The Braden-Kelly Debate (1884)




Is the Book of Mormon of divine origin and its teachings entitled to the respect and belief of all Christian people?




The parties met according to appointment on the 12th day of February, 1884, at seven o'clock p. m. in the Town Hall. Kirtland, Ohio.



Messrs. Ezra Bond, Wm. H. Kelley and A. B. Deming.

The meeting having been called to order, the chairman moderator, Mr. Bond, had read the rules of the debate as agreed upon by the parties, and the propositions agreed upon for discussion.

Mr. Kelley then opened the debate as follows:—


GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:—It is with some degree of pleasure that I appear before you this evening to enter upon an investigation of the question which has just been read in your hearing. And I say this, notwithstanding the fact of which I am already aware, that to undertake such a task requires on the part of any disputant a work of constant and continuous labor; and when one is called upon in such investigation to also contend with an experienced and persistent debater the undertaking will necessarily be with proportionate difficulties.

But I am happy in this step toward a critical examination of the proposition for the reason that I believe there is a merit, deep and lasting, attached to the subject-matter that few realize, and that should be attained by all mankind, and a fair and candid investigation will enable you to judge for yourselves of this, and decide as all thinking men and women should as to the merits or demerits, and let the decision be whichever way it may, it will to a certain extent not only affect you here but in a manner in all time that is to come. I say this, not for the purpose of stating to you anything that is calculated to terrify one in any respect with regard to the investigation of the question at issue, for I not only believe it is so with regard to the subject-matter in dispute here, but it is so also of any truth, any rule of action or fact that has emanated from the divine being, or that has been in this sphere elicited by mankind; it being better that the people should be brought in Contact with and that they should accept that which is true, rather than that they should not come in contact with it, or that they should reject it after having investigated.

This is not only true in religion but also in other matters. It is a fact as to the affairs of government; in science and the arts of man, and in fact through all the broad dominion of knowledge and experience. It is far better that tire faith and impulses of the race be founded in truth than error, let that truth spring from whatever source it may; and believing also that mankind in the matter of religion may in the fullest sense become better while here in this life, and thus be better fitted to enjoy and inherit the life to be made manifest, by conforming to that which is true,— that system of religion which is in fact a revealed

science from above, must contain, truths, which if believed and followed, will affect the life and

character here and so relate to us in the great hereafter, to a greater extent than can principles started or evolved by the wise of this little world of ours.

Taking up the subject-matter under discussion, I refer you directly to the question: The Book of Mormon!—Is it of divine origin? and are its teachings of such a character as to entitle them to the respect and belief of all Christian people? These are questions that you ought to be able to answer correctly and intelligently, as you are called upon to pass judgment upon them from time to time, and also to pass upon the society, so far as reflecting your views are concerned, which believes the work is of divine origin and that its teachings are calculated of their very nature to elevate the human family and to make men better here and thereby prepared for better promises the realization of which is to come. Do not overlook the gist of this proposition;—it not only contains teachings of value, but those of as high a nature as can be found in any work written in any age so far as furnished us in the history of the race. That we are bound as enlightened people to give to the claim by this work of being of "divine origin," a candid and careful consideration, will certainly follow if the work is brought under such circumstances and in that way as to present in its behalf a prima facie case touching its merits and its origin. And while it may be true Ladies and Gentlemen, that you are not required to examine everything that is thrown upon the world in order to fulfill the purposes and designs of creation, it is a fact which relates to the human family as absolutely as that, truth is more to be desired than error in its development, that whenever a fair and proper case is made





upon the very outset of a matter, claiming to be the truth, or a thing of divine source, it is incumbent upon all to hear and make a fair and candid examination of the same; and when persons go so far as to judge a matter before hearing it, or to pass a case fairly presented without the trouble even of giving it a hearing, they violate the prime law by which truth is made attainable in the world and progress possible, and thus far must forever stand condemned by Him who ordained the law for a wise purpose and gave to the creature thereunder intelligence and liberty of action.

The injunction to "Prove all things and holdfast that which is good," is certainly taken in the light of human reason a good one; and I go so far as to say, that neither you nor any other people should be called upon to accept as truth a matter or principle relating directly to them, except upon a due examination of the evidences favoring the same, or so much as may be necessary to support the principle; and in the progress of this discussion I shall only call upon you to accept as truth the work referred to in the proposition after you shall have had some of the evidences relating thereto.

The Book of Morman comes to the people in such a shape as to fairly demand of them a candid and impartial examination. Whatever may be said as to the work otherwise, in the presentation of it at least there is made out a clear, concise, and prima facia case, containing every essential feature that would be requisite to a bona fide message or work absolutely emanating from the creator of the race and the dispenser of the system of religion as reflected in the Bible, the admitted standard of truth in this controversy.

This is made apparent from the following facts set forth on the face of the work:

1. It makes claim to have originated from the proper source. It does not claim to have originatedwith man. It does not claim to be the doctrines of any false God that has invaded this world; or of any God made with men's hands. It claims to have had its origin in the work of Him who delivered a like record, to a people on the Eastern continent of the world. And since the claim of its origin is from the same source from which we claim to have received the Bible, the first position of the prima facia case is clear, and thus far makes the work entitled to the respect and careful consideration of all.

2. It claims to contain a propel message. A communication from Jehovah to any part of the race would contain a message evidently for the highest good of the people to whom it was made; and in this book there is what claims to be a record of the "Everlasting Gospel" as it was delivered to a people other than those of the tribe of Judah, together with a history of the works and worship of that same people. The second position to a proper case is made then in that, the message it claims to bear is a good and proper one.

3. The object in delivering the work to the world as borne out upon its face is a right and proper one. To show this object I will read from the book itself. I have in my hands a reprint of the third American edition. Would read from the original copy of the book which I also present to you, but this edition which I have used I am more accustomed to and hence use it for the sake of rapidity in my work. The two editions-are emphatically the same however, except as to a few typographical and grammatical errors that evidently crept in, in the copying and printing of the work and from which I might say, no book is exempt. It is sometimes given out that there have been changes made in the work since its first publication. This I deny as to anything material whatever. The only thing claimed as a material change by any candid critic is in the inscription page, the first copy reading, "Joseph Smith, Author and Proprietor," whereas in subsequent editions-he is simply the "translator." By examining the first page of the original," however, I find that he is set out there as the "translator," and in the preface to the original he is clearly and emphatically set forth as the translator only, so far as his work in the matter is concerned, and hence it was not possible to have misled any reader by the words "Author and Proprietor," as they there appeared. But it will be brought out more fully as we proceed as to how this came to be placed on the inscription and for the present I leave the matter. The object of the book. I read from the title page:—

"Wherefore it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Laminites; * * * An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether: also, which is a record of the people of Jared; who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven: Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever; and also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations." And now if there are faults, they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye maybe found spotless at the judgment seat of Christ."

And also in the body of the work page 490, one of the writers states as follows:—

"And this is the commandment which I have received; and behold they shall come forth according to the commandment of the Lord, when he shall see fit, in his wisdom. And behold they shall go unto the unbelieving of the Jews; and for this intent shall they go; that they may be persuaded that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God; that the Father may bring about, through his most beloved, his great and eternal purpose, in restoring the Jews, or all the house of Israel, to the land of their inheritance, which the Lord their God hath given them, unto the fulfilling of his covenant, and also that the seed of this people may more fully believe his

gospel, which shall go forth unto them from the Gentiles; for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us."


The object of the work then and the introduction of it is in the highest sense a proper one and thus the third fact entering to made up the prime facia case is complete.



4. In the array of its witnesses the work is shown to be fully entitled to a thorough and unprejudiced examination.

First, the testimony of a single witness; beginning with the statement of the boy when but fourteen years of age, and consistently maintained by him afterwards, until when in his thirty- ninth year he gave the highest assurance of its correctness by resolutely standing in the gate of death itself for the truth of it. His full statement I shall introduce in another part of the discussion.

Second, The testimony of three witnesses.

And in presenting to you their statement I call your attention to the fact that the character of their lives were such subsequently as to fully attest the truth of the original testimony. They not only accepted this knowledge as a part of their lives religiously, but also taught it to their children, and to their children's children. Two of them having borne the same testimony till their voices were sealed in death, and the survivor, now under the lilies of nearly eighty winters, still points all enquirers to this his testimony as a circumstance in his life's work which was, and is, the happiest of all, and his has been a well spent life.

This testimony they left upon record not only to have its effect upon present things and associations, but also to extend to future generations, being the declared act and knowledge of the three with reference to this work under discussion, when uninfluenced by any conceivable sinister motive, or any inducement or hope of reward whatever, except the reward of well doing, which they expected only to receive when they should come into the presence of Him who is cognizant of all the secret motives that move men to action.

The following is their testimony:—

"Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come, that we. through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken; and we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety, that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bare record that these things are true; and it is marvelous in our eyes, nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; Wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and Son, and the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen."




Third, The testimony of eight witnesses.


Like the three before referred to, these were men who confessed there belief in the

authenticity of the work, by afterwards making it a part of their faith; testimony unimpaired to their posterity. It is as follows:

and transmitting their

"Be it known unto all nations kindreds, tongues, and "people, unto whom this work shall come, that Joseph "Smith, Jr., the translator of this work, has shown "unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which "have the appearance of gold; and as many of the "leaves as the said Smith has translated, we did handle "with our hands; and we also saw the engravings "thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient "work, and of curious workmanship. And this we "bear record with words of soberness, that the said "Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and "hefted, and know of a surety, that the said Smith has "got the plates of which we have spoken. And we "give our names unto the world to witness unto the "world that which we have seen; and we lie not, God "bearing witness of it." Signed,

Christian Whitmer, Hiram Page,

Jacob Whitmer, Joseph Smith, Senior.

Peter Whitmer, Junior, Hyrum Smith, John Whitmer. Samuel H. Smith.


To support the element relating to the manner in which the work comes to us I have now introduced the positive declarations of twelve witnesses, a sufficient number to maintain any cause to be contested before courts of justice; and in things relating to the divine being and religion it cannot be said truthfully that the rule would require more. In the introduction of the religion of Christ in the first century of what is termed the Christian era, a single witness first made known the proclamation; and the people to whom the witness was sent were required to. properly consider and examine the message, although the witness himself by reason of different habits and a different life to that approved by many of the people, was considered possessed with an evil Spirit. Yet it is said of him in the first chapter of John: "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe." This was the only witness in fact of the great mission of Jesus until the time when God gave a revelation to Peter, and yet Jesus says of John's work: "But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the council of God against themselves, being not baptized of him." Luke, 7: 30.

The twelve witnesses whose testimony I have now introduced in their work are similar to those raised up to bear testimony of the things declared and done in the first century; and so far as it is possible to compare testimonies it comes with equal weight of that which has supported any divine message in any time or age. The apostle Peter says with reference to the testimony to the work in his ministry: "And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: Him God raised up the third day, and showed him openly; Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead." Acts, 10: 39, 41.

It is sometimes objected that the plates which are said to have been preserved by



the immediate power of God, kept that they might not be destroyed but yet fill a purpose in the world of instructing it in things pertaining to the divine life, were not shown to all people. The same objection has been made time and again with reference to the New Testaments foundation evidence. That Jesus did not show himself to the people after his resurrection in order to make them believe, but to a few "chosen witnesses."

The objection is a futile one in the mind of any person who understands anything of the essence and faith peculiar to the Christian religion, and the means adopted by Jesus himself of establishing it among the people.

But I am not left to the twelve witnesses; the thousands who have since attested the divine character of the work upon the independent knowledge they themselves have attained to, may be brought and marshalled as a living host testifying to the truthfulness of the claim.

All of these, however, I have referred to simply to substantiate my claim that in the presentation of the Book of Mormon to the world a prima facie case of its divine authenticity is in every respect complete. It claims to have come from the right source; the message it claims to bear is a proper one; the object of the message and the object of its introduction are proper; and now the array of witnesses to that message is found all that can reasonably be asked.

It is truly entitled to an investigation then, and with your attention, I at once proceed to unfold the evidences relating to its divine character, by which you and all thinking people must determine for yourselves.

There is an avenue of knowledge open to this work that is peculiar to it, and the doctrine taught by Christ in the New Testament Scriptures only. In the 7th chapter and 16th and 17th verses of John's gospel it is recorded: "Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself."

In this record which I hold in my hand (the Book of Mormon) occurs a sentiment very much the same as found in this instruction of Jesus; and. singular as it may seem, these are the only two works published to the world that have boldly claimed that the truth or falsity of their statements might be known by each person who would go to the Creator of all and do his will. I read from page 544:

"And when ye shall receive these things," (contained in the book under discussion), I would exhort you

that ye would ask God, the eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost; and by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. And whatsoever thing is good, is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is."

Remember, my friends, you are not asked to first accept the book as true, nor to do those things commanded in the book —but the will of God; if you are in doubt, simply go aside and pray, with a sincere heart and honest purpose, and the statement is made fearlessly, and without regard to the fact that if it was a deception upon the people it might be at once detected by the first honest enquirer who should go before the Lord, for it says: "If ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost." The statement is

not that of a cunning deceiver, but certainly of a person who has absolute confidence in the cause

which he represented. I am a believer in the Bible. I am ready at all times to come forward and stand in defense of the divine authenticity of its claim. But, while I am a believer in the Bible, I am at the same time equally a believer in the divine authenticity of the record that was given to the people who lived upon this continent. And I believe that its truth can be proven to the World, whether attacked by a professor of religion, theologian of whatever rank, or the most gifted skeptic.

Believing this, and that the evidences of such proof are susceptible of demonstration, I may truly say that I stand up in the effort to defend it to-night, as a work that has been committed to man by Jehovah himself, and that my reward for so doing will be the reward of all those who shall "have kept the word of God." Taking up the record as it has been presented to the world and examining it, I find that in holding forth its truths to the world, I make no attack, either directly or by implication, upon the Christian religion. I make no attack upon the Bible. I make no attack upon anything that people should believe in, and that they do believe in and accept, if they believe in and accept the sacred scriptures. But I hold forth a work confirmative of the truths revealed in the Bible, and containing a record also in its completeness of the gospel set forth in the Bible, and evidently prepared of the Lord as a means in his hand to stay the tide of infidelity which he must have foreknown would come rolling in like a flood to destroy his work. And this record not only being susceptible of clear proof from the Bible, but also from the scientific developments of the age and discoveries in archeology made since the publication of the book, it is, as I firmly believe, notwithstanding the warfare against it since the first communication of the light to the boy in 1823, destined to yet become one of the most important factors in the evangelization of the human race.

If the work is a good one its teachings and principles will be good:—

"For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of "thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush "gather they grapes. A good man out of the good "treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is "good: and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his "heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the "abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh." Luke 6: 44 and 45.


So it must prove of this work whether written by men, or indicted by the Holy Spirit through them from time to time. To show you what its teachings are I will read a few specimen paragraphs, which I claim are in perfect keeping with all the teachings of the book; and if they are not I shall expect my opponent during the discussion to point out and read to you others of a contrary character. And if any of the audience think they can find something contrary to the teachings that I shall read, I want you to buy a book and make the examination for yourselves as a couple of gentlemen did to-day, who were not afraid to examine. Page 99.

"And, again, the Lord God hath commanded that men should not murder; that they should not lie; that they should not steal; that they should not take the name of the Lord their God in vain; that they should not envy; that they should not have malice; that they should not contend one with another; that they should not commit whoredoms; and that they should do none of these things; for whoso doeth them, sh

doeth that which is good among the children of men: and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth

them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen, and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile."

Page 242, of the same record.

"And now my brethren, I wish from the inmost part of my heart, yea, with great anxiety, even unto pain, that ye would hearken unto my words, and cast off your sins, and not procrastinate the day Of your repentance; but that ye would humble yourselves before the Lord, and call on his holy name, and watch and pray continually, that ye may not be tempted above that which ye can bear, and thus be led by the Holy Spirit, becoming humble, meek, submissive, patient, full of love and all long suffering; having faith in the Lord; having a hope that ye shall receive eternal life; having the love of God always in your hearts, that ye may be lifted up at the last day, and enter into his rest; and may the Lord grant unto you repentance that ye may not bring down his wrath upon you, that ye may not be bound down by the chains of hell, that ye may not suffer the second death."

Also, paragraph 8, page 249.

"Now those priests who did go forth among the people, did preach against all lying, and deceivings, and envyings, and strifes, and malice and revilings, and stealing, robbing, plundering, murdering, committing adultery, and all manner of lasciviousness, crying that these things ought not so to be; holding forth things which must shortly come; yea holding forth the coming of the Son of God, his suffering and death, and also the resurrection of the dead."

Again from the instruction on page 224, paragraph 4.

"And now my beloved brethren, I have said these things unto you, that I might awaken you to a sense of your duty to God, that ye may walk blameless before him; that ye may walk after the holy order of God, after which ye have been received. And now I would that ye should be humble, and be submissive, and gentle; easy to be entreated; full of patience and long suffering; being temperate in all things; being diligent in keeping the commandments of God at all times; asking for whatsoever things ye stand in need, both spiritual and temporal; always returning thanks unto God for whatsoever things ye do receive, and see that ye have faith, hope and charity, and then ye will always abound in good works; and may the Lord bless you, and keep your garments spotless, that ye may at last be brought to sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the holy prophets who have been ever since the world began, having your garments spotless, even as their garments are spotless in the kingdom of heaven, to go no more out"

Such are the teachings of the book that claims to have been written by good men and prophets as directed of the Lord, to show unto future generations the dealings of our heavenly Father with peoples other than the tribe of Judah. And here I propound a question for my opponent and each one of you to answer. Why is it, that since the object of the work and the character of its teachings are in perfect accord with the object and teachings of the Old and New Testament Scriptures, and that no person can be a believer in the Book of Mormon unless he also believes the Bible that persons who claim to believe in the Bible and are called Christians, and many who are Christians too, have been found fighting against this same book? Why is it they fight against it since Jesus himself has said: "An evil tree can not bring forth good fruit?" I wish the negative of the proposition under discussion to answer these questions; and to candidly and carefully peruse the work and point out every evil thing, or any evil thing, or principle taught therein to this audience so that you. may judge for yourselves of the fact, whether a man cannot accept the Book of Mormon as of divine origin, endorse its teaching, and at the same time be a

Christian man lit the truest and highest sense of that term.








GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:—To render such a discussion as this

necessary, there must be a difference of views between the parties. There is such difference between my opponent and myself. He and his people teach, I. That mankind needed new revelations, in addition to those in the Bible, when Joseph Smith pretended, in the book of Mormon and other pretended revelations, to give new revelations to the world. II. That in the book of Mormon and other pretended revelations, Joseph Smith did give to the world new revelations, in addition to those in the Bible. III. That Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. I believe, I. That in the New Testament, God perfected and completed his work of revelation in a system of universal and eternal truths, a law of universally applicable principles in the Gospel of Christ. That man needs no additional revelations, and never will need any, for he cannot outgrow the universal and eternally applicable principles of the Gospel. II. That all of the pretended revelations of Joe Smith are base frauds and puerile fabrications. III. That Joe Smith was an infamous and villainous deceiver and scoundrel. To render discussion profitable and conclusive in determining what is the truth in regard to the issues, there must be a common standard of authority that is accepted as conclusive authority by both parties. There is such a standard in this discussion. The Israelite Sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament, and the Christian Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament.

The book of Mormon cannot be appealed to as authority in this discussion, for the issue is, "Is the book of Mormon worthy to be used as authority?" Even if it be found, in this discussion, that it is worthy to be used as authority, because it is of divine origin, that would not enable my opponent to use it in this discussion, in determining the issues in this debate. All appeal to the book of Mormon, as a standard in this debate, will be a begging of the question, or an impudent assumption of the very issue in debate. It is the work of each disputant in a discussion, to show that his position, clearly and honestly defined, harmonizes with a correct interpretation of this commonly accepted standard, and that the position of his opponent, clearly and honestly defined, does not harmonize with a correct interpretation and use of this standard. It is the work of my opponent in this discussion to clearly and honestly define his affirmative, concealing and evading nothing, using no equivocation or pettifogging, and then to show that his position thus defined, harmonizes with a fair interpretation and use of the Scriptures. It is my work, if my opponent does not define his affirmative clearly and honestly—if he attempts to conceal or evade the real teaching of his system, by equivocation, or pettifogging, to expose such chicanery and to show what are the real teachings of his system, and then to show that the teachings of his system, fairly and clearly stated, do not harmonize with a correct interpretation of the Scriptures.

There are three questions to be settled. I. What are the teachings of my opponent's system,

when clearly and honestly stated, without concealment or equivocation. II. What do the Scriptures, when correctly interpreted, teach in regard to the doctrine of his system. III. Do the Scriptures, when clearly and fairly interpreted, harmonize with a clear and honest statement of the doctrines of the system of my opponent. There is no sense in our spending time in talking about what we both accept. Nor in caviling over what is not in dispute. Let us then determine, as far as may be, in what do we agree; concerning what do we disagree; what conclusions should we draw from those things in which we agree, concerning those things in which we disagree. Whether the position of my opponent in regard to the things in which we agree is in harmony with his position in regard to those things in which we disagree. Let us make the issues as few, as brief and as clear as possible. I. My opponent and myself both believe that the Israelite Sacred Scriptures, of the Old Testament and the Christian Sacred Scriptures, of the New Testament, were given by inspiration of God, and that they are therefore of divine origin, and authority—a revelation from God to man. We differ concerning "The Book of Mormon." My opponent believes that is also was given by inspiration of God and that it is also of divine origin and authority a revelation from God to man, containing "the fullness of the Gospel," and that ft stands related to the New Testament, as that does to the Old-and is as much superior to it. I believe that the Book of Mormon is a base, puerile fabrication, and a wicked fraud.

