FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Criticism of Mormonism/Books/No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith/Chapter 10
Response to claims made in "Chapter 10: The Army of the Lord"
| Claims made in "Chapter 9: Expulsion from Eden" | A FAIR Analysis of: No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, a work by author: Fawn Brodie
|
Claims made in "Chapter 11: Patronage and Punishment" |
| Claim Evaluation |
| No Man Knows My History |
|
Response to claims made in No Man Knows My History, "Chapter 10: The Army of the Lord"
Jump to details:
- Response to claim: 143 - neighbors of Solomon Spalding recalled that the Spalding manuscript that matched "an astonishing number of details" from the Book of Mormon
- Response to claim: 144 - The Spalding manuscript bore no resemblance to the Book of Mormon
- Response to claim: 144 - Martin Harris was brought to trial before the High Council because he claimed the Joseph Smith had "drunk too much liquor" while translating the Book of Mormon
- Response to claim: 145 - Hurlbut's affidavits were published by E.D. Howe in Mormonism Unvailed'
- Response to claim: 145 - Brigham Young stated, before he even met Joseph Smith, that he would follow Joseph even if he were to get "drunk every day of his life, sleep with his neighbor's wife every night"
- Response to claim: 147-148 - suggestion to change the name of the Church from the Church of Christ to the Church of Latter-day Saints in order to avoid the names "Mormon" and "Mormonite"
- Response to claim: 149 - Joseph found a skeleton of a Lamanite warrior named "Zelf"
Response to claim: 143 - neighbors of Solomon Spalding recalled that the Spalding manuscript that matched "an astonishing number of details" from the Book of Mormon
The author(s) of No Man Knows My History make(s) the following claim:
Under Hurlbut's "excited prodding," neighbors of Solomon Spalding recalled that the Spalding manuscript that matched "an astonishing number of details" from the Book of Mormon twenty years after they had heard the manuscript read aloud.Author's sources:
- Author's opinion
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event
Brodie is being sarcastic here - she wasn't buying the Spalding theory of Book of Mormon origin.
<onlyinclude>
- REDIRECTThe Hurlbut affidavits
Response to claim: 144 - The Spalding manuscript bore no resemblance to the Book of Mormon
The author(s) of No Man Knows My History make(s) the following claim:
The Spalding manuscript bore no resemblance to the Book of Mormon.Author's sources:
- Spalding manuscript published by the Reorganized Church in 1885 under the title The Manuscript Found, or the Manuscript Story of the late Rev. Solomon Spaulding.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event
This is true. Brodie's rejection marked the end of the Spaulding theory that had dominated anti-Mormon efforts for most of the nineteenth and part of the twentieth century. Ironically, with the failure of the View of the Hebrews theory, the Spaulding theory is enjoying a resurgence, though with a postulated "second" manuscript.
What is the Spalding Theory of Book of Mormon authorship?
One of the earliest theories of Book of Mormon authorship was that Joseph plagiarized the unpublished manuscript of a novel written by the Reverend Solomon Spalding (or Spaulding)
Since the Book of Mormon was first published, many have been unwilling to accept Joseph Smith's account of how it was produced. It's easy to dismiss Joseph's story of angels, gold plates, and a miraculous interpretation process; it's much harder to come up with an alternative explanation that accounts for the complexity and consistency of the Book of Mormon, as well as the historical details of its production.
Many critics, unwilling to credit the uneducated, backwater farm boy Joseph Smith as the Book of Mormon's author, have looked to possible sources from which he could have plagiarized. One of the earliest theories was that Joseph plagiarized the unpublished manuscript of a novel written by the Reverend Solomon Spalding (1761–1816).
Spalding was a lapsed Calvinist clergyman and author of an epic tale of the ancient Native American "Mound Builders." The theory postulates that Spalding wrote his manuscript in biblical phraseology and read it to many of his friends. He subsequently took the manuscript to Pittsburgh, where it fell into the hands of a Mr. Patterson, in whose office Sidney Rigdon worked, and that through Sidney Rigdon it came into the possession of Joseph Smith and was made the basis of the Book of Mormon.
The earliest uses of the Spaulding theory from the editor of The Wayne Sentinel in 1833 and by Eber D. Howe in his book Mormonism Unvailed [sic]. The vast majority of critics from the early 1830s to the early 1900s argued for this theory of Book of Mormon origins. This changed dramatically with the rediscovery of the actual Spaulding manuscript in 1885. Since the early 1900s, the most common explanation has been that Joseph plagiarized from Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews. Today there are few, if any, who adopt the Spaulding theory beyond a couple of writers.[1] Spaulding theorists hold that the production of the Book of Mormon was a conspiracy involving Sidney Rigdon, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and others. It is claimed by these theorists that Joseph Smith either plagiarized or relied upon a manuscript by Solomon Spaulding to write the Book of Mormon. These individuals search for links between Spalding and Rigdon in order to make the theory more plausible. Joseph Smith is assumed to have been Rigdon's pawn.
