and that "love of gold, not God," would be the moving cause of action. The only point at which Mr. Schroeder breaks down in his theory of the motive, is just where he breaks down in his theory of origin—namely, in the proof.

The excerpts from the revelations quoted by Mr. Schroeder fail as proofs for his assumption. He ranges all through the numerous revelations given to the Church from 1830 to 1841. Of the thirteen excerpts quoted by him two only have any bearing upon the Book of Mormon; and these two are from a revelation to Martin Harris, who had covenanted with Joseph Smith and with the publisher of the book, Mr. Grandin, that he would pay for printing it. Yet when the time came to make good his plighted word, he hesitated; whereupon the word of the Lord came, as quoted by Mr. Schroeder: "Impart a portion of thy property; yea, even part of thy lands, and all save the support of thy family." So far Mr. Schroeder quotes. The very next paragraph (35) of the revelation goes on—"Pay the debt thou has contracted with the printer. Release thyself from bondage"—(i. e. the bondage of debt). Again Mr. Schroeder quotes (verse 26) "I command that thou shalt not covet thine own property." The full paragraph is: "And again I command thee, that thou shalt not covet thine own property, but impart it freely to the printing of the Book of Mormon, which contains the truth and the word of God."^[167] Just where in these passages, which are the only ones out of those quoted from the "Doctrine and Covenants" that bear at all on the Book of Mormon—just wherein they bear witness to the "greed of gain" being the motive that prompted the publication of the book; or how they sustain the idea that "love of gold, not God" was the "dynamics of the scheme," I fail to see.

[Footnote 167: "Doctrine and Covenants," Sec. 19:34, 35, 36.]

As for the rest of the passages quoted by Mr. Schroeder, they fall into two classes: first, those that relate to the consecration of properties to the Church; and second, those that command that provisions be made for the sustenance of Joseph Smith and others who were devoting their energies to the work of the Lord. In relation to the first class it will make matters clear for the reader to know that the Saints were called upon to recognize this principle: The earth is the Lord's. He created it. It is his, by virtue of proprietorship; consequently all that man holds, of the world's wealth is held as a stewardship under God. To give visible recognition to this truth, the Saints were commanded in Missouri to consecrate their property to the Lord through his servants, and receive back a stewardship as from the Lord; and this in order that the great truth of man's mere stewardship over that which he is said to possess—coming now to be recognized by the best Christian thought of the age as the proper attitude of mind for the believer in God, in respect of his material possessions—might once for all be established as a doctrine of the Church, emphasized by this visible act of consecration.

As to the second class of quotations directing that provisions shall be made for the material needs of Joseph Smith and his family—is it necessary to argue at this late day what Paul seems to have settled long ago, viz: "They which minister about holy things, live of the things of the temple. * * * * Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel."^[168] Is not the justice of this principle universally recognized? I say Mr. Schroeder breaks down at the production of proof for his theory as to motive. And his ringing the changes upon this subject has but the sound of brass when applied to Joseph Smith personally or to all the leaders of the Mormon Church from its inception. Never have a people been more blessed with unselfish leaders than the Latter-day Saints. Men blessed with divine insight and power have given their services, practically without renumeration, for the welfare of their people. They have labored in season and out of season for them. They have given not only a teaching service, tending to make the truth clear, but they have given freely of their business ability, executive and judicial abilities. Men of statesman-like quality of mind have devoted their lives to their people, and practically without earthly reward, and many of them, the most of them, in fact, have died poor in this world's goods, but rich in the consciousness of service for fellow-men well performed.

[Footnote 168: I Corinthians 9:13, 14.]

I write these words from the midst of a people, who, when they read them, will think of hundreds of men who have lived and wrought out life's service among them, in the very spirit here described. "Greed of gain" furnish "the dynamics" of the Mormon scheme! "Love of gold, not of God," the motive force in Mormonism! "A desire for money" "the inspiring cause of every act of the Mormon Prophet, the very divinity that moulded his thoughts and revelations, and brought into being Mormon's books!"^[169] Nonsense, Mr. Schroeder; you have studied human nature as well as Mormonism to little purpose if you really think so. Joseph Smith was loved by his people to the verge of idolization. He won and kept that love of theirs to the day of his death. He had the satisfaction of seeing one of his great prophecies fulfilled—a prophecy given out from a prison cell, in 1839, and when his fortunes were fallen to their lowest point—when his enemies seemed to triumph, and traitors were arrayed against him-then came the assurance from God—"Thy people shall never be turned against thee by the testimony of traitors."^[170] And they never were, either before his death or since. "Greed of gold," selfishness; "Love of gold, not God," does not produce these results. Selfishness never wins or holds hearts. Only a life that pours out itself in floods of unselfish service for others wins and holds affections. Such was the life of Joseph Smith, such the lives of Mormon leaders.

[Footnote 169: American Historical Magazine, May, 1907, p. 221. Ante pp. 80-81.]

[Footnote 170: "Doctrine and Covenants," Sec. 122.]

CONCLUDING REMARKS.

And now my task draws towards its close. My purpose in this paper, in the main, has been merely to refute the theory, together with the alleged evidences and arguments of Mr. Schroeder. My method has been to refute him largely out of the material and authorities which he himself has introduced. And of course this has kept the discussion of the origin of the Book of Mormon within narrow limits. This paper has been more in the nature of a rejoinder than anything else to Mr. Schroeder's reply to the theory set forth by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the origin of the Book of Mormon.

By this undesigned order of the discussion and by its necessary limitations, the reader is at the disadvantage of not having immediately before him the theory of the divine origin of the Book of Mormon, sustained by the strong array of evidences and arguments, that may be marshalled in its support.^[171] But it will help in forming a right conclusion as to the merits of this discussion if what is here suggested be held in mind, namely: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sets forth the claim of a divine origin for the Book of Mormon, sustained by special witnesses, whom God raised up to testify of that origin; sustained also, as that Church believes, by a world of evidences, both external and internal. To this Mr. Schroeder has offered a counter-theory of origin, the "Spaulding Theory," to which I have made this rejoinder. My effort has had no higher aim than this, believing that nothing more was required of me under the circumstances. If my paper shall prove to be, as I think it must, a successful rejoinder; if it exhibits how inherently weak, and foolish this Spaulding theory is, even when most skillfully set forth; if it exhibits the tissue of falsehood and of malice, of which that theory is made up; and the bitterness and hatred in which it had its inception; and exposes the dishonest sophistry by which that theory has been supported,—I shall be content.

B. H. ROBERTS.

Salt Lake City, Jan., 1909.

[Footnote 171: For an extended treatise on this subject see the writer's "New Witness for God," published as Young Men's Manuals, Nos. 7, 8 and 9, 1903-1906. Now published in a series of three volumes under the title "New Witnesses for God," Vol. I treats of Joseph Smith as a New Witness; Vols. II and III is the treatise on the Book of Mormon as A New Witness for God.]