II. We both believe that God has made revelations to man, through men inspired by the Holy Spirit—through angelic messengers—and through his Son Jesus the Christ. My opponent believes that he has spoken to men through Joseph Smith, and men who have accepted him as a prophet of God, and that God has through such persons, given revelations to men. I believe that Joseph Smith was a wicked, contemptible impostor, and that all who have pretended to speak by inspiration, in this age


are either hypocritical impostors or self-deluded visionaries. III. We both believe that, in the apostolic age, God spoke to men through the apostles of Christ, and through persons to whom the apostles imparted supernatural gifts, by the imposition of their hands. My opponent believes, that, in the apostolic age, others than those to whom the apostles imparted supernatural gifts by the imposition of their hands, enjoyed those gifts. He believes also that those gifts were an all important element of the religion of Christ, and that they were to continue, until the end of time, in the church. That those gifts can be enjoyed now. That they should be enjoyed now. That the condition of the church where those gifts are not enjoyed is that of apostasy—a dead church. He believes that those gifts can be imparted now by the imposition of hands, of persons now living. That they are so imparted and enjoyed in his organization. That all believers who do not enjoy those gifts are in an apostate condition.

I believe that those gifts were to exist only during the apostolic age. That it was the will of God that they should cease, when the word of God was completed in the New Testament, and that, as it was his will that they should cease then, they did cease. That in the apostolic age, those gifts were never enjoyed by any, except those to whom an apostle imparted them by the imposition of his hands. That no one but an apostle could, or ever did impart those gifts. That they never descended to a third person. That the power to impart those gifts was the "sign of

apostleship." That when the last person, to whom an apostle imparted those gifts, died, they ceased from earth. That such was God's will and law. Also that the condition of the church, when the best of those gifts were enjoyed, was the formative, the childlike condition of the church. That the condition of the church, under the control of "the perfect law of liberty,"—"of that which is perfect," the completed word of God, is as much superior to the condition of the church, when the best of these gifts were enjoyed, as the condition of the world, when God ceased from creation—after creating man, is superior to the period, when by miracles of creation, he was preparing for man. Or as the condition of the full grown man is superior to that of the undeveloped child. Or as the condition of our country under our completed constitution, and government in accordance with it, is superior to the condition of our nation, while the constitutional convention was in session, framing the constitution.

I am careful to define and elaborate these differences, because this is the key note to the whole discussion. This is the crucial issue in this debate. My opponent bases his claim that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God; that the Book of Mormon was given by inspiration of God, that it "contains the fulness of the Gospel." —that the Book of Mormon and other pretended revelations stand related to the New Testament, as the New Testament stands related to the Old Testament, that his people possesses these miraculous powers and spiritual gifts, on a claim that the promises of Joel and other prophets, of John the Baptist, of Jesus, of Peter and the apostles, concerning spiritual gifts, were to be enjoyed by the church in all ages. If my position, that these promises refer only to the apostolic age, and were enjoyed only in the apostolic age, and that they were to remain only until the Word of God was completed in the New Testament.—that in the New Testament, God completed this miraculous work, and the exercise of spiritual gifts, in a perfect revelation of a complete system of universally applicable and eternal truths and principles be true, it utterly demolishes the claim of my opponent, by showing that revelations, in addition to those in the Bible, are needless, and contrary to the teachings of God's Word, and therefore his Book of Mormon and pretended revelations are base frauds, and Joe Smith a vile impostor.

We both believe that all followers of Christ, should be united and stand on the divine platform, laid down for such union, in Ephesians, IV. (A.) One God the Father. I shall, in the right place, prove that the teachings of the system of my opponent, in regard to the one God, are gross materialism and idolatry. (B.) One Lord; Jesus of Nazareth; the Christ, the only begotten Son of God—the only Divine Prophet, or source of all teaching in religion—the only Divine Priest, or sacrifice and atonement for the sins of all men —the only mediator between God and man —the only Divine King,—the only source of all law in religion, and the only one whose commands we are to obey, in religion. I shall, in the right place, expose the gross sensualism of my opponent's system in regard to the origin and character of the Son of God. My opponent claims that Joe Smith was a prophet of God, whose teachings are to be obeyed, accepted as "the fullness of the gospel," and as much superior to those of Jesus, as the teachings of Jesus, are superior to those of the prophets of the Old Testament; and whose commands are as much superior to the New Testament, as the New Testament is to the Old Testament. I believe that Joe Smith was a base imposter, a wicked deceiver, whose silly fabrications should be despised as contemptible frauds. (C.) One Holy Spirit, who inspired the men whose inspired acts and utterances are recorded in the Bible. My opponent believes that the Holy Spirit inspired Joe Smith, and others who have accepted him as a true prophet of God, and that he inspires men now, I believe that all inspiration and miraculous powers ceased in the apostolic age, having accomplished their purpose, in giving to mankind, a completed revelation of genera] and universally applicable truths; and that the Holy

Spirit now influences man, in the only way in which one intelligence





can exert a moral influence over another, that is through the truth contained in his utterances recorded in the Scriptures, and through the teaching that is in accordance with the truths revealed by the Holy Spirit, in the Scriptures.

(D.) The one faith—the faith—the teaching—the Word of God,—the scriptures— "the faith once delivered to the Saints." My opponent would add to this "one faith." delivered to the Saints—to God's Word, the Book of Mormon, and other pretended revelations of Joe Smith, and of others who accept Joe Smith as a prophet of God. I reject all of these as base fabrications of importers, or as silly vagaries of fanatical visionaries. (E.) One baptism —immersion into water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit—into the remission of sins. My opponent teaches these errors in regard to baptism. I. Baptism for the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit. II. That baptism in the Holy Spirit was universal in the church, in the apostolic age, and that it can be enjoyed now, and exists in his organization. III. The farce of baptizing the living as proxies for the dead. I believe that in the days of the apostles only those of the baptized received the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, to whom an apostle imparted them by the imposition of his hands. I believe also that there were never but two occasions of baptism in the Holy Spirit, one on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem—the other at the house of Cornelius in Caesarea—that both were miraculous—direct miracles from Heaven, and never were, and never will be repeated. The baptism for the dead I regard as a farce resulting from a blunder in regard to an obscure passage of Scripture. (F.) One hope—remission of sins to the penitent believer, who is baptized into Christ—union with God and his Holy Spirit, so long as the Christian, in a holy life, makes his body a fit temple for such union and such a guest; and eternal life if men are faithful unto death. My opponent includes in this hope, miraculous spiritual gifts, in this life, and he debases the eternal hope into a materialistic sensual reigning of Mormons over Gentiles, in a materialistic sensual state, like the Paradise of the Mahommedan. (G.) One body—"The church of God" or "The church of Christ." Christ is the head of the body, and all believers are living stones, members in this body, this temple. In this church are Evangelists who proclaim the good news; Overseers who take care of the flock—Servants who minister unto the church; and members who are not called to such work. My opponent adds to this simple statement of the New Testament presidents, councillors, apostles, twelve apostles, three seventies of apostles, traveling bishops, presiding elders, quorums, patriarchs, seers, prophets, pastors, teachers, translators, revelators, until not even an inspired Mormon knows how many more, and about one-third of the men are officers of some sort. He asserts that all of these should exercise miraculous powers, and divides them into the Melchisedec priesthood, and the Aaronic priesthood, and tells us that the Aaronic priest must be a literal descendant of Aaron." That caps the climax of absurdity. (H.) One name—"Christian"

— for all individuals who are followers of Christ; and "Church of God" or "Church of Christ" for the one body composed of these followers of Christ or Christians. My opponent calls his people "Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ." Shades of the apostles what an Ashdodish lingo! He calls his organization "The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." Where in the World of God does he find such a rigmarole as that? He may find such a jargon in the Book of Doctrines

and Covenants, or Joe Smith's Book of Abraham, but not in the Scriptures. Such an Ashdodish Babel is not found in the pure speech of Canaan, in God's word. Such is a fair statement of the points concerning which we agree, and also those concerning which we disagree. My opponent summarizes his teachings in his proposition: "The Book of Mormon is of divine origin and entitled to the confidence of all Christian people "

My first and cardinal objection to my opponent's position is that the Bible teaches that the work of inspiration, miracles and revelation, was completed in the revelations of the Son of God, that he give in person, and through his apostles, in the New Testament, in which there is given to mankind, a system of eternal truths, universally applicable principles, which man can not outgrow, for which there can be no substitute, and to which there can be no additions. That as inspiration and miracle had accomplished their work in completing revelation, they ceased when the last person died to whom an apostle had imparted spiritual gifts, by the imposition of his hands. If this position be true, the Scriptures teach that such a claim as my opponent makes for his Book of Mormon, is absolutely impossible. It was not given, or translated by inspiration, for the Bible teaches that inspiration and miraculous power ceased nearly 1,800 years before it appeared. This is the crucial question, the vital issue of this discussion. If my position be Scripturally true, my opponent's affirmatives are utterly unscriptural and utterly untrue, according to what is the standard of truth in this debate. We intend to hold our opponent right to the work on this point. If he does not meet and overturn my position, his claim for the Book of Mormon is "as baseless as the fabric of a dream."

The first vital query then is "What do the Scriptures teach in regard to inspiration, miracles and revelations—in regard to when they first appeared—their purpose—their history and development—-how long they were to continue? What was their purpose, and how long did that purpose make it necessary for them to continue? What


do the Scriptures teach in regard to the continuance of inspiration, miracle and revelation? And their completion and cessation? The Scriptures teach that the Father has spoken, in the hearing of man, only three times. At the baptism of Jesus, Matthew, III. 17. At the transfiguration. Matthew, XVII, 5. When Jesus prayed and the multitude heard the answer. John, XII, 28. On all other occasions, the Father has spoken through representatives,—the Word—the Christ—the Holy Spirit—angels inspired men. The Word spoke to men through angels, or through men inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Word was the God of the Old Testament, John. I. Colossians, I. Hebrew, I. The Word the God of the Old Testament spoke through angels, Acts, VII, "Ye received the word through the ministry of angels." Gal. III. "The law was ordained through angels, by the hand of a mediator" (Moses). While on earth Christ, spoke to men. Angels spoke to men as representatives of Jehovah, the Word, and of Christ, after his ascension. Rev. I. "The revelation of Jesus, the Christ, which God gave to him, to show to his servants, the things which must shortly come to pass, and he sent his angels to his servant John, and made them known unto John, and John bear witness of the word of God." In Exodus, III, we read interchangeably, "Jehovah said," and "the angels said," showing that Jehovah spoke through his angels that represented him. In several places Jehovah says, to Moses through his angel that represented him, "I send my angel before

you. I have put my word in his mouth. Hear him," etc. Isaiah, LXI, we read that the Mosaic dispensation was given by "an angel of the face of Jehovah" or a messenger from his presence. We might illustrate this idea by many other passages, but these will suffice, for probably our only dispute will be over the work of the Holy Spirit.

Both parties agree that the Holy Spirit inspired all, men who acted, spoke, or wrote under inspiration, from Adam to Malachi; that he inspired all who acted, spoke, or wrote under inspiration from Zachariah, the father of John the Baptist, until the last person died to whom an apostle imparted spiritual gifts, by the imposition of his hands. My opponent claims that the Scriptures teach that these spiritual gifts were to remain in the church until the end of time, that it is the law of God that they should now exist, that they do now exist in his organization, that as a result of such existence of these gifts Joseph Smith was inspired, was a true prophet of God, and therefore the "Book of Mormon," that he gave to the world, is a revelation from God. I claim that the Scriptures teach that these miraculous powers of the Holy Spirit were given for a specific purpose, the revelation of a plan of redemption—that they were to exist until that purpose was accomplished in completing the New Testament—that they ceased when they accomplished this purpose, in completing this revelation, in the New Testament. I claim that the law of God ordains that they were to exist for a certain purpose, the revelation of the scheme of re-redemption, and they were to continue until that object was accomplished. The purpose for which God ordained their existence and continuance, has been accomplished, in completing the New Testament; and they have ceased, having accomplished their object, and being no longer necessary. The issue is not one of power, but of fact and law. Not whether God can impart gifts now, but whether it is his law that they should exist now. Or is it his law that they should cease with the apostolic age, having accomplished their objects. As a question of fact, did Joseph Smith possess these powers? Do his followers now possess them? Proving that they can be exercised now, would not prove that Joseph Smith possessed them, nor that his followers do possess them. A man may be able to practice law, but that does not prove that he does so. The fact that God can impart such powers now, does not prove that he does so. God can have apples grow as tubers on the roots of trees, but that does not prove that he does. The question of fact remains, "How do apples, grow?" The fact that God imparted these powers to persons in former ages, does not prove that he does so now. God once brought animals and plants into existence by miracle of direct creation. That does not prove that he does so now. As a matter of fact, we know that he does not, but that he brings them into existence through operation of natural law.

Let me here expose the vital error of my opponent's position, by an illustration. God exerted his miraculous power in creation, to prepare the way for natural law, the law of reproduction, and the world is in a higher and more perfect condition under the operation of natural law, than when God exerted miraculous power, in bringing animals and plants into being, by creation. Miraculous power, in creation, was only temporary, and provisional, and exerted only to prepare the way for the higher and more perfect, natural law. In like manner, God exerted his miraculous power in connection with revelation, only to prepare the way for the higher and permanent, a completed system of divine revealed truth, in the completed word of God, in the completed New Testament. Miraculous power in revelation, ceased when that purpose was accomplished; just as miraculous power, in creation ceased when, it had prepared for, and introduced the higher and the permanent, the operation of natural law. Miraculous power in connection with revelation, was inferior to the work of the completed word of God, just as miraculous power, in creation, was inferior to the operation of natural law, God is in the operation of his completed word of truth, in a higher and

more perfect manner, than he ever was in the highest exercise of miraculous power, just as he is





in the operation of natural law. in a higher and more perfect sense, than he ever was in the exercise of miraculous power in creation. In each case the method employed at first, was provisional and temporary, and was employed only to introduce the higher and permanent, for which it prepared the way. There is no evading the conclusion that the operation of natural law and the influence of the revealed truths of God's completed word, are superior to the highest exercise of miraculous power, either in creation or revelation.

We do not remove God out of nature, or his word; but we show that, in each case, he acts in a higher and more perfect manner. We do not remove a single thing God created, nor a single truth of revelation. Miraculous power was not a part of the things created, but the means of creating them, and ceased when that was done, and gave way to the operation of a higher and more perfect means of accomplishing the same end. Miraculous power was not a part of the truths revealed, but the means of revealing divine truth, and ceased when that work was done, and gave way to a higher and more perfect work, and presence of God, in the moral influence of the divine truths revealed. The idea of my opponent, that the possession of miraculous power is the thing to be desired above everything else, and that the condition of the church, when it was exercised, was the highest condition of the church, and far superior to its condition now, when it does not exist, and the church exerts only moral power resident in perfect truth, is a contradiction of the Scriptures, of reason, and of fact. Such a state of the church was the childhood of the church. The exercise of such gifts was necessary, because it was in its childhood. They were aids to childhood, that ceased when the church "laid aside such childish things." The church is now in its manhood, and governed by "the perfect law of liberty" the completed Word of God. The moral power of divine truth, appealing to reason and conscience of men as rational beings, is far superior to miracles, appealing to the childish wonder of children.

A vital query is suggested here. How can one intelligence influence another? How can one spirit, the Holy Spirit, influence another spirit—the spirit of man? Man can influence his fellow man in two ways. I. By utterances or acts that convey ideas to the minds of the persons addressed. This is the only moral power or influence that one spirit can exert on another. II. An abnormal psychological influence, called mesmerism or psychology. This is not a moral influence for it leaves the mind influenced no wiser, no better. In like manner the Holy Spirit has exerted two influences over the spirit of men. I. A miraculous influence, psychologizing the spirits of men, so that they uttered the words he wanted them to utter; or performed the acts that tie wanted them to perform. II. The ordinary influence, that he has exerted on the minds of those who heard or read the utterances of those he psychologized, or saw or read the acts they performed. In the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit he has always exerted two influences. I. The miraculous psychological influence exerted on the hearts of those inspired by which he caused them to do or say what he wanted to reveal to others. II. The ordinary and moral influence that he exerted on the minds of those who heard or read their revelations.

We desire now to emphasize a thought that we do not want to be lost sight of for one moment, in the discussion of the issues before us. "The miraculous influence of the Holy Spirit

never, in a single instance, exerted one particle of moral power, on the spirit of the person influenced by it; never in a single instance produced one particle of moral change, in the person influenced by it." The cases of Baalam, Saul King of Israel, Jonah and Caiaphas show that the person influenced, often uttered what was entirely opposed to his own wishes. That he did not know what he would say before he was influenced. Nor what he was saying when the influence was upon him. When the influence left him he knew no more about the meaning of what he had uttered than any other person, and had to study it the same as any other person. Peter says. "The Prophets, who prophesied of the good that should come unto you, sought and searched diligently, what manner of time, and what things, the Spirit of Christ, that was in them did signify, when he testified beforehand of the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow." The character of Baalam, Saul, Caiaphas and Jonah show that this Influence of the spirit was impacted, sometimes, regardless of character to vile, rebellious persons. That it left vile men just as it found them. It did not change them morally, one particle. We wish our readers to remember these facts, while weighing the question, whether this influence was to remain in the church. As it was not a moral influence, it was not to be desired, on an account of its moral benefits to the person influenced. As it produced no moral influence, except through the truth it revealed, it ceased, when it had perfected that work. There can be no reason why it should exist in the church when revelation was. completed. There is no work that the church does now, or is required, by the Word of God to perform, that can be accomplished by this miraculous influence, nor that it can aid one particle.

Let us now trace the miraculous influence of the spirit in the Gospel Dispensation. Joel and other prophets promised a miraculous outpouring of the spirit in the last days of the Mosaic dispensation. Peter declared, on the day of Pentecost, that the baptism in the Holy Spirit, received by him and his brethren was a partial fulfillment of Joel's promise. "This," the baptism in the Holy Spirit, that he and his brethren had received, "is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel." That it included the


miraculous powers that others enjoyed in the apostolic age. Peter's language has not the slightest reference to the ordinary influence of the spirit on the Christian, when he says: "Ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit"—the Holy Spirit as a gift--"for the promise." What a promise?

Joel's promise of the miraculous influence of the spirit, "is to you and your children, and to those that are afar off."—It was, for Joel's promise was "to all flesh, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Call how? By the imposition of an apostle's hands as we shall show. John the Baptist and our Saviour promised the baptism in the Holy Spirit. It was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost and at the house of Cornelius. Our Saviour promised that his apostles should be inspired, when before persecuting magistrates. They were and the Bible records, no other instances. Our Saviour declares: "that out of those who believe on his name shall flow inspiration like rivers of water." This included the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit that existed in the apostolic church. These had not yet been given.

In his last lecture to his apostles, and to no others, as recorded in John. XIII to XVI, delivered just before crucifixion, our Saviour told his apostles that he would leave them—the apostles—that

he would send to them—the apostles—the Comforter to take his place with them—the apostles— that the Comforter would reveal to their minds—the minds of the apostles—what he had said to them—the apostles—that the Comforter would guide them—the apostles—into all truth—show them—the apostles— things to come, and would take the things of the Father and show them to them—the apostles. These promises have not the slightest reference to the ordinary influence of the Holy Spirit on the Christians, for his work was all miraculous. These promises apply to the apostles, and to no others. Our Saviour's address was a closing charge to his apostles, and has no application to any other persons. It was a promise that they—the apostles, should be qualified for the work that he committed to their care— committed to the apostles, and none others. After his resurrection he renewed this promise, when he promised that his apostles should be endowed with power from on high. That they should be baptized in the Holy Spirit.

Let us now dispose forever of the promise of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. It was a promise. Not a command. Was received. Not obeyed. Christ was the administrator. Not man. Was poured out from heaven. Not performed on earth by man, on another man. It was promised as a miraculous power. Not commanded as an ordinance. It was a miracle. Was always attended with miracles. It always conferred miraculous power. It was not in any name. It was not a memorial, a monument, a symbol, a type, a likeness, a form, an object lesson, setting forth any fact or truth. It was perhaps the most extraordinary and miraculous event in the Gospel Dispensation. Did not and could not become a permanent element in the church.