Initial critics of the Book of Mormon tended to take one of two stances—either:
- The Book of Mormon was a clumsy, obvious forgery upon which no intelligent person would waste time; and/or
- Joseph Smith was the Book of Mormon's obvious author.
Ironically, with the appearance of the Spalding theory, critics quickly began to claim that Joseph Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon, and attributed the Book of Mormon's writing to Spalding and (usually) Sidney Rigdon.
It is interesting to note the after-the-fact admission from critics that prior to the Spalding theory, the Book of Mormon was difficult to account for. Unfortunately for the modern critic, the collapse of the Spalding theory means that they are likewise ill-placed to attribute the Book of Mormon's text to Joseph Smith.
There are three major problems with this theory
- The historical record indicates that Sidney Rigdon first learned of the Book of Mormon from Parley P. Pratt and his missionary companions in November 1830, and that Rigdon did not meet Joseph Smith until December of that same year. All of this was long after the Book of Mormon was translated and published. Critics can only marshal circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy in which Rigdon met Joseph much earlier, then later pretended to be converted to Mormonism.
- The purported Spalding manuscript was not brought forward for analysis because no one knew where it was, or if it even existed. In 1884 an authentic Solomon Spalding manuscript titled "Manuscript Story—Conneaut Creek" was recovered by Lewis L. Rice in Honolulu, Hawaii and taken to the Oberlin College Library in Ohio. The unfinished story bore hardly any resemblance to the Book of Mormon.[2]:10 The text was published by the RLDS Church in 1885 under the title "Manuscript Found." The LDS Church also published the text. (See "Further Reading," link, for links to online texts).
- Claims that Spalding wrote a second manuscript are easily discredited by the fact that the published Spalding manuscript clearly shows that it was not finished, even after Spalding moved away from many of the people who claimed to have heard him read from the later story.[3]
Is the Spalding theory of Book of Mormon authorship credible?
Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #502: Is the Book of Mormon Like Any Other Nineteenth Century Book? (Video)
The theory requires a second manuscript that doesn't exist, with invented contents, and the invention of a means of getting the alleged manuscript to Joseph Smith via Sidney Rigdon
Modern supporters of the Spalding authorship theory simply ignore the inconvenient fact that the extant Spalding manuscript recovered in the late 19th century bears no resemblance to the Book of Mormon, that it was an unfinished draft, and that no postulated second manuscript has been discovered.
They also ignore the complete lack of any persuasive evidence for contact between Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith prior to the Book of Mormon's publication.
Until the purported second manuscript appears, all these critics have is a nonexistent document which they can claim says anything they want. This is doubtlessly the attraction of the "theory" and shows the lengths to which critics will go to disprove the Book of Mormon.
It is interesting to consider that the best explanation such critics can propose requires that they invent a document, then invent its contents, and then invent a means of getting the document to Joseph via Rigdon.
An alleged missing, second Spalding manuscript
The existing Spalding manuscript is obviously unrelated to the Book of Mormon. It is therefore postulated by some that there must exist a second manuscript, despite the fact that the existing manuscript was never completed.
The discovery and publishing of the manuscript put to rest the Spaulding theory for several decades. But in the early 20th century the theory surfaced again, only this time its advocates claimed there was a second Spaulding manuscript that was the real source for the Book of Mormon. However, supporters of the revised Spaulding theory have not produced this second purported manuscript. They do, however, rely upon early works such as a 1908 book written by William Heth Whitsitt called Sidney Rigdon, The Real Founder of Mormonism. The entire book is based upon Whitsitt's initial assumption that Rigdon and Spalding wrote the Book of Mormon. Whitsitt then proceeds to fit the known facts to match that assumption. One of the most amusing parts of the book is the attempt to explain the experience of the Three Witnesses. In Whitsitt's book, Sidney plays the Angel Moroni and the Spalding manuscript itself (the second, undiscovered one) actually plays the part of the gold plates! According to Whitsitt:
It is suspected that Mr. Rigdon was somewhere present in the undergrowth of the forest where the little company were assembled, and being in plain hearing of their devotions he could easily step forward at a signal from Joseph, and exhibit several of the most faded leaves of the manuscript, which from having been kept a series of years since the death of Spaulding would assume the yellow appearance that is well known in such circumstances. At a distance from the station which they occupied the writing on these yellow sheets of paper would also appear to their excited imagination in the light of engravings; Sidney was likewise very well equal to the task of uttering the assurances which Smith affirms the angel was kind enough to supply concerning the genuineness of the "plates" and the correctness of the translation.
See: Solomon Spaulding, Manuscript Found: The Complete Original "Spaulding Manuscript", edited by Kent P. Jackson, (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1996). off-site
What do most critics think of the Spalding theory of Book of Mormon origin?