There is only one baptism in the church, Eph., IV, 4. It is a command. Men are to administer it to others. Men are to obey it. It is in the name of the Father, Son "and Holy Spirit. It is in water. It is a monument of Christ's burial and resurrection— monument of the great facts of the Gospel, a memorial, a type, a likeness, a symbol, a form, an object lesson setting forth Christ's burial and resurrection—also the sinner's burial to his past sinful life, and his resurrection to a new life in Christ. It is for the remission of sins. It is a permanent ordinance in the church. The Scriptures designate but two occurrences as Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Peter declares, Acts, XI, "As I began to speak to the household Cornelius, the Holy Spirit fell on them as he did on us at the beginning, (on the day of Pentecost). Then remembered I the words of the Lord, how that he said: "John indeed baptized in water, but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit." God bestowed the same gift—the Holy Spirit as a gift—on them as on us." Peter declares that these two occasions—when the Holy Spirit fell on the apostles and brethren, on the day of Pentecost, at Jerusalem—and on the house of Cornelius in Caesarea—were baptisms in the Holy Spirit. The Bible knows no other. This disposes forever of all talk of Baptism in the Holy Spirit now, or on any other occasion, than the two mentioned by the Scriptures. Persons might as well claim the power to create a world, as to claim Baptism in the Holy Spirit. All such unscriptural visionary ideas that leave an open door for fanaticism and folly and have cursed the world with the most infamous delusions and crimes, should be abandoned.





the fact that instead of the negative following and trying to answer the affirmative, he has seen fit to try to prove some other thing true, in the hope that thereby he might prove that what I have stated is not true. It is customary in discussions for the negative to follow and answer the arguments of the affirmative, unless he is willing to admit that he cannot move them. If that is the position of the negative on this question, and he is willing to admit that he cannot move my position, but claims that there is something else true that he can prove outside of the line of the affirmative, and which may be termed an alibi, that will show that the position of the affirmative cannot be true because there is a contrary truth to such, then he has the right I suppose and the option to do so. But he cannot play upon both positions and keep within the law or rule of evidence or argument. If he has an alibi let him make the proper admission or plea, admitting my positions and setting up his claim, and then I can follow him in his lead, as he will thus place himself fairly in the affirmative and I can answer according to the rule, and the debate will go on. orderly.

Will you do this? But I will first notice one or two of his positions, in order to show their fallacy to the audience, and then proceed with my affirmative arguments, as I shall not be drawn away from the main question under consideration to discuss side issues. I am here for the purpose of showing you the divine origin of this book, and shall show it before the eighth evening returns, I promise you that. It is said that the views and belief of the people who believe in this book are erroneous.

Now, suppose that I was discussing with an infidel friend at this time with regard to the divinity of the Holy Scriptures, and when I should take my position in order to show that the scriptures as delivered to the human family were of divine origin, my infidel opponent would arise and say, yes, your positions are all right; I cannot move those. But then your people have not been doing right. The people who believe in the Holy Scriptures are not in accordance with them in faith and doctrine. Would that interfere in the least or be applicable to the question of whether the Scriptures are true or not? And so it is with the question under discussion. The question is, as to the divine authenticity of this book, in regard to the teachings of this book; but he has sought to answer here and to throw into the minds of the audience the assertion that the people who believe in this book are not doing right, has called in question the character of some of the persons who have believed in it, by his language and a few set phrases. In the first place, this is no argument nor can it have a particle of weight, so far as that is concerned, towards impeaching the divinity of the record that is before us. I might ask him if he believes in the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, written and compiled by Solomon? Yet after Solomon had written these books he bowed down to wood and stone; gods made with men's hands. And yet I could hurl in his face that these books that were the compilation of the wise king ought not to be tolerated, because, forsooth, Solomon afterwards turned from the things therein and did evil in the sight of the Lord. He believes in the Psalms. Yet David had his hundreds of wives and concubines; and not only had many wives and concubines, but took a poor soldier's wife when he was in the front of war, battling for his country, and then afterwards had the soldier put in the front of the battle and murdered in order that he might carry out his designs. But because of this shall I say that the divinity of the Scriptures is at all called in. question? Such fallacy of reasoning as this ought to be patent to any man that has come here for the purpose of investigating truth. I place the matter in the shape of a separate and distinct proposition. How shall we canvass this subject? How shall we go to work in order to canvass this book, and arrive at a correct conclusion as to its merits? There are many ways in which, you may fail to do it. There were many ways in which the people in the first age of

Christianity undertook to canvass the claims with regard to whether Jesus was what he claimed to be or not. And there were true ways to canvass it then, and there were false ways to canvass it. And. remember that the majority of the people undertook to canvass it upon the false issues and in the false ways. Why, I have only to open my Bible here and show you the conflict in this regard by turning to the 7th chapter of John. And it was a conflict not unlike the conflict that is presented here. In the 7th chapter of John and the 12th verse I read this: "And there was much murmuring among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay; but he deceiveth. the people. Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews." Now here was a question in regard to deciding upon the divine claim of that man, and there was a right way to proceed, and there was a wrong one. Some, instead of investigating the principles that he brought, and the truths that he presented, said standing behind the cloak of the persons that had


told the stories around about Jerusalem with regard to him, he is "a deceiver;" and not only a deceiver, but "a gluttonous man;" "a wine bibber;" and he is palming upon the people something for truth that is not truth. Was there any argument in that? Is there any argument in the bare assertion that Joseph Smith was a false teacher, or that he was a deceiver? And I call my friend's attention to the fact that he has made him out a false prophet and a false teacher by his language before the audience, before he has offered even a scrap of evidence to you to prove him such. Is it proper, in the consideration of the question here, to call a man false before he is proven false? I wish to have him present the argument here, if he wishes to take up that line, and show that he is a deceiver, a false prophet,, and a very wicked man. Then after he shall have done that, if I ana not able to meet him and show to the contrary, it may possibly be proper for him to use the language with regard to him that he has used. I have not said anything in regard to the point of order raised by the chairman which was certainly proper, because if my opponent in this discussion wishes to make a poor use of his time and thus throw it away in regard to the question at issue, I propose to let him do that, so far as I am concerned. But I shall not be drawn from the main subject under consideration myself.

Then how shall we canvass this question? By an examination into the history and character, supposed faith and failings of the ones presenting it? Do you think that a fair examination could be made in such a way? This, as I said before, was the manner of those who sought or tried in a certain way to destroy the divine mission and character of Jesus. Why, you cannot palm that man off on us for the Messiah! "For is he not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother Mary, and are not Joses and James and Simon and Judas his brothers?" Such a rule of investigation adopted as that, was calculated to deceive the people, and to keep all those deceived who engaged in it, rather than to bring light to them. Afterwards when the apostles went out to preach to the world, there was a rule laid down whereby men might come to a correct conclusion with regard to the things that were presented by the apostles. And certain individuals saw fit, instead of following the true rule, to make war upon the character of the apostles. But was that a true way to examine into their faith? I ask my opponent in this discussion to answer a question with regard to that—Does he approve the course of the Jews in testing the truth and divinity of the message presented by John and Jesus in searching for stories as to their characters? Tracing out their father and mother, and their brethren, etc.; instead of investigating from the standpoint of the message that was brought, and that was shown forth in the claim itself? After he has answered these, then I ask him to state to this audience whether he approves the act of the wicked Jews in investigating the claims and the teachings of the apostles themselves as they went forth to the world to carry that message, by inquiring into the character of Paul and of Peter, and by listening to the stories that were being told all around about them in Jerusalem and elsewhere instead of coming up like fair men and weighing and canvassing the words that they presented and comparing them with the Scriptures that they claimed to believe in? It seems to me that if we are to canvass the question under consideration, there is some proper way by which we must do it. How shall it be done? Is there any rule laid down? I believe that the Bible is the standard in controversy, as stated by my opponent. He stated many things to you that were true, and many things with regard to my belief that were untrue, and so many of them are not true, that the only answer that I will make to them at this time, is the answer that General Rosecrans telegraphed back to Washington on the occasion

of the re-union of the soldiers at Cincinnati last Fall in reference to a statement made in the newspapers at Washington of a purported interview. He said, "there is so much falsehood mixed in with the little truth in the publication, that I send back a telegram that the whole is false." Now, I do not use the term falsehood in a deliberate sense in regard to my opponent, but certainly he has misconceived the positions that I take and that my people take with reference to our belief in the scriptures and in the revelations. And on many other things that he stated before you he is as ignorant, if he has stated what he really believes, as the majority, no doubt, of this audience. But it is my place to enlighten him, and I will try to do so before this discussion closes. When Jesus had been examined under a wrong rule by the wicked Jews in his time, he gave the apostles a correct rule by which they might try men, and that correct rule is stated in direct language when he refers them to the teaching of Moses and the prophets. He says to them, "If ye believed in Moses and the prophets, ye would believe in me, for Moses wrote of me." And again, as you will find recorded in the 8th chapter and 46th verse of John: "Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?" Now, the Jews were standing there, some saying that he was the son of Joseph, some saying that he was the son of Mary and that these men around here were his brethren, and that he was a deceiver and a wine bibber and a gluttonous man. But Jesus says to them. "'If I say the truth, why do you not believe me?" That was the proper ground upon which to decide whether he was an impostor or not, or whether his message came from heaven or not. Afterwards he lays down a distinct and positive rule for his disciples to go by. My friend claims to be a Disciple. Will he go by it, and will he answer to this audience whether it is a true rule or not? He says,






"Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?" "He that is of God heareth God's words: Ye therefore hear them not because ye are not of God."'—John 8:46,47.

Again, a further exposition of this rule by one of his apostles afterwards. You will find it recorded by John, in his second epistle, 9th verse, wherein he states that "whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God." That is the way to try men. I have presented you my case this evening, and told you that I believed in the doctrine of Christ, and that so far as the revelation on the other continent was concerned, I was in agreement with it. I take up the revelation made on the other continent, and it says, "He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." And what am I answered with? "Oh, they are deceivers! They are fanatics! He is a false prophet."

There was one position that was taken by the negative in his argument that I will examine in due time, but I will not leave the subject at this time to do so. That with reference to the cessation of miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, or inspiration, or the confining of them to the first century. If I cannot show that they were not confined to the first century, why, certainly I ought to be able to, if this is true in this book, in one sense. But then this book might be true in a certain sense, too, and still they be confined, so far as the people on the eastern continent are concerned, to the first century.

However, I will examine that when the time comes, and will make it explicit and clear to the audience. We have the rule as stated by the Apostle John, in accordance with the rule laid down by the Master himself: — "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." Now, will you investigate my character in order to know whether I am teaching the right kind of doctrine or not this evening? Or would such a course be pertinent to the question? Bo with any other character. If that was the test, I could overthrow, by taking the testimony of enemies and the testimony of friends, every writer that is contained in the Bible, and sink them so low that no man could ever resurrect them. But, I repeat, it is no test.

In the next verse to the rule already quoted the apostle says:—"If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed." But, instead of examining the question in regard to the presentation of the book under investigation, in that line, he sees fit to go back and ask in regard to the character of the people, what their enemies said about them preferring the stories of their enemies, to the truth. But I leave the matter thus far with you, and proceed with my main affirmative argument.

Having generally introduced the subject under discussion, I shall proceed at once to marshall the testimony found in the Bible that is fairly applicable to my positions.

It may be properly arranged under the following general divisions: —

1. That of a general nature, showing that it is in harmony with the general law relating to the race of man, that God makes known his will to him wherever and whenever man will put himself in condition to receive instruction, regardless of caste or nationality, and making it possible and probable, that nations other than the Jews of Palestine, have received instruction from Him.

2. Such testimony as is contained in the Scriptures which specifically refers to the fact of a people settling the American continent from the orient; definitely setting forth who they were; the reason and object of their coming; the results of the migration, and the character and nature of the revelations God from time to time made to them.

3. The prophetic writings contained in the Bible which refer to the decadence of the people who came here, the bringing to light of their history and Record, and the important part that Record is to fill in the purposes of the Almighty as an ensign to the people, and a means of leading men and women to the knowledge of the true God.

Under the first of these divisions the statement of the Apostle Paul is directly in support. Acts 17: 26 and 27: "And [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation: That they should seek the Lord, if happily they might feel after him. and find him, though he be not far from every one of us."

Whatever may be our views and preconceived notions with regard to the dealings of the divine hand with the human family, it was made clear to the gifted mind of the apostle, that God did have something to do in fixing the bounds of the human habitation, and that He did it for the purpose that they might seek Him; — not only this, but that they might also "find him," which finding is to be brought into such relationship with him as to actually know him, to have a knowledge of their acceptance from him of their work and hence a communication of his will. The testimony of the apostle Peter is in perfect agreement with the thought, acts 10: 34 and 35, when he declares: —

"Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness is accepted with him." It had been with the Jews up to Peter's

time as with the great mass of the people denominated Christians to-day, an idea that God would have nothing to do with any people except the few who congregated about Jerusalem so far as communicating his will or acceptance to them was concerned, and that all had been said by him to the world through them that was necessary, or that he had to






communicate: But when the light of truth was sent from on high and dawned upon Peter's mind, he woke up to the grand fact that with our common Father and Creator there was no partiality, that his will and desire extended everywhere to aid and bless the creature, the same that was subjected in hope. His acceptance on this occasion was the same as made all along through the history. That same comforter which was shed forth at the acceptance of Jesus, when He said, "This is my beloved Son," and of which Jesus had said, "If I go away I will send him," was shed forth; and falling upon those of the uncircumcision, "They heard them speak with tongues and magnify God." And the apostle and those who were with him from the manifestation of God to the people recognized that there was an acceptance.

Jesus is the next witness I offer upon the point of the existence of another people, than the Jews, who had been in communication with the father at the date he personally presented the gospel to the people: John 10, 14 and 16: —"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, (people), and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep, (people), I have, which are not of this fold: (the fold of Jerusalem), them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd."

To have been sheep, the people referred to by Jesus in this scripture, mast have at some time had the will of God made known to them and also believed the same, or else have been of Israel, made so by reason of the promises. Otherwise, they could not have been sheep; for says Jesus: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me." They like Abraham of old had heard and recognized the inspired voice as had also the Jews when he led them along through the difficulties of life and who had hearkened in a manner to his precepts- and although at that time far separated from the fold from whence they had been led, (Jerusalem), yet, they, as the Jews to whom the address was then made, were to hear the voice of that same shepherd. These citations establish the fact certainly of the first proposition, that there were at the time Jesus was ministering upon the earth, another people than those at the fold of Jerusalem who were, or had been acceptable in their worship with God. But this is but one fact established; the second, pointing out the people referred to, must be shown, ere we can apply with understanding to the particular people, the Master's declaration. Turning to Math. 10, 5, 6, we find a descriptive statement of the kind or class of people who were termed by Jesus, sheep: —"These twelve Jesus sent "forth and commanded them, saying, Go "not into the way of the Gentiles, and into "any city of the Samaritans enter ye not. "But go rather to the lost sheep of the "house of Israel." Here then is another mark of distinction by which the sheep of whom he spoke may be known.

In addition to being a people who have hearkened to his teachings, they were of the house of Israel;—of the tribes of which Judah was but one, that had under the promises sprung from

Jacob, (Israel), and hence of the house of Israel. The prophet Ezekiel in speaking of those in the 34th chapter of that book gives us instruction as to where we might expect to look for this house of Israel: "My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and upon every high hill; yea, my flock was scattered upon all the face of the earth, and none did search or seek after them." And again, verse 11. "For thus saith the Lord God: Behold I, even I, will both search my sheep and seek them out."

It is clear then that in our search to find the people denominated sheep of whom Jesus spoke, and that he was to search after, we are not necessarily bound to confine ourselves to any particular part of God's heritage; for, "they were scattered upon all the face of the earth;" and although men who have termed themselves the wise and learned of the world, may have thought that the little country of Palestine is the only one wherein Jesus' voice had been heard, inspiration unmistakably points to the contrary, and no person should be surprised to find that in the faithful examination of these things the inspired writings shall have been found correct. Taking up the Record forming the basis of this discussion, I read on page 451, of a claim made that the language of Jesus made at Jerusalem was with the understanding that ho knew of these on this continent, as also others in a different part of the earth:

"And behold, (says Jesus to these), "this is the land of your inheritance; and the Father hath given it unto you. And not at any time Lath the Father given me commandment that 1 should tell it to your brethren at Jerusalem; neither at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell it unto them concerning the other tribes of the house of Israel, whom the Father hath led away out of the land. This much did the Father command me, that I should tell unto them, that, other sheep I have, which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall Hear my voice; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd. And now because of stiff-neckedness and unbelief, they understood not my word; therefore I was commanded to say no more of the Father concerning this unto them. But, verily, I say unto you, that the Father hath commanded me, and I tell it unto you, that ye were separated from among them because of their iniquity; therefore it is because of their iniquity that they know not of you. And verily, I say unto you again, that the other tribes hath the Father separated from them; and it is because of their iniquity, that they know not of them. And verily, I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said, other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd."

But, says the objector, what evidence is that, that these were the people referred to? Only this; in the singularity of the statement which the record makes, and the new fact brought to light, if it shall upon investigation be found to be a fact, at a time in the world's history when it was supposed by scriptorians everywhere that Jesus referred to another thing, and which view is





found to have been erroneous when examined closely from a Bible standpoint in the light that is newly thrown upon the world by this record. And further it bears evidence in this, being a circumstance in the chain of evidence which unites to form a complete connection with this people and that at Jerusalem. And it is of value providing the other links in the chain accord therewith, and harmonize, and thus indeed form a chain, the which, no other reasonable view is adverse.

Do not understand me, or misrepresent me as jumping at the conclusion that because of the expression of Jesus on the other continent, found in John's gospel, therefore the book of Mormon

is true; nor because the language is contained in the book from which I have read, therefore, it is true. I think I understand and comprehend the rules of logic as well as those of evidence too well to make any such blundering, or startling leap, at conclusions as that; and wish you to take only things for evidence after they shall have fairly been shown to be such.

Whether I believed in the words read from the Record I have before me or not, there would hang to mind the singularity of the statement of Jesus at Jerusalem, taken in connection with the other fact that it seemed to have been so wholly ignored and misunderstood by those to whom it was addressed. No one even to ask, Lord to whom do you refer? Indeed it is singular knowing as we do, that the Gentiles are not and never were reckoned as sheep. The same stolid indifference still manifest by that people and that seems to have hung by them so long before and after, that to them nothing was of worth or interest outside of Judah and the little country on the east of the great sea.

Returning to the line of evidence, I take up the testimony of the scriptures which relate to the establishment of a people in the land as claimed in this record: —

Genesis, 49, 22, Jacob, (Israel), the head of the tribes in his last blessing upon the twelve sons whose children should figure so wonderfully in the history of the world, says, in his blessing of Joseph:—

"Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; whose branches run over the wall:"

"The archers have sorely grieved him and shot at him, and hated him: But his bow abode in strength and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd the stone of Israel):

"Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee and by the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb: the blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren."

Whatever may, or may not have been the former entertained or expressed views of the meaning and application of this prophetic blessing, one thing must be admitted by all the intelligent, and that is, that the prediction clearly shows a change of place of residence and habitation at some period of time, of the posterity of Joseph. Also their settlement and inheritance of a country far greater in extent, and more wonderful for richness and desirableness than the country of Palestine, or that adjacent.

The prophecy reveals what is to be the history of the descendants: — "Whose branches run over the wall." "The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bounds of the everlasting hills." The blessing of Jacob's progenitors, Isaac and Abraham, consisted in the promise of the country east and south of the great sea (Mediterranean), from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates, including the whole of Canaan. This is clearly established by the following references: Gen. 12:7; 7:8; 15: 7 & 18; 26:3 & 4; 28:4, and 48: 4.

But in the prophetic blessing of Joseph the statement is emphatic that the branches (daughters, children, posterity), of Joseph were to extend above this, beyond Canaan and the country of the Mediterranean, even "unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills." Far from the country of Palestine, to a land teaming with the first things of earth, honored with the choicest of blessings and one to be desired above that of Canaan.

I invite you to candidly and fairly enter upon the search for this "promised" land, and to be only as confident in the same as the history and prophetic writings shall fully and fairly warrant.

Turning to Deut. 33:13 to 18, we find a further account and description of this same country, and also a prediction with reference to this same branch of the human family. It is the language of Moses, the great civil and ecclesiastical lawgiver of ancient times, and "the prophet." to whom even reference is made in pointing out a likeness of the great character of Jesus.

Upon these words we may rely if we are to place implicit confidence in any statements of the divine record.

(Time called.)





GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:—We return now to the rest of Joel's promise, and what was also included in the Saviour's promises. Joel's promise was to all flesh, without exception. It included every human being. Our Saviour in his last great commission to his apostles limited Joel's promise to "as many as should believe" on him through the preaching of the apostles. His language includes all believers, without exception. But as our Saviour limits the promise of the Holy Spirit in Joel, so the Holy Spirit in Peter on the day of Pentecost, limits our Saviour's promise to "as many as the Lord our God shall call." There is no conflict, but merely a gradual development, by the Holy Spirit, in successive revelations, of the law of spiritual gifts. Joel's promise was limited by our Saviour to believers; and the Holy Spirit, in Peter, limits the promise of Joel and Jesus to those among believers "whom the Lord our God should call." Only those whom the Lord our God should call were to receive the Holy Spirit as a gift, or were to receive miraculous power through the Holy Spirit. When God ceased calling persons to the exercise of these gifts, they were to cease. The all-important question then is: "How did God call men to the enjoyment of the gift of the Holy Spirit, to the exercise of these miraculous powers, conferred by the Holy Spirit, called spiritual gifts? How long did he continue to call men to the exercise of these gifts? When did he cease to call men to the exercise of these miraculous powers?"

I claim that he called them to the exercise of spiritual gifts, in every instance, except the Baptism of the Holy Spirit—by the imposition of an apostle's hands—in that way alone. None but an apostle could call men to the exercise of these gifts. This power to bestow these gifts was "the sign of apostleship." When the apostles ceased to call men, God ceased to call men, to the exercise of these gifts, for his appointed and only means of calling men to these spiritual gifts ceased. Then as many, out of all flesh, out of believers, as God called— by his only appointed means, the imposition of an apostle's hands—to the exercise of these spiritual gifts, and no others received them. Outside of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit no one ever enjoyed these gifts, except those on whom an apostle laid his hands, to impart them. Acts, VIII. Philip, who exercised wonderful spiritual powers, could not impart spiritual gifts. "Now when the apostles, who were at Jerusalem, heard that the Samaritans had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John, who when they were come down prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for as yet he had not fallen on any of them, only they had been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." My opponent's claim that baptism is for the receiving of the Holy Spirit, is at fault here. These persons had been baptized, and had not, and could not receive the Holy Spirit until an apostle had laid hands on them, for the account proceeds: "Then they laid their hands on them

and they received the Holy Spirit. Simon saw that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostle's hands." Here it is declared, as clearly as human speech can make it, that the Holy Spirit was received through the laying on of an apostle's hands. That he was imparted in that way alone, for the apostles had to come down from Jerusalem, and lay their hands on them, before they could receive him, although they bad been baptized, and Philip the mighty wonder worker, who was full of the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit, was with them. If Philip could not bestow the Holy Spirit, no one outside of an apostle could.

Acts, IX. Saul's case is supposed to be an exception. He was in Damascus, hundreds of miles from any apostle. As prophets, who were not Levites, sometimes offered sacrifices as prophets, when no Levite was present to officiate, so here, God called and miraculously commissioned and appointed Ananias to act as special apostle, in this case, to confer on Saul the Holy Spirit. He declares: "The Lord Jesus sent me to you, that you may receive the Holy Spirit." This case no more sets to one side our law than the act of Elijah in offering sacrifices as prophet, when there was no priest to officiate, sets to one side God's positive law that no one but a Levite could offer sacrifices. Acts, XIX. Paul baptized the twelve disciples of John, at Ephesus. "Then he laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit, and spoke with tongues and prophesied. Tim. 1-6." "Stir up the gift of God that is in you, through the laying on of my hands." These are all of the instances of the impartation of spiritual gifts, in the Scriptures, outside of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was imparted, in every instance, by the imposition of an apostle's hands. These Scriptures prove beyond cavil that no one but an apostle could confer these gifts, and that they were conferred in that way alone. None but an apostle could call to the exercise of these gifts. These gifts never descended to a third person. I challenge an instance where they descended to a third person. That any one ever exercised spiritual gifts but one called by the imposition of an apostle's hand. When the last person to whom an apostle had imparted these gifts, by the imposition of his hands, died these gifts





ceased from earth. Cod ceased calling men to the exercise of these gifts when his only appointed means of calling them ceased. Thus we utterly demolish "every claim of inspiration for Joe Smith or any of his followers; every shadow of claim of inspiration for the Book of Mormon; all claim that it is of divine origin.

The Scriptures clearly teach that these miraculous powers were exercised to give to man a completed revelation of a scheme of salvation from sin, and that when that object was accomplished, they ceased. We nave already used the illustration of creation. God brought animals and plants into existence by miracle of direct creation. But when that was done he ceased miracles of creation, and now operates in a higher and more perfect manner, by natural law. So he gave revelation by means of inspiration until he had completed a perfect system of revelation universally applicable, and eternal truths. Then he ceased revelation and miracle, and operates now through a higher and more perfect law, the moral power of these divine truths, thus revealed and completed. The Bible speaks of the unfolding of the scheme of redemption as being similar to the growth of each person, from infancy to manhood. As the child lays to one side the discipline of the school and the parent, an

teachers have taught him, so the Bible teaches that mankind have laid to one side the instrumentalities employed in childhood and youth, and now, as men, use the truths God has imparted and perfected.

There was a time when the settlers of America had no government. Then they obtained from home government colonial governments. This was followed by the revolutionary government. Then came government under the Articles of Confederation. Under these a constitutional convention was held, and a constitution offered to the people. They adopted it and established a complete government under it. All constitutional convention work then ceased. The Antediluvian Dispensation, from Adam to the flood, might be compared to the settlers before they had a regular government. The Patriarchal Dispensation, from the flood to the law of Sinai, might be regarded as the period of colonies and governments under the parent government. The Mosaic Dispensation might be compared to our revolutionary government. The preparatory work of John and our Saviour to government under the articles of confederation, when the constitutional convention was established and did its work. The apostles and the work under them might be compared to the work of the constitutional convention, and the organization of our government in accordance with the constitution. The apostles were appointed by our Saviour to give to the church its constitution the New Testament, just as the people chose delegates to the constitutional convention, through their representatives, and empowered them to frame the constitution. Now mankind adopt the New Testament, form churches under it, and live in accordance with its principles, just as our people accept our constitution, form states under it, and live in accordance with the general laws and principles of the constitution. Just as the constitutional convention ceased it work, when it had framed the constitution, so the apostles and revelation 'ceased their work, when the New Testament was completed. To go back under direct revelations would be as absurd as to go back under a constitutional convention. Direct revelations were as much inferior to the operation of the completed word of God, as the constitutional convention was to government under the constitution. In all of the former dispensations, when miraculous powers were exercised, the condition of mankind was as inferior to our condition now, under a completed revelation, as all former conditions of our people were inferior to our present condition. Not only so but revelation in all dispensations speaks of the dispensations, when miraculous powers existed, as imperfect provisional, and preparatory to something higher and better. They speak of the work of Christ and his apostles as that which is perfect and complete. They never speak of anything that is to succeed it, of anything that is to be better than the Gospel. John speaks of the work of Jesus as perfect. The apostle speaks of this work as the perfection of the work of revelation, as that which is perfect. That which is to have no successor. They speak of what the Gospel will do, but not what something higher and better, that is to replace it, will do. The Scriptures teach clearly and positively, not that these miraculous gifts were to remain as a constituent and perpetual element in the Gospel, the church and their workings, but that they were the means of revealing the Gospel, the New Testament, and when that was done they were to cease. These miraculous powers were no more a part of the Gospel than the exercise of miraculous powers exercised in creation was a part of things created. Just as miraculous power in creation was only the means, and ceased when it had accomplished its work, so miraculous power in revelation, was the means of revealing the word of God, and not a part of that word and ceased when revelation was completed, and did not remain a part of what it had introduced and completed. Constitution making is only a means of making the constitution, and not a part of it. It ceased when it had done its work in giving the constitution. It does not remain as part of what it

has made. My opponents position is as absurd as it would be to claim that God must now bring animals and plants into being by miracle of creation or that a constitutional convention must set forever, and be forever making constitutions.

The teachings of the New Testament harmonize exactly with our position and illustrations.

Eph., IV: "Christ gave


miraculous gifts to men. He gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, some to be shepherds and some to be teachers." These apostles and prophets, were extraordinary powers in the church. Their work was necessarily one accomplished by inspiration, miraculous power from the Holy Spirit. The evangelists, shepherds and teachers were endowed with miraculous powers then, for such power was essential to their work, in the condition in which the church then was. All these had miraculous powers, spiritual gifts. How long were they to continue? For what purpose were these miraculous powers given? Paul answers: "For the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of the ministry, for the building (the work of the ministry in building) of the body of Christ" or completing the organization of the church— "until we all come in to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God"— or until "the faith"—the word of God—the New Testament is completed. This passage of Scripture explains, definitely and clearly, for what purpose these gifts were given, and how long they were to continue. They were given to furnish the saints for the work of the ministry in building up the organization of the church, and were to remain until that work was done, or until all attained to the unity of the faith, and the faith is perfected. Then they ceased, having accomplished their purpose. There can be but one answer to this. My opponent must show that the "until" refers to something else than the completion of the organization of the church, and the completion of the word of God—the New Testament, and show that the work of these gifts was not accomplished in these works, and that it is needed now.

My position is still more fully taught in I. Cor, XII, XII, XIV. The apostle in XII, 8, 9, 10, and 28, 29, 30, enumerates the gifts that the Holy Spirit bestowed on persons in the church: I. Word of wisdom. II. Word of knowledge. III. The faith—the word of God. IV. Gifts of healing. V. Working of powers. VI. Prophecy. VII. Discerning of spirits. VIII. Speaking in different tongues. IX. Power to interpret different tongues. These miraculous gifts made persons: I. Apostles. II. Prophets. III. Teachers. IV. Miraculous powers. V. Gifts of healing. VI. Helps. VII. Wise counsellors. VIII. Speaking in different tongues. IX. Interpretation of different tongues. He then says: "Desire earnestly the best of these spiritual gifts"— while it is the order in the church to exercise these gifts—"but nevertheless I show unto you a more excellent way "--than the exercise of the best of these spiritual gifts. Observe carefully that Paul, after exhorting his brethren to desire the best of these spiritual gifts while it is the order of the church to exercise spiritual gifts, declares positively that there is a more excellent way than the exercise of the very best of these spiritual gifts. In this he flatly contradicts the central idea of Mormonism, which teaches that the highest condition of the church is the exercise of these spiritual gifts, and that the state of the church, when they are not exercised is, not as Paul declares "the more excellent way," but an apostate condition.

Paul proceeds to unfold this more excellent way in what is the XIII, chapter in our English

Bible—this way that is more excellent than the exercise of the very best of these spiritual gifts, which my opponent makes the all in all in Christianity. He declares that Christian love, Christian character and spirit, are the great purpose of the religion of Christ. All things—the highest and best spiritual gifts, are worthless unless they aid in producing Christian love, Christian spirit and character; and are valuable only as they aid in producing such results. He then unfolds a way of producing Christian love, Christian spirit and character, that is better than the exercise of the highest and best of these spiritual gifts, that my opponent regards as the alpha and omega of Christianity. He declares that Christian love, Christian character and spirit, shall remain forever, for they are the great object of the religion of Christ. "But prophesying" all utterances by inspiration, "shall cease"—"speaking in different tongues, shall cease"—that is all miraculous powers that are mere signs, of the presence of superhuman power shall cease. "Knowledge"—all knowledge by inspiration "shall cease," or in other words, when that more excellent way than the exercise of the best of these spiritual gifts obtains, all miraculous powers shall cease.

Paul then gives the reason why they shall cease, and tells when they shall cease. We come now to a passage of scripture that is more frequently perverted and worse perverted than almost any other in the word of God. Paul is discussing the condition of the church, and if the ordinary interpretation be true, he leaves the church entirely, and goes up into heaven, in his discussion, and contrasts, not two different states of the church, as common sense demands, but the church and heaven. Outside of the Bible, such an idea would be regarded as preposterous nonsense. But men seem to lay one side all sense, when studying the Bible. It is not to be understood as any other book; but is to be made as unnatural and fantastic as possible. No conceit is too farfetched, too unnatural to be injected into Biblical interpretation. I insist that Paul is contrasting two conditions of the church. One when spiritual gifts are exercised, the other when they are not exercised. Both states are states of the church, and of course here on earth and before Christ gives up his Messiahship, and the church ceases to exist as an institution, on earth, for the salvation of man from sin. The passages following have not the slightest reference to heaven, or to anything but a condition of the church on earth.

The apostle declares: "For now"—that is during the exercise of these spiritual gifts, the present state of the church—"we know






in part"—that is the knowledge imparted by these spiritual gifts is but partial—but a fragment of revelation each time they are exercised—"and prophesy in part"—that is speaking by inspiration, gives but a fragment of revelation each time it is exercised —"but when that which is perfect is come" —when the "perfect law of liberty" of James —when that which makes perfect the man of God, the scriptures, are completed in the New Testament—"then that which is in part"—the exercise of these spiritual gifts— these partial revelations through them "shall be done away." The apostle then returns to the figure used in the XII chapter, where he compared the church to the human body, and personifies the church by his own body, and its development by his own growth. He declares that just as he "perceived as a child, felt as a child, spoke as a child, when he was a child," so the church, during the exercise of these spiritual gifts, "perceives as a child, speaks

as a child,"for all revelations under such circumstances must be fragmentary and broken. But as he "put away childish things when he became a man" so the church will put away these childish things, the exercise of these spiritual gifts when it passes out into the condition of manhood, when it is under "the perfect law of liberty" the completed Testament a law of universal truths, suited to the liberty of manhood.

This agrees exactly with the apostle's teaching in Eph. IV, as we have already seen. The apostle continues: "Now" that is during the exercise of these spiritual gifts —"we"—that is all believers—"see as in a mirror dimly"—these partial revelations, through the exercise of these spiritual gifts, give imperfect knowledge—"but then"— that is when the word of God is completed in the New Testament—"we shall see face to face." As James declares: "the perfect law of liberty," the New Testament is a is a mirror, and if a man looks into it and is a doer of what it requires he is blessed. "Now," continues the apostle—that is during the exercise of these spiritual gifts—"I know in part"—that is the fragmentary revelations, given through the exercise of spiritual gifts, imparts but partial knowledge—"I prophesy in part"—that is inspired speaking through these spiritual gifts is partial and fragmentary—"but then"—that is when the word of God is completed in the New Testament—"I shall know even as I am known"—that is the church shall know what it ought to be, just as the Holy Spirit knows what it ought to be, for the Holy Spirit will then have made a perfect revelation of the matter. The apostle closes by declaring that "faith," the faith, God's perfected word—"hope"—God's perfected promises—"love" Christian spirit and character, that are the object of revelation, "shall remain forever, but the greater of these is love, Christian spirit and character" the great aim and purpose of all religion. I have been careful to unfold this important revelation, because it cuts up by the roots, all claim of inspiration for Joe Smith, and all claim that the Book of Mormon is of divine origin. I might rest my case here.

We will clinch the matter however by putting Mormonism to the test it challenges. Has Mormonism revealed a single new idea, not contained in the Bible? Has it given a better expression to a single idea revealed in the Bible, than is given by the Bible? Man is constitutionally a religious being. Without any revelation his religious nature would have, and ever has had its expression in religious ideas and system of religion. Into these systems of religion man has wrought certain catholic religious ideas of his religious nature. Religions differ in the number of these ideas that they contain, and in their expression of them. All human systems of religion are faulty in these particulars. I. They do not contain all of the catholic ideas of man's nature. II. They do not express these ideas perfectly. III. They do not expand them into universally applicable principles. All human religions are national or race religions. They are not religions for all mankind. IV. They do-not unite these ideas into a harmonious system. V. They do not expand the system into a universal and absolute religion. VI. They corrupt these ideas with error and evil. VII. They incorporate error and evil into the system as cardinal ideas. We claim for Christianity I. It contains every catholic religious idea of man's religious nature. II. It expresses each and every idea perfectly. III. It expands each and every idea into an eternal truth, a universally applicable principle. IV. It unites all of these ideas into a harmonious system. V. It strips these ideas and the system of all error and imperfection, with which human systems has polluted them. VI. It expands the system into an absolute religion, a religion for humanity.

If this position be true, then a man can not outgrow Christianity. It is the work of all study to reach universally applicable principles, such as the law of gravitation, or the Copernican law of the universe. When research has attained to such principles, it has reached the ultimate in that direction. It can never outgrow such a principle. It will never need anything in its stead. It can only

learn more of the scope and grasp, the ramifications of these universal truths, throughout the infinite universe, but it can never outgrow them. It will never need anything in their stead. In Christianity, we have a system composed of such eternal truths, such universally applicable principles. Man can never outgrow them not even a "Re-organized Mormon." He will never need new truths, new revelations in addition to them, nor in their stead. If man progresses throughout eternity, he may be able to understand the scope and grasp of these eternal truths, these universally applicable principles better, but he will never outgrow them, nor will he need something in their stead, no more than he will outgrow the law of gravitation, and need something in its stead. This forever




silences and renders absurd the claim of Mormon revelations.

The catholic ideas of man's religious nature are these, I. The self-existent, independent, self- sustaining, eternal and absolute Being, the origin of all derived existences, and the cause of all phenomena, is Absolute Spirit, or God. Has Mormonism any idea to take the place of this? Does it give a better revelation of it than is given in the Bible? II. This Absolute Spirit created, controls and sustains all things in the boundless universe. Has Mormonism a revelation to take the place of this truth? Does it give a better revelation of this truth than is given in the Bible? III. Spirit existence. God who is absolute spirit; Christ who is a divine spirit; the Holy spirit, a divine spirit; angels; spirit in man. Has Mormonism any ideas to take the place of the teaching's of the Bible on this subject? Does it give a better revelation of them than we find in the Bible? IV. The immortality of man's spirit and all spirits. Has Mormonism given us any new ideas on this topic? Does it reveal any truth not in the Bible, or better than it is expressed in the Bible? V. Freedom of volition in all acts of the spirit. Has Mormonism any new revelations on this topic, not in the Bible? Or does it express the truth better than the Bible? VI. The division of all things into good or evil; all ideas into true or false; all acts into right or wrong; all characters into righteous or wicked. What new revelations has Mormonism given us on these matters, that better express this truth?

VII. Clear, simple, infallible standard for deciding what is right and wrong, true and false. Has Mormonism given us a single new idea in regard to this matter? VIII. Responsibility to God? Has Mormonism added a single thought in regard to this? IX. Accountability to God? What light have we from Mormonism, on this topic, not in the Bible? X. Retribution here and hereafter. Has Mormonism given us a single new idea on this important topic? XI. God's providence, as our Father in heaven. Has Mormonism added a ghost of an idea to our knowledge on that subject?

XII. Prayer and answer to prayer. What new revelations has Mormonism given us on that question? XIII. Revelations from God, of truth man unaided could not attain. What new idea in regard to revelation does Mormonism give to man? XIV. Inspiration of chosen men as mediums of revelation. What new light have we from Mormonism on this topic? XV. Miracles as proof of inspiration and revelation. What new truth has Mormonism in regard to miracles? XVI. Prophecy. What new ideas in regard to prophecy has Mormonism given to the world? XVII. Sacrifice for sin. What light have the pretended Mormon revelations thrown on this topic? XVIII. The expiation or atonement that Christ made for mankind. Have Mormon pretended revelations given us one new thought on this central idea of Christianity? XIX. The mediatorship of Christ. Has Mormonism given to the world one particle of light on that topic, not in the Bible?

XX. A leader in religion and redemption. What light from Mormon revelations here? XXI. A perfect embodiment of teaching, and example in life. Has Mormonism given us a ray of additional light on the subject? XXII. An object of faith devotion and love? What light does Mormonism add to the teachings of the Bible? XXIII. Incarnation of Jesus as divine sacrifice, mediator, and object of love and devotion. Does Mormonism add a single thought on this topic? XXIV. Sin as a fact in man's life and experience. Its nature, its results. Has Mormonism thrown one particle of additional light over this dark theme? XXV. Regeneration of life, spirit and character. Have we any additional light on this glorious idea of Christianity, from the jack-o-lantern of Mormonism?

XXVI. Forgiveness of sin on repentance and reformation. What new revelations on this cheering truth, have we from Mormonism? XXVII. A life of righteousness moulded and directed by religion. Does Mormonism give us new revelations here? XXVIII. The life of each individual, the family, society in all relations, nations, mankind, are to be regenerated by the pure religion of Christ. Do we owe any thing to Mormon revelations on this subject? XXIX. The regulation of all thought, action, and life, in every relation of life, and sphere of action, by this religion. What new ideas does Mormonism give us here? XXX. Each person elevates himself in love and righteousness, by giving himself in loving self-sacrifice for others. Does Mormonism give a new revelation on this thought? XXXI. Man is to be a co-worker with God in the great work of redemption. What new revelation have we from Mormonism on this topic? XXXII. Man in the mental and moral likeness of God. What new revelations here? We ask Mormonism. XXIII. Endless growth, development and progress of all intelligences, towards the absolute perfection of their Creator. What new revelations have we here? We ask the Mormon. XXXIV. The resurrection and glorification of man's nature. What new revelations on this theme have we from Mormonism?

XXXV. The universal Fatherhood of God. What new light does Mormonism give us in regard to this topic? XXXVI. The universal brotherhood of man. revelations on this theme has Mormonism given us? XXXVII. A system of truth to be believed, of worship to be performed, of rules of life to be lived. Has Mormonism in its pretended revelations added the ghost of an idea to what is in the Bible? XXXVIII. The church of Christ as a perfect organization, for the maintenance of this religion, and man's culture in it. What new truth has Mormonism given us here? Will our opponent answer these questions?

He dare not contradict common sense and Gods word, in claiming that all of the pretended revelations of Mormonism, have suggested a ghost of a new truth, in regard to one of these great ideas revealed in the






Bible There is left for him one refuge. He may say that he does not claim that revelations are needed to add to the truths revealed in the Bible, or to express them better but the spiritual gifts are needed to enable man to do the work that the, religion of Christ and the revelations of the Bible demand of him. That inspiration and new revelations are needed to aid man in such work and to enable him to do it. That human wisdom is not always sufficient to the task of developing and applying the universally applicable truths of revelation Nor to the task of deciding what should be done in applying them. That revelations, inspiration; spiritual gifts, are needed to supply

this want of human weakness Also to authenticate and establish the divine origin of Christianity. That as spiritual gifts were needed as helps and a sign of the divinity of the religion of Christ anciently, so they are needed now. This is the only refuge left him. Should he attempt refuge there, we will soon drive him out of that last hiding place.