Many critics of the Book of Mormon reject the Spalding theory as unworkable
- Davis H. Bays, The Doctrines and Dogmas of Mormonism Examined and Refuted, (St. Louis: Christian Publishing, 1897), 22, 25
- [This theory is] "erroneous, and it will lead to almost certain defeat.... The facts are all opposed to this view, and the defenders of the Mormon dogma have the facts well in hand.... The Spaulding story is a failure. Do not attempt to rely upon it — it will let you down."
- Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History (New York, A. A. Knopf, 1945), 453
- "The tenuous chain of evidence accumulated to support the Spaulding-Rigdon theory breaks altogether when it tries to prove that Rigdon met Joseph Smith before 1830."
- Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Did Spaulding Write the Book of Mormon? (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1977).
One might ask why if Mormonism's most prominent critics find the Spalding theory unworkable, then what motivates those who tenuously hold to this theory and continue to pursue it? Those that continue to promote this theory have not effectively dealt with the major objections highlighted by other anti-Mormon critics. [4]
Edward E. Plowman, Christianity Today: "Mormon archivists have assembled a large amount of evidence—some of it impressive—to rebut the Spalding theory"
Edward E. Plowman:
...Mormon archivists have assembled a large amount of evidence—some of it impressive—to rebut the Spalding theory. They scored a coup of sorts when they discovered that a manuscript page from another Mormon book, Doctrine and Covenants, is apparently in the same handwriting as that of the Unidentified Scribe in the Book of Mormon manuscript. It is dated June, 1831—fifteen years after Spalding's death.... The average layman can readily note the striking dissimilarities between Spalding's specimens and the others....[5]
Gospel Topics: "Similarities between his manuscript and the Book of Mormon are general and superficial"
Gospel Topics on LDS.org:
Spaulding was born in 1761. He studied at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire and was ordained a minister. Later, he left the ministry and lived in New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania until his death in 1816. In his later years, he wrote a novel, which he never published. Spaulding's manuscript is considerably shorter than the Book of Mormon.
Similarities between his manuscript and the Book of Mormon are general and superficial. Spaulding's fiction is about a group of Romans blown off course on a journey to Britain who arrive instead in America. One of the Romans narrates the adventures of the group and the history and culture of the people they find in America. A major portion of the manuscript describes two nations near the Ohio River. After a long era of peace between the two nations, a prince of one nation elopes with a princess of the other nation. Because of political intrigue, the elopement results in a great war between the two nations and the loss of much life but the ultimate vindication of the prince and his princess.[6]
Sidney Rigdon: "in all of my intimacy with Joseph Smith he never told me but one story"
Sidney Rigdon to his son John, just prior to Sidney's death, asserted that the Book of Mormon was true:
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 [the Book of Mormon] 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 [the Book of Mormon] 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 one story. [7]
Did Solomon Spaulding's doctor state that Spaulding talked to him about the Nephites in his manuscript?
This claim is based upon a forgery
This claim comes from an affidavit allegedly inscribed in the flyleaf of a copy of the Book of Mormon:
This work, I am convinced by facts related to me by my deceased patient, Solomon Spaulding, has been made from writings of Spaulding, probably by Sidney Rigdon, who was suspicioned by Spaulding with purloining his manuscript from the publishing-house to which he had taken it; and I am prepared to testify that Spaulding told me that his work was entitled, "The Manuscript Found in the Wilds of Mormon; or Unearthed Records of the Nephites." From his description of its contents, I fully believe that this Book of Mormon is mainly and wickedly copied from it. CEPHAS DODD.[8]
It is considered a forgery (even by most Spalding theorists), and was given to C.E. Shook by R.B. Neal.
Shook published it in a book at the beginning of the 20th century. The original (if it ever existed) doesn't exist any more.
On the other hand, there is an authentic letter by Dodd in which he says that he knows almost nothing of the writings of Spalding. As one Spaulding theorist wrote:
Rev. Snowden reciting the "further testimony that Solomon Spaulding had written a manuscript entitled 'The Manuscript Found in the Wilds of Mormon, or Unearthed Records of the Nephites,'" is problematic. This assertion was originally published in 1914 by Charles A. Shook[9]—who, in turn, evidently received the unsubstantiated claim from Rev. R. B. Neal. The original source—a purported Cephas Dodd statement of June 5, 1831—has been documented as a forgery, and there is no reliable evidence for Solomon Spalding ever having made use of this strange title.[10]
Eber D. Howe: "I could better believe that Spaulding wrote it than that Joe Smith saw an angel"
Eber D. Howe, publisher of the "Spalding theory" of Book of Mormon authorship in Mormonism Unvailed, during an interview in 1884.:
Because I could better believe that Spaulding wrote it than that Joe Smith saw an angel.[11]
We can admire his frankness, if not the solution he came to.