Now will our opponent meet these two positions. I. The Scriptures teach that inspiration revelation and miraculous power existed for a definite purpose, the revelation of a perfect system of truth. That system of truth was completed in the New Testament. Inspiration revelation and miracle ceased having accomplished their purpose. Therefore all claims of later revelations is absurd and unscriptural. II. Christianity contains all religious ideas and expresses them perfectly. Further revelation is needless. Will he grapple with these positions like a man and cease his jingling interpretation of prophecies that have not more reference to Mormonism than the frauds of a gang of counterfeiters.






GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: When my time was called upon last evening I was citing proofs from the scriptures, relative to the establishment and occupancy of a people upon the American continent.

I turn and read again from Deuteronomy 33:13-18:

"And of Joseph he said, Blessed of the Lord be his and, for the precious things of heaven, for the dew, and for the deep that coucheth beneath, and for the precious fruits brought forth by the sun, and for the precious things put forth by the moon, and for the chief things of the ancient mountains, and for the precious things of the lasting hills, and for the precious things of the earth and fullness thereof, and for the good will of Him that dwelt in the bush: let the blessing come upon the head of Joseph, and upon the top of the head of him that was separated from his brethren. His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh."

Here we have such a full and definite description of Joseph's land—where the branches—posterity of Joseph—were to pass to, and inherit, that it is hardly possible to make a mistake in applying it to the country, unless we shall while trying to do so be determined in our minds at all risks to preserve to our souls some cherished and petted theory or selfish institution, rather than to approach fairly and openly the light. It is a land of broad fields and extended territory. Of great diversities of soil, climate and temperature. It must extend through and occupy in the different zones. Here are the products of the earth set out in their fulness. Celebrated for its fruits and luxurious vegetation, "put forth by the sun and moon." A land of the chief minerals, "chief things of the ancient mountains;" for the wealth and products of its lakes and rivers, "the deep that coucheth beneath;" and for the blessings of heaven, the revelations of God—verse 16, "For the good will of him that dwelt in the bush;" and then it was far away from Canaan, "to the utmost bounds of the everlasting hills."

Associate this description now, with the promised blessing upon the children of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh, Gen. 48: 15-20; where the land is located in the midst of the earth; which, when we remember that the patriarch stood in the country lying on the Mediterranean and near to Canaan, could not with any sense of justice or fitness to the statement be made to apply to that land, and it will be possible to intelligently point it out.

The children also were to "grow into a multitude." Wherever the land is, a multitude of people will doubtless be found who are the descendants of Joseph of Egypt. "And he blessed them that day, saying, "In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and Manasseh." This accords with the description of the blessing of Joseph's land by Moses. It is one greatly to be desired; choice above every other land, as was the blessing of the lads; so much so that it would be the highest thing to bless others as was the blessing of these children. The other sons of Jacob had their blessing and inheritance in Canaan, and how could it ever be truly said, "God bless thee as Ephraim and Manasseh," if theirs was thus confined to Canaan also?

Pursuing the examination however, in search of this promised land and the line of Joseph, I next refer you to the prediction with reference to the "departure from Jerusalem of the people who evidently were led to the land spoken of by these inspired men and the manner and time of their

coming. Jeremiah 48:32, "O vine of Sibmah, I will weep for thee with the weeping of Jazer: Thy plants are gone over the sea, they reach even to the sea of Jazer: the spoiler is fallen upon thy summer fruits, and upon thy vintage." Here is introduced under the figure of a choice vine the dispersion of the line of Israel's beloved, and an introduction of the fact that they should pass from the then inheritance to the sea, and over the sea; as is also more specifically set forth by the prophet Isaiah 16: 8, where it is evident the same event is referred to of which Jeremiah has given evidence. He says: "For the field? of Heshbon languish, and the vine of Sibmah: the lords of the heathen have broken down the principal plants thereof, they are come even unto Jazer, they wandered through the wilderness: her branches are stretched out, they are gone over the sea." Now pass in your mind over the sea, from the old country of Jazer on the east of the Mediterranean, in either direction (so as to pass over the sea), and tell me what land you shall find and the only one you can find that answers the description of Joseph's land as foretold by Israel and Moses?

The phrase, "vine of Sibmah," may be understood by comparing it with the saying of the Lord in the second chapter, 20th and 21st verses, of Jeremiah: "For of old time I have broken thy yoke, and burst thy bands; and thou saidest, thou wilt not transgress; when upon every high hill and every green tree thou wanderest playing the harlot. Yet I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed: How then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me?" Sibmah refers to that to be desired, pleasant, choice. And the "vine of Sibmah," is properly interpreted, "a noble vine," "a right seed," which was true of Ephraim and Manasseh,






Turning again to the evidences upon the main thread of our search, I refer you to the 49th of Jeremiah, 30th to 33rd verges inclusive; where he gives the excited and hurried warning which God had commanded him to deliver, just a short time before the king of Babylon brings desolation upon the country of Jerusalem. The language of the prophet fully discloses the troublous scenes which suddenly followed: "Flee, get you far off, dwell deep," (that is go unobserved, secret),

"O ye inhabitants of Hazor, saith the Lord: for Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon hath taken counsel against you, and hath conceived a purpose against you. Arise, get you up unto the wealthy nation that dwelleth without care, saith the Lord, which have neither gates nor bars, which dwell alone. And their camels shall be a booty, and the multitude of their cattle a spoil: and I will scatter into all winds them that are in The utmost corners; and I will bring their calamity from all sides thereof, saith the Lord. And Hazor shall be a dwelling for dragons, and a desolation forever: there shall no man abide there, nor any son of man dwell in it." The warning to these people was to get out of the reach of the King of Babylon who at that time held complete sway in the countries of the east, and they were promised that if they would obey the voice and hearken unto the Lord, they should be led to a wealthy nation, a land descriptive of Joseph's land, and which, had been aforetime inhabited and whose inhabitants dwelt without bars;—with nothing to prevent persons who should go there of taking

possession,—showing that the cattle and camels would be a prey to be had for the taking.

Such a country as this existed at some place upon the earth at the time of the delivering of the warning prophecy and of the captivity referred to, unless the prophecy is false. Where was it? The

Book of Mormon comes in with the new light reflected in 1829, and shows that at the time, such a country existed upon the American continent.

It had to that date been inhabited by a people who were led here from the plains of Shinar at the time of the confounding of the languages; and who had been greatly blessed and enriched and had builded cities and towns and earthworks, and had been rich in cattle and camels and all kinds of animals, and in mines and mining. But had been at this time hurriedly gathered together by their leaders from every part of the land, leaving their cities unkept, the ores in process of removal in the mines, their herds and their flocks free to wander, while they engaged in mortal combat, stirred to the most desperate frenzy by animosity and revenge, until the country had become desolate of inhabitants.

Ah! but says my opponent, this comes from the Book of Mormon, it is not evidence. But I shall not leave the testimony here. I refer to it to show you that so early as 1829, when the book went into the hands of the publisher, this work cast the new light upon the nation and peoples of the world, when all were in ignorance and darkness; not only with regard to the former habitation of the continent, but also the interpretation of these prophecies. For my proofs, I shall bring before you the corroborative testimonies which have come to light through the explorations and archaeological discoveries of the continent, as set forth and published in the first scientific and historical works of the times, and which could not have been known to the author of the Book of Mormon if it is claimed to be the work of man only.

Upon last evening it was repeatedly challenged, to point to a new thing which reflected light to the people from the work. I had nevertheless just referred him to the new light thrown upon the prophecy of the Master at Jerusalem. Here is another that stands out boldly and sublime as though flashed by the inspired shaft from the heavenly realms; and were it material to the maintenance of the authenticity of the work, I could gather from its brilliant pages ten thousand reflections of its rays, which are for the elevation of man, the encouragement, consolation and spiritual growth of the Christian as he wrestles with the evils of life, and which are not attained by the reading of any other work. But suppose I could not show a single new truth. How could it affect the argument as to whether God revealed himself to the people upon, this continent, and that the result of such revealment were not teachings, "entitled to the respect and belief" of all the people who believe in the partial record that is left to us of the will of heaven as given to the people on the other continent? Will he answer the question for you? His ringing of changes on the word Mormon and "Mormonism," will hardly answer him as argument even with half thinking people. If this record is What it purports to be, all of it except about 75 pages, was in existence as a matter of history, prior to the time the revelator was at Patmos, and the greater part, long prior to the dawning of the Christian era. The people by whom much of it was written were also to a degree in customs, manners, and education, comparable with those who wrote much of the Bible. Should it be thought wonderful then that we can find often in its pages a similarity of thought and style?

I know the position has been assumed by my opponent, that he has a right to set up and affirm what he thinks the principles of my faith are, or of the body I represent in this discussion, and then to make a grand lunge at these supposed views as though he were battling down my arguments.

But he will find out before the close of the sixteen sessions that I lead in my own affirmatives, and have a different source from which to gather and elucidate my faith, than the brazen works of falsehood of Howe, Hyde, Tucker,

garbling, falsifying, innuendo and deceit, have sought to make the faith of the Saints, (which is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, as was the kingdom of God with the apostles), to be a coarse and "sensual





system." And by way of a reminder I will tell him here and now, that it will avail nothing for his side to set up imaginary men of chaff and straw at which to make a show of fight. I claim to he founded upon the rock, the which, neither fog, bluster, dust nor ashes will startle or move, and against which slanderous stories, calumny, abuse and vilifying can make no impression. Returning, however, to my affirmative argument, I invite your consideration to a thought that may arise in the minds of some as to whether or not at the time of these last prophecies, there lived at, or in the country of Jerusalem, any of the posterity of Joseph of Egypt. It was not as may have been imagined by some that these tribes had their respective boundaries and there was no intermingling in their living and their marriages. It was common for persons of different tribes to inhabit in the territory of other tribes. In 1 Chron. 9:3 it is stated: "And in Jerusalem dwelt of the children of Judah, and of the children of Benjamin, and of the children of Ephraim and Manasseh."

For further evidence on this point I cite you to 1 Chron. 7:28; 2 Chron. 15:8,9; 17:2; and 30:18. It will not do then to take the position that the prophet's warning was to be heeded by some of the tribe of Judah only, and that it was thus fulfilled in passing out of the land, and that none of the others of Israel improved the opportunity.

The other prophecies relating to subsequent events are in conflict with such an idea or interpretation. There were in the city and country of Jerusalem at this time, those of other tribes, and particularly Ephraim and Manasseh.

Here, I call to your mind a summary of the proofs I have made so far in this line, not one of which the negative has even noticed to this time. He has been waxing strong elsewhere, trying to draw comfort from the use of a few choice phrases applied in a derisive manner to the church and people I represent, and to prove to you that God could not reveal himself to the people of this continent, because by the action of a few persons who lived a few hundred years after the death of the apostles, and who got together, collected as many copies of the manuscript of the apostles as they could find, and after assorting them according to their judgment made a" book and called it the Book, or "The Bible;" and thus forever shut Deity out. Don't fail to gather the idea! they shut off the means of communication before they had heard whether Deity accepted their work as containing all the word of God. And now my opponent occupies the ridiculous position of stating that this compilation and collation contains all that God ever did, or ever will give for the instruction of men. It is a terribly false and superstitious belief, and has been the means of making more infidels than any other one thing. But I shall particularly notice this hereafter, and pass now to the proposed summary.

I have so far shown:

1. That it is according to the expressed will of heaven to make known to man in every nation His will, and that all should seek after and find Him.

2. That other nations than the Jews have sought after and found Him, and we have not their

record in the Bible.

3. That in the days of the Patriarchs, and of Moses, and of the Prophets, there were express predictions to the effect that a line or remnant of the seed of Joseph should change their inheritance from Palestine, to a country that far exceeded it in all that is calculated to make a land desirable; and that the new country was far from Canaan.

4. That such a people did leave the country of Palestine in the time of the reign of Zedekiah, King of Judah, and started for a land of this description, passing covertly to and over the sea, to a land beyond the borders of Africa.

I shall now enter upon another line of proofs and show that the people did not only thus leave Palestine, but also show more particularly where they went to, and what was said they should do after they arrived upon the (to them), "promised land." Referring to the prophecy of Ezekiel, 37:15-28, we find a clear and explicit statement made with regard to an event to take place in the earth, and one particular thing which was to precede this notable event:

"The word of the Lord came again unto me saying, moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and

write upon it for Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions; then take another stick, and write upon it for Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thy hand. And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these? say unto them, Thus saith the "Lord God; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah. and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand. And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes. And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land."

If in this prophecy it shall be concluded that the particular sticks, can have no interest or signification, certainly the writing upon them must. The writing upon one of these sticks was for Judah, to represent the line, evidently, through which it came, and may be fairly and truly interpreted to mean the scriptures which came through that line. The writing upon the other was for Joseph, and complimentary by reason of the blessing upon his sons long prior, called the stick of Ephraim; and may fairly be interpreted to refer to some like writing which should come through the line of Joseph. Verse 19 shows, that the Lord should at some time in the divine economy use these together for the accomplishment of his purposes; and verses 22 and 23, show what these purposes are, and at what time the sticks or writings were to be joined together, i. e., at the time de-





dared by the prophet when, "the envy of Ephraim shall depart and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off." "Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim." Isaiah 11:13; and more particularly with regard to the time and event seethe instruction in verse 12: "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."

Turning to the 18th of Isaiah, the parallel text with this, we find the place of the setting up of the ensign and a further confirmation of the time when it was to take place. See the entire chapter. The prophet calls attention to the land shadowing with wings as the place, which is beyond the

rivers of Ethiopia—far west of Jerusalem. Verse 3, calls especial attention to the ensign to be lifted up and the sound that shall go forth as of a trumpet; the thought in this is that a call is to be made upon the people by the God of heaven. Verse 5, fixes the time as being just afore the harvest of the world; the same time in which the event is placed by Jesus as set forth in Matthew 13:39, and in the same time referred to by John the revelator, 14: 6, where he says: "And I saw another "angel fly in the midst of heaven, having "the everlasting gospel to preach to them "that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue and people, "saying with a loud voice, Pear God, and 1 'give glory to Him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made "heaven and earth, and the sea, and the "fountains of the waters."

This again, brings the gospel by an angel to the earth after the apostle's time and just at the time before the harvest, when the judgments should go forth, and with a call to the people like to the blowing of a trumpet, "Hear ye!" and, "worship Him who made the heaven and the earth;" and this call is, and since 1830 has been made, whether my opponent would confine all angels, and gospel that came in power and the Holy Ghost, to the apostles' age or not.

Turning now to the 29th chapter of Isaiah, I find clearly and definitely set out the nature and character of the ensign that was to be lifted up. The gifted prophet beholds it in the form of a book containing the "everlasting gospel;" the same which Jesus preached; a gospel of power and salvation from sin; the same as the revelator saw. This chapter is clearly definitive also of what is termed "The stick of Joseph," referred to in the 37th of Ezekiel's prophecy. I will proceed and examine it particularly.

The first six verses of the chapter in Isaiah portray the degradation, distress and punishment of Jerusalem, and the ruin of their city; after which, "all nations," that have occasioned this distress and ruin, are represented in the condition of one in a dream; verses 7-11.

These nations are under the influence of the spirit of deep sleep; they are slumbering as to hearing the voice of God, with eyes closed, without prophets or seers. Then verse 11, "The vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed." (A book descriptive of a people that had wandered from God, so that they had wrought evil and felt not after him aright, and for their iniquities had been overthrown.) "Which (words) men deliver to one that is learned, saying, read this I pray thee: and he saith I cannot; for it is sealed." "And the book (not the words only), is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this I pray thee: And he saith, I am not learned. " Then the Lord says, that he will proceed to do his own work, "Even a marvelous work and a wonder," (Not by the wisdom of the world; for no learned man after the wisdom of the world was to be able to do his work); "for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid." Then the book, the work referred to elsewhere as the "ensign,"

is to be translated and read by the means God has prepared. He will do His own work.

This work is to be wrought among the people at the time He sets His hand to redeem Jacob and establish Israel. To brine-peace to those trodden down and scattered upon every mountain. It was not the work of Jesus in his time; for then was the beginning of the scattering, so far as Judah was concerned, or rather the beginning of the completion of the scattering of Israel. Lebanon, the country of Jerusalem, then began to dry up and become barren, but this work is to be done at the time Lebanon was to be redeemed from the barrenness, and to become "a fruitful field, and the fruitful field esteemed as a forest." All of the things referred to here, every essential feature, of people, of time, of place, of the day in which the book should come forth, of the words which the book should contain, of the power of God to be manifested in the reading of the book, and the bringing to nought the wisdom of the wise (after the world and not after God); is fulfilled in the

coming forth and publishing to the world of the Book of Mormon. Don't forget that I take a positive and confident stand with regard to the fulfillment of the prophecy. And yet, my wise opponent stands, darkening counsel with words without knowledge, never even attempting to give you an adverse explanation and application of the prophecy, such that he is willing to stand by, saying, "Where does it say that the Book of Mormon is meant?"

Where does it say in Genesis that the Shiloh is Christ? Yet we can see the relation of the prophecy. Again:

"He was led as a lamb to the slaughter and as a sheep dumb before his shearers, so he opened not his mouth." How did Philip find out this was Christ? Is the name mentioned? Does it say "Jesus of Nazareth" is he who is mentioned? Not at all.


What are the rules of evidence which should govern in this controversy? I call attention to the fact that the same rule which has governed in the reception or rejection of divine messages in every age or time of trying things or men, claiming a divine origin, or call from heaven, must be the governing rule in this case of the trial of the Book of Mormon being of Divine origin.

This rule I have sought to abide, saying; if you believe in Moses and the prophets, you will believe in this also; for they wrote of this. And again, "To believe for the very work's sake." What works? The gospel that is preached, and the everlasting gospel that it contains.

From that sure rule of examination, "He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." 2 John, 9th verse. The reason is evident and all sufficient; by Jesus' words, not miracles, not what is said about character, not the stories told on people, are we to be judged at the last day; and if we have stood by the word we will be right there and then; and whether it come from the high or low, rich or poor, from the mean city of Nazareth or the city of the kings; whether he who brings it is abstemious neither eating nor drinking, or whether he shall both eat bread ana drink wine, it matters not; the lesson is taught us that we must not expect perfection in men, because God speaks to them; but perfection in the work so far as it comes from the hand of the Creator. God to my mind selects the best fitted persons he can find to do his work here, and no doubt he would,—save in the instance of Jesus only, —have preferred a more appropriate man than he found for the conduct of his work in every age in the past: but he works by unchangeable laws. Rules of discipline and development. He fits and prepares men by such laws, only in proportion as they will conform to the same, and hence in his selections, makes choice from the material he has, and thus through the established means been able to prepare. And it is not for me to say he is not true, and that the law ordained for this preparation is not the best possible order. It was by this just rule that the compilers of the New Testament did their work. They had a mass of books claiming to be of divine origin. Some were acknowledged to be such. They tried the others by these. The correspondence in teaching, character of works, &c.,—receiving some and throwing out others. Do you deny it sir? So far as tracing the writings back to the original, or first writers, they could not do it in any instance positively. The rule followed by them, however, was a good one, and the same is true now, and I am willing to abide it.

But to return to the direct line of argument! I have now further located the land to which the descendants of Joseph were to come, as lying over the sea from Canaan, west of that country

beyond the rivers of Ethiopia, far away to the utmost bounds of the everlasting hills; to a "land shadowing with," (lying widely stretched out in the form of) "wings;" located as these prophecies claim, with a record containing the "everlasting gospel;" revealed as predicted, by an angel from the courts of heaven, and "just afore the harvest," in the hour of the judgment.

This land is the continent upon which you and I live. Do not these proofs make my claim from the Bible stand point complete? Which link has he succeeded in breaking? One thing, however, I shall show in this connection, that is, the fact of a race of people of Israelitish origin or extraction, having come to this continent in ages past, and who well occupied and inhabited here, from the certain proofs obtained through archaeological research and discovery brought to light since the publication of the Book of Mormon to the world.

Not only this, but prior to their habitation, there had been upon and inhabited the continent another people and race which was not of the Jewish extraction, but highly civilized, and whose work of art in the ruins of the continent is readily distinguishable, from that of the people who succeeded them. These answer to. and are in fact the complete prototype and primeval race whose history is set out in the Book of Mormon as the Jaredites, who came here as they were led from the plain of Shinar. But just now I will take up and examine some objections, pretended or real, made by the negative.

1. He says, That in the New Testament God perfected and completed his work of revelation in a system of universal truths, &c.

To the unthinking listener there may appear a degree of force in this proposition. But is there in fact? In the first place the statement is at fault in that, it assumes the truth of a thing he is trying to prove, to wit:—That in the New Testament is contained all that God has ever revealed to the world. For neither of us will deny that whatever he has revealed is perfect.

In what way is it perfected and completed? As my opponent would have you believe, so that God could not, and would not, outside of this, reveal HIMSELF to any part of mankind? Certainly not. No one can maintain the proposition that in the New Testament is contained all that our Heavenly Father has revealed for the instruction of man, or that he desires that they should know concerning him. The New Testament is but a compilation of many of the things revealed for the good of the human family, and not all. St. Luke in the first four verses of his record, sets forth the true idea of the record of the gospel. Then he proceeds to give his account of the things said and done by Jesus. The account is true, and in a sense complete in itself, and the truths are universally applicable to the race; but would that justify me in asserting that this book of Luke's writing, or this in connection with the Acts of the Apostles, which he wrote, contains all the re-





vealed will of God, and all necessary truth? Such a conclusion would be most ridiculous and absurd. But not more so than the conclusion arrived at by my opponent, that the New Testament compilers, who were not inspired men, succeeded a few centuries after the evangelist Luke wrote, in bundling up all truth, which God had or would reveal in order to guide his children.

While man is not expected to outgrow the universal and eternal principles of the gospel that were delivered by Jesus himself, yet in the dissemination and acceptance of these principles in their true sense there is as necessarily instruction to be given by revelation in this age of the world,

as there was after the personal ministry of Jesus had ceased and his instructions given, and when Peter, Paul and John did their work.

While we are quite ready to allow that truths which God has given for the good of universal man are universally applicable, and these in a sense perfect and complete, it does not follow from this that man should be limited to the simple reading of these, neither that it is not absolutely necessary that the act of revelation itself be continued in order that these very universal truths may be properly carried out in one's life.

This continuance of revelation is in fact a part of the revealment, and essential to growth in that already given; hence the apostle declares: "Wherefore I also after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus" "after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation" (that already revealed); "Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers, that the Father of glory may give unto you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him." My position is, that the negative, in his method of jumping at such a conclusion of no more revelation, assails that which he professes at the same time to accept.

(Time called.)



GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: A man who was engaged in an altercation with a trifling character that was annoying him was asked why he did not kick him. "I will," replied he, "if some one will fold him up into about a dozen thicknesses so that there will be something to kick." I have waited till now, before answering my opponent, so that I could double his talk up into at least a dozen thicknesses so as to have something to review. My opponent can prove that the Book of Mormon is of divine origin in two ways: I. He can prove its divine origin, as we establish the divine origin of the Bible. We appeal to the fact that the best living intellects accept the Bible as of divine origin; that the best intellects of former generations accepted the Bible, as of divine origin, until we trace it back into the age in which it had its origin, and we show that the best intellects, and characters of the people among whom it had its origin accepted it as of divine origin. We trace each book of the Bible back in this way into the age, and unto people among whom it had its origin. We can begin with the oldest books and trace out the frame-work of corroborative history, geography, literature, customs, etc., in which it had its origin, and into which it dovetails and interlocks at every point, fitting such frame-work, as the boles in the fuller's web fit on to the tenter-hooks on which it has been stretched. We prove that its actors authors and writers and speakers, acted spoke and wrote as the Bible declares they did. Having established its authenticity, genuineness and truthfulness, we prove that its speakers, actors and writers, were inspired when the Bible declares they were inspired, for we have proved the truthfulness of the Bible. II. We then examine its contents and prove by prophecy that has been fulfilled—by miracles that are authenticated by monumental institutions—by truths that are above man's power and must have been revealed and by its exact accordance in its teachings and in its results with the claim of inspiration that it is inspired and of divine origin.

My opponent cannot appeal to one particle of the first line of proof. He can trace his book no

farther back than to Imposter Joe Smith. It has not one particle of frame work of corroborating history, geography literature and customs into which it interlocks. It stands on the naked assumption that Imposter Joe was inspired and on that alone. If he was inspired, then we should believe that he translated the Book of Mormon by inspiration, and of course it is true, and of divine origin. The Book itself has not one iota of interlocking corroborating, or collateral evidence. It steps out into human life from the hand of Imposter Joe as the Goddess Minerva burst from the head of Jupiter. He claims that he received it from an angel by miracle and that he translated it by inspiration. Therefore it is of divine origin and mankind should accept it. There are no monumental institutions no literature based on it. It has had no career in the life of our race of which we have one particle of knowledge or proof except the assertions of the book itself. If my opponent appeals to the Bible, as Jesus appealed to the Old Testament, he must show that the Bible, in its history, narrates the same events as are found in the Book of Mormon. It does not hint one of them, except what the book of Mormon steals from the Bible. Or that the Bible foretells the events recorded in the Book of Mormon. He has attempted this, and oh how weak an attempt. I can prove that the Bible foretells the Koran or Swedenborg's writings just as clearly. The false prophets and false Messiahs of Israel furnished far more proof from prophecy than he has produced. Even if the Bible foretold the events narrated in the Book of Mormon, that would not prove that the Book of Mormon is of divine origin. The Bible foretells events narrated in Assyrian and Egyptian history. That does not prove that the books recording what the Bible foretells are of divine origin. Do the prophecies he quotes, even if we admit his fanciful application, prove that the Book of Mormon is of divine origin, one particle more than prophecies in the Bible of events recorded in Egyptian history, proves that the Egyptian books were of divine origin? Where does the Bible prophesy in such a way as to prove that the Book of Mormon is of divine origin.

The only proof of the divine origin of the Book of Mormon is the pretended inspiration of Imposter Joe Smith. If Imposter Joe was inspired, then of course he translated the Book of Mormon by inspiration, as he claimed, and we can believe his story that he received it from an angel by miracle, and that the angel told him that the Book of Mormon is what it pretends to be, and true. If he was not inspired, we have not a shadow of proof of the divine origin of the Book of Mormon. My opponent can establish that Imposter Joe was inspired by proving that he wrought miracles, as nearly all of the inspired men of the Bible did; or that he foretold future events, as Noah, John the Baptist and others did, who wrought no signs, or that he had superhuman wisdom, and revealed what man could not know, as the inspired men of the Bible did, or that his character was such that he would not






claim, to be inspired, if it were not so, as we show in the case of Christ. If he appeals to the Bible as Jesus and the apostles appealed to the Bible, let him produce from the Bible the proof they did. Let him prove that the Bible prophesies directly and clearly of Imposter Joe, his work and his book. Let him show that the work of Imposter Joe and the Book of Mormon are a clear fulfillment of Bible prophecies. The appeals to prophecy, made by Christ and his apostles were clear direct positive and overwhelming. They were not such far fetched fanciful distortions and perversions of

the Bible, as we hear from Mormonism. He seems to be afraid to affirm and defend the inspiration of Imposter Joe. If he abandons that, he abandons the sole basis of his claim for his book. The only basis for the claim for the divine origin of the Book of Mormon is two assertions. I. An angel revealed to Imposter Joe the existence of certain plates and gave them to him and told him that the contents were true. II. That Imposter Joe translated these plates, and we have in the Book of Mormon the contents of the plates. Prove that you establish the divine origin of the Book of Mormon. Fail in that and you utterly fail to establish such claim.

My opponent attempted to prove the divine origin of his book by appealing to these facts: I. It claims to come from the right source. So does the Koran. II. It claims to be a proper message to mankind. So do the Shasters of India. III. Its object is good, the salvation of mankind. The same can be said of the revelations of Anni Lee. IV. Its teachings are good. So were the sermons of Stephens Burrows, the greatest scoundrel that ever lived. He, a vile imposter. stole and uttered the teachings of the Bible. So did Joe Smith and the Book of Mormon. If Imposter Joe was inspired, and his book a revelation. Burrows was also inspired and his sermons, revelations, on precisely the same ground. My opponent asserts that I should follow him in argument. That depends on where and how he leads. If he presents the issue clearly and fully, and any proof of his position, I will follow him. If he does not, I will present the issues myself, and refute his system, whether he presents it or not. I am surprised that one who claims to be a lawyer, as does my opponent, should be ignorant of the rules of debate, that the negative is free to pursue two courses. I. Reply to the attempted arguments of the affirmative. II. Or by an independent line of argument prove that his affirmative is untrue. If he pursues the latter course, he completely overturns the affirmative's position, if he never notices one of his pretended arguments.

My opponent's feelings seem to be very badly hurt by my calling Smith an impostor, a deceiver, a scoundrel. If I prove that he pretended to be inspired and was not, that his book was a fraud, I prove him to be an imposter, a scoundrel of the blackest dye. A woman once declared, "I don't like Mr. Brown. He called my husband a liar. And that was not the worst of it. He proved it." Mormons will have the same reasons to dislike Mr. Braden. I have called Joe Smith an imposter, a scoundrel and I will prove it. My opponent reminds me that the Jews called Jesus a drunkard, a glutton, a lover of harlots and vile persons. Will he answer one question? If the charges of the Jews had been true, would it not have proved that Jesus was an imposter? That he was neither inspired nor divine. If I prove that Joe Smith was a vile character, will it not prove that he was not inspired? Now answer if you dare. The fallacy of the Jews, was not in using the wrong argument, but in making a false accusation. Jesus admitted that if their charges had been true, it would utterly destroy his claim to be sent of God and divine, when he challenged them "Who of you have convicted me of any wickedness?" In that question, Jesus flatly contradicts the nonsense my opponent uttered last night. He appeals to the errors and sins of men that the bible says were inspired. When he proves that they were ever inspired while living in such sin. while committing or practising it, we will notice his argument. What portion of the Bible was uttered or written by a man, while committing these vile sins? What inspired act or utterance of David, Solomon, Moses or Paul, have we that was acted or uttered while they were committing vile sins?

He admits that he who transgresses the teachings of Christ is not of God. That admission overturns all his special pleadings, in appealing to the sins of Bible characters. While in transgressions, they were not of God, not inspired, nor were their acts or utterances revelations. Then comes the one everlasting text of Mormonism "He that hath the teaching of the Christ hath both the Father and the Son." He assumes that if they have the Father and the Son, they are of

God. True but that does not prove that they are inspired, nor that what they say or write is a revelation. Even if Joe Smith had been a good man, it would not prove that he was inspired, or that his book was a revelation, any more than the fact that Wesley was a good man, proves that he was inspired, and his sermons revelations. "But Joseph Smith claimed to be inspired. If a good man makes such a claim it must be true." No, a good man may be deceived. Hundreds of good men have been deceived in believing that they were inspired and that the stuff they uttered were revelations.

The gross absurdity of the use that Mormons make of that passage will be seen if my opponent will answer question. How must a man have the teaching of Christ in order to have the Father and the Son? In mere preaching alone? Or in living them out in life? When the scoundrel Burrows had the doctrine of Christ in his sermons, did he have the Father and the Son? Would not the fact that he was a hypocrite, an imposter and a scoundrel, prove that he


did not have the Father and the Son, no matter what he preached? Does the fact that Joe Smith stole and put the teachings of the Bible into the Book of Mormon, prove that he had the Father and the Son, that he was a good man, that he was inspired, that his book was a revelation? When the devil quoted the words of God to our Saviour, did it prove that he had the Father and the Son? That he was inspired and that his utterances were revelation? Even if the moral and religious sentiments of the Book of Mormon, that are stolen from the Bible, are good, it does not prove that its statements of pretended facts are true, and much less does it prove that the book is a; revelation, that Joe Smith was inspired, or even a good man. Language can hardly express the idiocy of this pet argument of Mormonism. It would prove that when the devil transforms himself into an angel of light, and utters, hypocritically and to deceive, good sentiments, he is good, inspired, and his utterances revelations, just as clearly as it proves that Importer Joe had the Father and the Son, was a good man, inspired and his book a revelation, because he stole good teaching from the Bible, and hypocritically gave it to the world, in the Book of Mormon, lying and claiming that his fraud was a revelation.

The quotation from Acts 17, no more proves or hints the divine origin of the book of Mormon than a repetition of the multiplication table. Neither does the quotation from Acts 10. The quotation from John 10: 34-16. teaches the opposite to what he claims it teaches. In Gen. 17, 15, we read: "The uncircumcised person shall be cut off from my people. He has broken my covenant." Circumcision was the mark of the nock. If the Nephites were circumcised, they were of the same flock as those Jesus was addressing. If they were not circumcised, they had ceased to be Israelites, and not a prophecy that my opponent quotes can have any reference to them. Neither the Bible, nor the Israelites, nor Jesus ever speak of Israelites outside of Palestine, as belonging to a fold separate and different from those in Palestine. If the Nephites of the Book of Mormon were circumcised Israelites, they were as much members of the fold Jesus was addressing, as the Israelites in Egypt or Palestine. The sheep that were not of that fold of which Jesus was speaking, were not circumcised Israelites in Egypt or America or any other place, for all circumcised Israelites were one fold. The other sheep that were not of that fold, that was made up entirely of

circumcised Israelites, were Gentiles. The language has reference to the breaking down of a wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, and making Jews and Gentiles one fold in Christ.

The quotation from Ezekiel 34, "My sheep were scattered upon all the face of the earth" proves nothing for in such phraseology, often the Bible means no more than that they were widely scattered, and it never refers to more than the old continent which was all that the Israelites knew anything about. The quotation from the highly poetical figurative language of Jacob's blessing on Joseph, with its bold hyperbole, proves nothing. The Mormon interpretation is an unnatural one, foreign to the subject, and forced on to the language to sustain a theory. There is nothing in the language that was not fulfilled in Palestine, as much as the hyperbole of many other prophetic promises, that all admit did not extend beyond the land of Palestine. Even if it did extend beyond the land of Palestine, it need include no more than the old continent. It need not extend beyond the Josephites in Europe, Asia and Africa. My opponent reverses the order of the line of argument. He must prove that the Josephites migrated beyond the old world, to America, before he can extend the language of the prophecy to America. He absurdly assumes that the language must extend beyond the old world to America, in order to prove that the Josephites came to America.





I propose now to refute the claim made by my opponent that the Book of Mormon is of divine origin, by proving that it had a very base human origin, about seventy years ago. If I can show that it was gotten up by three men, in the first half of the present century, through base motives, and for purpose of fraud, and gain by fraud and deception, I utterly explode all claim to divine origin. I propose now to trace out such origin, for the Book of Mormon, as clearly as a chain of title to a piece of land. Let us first state what the Book of Mormon professes to be. It purports to be a history of America from the time its first inhabitants entered it, just after the confusion of tongues at the tower of Babel, till about A. D. 400, a period probably of nearly 4000 years. It asserts that this continent was peopled by three different families. 1. The family of Jared, who emigrated from the Tower of Babel, over 3000 years before the birth of Christ, and whose descendants were exterminated, one portion of the book declares about 600 years before Christ; another portion of the book declares about 250 years before Christ. 11. The family of Lehi, a Manassehite, who emigrated from Jerusalem, 600 years before Christ, early in the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah. His descendants divided into two nations, the Nephites, the righteous portion; and the Lamanites, the wicked portion; III. The people of Zarahemla, Judahites who left Jerusalem about eleven years after Lehi. The descendants of these Judahites were destroyed in war or absorbed by the Nephites. In war, the Nephites were exterminated by the Lamanites, about

A. D. 384. The Lamanites remained sole possessors of the continent, and are the American Indians. I wish the reader to notice that, according to the Book of Mormon, not an Ephraimite, ever came to America. How then c



im apply to the aborigines of America, even if the history in the Book of Mormon be true? According to the Book of Mormon the deeds of this people were, by divine direction, engraved by their prophets, on plates of gold, brass, and ore (what ever that nondescript substance may mean). These plates were religiously preserved by divine direction. The Book of Mormon tells us, on almost every page, with painful iteration and reiteration, of plates, of how they were prepared, preserved and revised, handed down from generation to generation—how careful the Lord was to see that this was done, until they fell into the hands of one Mormon, who about A. D. 384 made an abridgement and buried the originals, together with certain relics, in a hill which is now near Manchester Ontario Co., New York. He handed this abridgment "these few plates" to his son Moroni, providently leaving a few pages for him to use in finishing the abridgement. Moroni finishes, by engraving on the few pages left by his father, what happened after his father revised his record. Then he writes, and on nothing, for he tells us that his plates are full, and he had nothing to make plates of and is alone, an abridgment of the history of the Jaradites. Moroni then boxes up these few plates containing the abridgment made by his father, and his appendix to it, written on the few pages his father left him for that purpose, and buries them in a hill, Cumorah, that was in what is now Manchester, N. Y. He buried only "these few plates," and nothing with them for Mormon had buried everything else years before, in an entirely different locality.

"These few plates ".remained in this box, till September, 22, 1823, when Moroni, then an angel appeared to Joe Smith, and revealed to him the existence of these plates, their place of burial, and a summary of their contents. September, 22, 1827. Moroni delivered the plates to Joe Smith, who by means of a peep stone that he had stolen from the children of Willard Chase, translated them, and gave their contents to the world, ill the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon mentions a perfect museum of relics that are "hid up" somewhere near Palmyra, New York. We give the list that our readers may see how careful the Lord was to have the records and relics preserved. "We cite the pages of the Book of Mormon, English edition, where they are mentioned. It shows with what iteration and reiteration "plates" are mentioned, and how much pains the authors take to convince the skeptical, that these records were so carefully preserved, there can be no doubt about the accuracy of the Book of Mormon. I. Plates of Laban, pp 9 —11—144—145. II. Brass genealogical plates, p 11. III. Brass plates of Lehi, afterwards abridged by Nephi, pp 3—44— 62. IV. Brass plates of Nephi containing "the more part of the history" (shades of Murray what English) pp, 16—138. V. Brass plates of Nephi containing "the more part of the ministry" (shades of Addison, forgive the English of the fullness of Mormon inspiration) pp, 16—144. VI. Ore (what nondescript substance is that?) plates of Nephi "containing mine own prophecies" p 44. VII. Plates of Zarahemla containing genealogy, p, 140.

VIII. Plates of Mormon, containing an abridgment of Nephi's plates that contained "the more part of the ministry," p, 141. IX. Plates containing a record from priest Jacob to king Benjamin, p 141.

X. Plates containing record of Zeniff, p, 161. XI. Golden plates of Ether, pp, 161,—312—516. XII. Plates containing Alma's account of "his afflictions," p, 196. XIII. Plates Jared "brought across the great deep," p, 530. XIV. Copies of Scriptures "out of which the sons of Mosiah studied 14 years," pp, 255—271. XV. Many records kept by people "who went north-west," pp, 394—395. XVI. Twelve epistles by different prophets on different themes. The Book of Mormon gives us only an abridgment of these. The originals are "hid up." XVII. The liahona—the sacred brass globe called

the brass compass or brass director of Lehi, pp, 38—314. XVIII. The record of Laban, pp, 145

—143 —145. XIX. The engraved stone of Coriantumer p, 140. XX. The sixteen stones that God touched with his fingers, p, 20. XXI. The two stone interpreters of Moroni, pp, 162—204. XXII. The two stone interpreters of Jared's brother, pp, 522-523. XXIII. A white stone Gazelme, p, 212.

XXIV. A brass breastplate found with Ether's plates, p, 161, Besides all these Smith and other Mormons describe articles different from these enough to increase the number indefinitely. Mormon tells us p, 492, that he hides all of these relics, and hands only "these few plates" containing his abridgment to his son Moroni. They are "hid up" no one knows where. The reader will observe we have piles of plates, a score of them, mentioned scores of times. No one dare deny the accuracy of records kept on metallic plates, imperishable material, with such constant care, and by divine direction, and inspiration.

It is our purpose to prove that the Book of Mormon originated with Solomon Spaulding, was revamped by Sydney Rigdon, and given to the world by Impostor Joe Smith. We shall give first a sketch of Spaulding, and his work until he came in contact with Rigdon. Then a sketch of Rigdon and of his work, until he confederated with Impostor Joe, to give his stolen fabrication to the world, by means of his stolen peep-stone. Solomon Spaulding was born in Ashford Connecticut in 1761. He graduated at Dartmouth College in 1785, with the degree of A. B. He studied theology and graduated in theology in 1787, and received the degree of A. M. He preached until after 1800. On account of failing health he went into business in Cherry Valley, New York. He failed in merchandizing and moved to Conneaut, Ohio, in 1807 or 8. Here he went into the foundry business and failed again. There were in the township of Conneaut a great


many mounds and other relics of an extinct race of people. Mr. Spaulding became very much interested in these antiquities. In 1809 he began a romance, in which he assumed that the ancestors of the Indians were Romans. After writing forty or fifty pages, he abandoned this idea, because as he said, the Romans were too near the time in which he was writing. This MS was the only one Philastus Hurlbut said he found in the trunk, supposed to contain all of Spaulding's MS'S, when they examined the trunk at Mr. Clark's house, in 1834. This MS we will designate as Roman MS or MS No 1.

Ever since the European missionaries began to labor among the Indians, as early as the year 1500, Spanish, French, English and Portugese Missionaries had observed certain things among the Indians, that led some of them to believe that the Indians were of Israelite origin, descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. Such ideas can be found in the writings of Spanish Portugese, and French Monks, and in the writings of Elliott, Cotton Mather and scores of American writers, before the commencement of the present century. Mr. Spaulding was a firm believer and earnest advocate of this theory. He began to write a romance, in which he assumed, that the aborigines of America, and the authors of its mounds and other antiquities were Israelites. He commenced writing this MS as early as 1809. His brother, J. Spaulding, certifies that he visited his brother Solomon in 1810, and found him writing a book which he called, "The Manuscript Found," which he intended to publish, and hoped by the sales to pay his debts. He described it as follows:

"It was a historical romance of the first settlers of America, and endeavored to show that the American Indians are the descendants of the Jews, or the Ten Lost Tribes. It gave a detailed account of their journey

from Jerusalem, by land and sea, until they arrived in America, under the command of Lehi and Nephi. They afterwards had quarrels and contentions, and separated into two distinct nations, one of which he denominated Nephites, the other Lamanites. Cruel and bloody wars ensued, in, which great multitudes were slain. They buried their dead in large heaps which caused the mounds, so common in this country. Their arts, sciences and civilization were all brought into view, in order to account for all the curious antiquities found in various parts of Northern and Southern America I well remember that he wrote in the old style, and commenced almost every sentence with, "And it came to pass," or "Now it came to pass."