William Smith (1884): "It was not written from the Spaulding Romance. That story is false"
William dismissed the Spalding theory as absurd:
Where is the Spaulding Story? I am a little too old a man to be telling stories. There is no money in telling this story. I expect to stand before angels and archangels and be judged for how I have told it. When Joseph received the plates he a[l]so received the Urim and Thummim, which he would place in a hat to exclude all light, and with the plates by his side he translated the characters, which were cut into the plates with some sharp instrument, into English. And thus, letter by letter, word by word, sentence by sentence, the whole book was translated. It was not written from the Spaulding Romance. That story is false. Some say this romance was stolen by Sidney Rigdon while at Pittsburgh. This is false. Sidney Rigdon knew nothing about it. He never saw or heard tell of the Book of Mormon until it was presented to him by P. P. Pratt and others. He was never at my father's house to see my brother until after the book was published. If he had wanted to see Joseph at that time and remained very long, he would have had to be in the field rolling logs or carrying brush. [12]
Roper: "Subsequent variants of this hypothesis have been published from time to time"
Matthew Roper:
In 1834, relying on testimony gathered by one Doctor Philastus Hurlbut (a former Mormon who had been excommunicated from the church for immoral behavior), E. D. Howe suggested that the Book of Mormon was based on an unpublished novel called "Manuscript Found," written by a former minister named Solomon Spalding. In statements collected by Hurlbut, eight former neighbors of Spalding said they remembered elements of his story that resembled the historical portions of the Book of Mormon. Some said they recalled names shared by Spalding's earlier tale and the Book of Mormon. Others claimed that the historical narrative of both stories was the same with the exception of the religious material in the Book of Mormon. Howe suggested that, by some means, Sidney Rigdon, a former Campbellite preacher in Ohio and Pennsylvania who had joined the church in November 1830, had obtained a copy of "Manuscript Found" years before and had used it as the basis for the Book of Mormon, to which he also added religious material. Rigdon, Howe argued, must have conspired with Joseph Smith to pass the Book of Mormon off as a divinely revealed book of ancient American scripture as part of a moneymaking scheme. Subsequent variants of this hypothesis have been published from time to time.[13]
Did Joseph Smith know Sidney Rigdon prior to 1830?
John Stafford: "Sidney Rigdon was never there, that Hurlbut, or Howe, or Tucker could find out"
John Stafford was the eldest son of William Stafford, one of those who provided the Hurlbut affidavits. He was later asked about the Rigdon connection:
- Q — If young Joseph — Smith , Jr. — was as illiterate as you say, Doctor, how do you account for the Book of Mormon?
- A — "Well, I can't; except that Sidney Rigdon was connected with them."
- Q — Was Rigdon ever around there before the Book of Mormon was published?
- A — "No; not as we could ever find out. Sidney Rigdon was never there, that Hurlbut, or Howe, or Tucker could find out."
- Q — Well; you have been looking out for the facts a long time, have you not, Doctor?
- A — "Yes; I have been thinking and hearing about it for the last fifty years, and lived right among all their old neighbors there more of the time."
- Q — And no one has ever been able to trace the acquaintance of Rigdon and Smith, until after the Book of Mormon was published, and Rigdon proselyted by Parley P. — Pratt, in Ohio?
- A — "Not that I know of.""
- — John Stafford, cited in William H. Kelly, "The Hill Cumorah, and the Book of Mormon," Saints' Herald 28 (1 June 1881): 167.[14]
Why do some critics think that Sidney Rigdon was the author of the Book of Mormon?
The theory that Sidney Rigdon was the author of the Book of Mormon was only advanced when it became apparent that Joseph Smith was incapable of having written it
Initial reaction to the Book of Mormon attributed the authorship to Joseph Smith himself, and reviewers were quick to criticize the book's problems of style, and simply declared it an obvious, amateurish forgery.
It seems to have soon become clear, however, that Joseph truly was incapable of writing such a book. As a result, Sidney Rigdon, an experienced minister, was soon blamed for the book, with Joseph as a willing fellow-con:
[1 September 1831] ...the money diggers of Ontario county, by the suggestions of the Ex-Preacher from Ohio [i.e., Rigdon], thought of turning their digging concern into a religious plot, and thereby have a better chance of working upon the credulity and ignorance of their associates and the neighborhood. Money and a good living might be got in this way....
There is no doubt but the ex-parson from Ohio is the author of the book which was recently printed and published in Palmyra, and passes for the new Bible. It is full of strange narratives—in the style of the scriptures, and bearing on its face the marks of some ingenuity, and familiar acquaintance with the Bible. It is probable that Joe Smith is well acquainted with the trick, but Harris the farmer and the recent coverts, are true believers....
They were called translations, but in fact and in truth they are believed to be the work of the Ex-Preacher from Ohio, who stood in the back ground and put forward Joe to father the new bible and the new faith.[15]
But as we have seen, the Spalding theory (with or without Rigdon) fails. Few critics now resort to it.
Critical sources |
|
Early reactions to the Book of Mormon
Summary: The Book of Mormon was met by a storm of criticism from early critics. This page archives examples of these early responses.The Hurlbut Spalding affidavits
Summary: Joseph's neighbors claimed that Joseph had copied the Spalding manuscriptVernal Holley map—Book of Mormon place names from North America?
Summary: Common place names in the region around New York used as Book of Mormon names?Critical sources |
Sources which accept the Spalding manuscript theory:
Claimed the existence of a second Spalding manuscript when the first theory failed:
|
Past responses |
|
Notes
- ↑ For a helpful longitudinal history of naturalistic theories for Book of Mormon origins, see Brian C. Hales, "Naturalistic Explanations of the Origin of the Book of Mormon: A Longitudinal Study," BYU Studies 58:3 (2019).
- ↑ Matthew Roper, "The Mythical "Manuscript Found" (Review of: Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? The Spalding Enigma)," FARMS Review 17/2 (2005): 7–140. off-site,
- ↑ The Spalding Theory Debunked off-site
- ↑ Matthew Roper, "The Mythical "Manuscript Found" (Review of: Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? The Spalding Enigma)," FARMS Review 17/2 (2005): 7–140. off-site, p. 21, note 62.
- ↑ Edward E. Plowman, Christianity Today (21 October 1977): 38-39).
- ↑ "Spaulding Manuscript," Gospel Topics on LDS.org.
- ↑ Rex C. Reeve, Jr. "What is 'Manuscript Found'?" in Manuscript Found: The Complete Original "Spaulding" Manuscript, edited by Kent B. Jackson, Vol. 11 in the Specialized Monographs Series (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1996), footnote 47.
- ↑ Cited in Appendix 5, "The Cephas Dodd Hoax and Other Fabrications," in Wayne L. Cowdrey, Howard A. Davis, and Arthur Vanick, Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? The Spalding Enigma. (St. Louis: Concordia, 2005), 402. Analysis
- ↑ Charles A. Shook, The True Origin of Mormon Polygamy (Cincinnati: The Standard Publishing Company, 1910). It was also cited by Dr. W. L. Dodd, Early History of Amity, Pa. 1770-1870 (Private publication, 1940).
- ↑ Dale Broadhurst, "Wayne Cowdrey, et al. Who Really Wrote The Book of Mormon? The Spalding Enigma," Note 2, accessed 2 May 2015. http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA/penn1900.htm
- ↑ Interview with E.D. Howe, in E.L. Kelley, Public Discussion of the Issues between the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the Church of Christ (Disciples), Held in Kirtland, Ohio, Beginning February 12, and Closing March 8, 1884, between E. L. Kelley, of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and Clark Braden, of the Church of Christ (St. Louis: Christian Publishing and Smart, 1884), 83.
- ↑ Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 1:505-506.
- ↑ Matthew Roper, "The Mythical "Manuscript Found" (Review of: Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? The Spalding Enigma)," FARMS Review 17/2 (2005): 7–140. off-site
- ↑ Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 2:123–124.)
- ↑ “Mormon Religion—Clerical Ambition—Western New York—The Mormonites Gone to Ohio,” Morning Courier and New-York Enquirer (New York City, New York) 7, no. 1331 (1 September 1831). off-site
Response to claim: 144 - Martin Harris was brought to trial before the High Council because he claimed the Joseph Smith had "drunk too much liquor" while translating the Book of Mormon
The author(s) of No Man Knows My History make(s) the following claim:
Martin Harris was brought to trial before the High Council because he claimed the Joseph Smith had "drunk too much liquor" while translating the Book of Mormon.Author's sources:
- Times and Seasons, Vol. VI, p. 992.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
Martin claimed that he didn't say this. The cited Times and Seasons" entry "HISTORY OF JOSEPH SMITH" states:"The council proceeded to investigate certain charges presented by Elder Rigdon against Martin Harris, one was, that he told A. C. Russell, Esq. that Joseph drank too much liquor when he was translating the Book of Mormon, and that he wrestled with many men and threw them, &c.; and that he (Harris) exalted himself above Joseph, in that he said, "Brother Joseph knew not the contents of the Book of Mormon, until it was translated, but that he, himself knew all about it before it was translated. Brother Harris said he did not tell Esq. Russell that Brother Joseph drank too much liquor while translating the Book of Mormon, but this thing occurred previous to the translating of the book; he confessed that his mind was darkened, and that he had said many things inadvertantly [inadvertently], calculated to wound the feelings of his brethren, and promised to do better. The council forgave him, with much good advice."
Response to claim: 145 - Hurlbut's affidavits were published by E.D. Howe in Mormonism Unvailed
The author(s) of No Man Knows My History make(s) the following claim:
Hurlbut's affidavits were published by E.D. Howe in Mormonism Unvailed.Author's sources:
- Eber D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed (Painesville, OH, 1834). (Affidavits examined)
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event
This is correct.