I will leave it to the reader, if the average Mormon can give a better synopsis of the historical part of the Nephite portion of the Book of Mormon, then John Spaulding gives in describing his brother's romance the "Manuscript Found."

Martha Spaulding, wife of John Spaulding, and sister-in-law of Solomon Spaulding, testifies:

"I was at the house of Solomon Spaulding shortly before he left Coneaut. He was then writing a historical novel founded on the first settlers of America. He represented them as an enlightened and warlike people. He had for many years contended that the aborigines of America were the descendants of some of the Lost Tribes of Israel; and this idea he carried out in the book in question. The lapse of time which has intervened prevents my recollecting but few of the leading incidents of his writings; but the names Lehi and Nephi are yet fresh in my memory as being the principal heroes of his tale. They were officers of the company which first came off from Jerusalem. He gave a particular account of their journey by land and by sea, till they arrived in America, after which disputes arose between the chiefs, which caused them to separate into bands, one of which was called Lamanites the other Nephites. Between these there were recounted tremendous battles, which frequently covered the ground with slain and these being buried in large heaps, was the cause of the many mounds in the country. Some of these people he represents as being very large."

Again, I ask the reader if an average Mormon could give a better outline of the historical part of the Nephite portion of the Book of Mormon than Mrs. Spaulding gives in describing the "Manuscript Found" of her brother-in-law Solomon Spaulding.

Henry Lake, Solomon Spaulding's business partner testifies:

Solomon Spaulding frequently read to me from a manuscript which he was writing, which he entitled the "Manuscript Pound,," and which he represented as-being found in this town. I spent many hours in hearing him read said writings, and became well acquainted with their contents. The Book represented the American Indians as being the descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel, and gave an account of their having left Jerusalem, and of their contentions and wars, which were many and great. I remember telling Mr. Spaulding that so frequent use of the words: "And it came to pass," "Now it came to pass," rendered the book ridiculous."

Aaron Wright testifies:

"One day when I was at the house of Solomon Spaulding, he showed and read to me a history he was writing of the Lost Tribes of Israel, purporting that they were the first settlers of America and that the Indians were their descendants. He traced their journey from Jerusalem to America. He told me his object was to account for the fortifications etc. that were to be found in this country, and said that in time, it would be fully believed by all except learned men and historians."

Oliver Smith testifies:

"Solomon Spaulding boarded at my house six months. All his leisure hours were occupied in writing a historical novel, founded upon the first settlers of this country. He said he intended to trace their journey, from Jerusalem by land and sea till their arrival in America, and give an account of their arts, sciences, civilization laws and contentions. In this way he would give a satisfactory account of all of the old mounds, so common in this country. Nephi and Lehi, were by him, represented as the leading characters, when they first started for America. Their main, object was to escape the judgements which they supposed were coming on

the old world."

Nahum Howard testifies:

"In conversation with Solomon Spaulding I expressed my surprise that we had no account of the people once in this country, who ejected the old forts mounds etc. He told me he was writing a history of that people."

Artemus Cunningham testifies:

"Solomon Spaulding described to me his book. He said that it was a fabulous or romantic history of the first inhabitants of this country, and it purported to be a record found buried in the earth, or in a cave. He had adopted the ancient or Scriptural style of writing. He then read from his manuscript. I remember the name of Nephi, who appeared to be the principal hero of the story. The frequent repetition of the phrase "1 Nephi" I remember distinctly as though it were yesterday. He attempted to account for the numerous antiquities which are found upon the continent."

John N. Miller who was a member of Solomon Spaulding's household for many months testifies:

"I perused Spaulding's manuscripts as I had leisure more particularly the one he called his "Manuscript Found." It purported to be a history of the first settlers of America. He brought them off from Jerusalem, under their loaders detailing their travels by land and by sea."




GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:— By way of reminding you of the fact

that sometimes a man gets frightened at his own evil surmisings I call attention to the statement of my friend, "That he was not going to be scared down." This was certainly uncalled for. Who has tried to scare him down? Have I, or has a single person in this audience? Now, I take this as the simple upbraidings of his own conscience. It reminds me of the story of the boy that got terribly scared upon a certain occasion. His hair began to stand up right lively, and the cold chills coursed down his back. Finally he gathered up a little courage and edged up a little toward the object of his fright and after straightening up, he stammered out, "Who's afraid?" It turned out that the boy had only been stuffed with a few ghost stories and was frightened at nothing. And it seems to me this is the true condition of my opponent. There is no necessity of being afraid here. I hope my friend is not afraid. I can say truly to you that I am not. What is he afraid of? I want him in this discussion to bring the strongest evidence he can. To do his worst, as well as best. Only let him state facts?

He makes a statement with reference to the prophecy of Jacob in the 49th chapter of Genesis where in blessing Joseph, he tells him his "branches," (daughters), "should run over the wall," and says that men have read it for thousands of years and never thought of applying it as I have in this discussion. Is that an argument against the force of my position? On the contrary it occurs to me to be an argument in favor of it. When men have read it, scanned it, for thousands of years, and no one conceived the idea of applying it to its proper place until it was made known as we claim by the revelation of God, it argues in favor of the divine knowledge. It is something that was not likely to be spontaneous in the heart of man, but let down from heaven as were many other things that I will be able to show you during this discussion. And yet will he deny that the Book of

Mormon has given a single new truth to the world? Another thing he has referred to as an argument, is the sermons of the "notorious Stephen Burrows," using his language. He seems to have been a faithful student of Burrows. Now, his sermons may be good, as he claims from his or the Disciples' (Campbellite) standpoint of judging; but I will state to this audience fairly and candidly that no such man as he says he was, could preach good sermons from the standpoint of the Latter Day Saints, nor the standpoint of the Bible; and they are not good sermons. I invite him to produce the sermons now, and I will examine them before you and show that they are not good.

Another thing. He said that he could show that the prophecies of the Bible which I have quoted refer as much to the Koran as the Book of Mormon. Why does he not do it then? What is he here for but to show what they apply to? Let him do it. I deny that he can select a single one that has a like or similar application, and demand the proof. When he names one, I will show it does not, nor cannot be made to apply to the Koran as obviously as the Book of Mormon. He has so far failed, or refused, to follow me and notice my arguments, although he is in the negative of the proposition. I shall not be so kind with him, but will both set forth my affirmative proofs, and expose the fallacies in his positions. In his desperation to make out a case against the Book of Mormon he does not hesitate to ignore as applicable to man after the Apostles' time, all that is assuring and comforting to the Christian.

The beautiful promises, "Seek and ye shall find," "Knock and it shall be opened unto you," "Ask and it shall be given unto you," Matt. 7:7; "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him," James 2:5; "How much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him," Matt. 7:11; and many other like assuring and comforting promises, are all things of the past with him. Confined to the apostles' age. Jesus says, "He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me; and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." Again, "My Father will love him, and we will come unto him and make our abode with him." John 14:21,23. But according to my friend's theory, all of these promises are limited to the apostles, and those upon whom they laid their hands. His theory limits pretty much all of the New Testament to the apostolic times; especially does it, all giving assurance that the Christian may have a knowledge of God. Christ said, "I will pray the Father and he shall give you another comforter that he may abide with you forever; even the Spirit of Truth." John 14:16, 17. "Where two or three are met together in my name there I am in the midst." But my opponent makes this limited to the olden time. What is the use praying then, if God cannot give, and Jesus cannot be in the midst. Again, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you." Rom. 8:11-16. This is also limited


by the theory of the negative. Yet, it is clear from the texts themselves, that these promises and experiences were, and are, for the doers of the word, the faithful in Christ in every age.

John said, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that cometh, after "me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." Matt. 3:11. And "Jesus in keeping with this says, "Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." John. 3:5. These texts prove that the influence and power of the Spirit was to follow the baptism by water. But my opponent limits the baptism of the Spirit, and holds on to the water. But upon what authority? A vain assumption evidently thought necessary to bolster up his Campbellite theory. His arguments prohibit salvation to the race after the apostolic age. Jesus taught, "Except a man be born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." Yet, Mr. Braden says, there is no birth or baptism of the Spirit now. There would be more consistency in. abandoning both baptisms as they are both taught by the same persons and at the same time. In his madness he not only wars against the claims of the Book of Mormon and the Latter Day Saints, but all Christians who hold to a Christian experience under the divine energies of the Holy Ghost. Every Catholic, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, "Methodist, Friend, Independent, or what not, who has testified of tasting the heavenly gift—the joy of the Holy Ghost shed abroad in the heart, in any age or time since the

Apostles, has witnessed falsely. Their experiences are but vain things and they; deceivers of

themselves. There is no Spiritual communion, so Mr. Braden claims, except through the medium of the word. His is but a first step in Atheism. It destroys or removes God out of the world, if not out of the universe. Inspiration is not only confined to the early church, but God, and Christ, and the Holy Ghost, are barred out;—limited and confined to the Apostles alone and can no longer move upon the Christian's heart. But thank God, we are assured of better things: Says Paul, "And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in the heart." How is the love of God shed abroad in the heart? "By the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." Rom. 5:5. '-"Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." 2 Cor. 1:22. "And because you are sons, God hath sent forth, the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba Father." "In whom ye also trusted after that ye heard the word of truth the gospel of your salvation. in whom also after that ye believed ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory." Eph. 1:13. This was not attained through the medium of the word as my opponent would have you believe, for the Apostle says, verse 13, "After ye heard the word of truth, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise." The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of promise the same which Jesus said, "When he is come he will testify of me." This promise of the Spirit to burn in the heart of the Christian in fact, was to continue until the redemption of the purchased possession, and is the evidence of the right of possession. But Braden's theory confines all this to the apostles' time, and all the experience, and knowledge, that men can have of God now, is through the written word. Jesus says, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned; and these signs shall follow them that believe. In my name they shall cast out devils. They shall speak with new tongues," etc. Mark 16. This message included the entire world of believers. The promise is, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," and "These signs shall follow them that believe." Wherever the message was to be obeyed, the signs were to follow. "Where the signs are limited, the duties enjoined by the message are limited. This proves too much for my opponent's theory and faith, for he professes great faith in the water part of the message. But if he confines the result of obedience to the age of the apostles, he must confine the obligation to obey the ordinance of baptism to that age, and per consequence the duties preceding

it, faith and repentance, which, are necessary to prepare one to obey the ordinance of baptism. Thus he not only limits the Holy Ghost to the age of the apostles, but faith, repentance and baptism also. Hence he has God and Christ and the Holy Ghost out of the world, and so far away that neither can commune with Christians, and the essential feature of the gospel itself is confined to the apostolic times and people. But Peter held to a better faith. Said he, "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." This promise was to be realized when they accepted the gospel message as is shown in verse 38, of Acts, second chapter. "Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Nothing is more certain than that the obedient doer of the word was to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost wherever the gospel message was sent, as is clearly shown by these texts. It is not limited to Pentecost day, nor to that age. Whenever, and wherever, the remission of sins took place in all the world, in every age, "ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Hence Paul says, "By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." 1 Cor. 12:13.






This body to which he refers, is the church, the body of Christ; so termed. Those who joined in this relation became "fit temples for the indwelling of the Holy Ghost." If these powers and blessings were limited to the early apostles' time,"then the body of Christ, the church of God on earth was limited to that age.

Paul foreseeing that such a theory would be foisted upon the world in the future from his day, raised a warning voice to the people, declaring, "that in the last days perilous times shall come." by men, "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof." The advice that follows this announcement is most striking and cheering: "From such turn away." 2 Tim. 3:5. The apostle Peter also, as if on purpose to put the question beyond caviling, and at rest, says, "The promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." To all who are called to repentance and salvation, and not to miraculous power, as has been stated; but called to Christ Jesus. God thus calls all men in every age. "In every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted with him." "Come unto me, all ye ends of the earth," says God, "And be ye saved." But my opponent says, Christ limited Joel's prophecy made to all flesh, to Pentecost day, and that Peter meant when he said, "Even as many as the Lord our God should call," "That all should receive the Holy Ghost on whom the apostles laid their hands." This is evidently a subterfuge, and false rendering, for there is not a statement in the Bible anywhere to the effect that none were to receive the Holy Ghost but those on whom the apostles should lay their hands. This is gotten up out of whole cloth and added to the word of God in order to support a weak theory. But my opponent seems to be driven to the last-ditch here. He assumes to turn Jesus against his prophets. Says he, "Christ limits Joel's prophecy to those on whom the apostles should lay their hands." "Why does he want Joel limited? All! Joel speaks too loud for his theory. Let me read it: "And it shall come to pass afterward." (after the time of the re-gathering of Israel when they shall never again be ashamed), "That I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh;

and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy; your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants, and upon the handmaids in those days I will pour put my Spirit. And I will show wonders in the heavens and the earth, blood and lire, and pillars of smoke." Joel 2:28-30. When shall this be? In the "last days," when God shall have set his hand a second time to gather his people. "When Jacob's (Israel's) face shall no longer wax pale;" "afterwards." All the prophets agree as to the time. Not on Pentecost day; nor at the time when the apostles laid on hands during their ministry. Not on a few on Pentecost day, and those upon whom the apostles should lay their hands; but "upon all flesh." In the period of the world's history when God should "show wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood and fire and pillars of smoke." When, "The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood before the great and notable day of the Lord comes." This prophecy was not fulfilled on Pentecost day. Nor does the apostle so state. He says, referring to the Holy Ghost that had then rested upon and imbued the disciples, "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel,"—the Spirit that Joel referred to which should be poured out in the last days, by which men should see visions, dream dreams and prophesy. Not the accomplishment of what Joel said would take place,—but the presence of the Spirit —the agency—by which it would be accomplished. Joel prophesied of certain things to take place in the "last days." My opponent's position is that Christ corrected him and says, no prophesying in the "last days;" this is to be confined to Pentecost and those on whom the apostles shall lay their hands. Who is right? Joel or my opponent? He says again, that no one received the Holy Ghost save under the apostles' hands. But Ananias, who was not an apostle, laid his hands upon Saul that he "might receive the Holy Ghost," and be healed. This shows that the authority to lay on hands for the healing of the sick and the bestowing of the Spirit, was vested in the same class of officers. Jesus says, "They shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover." Mark 16. James also tells us who shall lay hands on the sick, showing the practice under the Savior's instruction: "Is there any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church," &c. James 5:14. Hence, Paul addresses Timothy, "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." 1 Tim. 4:14. Here the presbytery, body of elders, officiated in laying hands upon Timothy, and a gift was manifest by prophecy through the ordinance. But the negative in his ramblings goes from bad to worse. He says that the Christian Institution under Christ and the apostles was a little boy, playing with toys, compared with the excellency, perfection, and power that followed after. How wonderful! Then they had apostles, prophets, the gift of the Holy Ghost, communion with God, and the visitation of angels, the healing of the sick and the love of God shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Ghost which they received; yet he stands before you and claims that this is nothing to be compared with the condition of the church that followed in after ages and is now extant almost universally, and from which all of this heavenly clothing and adornment has been stripped, as the woman going into the wilderness was shorn of her beauty and heavenly power.

One is inclined to think he is joking here, rather than talking in earnest; the absurdity is so palpable. The Church of


Christ was to be "a habitation of God. through the Spirit." This new theory leads to the conclusion

that the world is better off and religion more excellent not to have God in either. When God talks with men, and the Holy Ghost fills their souls, ana they have the testimony of Jesus and certainty in religion, it is a dark and. trying time;—"a boy with his toys;" but when neither God nor Christ, nor the Holy Ghost, nor the prophets nor apostles are known in the church, or in the world; and division, and discord and. contention, distraction and uncertainty everywhere reigns, the full grown man appears, with all his captivating influences and enticing graces. The gifts having passed away, he says, we have love, joy, peace, etc. But did not they have all this and God, and Christ besides in the "toy day," that he refers to? To support this hallucination he refers to 1 Cor. 13, and endeavors to show that there is a "more excellent way," than to have communion with God, through the Holy Spirit, and the realization of the gifts in the church. "Charity never faileth." Right; but it is found in and enjoyed most by those exercising the gifts of the gospel. Charity is love, the pure love of God. It is for the saints here, and in the future world, when they shall reign with God. "But whether there be prophecies they shall fail; whether there be tongues they shall cease; whether there be knowledge it shall vanish away." When shall these things cease? My opponent says, in the age of the apostles, i. e., when the apostles died and there was no one to lay on hands; and thus from sheer necessity. But this proves too much for him. If it was because the apostles died, it could not have been because, "that which is perfect is come;" unless the killing of the apostles brought perfection. Knowledge, prophecies, and tongues are classed together, and if he takes it that these are to cease without reference to the "part" exercise of them as explained by the apostle himself, all are mustered out together, and become things of the past at the same time. It would, scarcely do for me to tell such a towering light as my opponent; that knowledge ceased in the apostolic age; that was the age of boys, the "toy age." But his theory forces him to do so. If it is said that this refers to miraculous knowledge, I ask what kind is that? Certainly it does not come under that classed as learning, erudition, scholarship, &c. Nor "cognition, notice," &c. It must be then of "apprehension, comprehension, understanding, discernment, judgment." Will he take the position that this kind of knowledge has ceased from the church? No wonder things looked dark to Mr. Wesley. Let us permit the apostle to be his own interpreter here. Verses 9 and 10, "For we know in part, and prophesy in part, but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." What shall be done away? Doing in part. Knowledge in part prophesying in part; speaking in languages only in part; When shall it be done away? Answer: "When that which is perfect is come:"and this is when part prophesying and knowing in part will cease. My opponent says, Paul is contrasting two states of the church: One under the spiritual gifts. the other under a "perfected" state without spiritual gifts, or communion with God except as may be received through the written word:—that is from reading the Bible. This is another of his fallacies. Paul is contrasting the state of the church and saints here with the condition that is to be attained in the future world, at the coming of Jesus the second time. "Now, (in this life—this side of a time of perfection,) I see through a glass darkly; but then shall I know, even as I am known." When this perfect time shall come then Paul will know as he is known; until that time he sees through a glass darkly walking by the light of prophesying in part, and knowing only in part. There is nothing more clear, than if Paul with his spiritual vision, knowledge and prophecy, could know only in part, there has been no state of the church since his day when man attained to a more perfect knowledge. And more especially must this be conceded by my opponent, when he and his Campbellite Church, assumes that all that men can know of God, and religion now, is by reading the Bible written in part by Paul himself, and wholly, so far as its divinity is concerned, when men were blest with the spiritual gifts and had communion with God. The facts are these:

The light of God only comes to earth in part. The Saints of old knew in part and prophesied in part; but they looked forward to the future when the knowledge in part should be a thing of the past, and they would know as they were known. My opponent says, this was after the apostles passed away and the church became a full-grown man. But who can believe him when he further says that the Christians, or the world, knows more of duty and the light of heaven, and are in a higher, more advanced and perfect state than, when the spiritual gifts, were extant and there was communion with God? The gifts were to continue until the day of perfect knowledge should come. "The day of Christ." 2 These. 2:2. Paul says in the Ephesian letter, fourth chapter— "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets and some, evangelists; and some pastors and teachers." What for? "For the perfecting of the Saints the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ," or the church. How long was this inspired ministry to continue? The apostle answers in the next sentence. "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." And all this for the purpose:—

"That we henceforth, be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up unto him in all things, which is the head, even Christ. From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the






effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." 11 to 16 verses.

This scripture confirms the opinion that the apostles and prophets were designed to continue in the church, that the people might be "no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine."

But Mr. Braden reverses it, and says the apostles and gifts ceased that we might be no more children, but full grown men.— That was "the children or toy day" of the church. However the apostle further tells us, that they were to continue till we all come to, "the knowledge of the Sou of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." Again, "God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues," 1 Cor. 12:28. "God has set the members every one in the body as it hath pleased him." This body in which he placed these members is his church; and he placed them in the body, the church, to edify the same and to continue therein, until "we all come to the knowledge of the Son of God;" but now we are gravely told that they are not necessary or essential to the proper growth of the body, and that they are not to continue "till we come to the knowledge of the Son of God." But since it is by this same Holy Spirit that was manifest on Pentecost day, and by which the signs followed the believer, and which God gave by gift to the ministry, and poured out upon all the believers, that we may at all attain to the knowledge of Christ, will he now be so kind as to tell us whether he expects by banishing the means of knowledge, to have the people become enlightened? "No man can say that Jesus is the Lord," [come to the knowledge of him], "but by the Holy Ghost." 1 Cor. 12:3.

He says again, the"Mormons bapti

their baptism through a Campbellite preacher, Sidney Rigdon. Do THEY baptize for miraculous gifts? The Saints do not now, nor never did baptize for miraculous gifts. That is out of whole cloth.

They baptize "for the remission of sins," and then say as the apostles taught, that the obedient doer of the word is entitled to, the Holy Ghost by reason of the "promise."