<onlyinclude>
- REDIRECTThe Hurlbut affidavits
Response to claim: 145 - Brigham Young stated, before he even met Joseph Smith, that he would follow Joseph even if he were to get "drunk every day of his life, sleep with his neighbor's wife every night"
The author(s) of No Man Knows My History make(s) the following claim:
Brigham Young stated, before he even met Joseph Smith, that he would follow Joseph even if he were to get "drunk every day of his life, sleep with his neighbor's wife every night," and run horses and gamble.Author's sources:
- Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 4:77-78.
FAIR's Response
- See Quote mining—Journal of Discourses 4:77-8 to see how this quote was mined.
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
Brigham was saying that he believed in the doctrine rather than Joseph Smith, and he was simply illustrating a point. The author has extracted this phrase in order to make it mean something else. Brigham Young was making a distinction between believing in the doctrine versus believing in Joseph Smith:I recollect a conversation I had with a priest who was an old friend of ours, before I was personally acquainted with the Prophet Joseph. I clipped every argument he advanced, until at last he came out and began to rail against "Joe Smith," saying, "that he was a mean man, a liar, moneydigger, gambler, and a whore-master;" and he charged him with everything bad, that he could find language to utter. I said, hold on, Brother Gillmore, here is the doctrine, here is the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the revelations that have come through Joseph Smith the Prophet. I have never seen him, and do not know his private character. The doctrine he teaches is all I know about the matter, bring anything against that if you can. As to anything else I do not care. If he acts like a devil, he has brought forth a doctrine that will save us, if we will abide it. He may get drunk every day of his life, sleep with his neighbor's wife every night, run horses and gamble, I do not care anything about that, for I never embrace any man in my faith. But the doctrine he has produced will save you and me, and the whole world; and if you can find fault with that, find it. [1]
Response to claim: 147-148 - suggestion to change the name of the Church from the Church of Christ to the Church of Latter-day Saints in order to avoid the names "Mormon" and "Mormonite"
The author(s) of No Man Knows My History make(s) the following claim:
It was Sidney Rigdon's suggestion to change the name of the Church from the Church of Christ to the Church of Latter-day Saints in order to avoid the names "Mormon" and "Mormonite".Author's sources:
- Source not provided.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event
This is correct.
Question: What is the history of name changes of the Church?
The original name of the Church when it was organized in 1830 was the "Church of Christ"
The original name of the Church when it was organized in 1830 was the "Church of Christ." Mormonism to some extent originated in the historical context of the restorationist movement. This movement consisted of Christians who believed that the original Christianity needed to be restored, and it was a common belief among Christian restorationists that the name of a Christian church should properly be the "Church of Christ." Many new members of the Church brought such ideas with them when they became "Mormons."
This caused practical problems, however, since there were lots of restorationist groups who named their local churches the "Church of Christ," so there was tremendous confusion. (Indeed, one of the groups that descends from Alexander Campbell's Disciples of Christ continues to use the name "Church of Christ" to this day.)
The use of the term "Mormonite" prompted changes in order to distinguish the Church from other Christian churches
This, coupled with the use of the common antagonistic epithet "Mormonite" (soon simplified to "Mormon"), led to a desire for a more distinctive name that would distinguish our church from so many others that were using the same name.
So in April 1834, under the influence of Sidney Rigdon (according to David Whitmer),[2] who had been a reformed Baptist preacher with close ties to Alexander Campbell prior to joining the church, the official name of the church was changed to the "Church of Latter Day Saints."
There was no attempt to distance the Church from the name of Christ
This was no attempt to distance the Church from the name of Christ or its claims to be Christ's church. In 1835, the official Church paper referred to the:
- "rise and progress of the church of Christ of Latter Day Saints" [3]
The final name of the Church came through revelation
The basis for the present name of the church came in D&C 115꞉3, received on April 26, 1838: the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." Note how this name combines elements of the original name and the Rigdon-inspired name.
In 1851 when the church formally incorporated, the name included a corporate initial article "The" and a British hyphenization of "Latter-day," thus becoming the formal name we use to this day, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Other groups that split off from the church, such as the Strangites and the Reorganization {RLDS, now Community of Christ}, kept the original unhyphenated "Latter Day" in their formal names.
The members of the Church have always seen themselves as Christians, and members of "the Church of Jesus Christ"
This chart demonstrates that the members of the Church have always seen themselves as Christians, and members of "the Church of Jesus Christ."
| Journal or Series | Church of Christ | Church of Jesus Christ | Church of Jesus Christ of LDS | Latter-day Saints alone | Mormon Church |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evening and Morning Star (1832-1834) | 115 | 1 | xx | 0 | 0 |
| Messenger and Advocate (1834-1837) | 33 | 0 | xx | 0 | 1 |
| Elders Journal (1837-1838) | 10 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 0 |
| Times and Seasons (1839-1846) | 118 | 13 | 24 | 47 | 4 |
| Journal of Discourses 26 vols. (1839-1886)
1438 sermons |
167 | 59 | 308 | 3255 | 10 |
| Collected Discourses 5 vols. (1886-1898)
432 sermons |
149 | 15 | 139 | 1121 | 7 |
| General Conference Reports, (1880, 1897-1970) | 780 | 671 | 3180 | 6291 | 333 [4] |
| Millennial Star (incomplete study) | - | 84 | - | - | - |
| The Seer | 0 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
xx = no use of name "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" because that name was not yet in use during the journal's publication dates.
Source: Ted Jones, FairMormon researcher, private communication (7 April 2007); updated 1 April 2010.
Response to claim: 149 - Joseph found a skeleton of a Lamanite warrior named "Zelf"
The author(s) of No Man Knows My History make(s) the following claim:
Joseph found a skeleton of a Lamanite warrior named "Zelf"Author's sources:
- History of the Church 2:79-80
- "Elder Kimball's Journal," Times and Seasons, Vol. VI, p. 788.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event
This is correct.
Question: What is the story of Zelph?
Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #336: Who Was Zelph? (Video)
Joseph Smith reportedly found the bones of an individual named "Zelph," during the Zion's camp march
The most common version of this story is found in the History of the Church.[5] It should be noted, however, that the History of the Church version was created by amalgamating the journal entries of several people:
- Wilford Woodruff (WW),
- Heber C. Kimball (HCK),
- George A. Smith (GAS),
- Levi Hancock (LH),
- Moses Martin (MM),
- Reuben McBride (RM).[6]
All of the accounts were published after the death of Joseph Smith
The text has a convoluted history:
In 1842 Willard Richards, then church historian, was assigned the task of compiling a large number of documents and producing a history of the church from them. He worked on this material between 21 December 1842 and 27 March 1843. Richards, who had not joined the church until 1836, relied on the writings or recollections of Heber C. Kimball, Wilford Woodruff, and perhaps others for his information regarding the discovery of Zelph. Blending the sources available to him, and perhaps using oral accounts from some of the members of Zion's Camp, but writing as if he were Joseph Smith, historian Richards drafted the story of Zelph as it appears in the "Manuscript History of the Church, Book A-1." With respect to points relative to Book of Mormon geography, Richards wrote that "Zelph was a white Lamanite, a man of God who was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus who was known from the [hill Cumorah is crossed out in the manuscript] eastern Sea, to the Rocky Mountains. He was killed in battle, by the arrow found among his ribs, during a [last crossed out] great struggle with the Lamanites" [and Nephites crossed out].
Following the death of Joseph Smith, the Times and Seasons published serially the "History of Joseph Smith." When the story of finding Zelph appeared in the 1 January 1846 issue, most of the words crossed out in the Richards manuscript were, for some unknown reason, included, along with the point that the prophet's name was Omandagus. The reference to the hill Cumorah from the unemended Wilford Woodruff journal was still included in the narrative, as was the phrase "during the last great struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites."
The 1904 first edition of the seven-volume History of the Church, edited by B. H. Roberts, repeats the manuscript version of Richards's account. However, in 1948, after Joseph Fielding Smith had become church historian, explicit references to the hill Cumorah and the Nephites were reintroduced. That phrasing has continued to the present in all reprintings.[7]
A comparison of the various accounts is instructive:[8]
| Aspect | WW | HCK | GAS | LH | MM | RM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date | May-June 1834 | JS on 3 June 1834 | Group on 2 June 1834 | -- | -- | JS on 3 June 1834 |
| Place | Illinois River | Illinois River | -- | Illinois River | Pike County | -- |
| Description | -300 ft above river -Flung up by ancients |
-Several 100 feet above -3 altars on mound |
300 ft above river | Big mound | -many mounds -fortifications |
-- |
| Artifacts | Body, arrow | Human bones, a skeleton, arrow | Human bones | Human bones, arrow | Human bones, arrow | Skeleton of man, arrow |
| Person? | Zalph, large thick-set man, warrior, killed in battle |
Zalph, warrior, killed in battle | -- | Zalph, warrior, white Lamanite | Mighty prophet, killed in battle | Zalph, warrior, white Lamanite, man of God, killed in battle |
| Nephite/ Lamanite? |
Nephite and Lamanite | Lamanite | -- | Lamanite | -- | Lamanite |
| JS Vision? | Vision: Onandangus, great prophet Known Atlantic to Rockies |
-- | -- | Onandangus | -- | Onandangus, Known Atlantic to Rockies |
William Hamblin described some of the difficulties in identifying the roots of this story:
many significant qualifiers were left out of the printed version [of this account]. Thus, whereas Wilford Woodruff's journal account mentions that the ruins and bones were "probably [related to] the Nephites and Lamanites," the printed version left out the "probably," and implied that it was a certainty. [There are] several similar shifts in meaning from the original manuscripts to the printed version. "The mere 'arrow' of the three earliest accounts became an 'Indian Arrow' (as in Kimball), and finally a 'Lamanitish Arrow.' The phrase 'known from the Atlantic to the Rocky Mountain,' as in the McBride diary, became 'known from the Hill Cumorah' (stricken out) or 'eastern sea to the Rocky Mountains.' " The point here is that there are many difficulties that make it nearly impossible for us to know exactly what Joseph Smith said in 1834 as he reflected on the ruins his group encountered in Illinois.[9]
Question: How reliable are the accounts of the discovery of Zelph?
LDS scholars have differed about the reliability of the accounts
LDS scholars have differed about the reliability of the accounts, and their relevance for Book of Mormon geography.[10] As Kenneth Godfrey observed:
If the history of the church were to be revised today using modern historical standards, readers would be informed that Joseph Smith wrote nothing about the discovery of Zelph, and that the account of uncovering the skeleton in Pike County is based on the diaries of seven members of Zion's Camp, some of which were written long after the event took place. We would be assured that the members of Zion's Camp dug up a skeleton near the Illinois River in early June 1834. Equally sure is that Joseph Smith made statements about the deceased person and his historical setting. We would learn that it is unclear which statements attributed to him derived from his vision, as opposed to being implied or surmised either by him or by others. Nothing in the diaries suggests that the mound itself was discovered by revelation.
Furthermore, readers would be told that most sources agree that Zelph was a white Lamanite who fought under a leader named Onandagus (variously spelled). Beyond that, what Joseph said to his men is not entirely clear, judging by the variations in the available sources. The date of the man Zelph, too, remains unclear. Expressions such as "great struggles among the Lamanites," if accurately reported, could refer to a period long after the close of the Book of Mormon narrative, as well as to the fourth century AD. None of the sources before the Willard Richards composition, however, actually say that Zelph died in battle with the Nephites, only that he died "in battle" when the otherwise unidentified people of Onandagus were engaged in great wars "among the Lamanites."
Zelph was identified as a "Lamanite," a label agreed on by all the accounts. This term might refer to the ethnic and cultural category spoken of in the Book of Mormon as actors in the destruction of the Nephites, or it might refer more generally to a descendant of the earlier Lamanites and could have been considered in 1834 as the equivalent of "Indian" (see, for example, D&C 3:18, 20; 10:48; 28:8; 32:2). Nothing in the accounts can settle the question of Zelph's specific ethnic identity.[11]
Since the accounts are second hand and differ from one another, it is unclear exactly what Joseph said
Thus, it is unclear exactly what Joseph said. Many of the accounts date from many years after the event, and may have been shaded by later ideas in the writers. Joseph never had a chance to correct that which was published about the event, since he was killed before it was made public. The "Lamanites" may refer to native Amerindians generally, or Book of Mormon peoples specifically. If the latter are referred to, the events may well apply to post-Book of Mormon events, in which case it can tell us little about the geographic scope of the Book of Mormon text. It is at least clear enough that Joseph Smith called the peoples of the area "Nephite" in the statement that he made in the letter to his wife, but those titles of political factions again don't do much for determining ethnicity.
As always, the Book of Mormon text itself must remain our primary guide for what it says. Joseph Smith does not seem to have later regarded his knowledge about Zelph as excluding other peoples or locations as being related to the Book of Mormon, or to have discouraged other Church leaders from similar theories.
Notes
- ↑ Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 4:77-78.
- ↑ David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ by a Witness to the Divine Authenticity of The Book of Mormon (David Whitmer: Richmond, Virginia, 1887).
- ↑ W. W. Phelps to Oliver Cowdery, June 1835, "Letter No. 8," Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate 1 no. 9 (June 1835), 129–31. off-site See also W. W. Phelps to Oliver Cowdery, "Letter No. 11," Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate 2 no. 1 (October 1835), 193–95. off-site
- ↑ The vast majority of these were in describing what others said about the Church.
- ↑ Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 2:79–80. Volume 2 linkGL direct link
- ↑ Kenneth W. Godfrey, "The Zelph Story," Brigham Young University Studies 29 no. 2 (1989), 31–56.
- ↑ Kenneth W. Godfrey, "What is the Significance of Zelph In The Study Of Book of Mormon Geography?," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8/2 (1999). [70–79] link
- ↑ Data as summarized by Donald Q. Cannon, "Zelph Revisited," in Regional Studies in the Latter-day Saint Church History: Illinois, edited by H. Dean Garret (Provo, Utah: Department of Church History and Doctrine, Brigham Young University, 1995), 57–109. GospeLink Note that some things that seem similar (e.g., "arrow" had substantial differences in the account, as discussed by Hamblin, below).
- ↑ William J. Hamblin, "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1. (1993). [161–197] link
- ↑ Kenneth Godfrey's articles have cast doubt on the reliability of many key elements of the story as we have them. Donald Q. Cannon has argued for the basic reliability of the accounts. See the articles by each author for both perspectives.
- ↑ Kenneth W. Godfrey, "What is the Significance of Zelph In The Study Of Book of Mormon Geography?," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8/2 (1999). [70–79] link