Again, he claims that the Book of Mormon is an addition to the Bible. This is incorrect. The Book of Mormon stands alone, as a work or as a revelation from Deity; and is complete of itself; as the Bible stands alone and is complete, (so far as the book is concerned and a record of God's will as revealed upon the Eastern continent), so is the Book of Mormon of a like history and of that same will, as revealed, upon the Western continent. The Book of Mormon is in no true sense an addition to the Bible; no, such claim is, or has ever been, made for it. by the book itself, or its friends. But it confirms the Bible in its testimony, and this is answer enough if we had no other as to the good of the work. The Bible is a record of the Jews and their religion. The Book of Mormon is a record of the people who came to and lived upon the Western continent and their religion. It is not true as asserted, that the Latter Day Saints hold the revelations in the Book of Mormon in higher veneration than they do the revelations of the Bible. With them a revelation from God, given to the world in Palestine, is just as worthy of consideration and respect, as one given in America; and one from a similar source in America, just as good as one given in Palestine. Neither is age a consequence as to the truth or applicability of it. God over all is rich, and none can limit His power of giving and revealing. If a church that denies to its members the light and gift of the Holy Spirit, of communion with God, through the Comforter, and an approach to the life of the church of the First Born, and Jesus the Mediator, is not a Jack o'lantern light to the world, then there is no faint and dim glimmering anywhere. Now I wish to refer hurriedly to what he stated last evening by way of. an illustration, using the American government, or the compact of the Constitution and the framers, in a comparison to the apostles and their work, or to those whom he says gave us the Bible. The trouble with his illustration is, that it is not a parallel case as used by him. The framers. of the American Constitution were selected by the American people, and authorized by them to meet and in their own wisdom frame a constitution which should, if ratified, be the governing or fundamental law. In the word of God, as committed to the world, the apostles are not the framers, or makers, neither the ones to ratify as well as devise or institute. They could approve or reject as they chose, but this action could not affect the law, only themselves, as witness the act of Judas. They were the means simply of communicating that knowledge to the world that was framed and devised by Deity himself. And when my opponent seeks by his illustration to reason apostles out of the world, he makes the blunder of placing the apostles in the position occupied by Deity himself, to the New Testament, and his illustration legitimately, instead of showing that apostles were to cease, puts God out of the Universe and out of the church, instead of the apostles. This is why I object to his theory. It is but on a par"with his other argument, wherein ho has sought to shut the Holy Ghost, the life and power of the gospel out of the church. God gave the covenant or constitution of the Christian Church, and it was not the work of the apostles. The apostles were the means of teaching this constitution to the world;—"ambassadors" to publish the glad news. The publication of the constitution of the United States, was not by the framers, but by means of another's agency, the press, and public criers selected for that purpose. The framers of the constitution so far as their work was concerned, would



bear a likeness to Deity, who framed and gave the gospel law. Says Jesus in his delivery of the law; "The Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." John 12:49. The apostles are, in the comparison, in fact but the publishers, ambassadors, preachers. For God to give direction how he would have these laws carried out, would not necessarily either, be making new constitution every day;" any more than he was making new constitution every day in the time of Paul and John. Who will say that because we have a constitution or first basis in our government, we shall have no more laws. The only restriction is, that the laws shall not conflict with the constitution.

The next objection I shall take up and examine, is that profound and doubtless scholarly argument, based upon the miraculous in the creation of the world. That since God created the earth by miraculous power, therefore he says, I would have him continue to keep a miracle going all the time, in order that we might have miraculous things or new animals and plants. But he forgets that when God created the earth by miraculous power, if he wishes to call it miraculous, he at the same time established in the same miraculous manner, for aught my opponent can tell, a law by which those things which were created, that he calls miraculous, were to be reproduced. And we have the miraculous plants and animals now by virtue of that law. Just the same as he ordained in the first age of Christianity by the law of the Holy Spirit that apostles should continue if men kept the faith, and if they kept not the faith, then they should not continue; and if we have not the fruits by the ordination of the law of the Holy Spirit, it is because the law has not been kept, for God has not changed.

Will my opponent now stop to tell us whether the law by which the natural creation is now continued is not the same by which God originally wrought when it first germinated? When did Deity change, or at what time did the new law take the place of the old? Make the comparison, and follow it to its conclusion and you will see that instead of supporting his theory it destroys it. God in the creation of the world brought forth certain things, and ordained a means by which they should continue and they continue as at the first by that means, and as the law provided, to the just and unjust alike. In the establishment of his church he did many things which showed the proper fruits of his law, by means of the Holy Spirit. He ordained that they should continue by means of the same agency and power, to the believer, the doer of the word, for this law was limited to such, and not as the other, made alike to the just and the unjust. Do they continue? Has God changed? The law governing should as in the order of creation cause the same effect, and bring to the believer, knowledge, wisdom, faith, prophecies, tongues and healings. These are the legitimate fruits of the law of the Holy Spirit to the believer. But my opponent says no. Why? The simple reason is his people do not have the fruits, and the application will show that they are not "doers of the word."

Now I call your attention to the real import of the story he related, which certainly displayed his ingenuity in taking an economical way of meeting my arguments. I have several times called your attention to the fact that he was not debating properly this question, and that he had abandoned any defense, so far as meeting my arguments is concerned; and now, he comes in and admits it in his story of the boy, that he says was only waiting for something sufficient to roll up so that he could have something to kick at. He is waiting for my arguments to roll up.

This reminds me of another boy. He saw an object in the path and at first sight he concluded

he would kick it out. As he neared it, the object looked a little firmer than at first, but he thought he would kick at it any way. Finally he drew quite close and the object looked as if it was bundled up so tightly, that if he kicked he might get his toes hurt, and so he did not kick at all; and this seems to me to be the true reason why he has not foot-balled my argument.

(Laughter and applause.) (Time expired.)







Spaulding's wife testifies, after stating that Mr. Spaulding was very much, interested in the antiquities found around Conneaut:

"Mr. Spaulding conceived the idea of writing a history of the long lost race that produced these

antiquities. Their extreme antiquity lead him to write in the most ancient style, and as the Old Testament was the oldest book in the world, he imitated its style, as much as possible. As he progressed in his narrative, the neighbors would come in from time to time, to hear portions read, and a great interest in the work was excited among them. It claimed to have been written by one of the lost nation, and to have been recovered from the earth. The neighbors would often ask how Mr. Spaulding progressed in deciphering the manuscript, and when he had a sufficient portion prepared, he would inform them, and they would assemble to hear it read. He was enabled, from his acquaintance with the classics and ancient history to introduce many singular names, which were particularly noticed by the people, and could easily be recognized by them."

Let us say in passing that "Mormon"is one of those names. It is from the Greek and means literally a "bug-bear, a hobgoblin."

Miss Martha Spaulding, now Mrs. Sins-try, Spaulding's daughter testifies: "My Father read the manuscript I had seen him writing to the neighbors and to a clergyman a friend of his who came to visit him. Some of the names he mentioned while reading to the people I have never forgotten. They are as fresh in my memory as though I had heard them but yesterday. They are Mormon, Moroni, Lamanite and Nephi, etc., etc."

Joseph Miller of Amity, Pa., who was intimate with Spaulding while he lived in Amity, nursed him in his last illness, and heard him read much from his manuscript, says:

"Mr. Spaulding seemed to take great delight in reading from his manuscript written on foolscap. I heard

him read most if not all of it; and had frequent conversations with him about it. Some time ago I heard most of the Book of Mormon read. On hearing read the account of the battle between the Almaicites ( Book of Alma, chapter II.), in which the soldiers of one army placed a red mark on their foreheads, to distinguish them from their enemies, it seemed to reproduce in my mind not only the narrative but the very words, as they had been imprinted on my mind by reading Spaulding's manuscript."

Ruddick McKee of Washington D. C. testifies:

"I was a boarder at Spaulding's tavern in Amity, Pa., in the fall of 1814. I recollect quite well Mr. Spaulding spending much time in writing on sheets of paper torn from an old book, what purported to be a veritable history of the nations or tribes that inhabited Canaan. He called it 'Lost Manuscript' or some such name. I was struck with the minuteness of its details and apparent sincerity and truthfulness of the author 1

have an indistinct recollection of the passage referred to by Mr. Miller, about the Amlicites making a cross with red paint in their foreheads to distinguish them from their enemies in the confusion of battle."

Mr. Abner Jackson of Canton Ohio who heard Spaulding read the MS. to his father in Conneaut, just before his removal to Pittsburg, testifies:

"Spaulding frequently read his MS. to the neighbors and commented on it as he progressed. He wrote it

in Bible style, 'And it came to pass' occurred so often that some called him 'Old come to pass.' The names, Mormon, Moroni, Nephi, Nephite, Laman, Lamanite, etc., were in it. The closing scene was at Cumorah, where all the righteous were slain."

We propose now to introduce Sidney Rigdon himself. Rev. John Winter, M. D. was teaching school in Pittsburg, and was a member of the First Baptist church when Rigdon was its pastor and was intimate with Rigdon. He testifies that

"In 1822 or 3 Rigdon took out of his desk in his study a large MS. stating that it was a Bible romance

purporting to be a history of the American Indians. That it was written by one 'Spaulding a Presbyterian preacher whose health had failed and who had taken it to the printers to see if it would pay to publish it. And that he (Rigdon) had borrowed it from the printer as a curiosity."

James Jeffries, an old and highly respected citizen of Churchville Hartford Co. Maryland, testifies, in a statement he dictated to Rev. Calvin D. Wilson, Jan. 20th 1884, in the presence of his wife and J. M. Finney, M. D.; and attested by Dr. Finney, Rev Wilson and Mrs. James Jeffries:

"Forty years ago I was in business in St. Louis. The Mormons then had their temple in Nauvoo, Illinois. I

had business transactions with them. I knew Sidney Rigdon. He acted as general manager of the business of the Mormons (with me) Rigdon told me several times, in his conversation with me, that there was in the printing office with which he was connected in Ohio, a MS. of the Rev Spaulding, tracing the origin of the Indians from the lost tribes of Israel. This MS. was in the office several years. He was familiar with it. Spaulding wanted it published but had not the means to pay for printing. He (Rigdon) and Joe Smith used to look over the MS. and read it on Sundays. Rigdon said Smith took the MS. and said ' I'll print it,' and went off to Palmyra New York."

"Forty years ago" would be the fall of 1844, just after Rigdon had been driven out of Nauvoo. The Times and Seasons assailed him bitterly, that fall and winter, for exposing Mormonism. On his way from Nauvoo to Pittsburg, he 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.

George Clark, son of Jerome Clark of Harwicke, N. Y., testifies that Mrs Davidson left the trunk containing her first husband's MSS. at his fathers, before she went to Munson Mass, to live with her daughter. He says:

"Shortly before Hurlbut got the MS. from fathers, during a visit to fathers, Mrs Davidson gave to my wife

to read, a MS. written by her first husband, Spaulding; remarking as she handed her the MS.: 'The Mormon Bible is almost a literal copy of this MS.'"

It was this MS. Hurlbut obtained from Jerome Clark, and which he never delivered to Howe.

He retained it and gave to Howe a few leaves, the beginning of an entirely different MS. Scores of witnesses who would have corroborated the above could have found


where the Book of Mormon appeared, but these are enough certainly.

We wish now to call the attention of the reader to these facts. 1. We have proved by sixteen witnesses of the highest character, one Solomon Spaulding's brother, another his sister-in-law, another his wife, another his daughter, another his business partner, another one who was an inmate of is family for many months, another one with whom Spaulding boarded for months, and the others intimate acquaintances, that between the years 1809 and 1816 Solomon Spaulding spent much of his time in preparing manuscripts for a book he intended to publish called the "Manuscript Found." II. That from reading it and hearing him read it they became more or less familiar with the contents of his manuscript. III. Their description of his manuscript is as accurate an outline of the historic portion of the Nephite part of the Book of Mormon, in the plot of the story, the starting point of the history, its leading incidents, journeys, wars etc., the names of the principal characters, as any average Mormon can give. IV. They mention only the Nephite portion of the book of Mormon, with one exception, which we will soon give. V. They all declare that there was no religious matter in his manuscript. VI. Oliver Smith testifies that Spaulding told him just before going to Pittsburg, that he would prepare the manuscript for press while there, living a retired life for that purpose. VII J. N. Miller testifies, that in explaining his book to him, Spaulding told him that he landed the people at the Isthmus of Darien which he called Zarahemla.

From all these facts we gather these conclusions. That Spaulding wrote, at first only the historic part of the Nephite portion of the Book of Mormon. This was his second manuscript which we will call manuscript No II. or Mormon manuscript No. I. It was this small manuscript that Mrs. Martha Spaulding his daughter saw in the trunk at W. H. Sabins her uncles in Onadago, Valley. N. Y. about the year 1823. From the amount of writing Spaulding did during the seven years, and from Miller's description, it is evident that he prepared a more complete manuscript adding the Zarahemla emigration. This we will call manuscript No. III. Mormon manuscript No. 2. In 1812 Spaulding moved to Pittsburg, for the purpose of publishing his book, intending, as he told Oliver Smith to lead a retired life and rewrite it for the press. He showed it, his daughter testifies to Mr. Patterson, a publisher in Pittsburg who told him to rewrite it for the press and he would publish it. He did so and added the Jaredite emigration. Mrs. Spaulding, his wife, and Miss Spaulding his daughter, testify, that he sent the manuscript to Patterson's publishing house. Mr. Miller, Mr. McKee and Dr. Dodd of Amity, Pa., testify that Spaulding told them he had done so. In 1814 Spaulding then in very poor health went to Amity, Washington Co., Pa. His wife kept tavern and supported the family. Spaulding continued to write on his manuscript and read it to all who would listen to him until his death Oct. 20th 1816.

His wife and daughter put his manuscript and papers that they found, into a trunk and took it with them to the residence of a brother of Mrs. Spaulding, W. H. Sabin, Onandago, Valley, Onandago county, N. Y. In 1820 Mrs. Spaulding went to Pomfret Conn. Sometime afterwards she married a Mr. Davidson of Hartwicke, Otsego, county N. Y. and went there to live. She left her daughter Miss Martha Spaulding with her uncle Mr. Sabin, and left the trunk containing the manuscripts in her care. Miss Spaulding testifies that she read one of the manuscripts, a small one, either Spaulding's first draft of the story, or his Mormon manuscript No. 1.—the one he wrote in 1809-10. She also testifies that while she was at her uncles, Joseph Smith worked as teamster for her uncle, and learned of the existence of the manuscript. Imposter Joe places his first vision concerning the plates, Sept. 1823. As this is his way of dressing up his first knowledge of the manuscript he worked for Sabin in September, 1823, and learned of the existence of the manuscript then. Sometime after her moving to Hartwicke, and after Sept. 1823, Mrs. Davidson sent for the trunk and it was sent from Onandago, Valley, to the house of Mr. Davidson in

Hartwicke. In 1828 Miss Martha Spaulding married Dr. McKinstry and went to Munson Mass, to live. 1830 Mrs. Davidson left Hartwicke and went to Munson to live with her daughter Mrs. McKinstry. She left the trunk containing the manuscript and papers—that is all she and her daughter found after Spaulding's death, in care of her brother-in-law Jerome Clark, in Hartwicke. Here it stayed until it was opened by Philastus Hurlbut and Jerome Clark in 1834. Hurlbut had visited Mrs. Davidson and Mrs. McKinstry in Munson, and obtained an order from them authorizing him to open the trunk, and examine its contents.

We are ready now to introduce the person who was instrumental in giving to the world the "Book of Mormon." Sidney Rigdon was born near the village of Library in St. Clair township, Allegany county, Pa., February 19, 1793. He lived on the farm of his father until the death of the latter in 1810; when Sidney was 17 years old. All the education he obtained he got in a log school- house near his home. After his father's death he still made his home at his mother's pretending to work on the farm and to farm the land part of the time, but was, his neighbors say, too lazy or too proud to work. A dispute has arisen over the question whether he was in Pittsburg before he went there in 1822, to take charge of the first Baptist church. His friends assert that he did not live in Pittsburg till that time. A dispute arises over the question whether he learned the printers' art in early life. Also whether he worked in the office of Patterson, when Spaulding's manu-





script was taken there to be published. His friends deny this, and persons employed in Patterson's office before and after that time, say they remember no such employee of the office, and Rigdon denied it most emphatically. Mr. Patterson remembers nothing of him. On the other hand Mrs. Davidson, Spaulding's wife, declares positively that he was connected with the office. Mr. Miller of Amity, Mr. McKee, and Dr. Dodd testify that Mr. Spaulding so informed them. There must have been some foundation for such positive impressions on the part of Mr. and Mrs. Spaulding, and many others.

I think Mrs. Eichbaum who was clerk in the post office, in Pittsburg, from 1812 to 1816, gives the key to the matter. A young man by the name of Lambdin was in Mr. Patterson's employ and became his partner in 1818. She states that Rigdon and Lambdin were very intimate and that Mr. Engle foreman of Patterson's printing office complained that Rigdon was loafing around the office all the time; that Rigdon was working in a tannery at the time. The explanation then is that Rigdon was intimate with Lambdin one of the leading employees of Patterson, while he was working in a tannery in Pittsburg, and from this intimacy, persons supposed that he was in Patterson's employ; especially when he was around the office so much. Rigdon was then a young man, noted for his gift of gab, and fondness for discussion, especially on religious topics. We are now ready to prove that Rigdon came in contact with the Spaulding manuscript. Joseph Miller of Amity, Pa., who took care of Spaulding in his last illness, testifies: "My recollection is that Spaulding left a transcript of the manuscript with Patterson for publication. The publication was delayed until Spaulding could write a preface. In the mean time the manuscript was spirited away, and could not be found. Spaulding told me that Sidney Rigdon had taken it or was suspected of taking it. I recollect distinctly that Rigdon's name was mentioned in connection with it." Mr. McKee says that Rigdon was mentioned to him by Spaulding as the employee of Patterson. Dr. Dodd who took

care of Spaulding in his last illness declared that Spaulding's manuscript had been transformed into the Book of Mormon, and that Rigdon was the one who did it. He made this statement years before Howe's book appeared, the first public statement of such a theory. He did it on account of what he had heard of the Spaulding manuscript, and what Spaulding had told him. Mrs. Spaulding positively declares that Rigdon was connected with Patterson's office, when the manuscript was there, and that he copied it. That the manuscript was a subject of much curiosity and interest in the office. That it was well known that he had a copy of it.

We can now collate the evidence. Rigdon was intimate with Lambdin a prominent employee in the office. He loafed about the office so much, that Mr. Engle the foreman complained of it. His fondness for religious discussion and love of the strange and marvelous, caused him to take a deep interest in the Spaulding manuscript. It was just what would interest such a cast of mind as his. The manuscript wag missed. He was blamed with spiriting it away. Mrs. Spaulding thinks he copied it. She, in the course of her husband's last illness did not learn all the facts, or did not remember clearly. She was mistaken in regard to his copying it and that it was returned, as Miller, McKee and Dr. Dodds statements, in regard to Spaulding's own statements show. We have now traced the manuscript that Spaulding prepared for publication into Rigdon's hands. The statement of his friends that he staid on the farm till he went to Pittsburg, in 1822, they contradict themselves. It does not harmonize with Rigdon's character. Mrs, Eichbaum's statement is confirmed by the fact that Rigdon went to work in a tannery, when he quit preaching in 1824. He had learned the trade in 1812 to 1816. That Rigdon was in Pittsburg, when Spaulding, manuscript was in Patterson's office learning the tanner's trade. He was intimate with Lambdin, an employee of Patterson. He was about the office so much that Engles complained that he was always hanging about. He was just such a person as would be excited over Spaulding's manuscript. He took great interest in it. That was what made him hang around the office. The manuscript was stolen, and Spaulding said that Rigdon was suspected of taking it.

Rigdon joined the Baptist church on Piney Fork of Peters creek May 31, 1817. He studied theology during the years 1818-19 with a Mr. Clark a Baptist Preacher of Beaver, county, Pa,. He was licensed to preach by the Connequessing Baptist church in 1819. He went to Warren Trumbull county Ohio, where his uncle was a prominent member of the Baptist church and joined that church, March, 4th, 1820. He was ordained to preach as a regular Baptist Preacher by that church, April, 1st, 1820. He preached for that church and other churches in that vicinity during the years 1820 and 21. He married Phebe Brooks in Warren, in 1820. In January 1822 he moved to Pittsburg and was made Pastor of the First Baptist church Jan. 28th 1822. He embraced many of the teachings of Campbell and Scott. His church and Scott's often met together in worship. He was arraigned for such doctrinal errors and excluded Oct. 11, 1823. He preached for his adherents in the court house till in the summer of 1824. Then for two years did no regular preaching.. He says he studied the Bible and worked in a tannery.

We will now prove that he had the Spaulding manuscript in his possession at this time. Rev. John Winter M. D. who was a member of Rigdon's congregation when he was pastor of the First Baptist church, and very intimate with him testifies; that Rigdon in his presence in his



house took out of a desk a manuscript and remarked that a "Presbyterian minister Spaulding whose health had failed brought this to a printer to see if it would pay to publish it. It is a romance of the Bible— and he got it from the printer to read as a curiosity." Here we have clear proof that Rigdon had Spaulding's manuscript in his possession in 1823. In the winter of 1826 Rigdon moved to Bainbridge, Geauga, county Ohio. Soon after he was visited by his niece now Mrs. A. Dunlap of Warren, Ohio. She testifies:

"That in her presence her uncle went into his bedroom and took from a trunk which he kept carefully locked, a manuscript and come back seated himself by the fire and began to read. His wife came into the room and exclaimed: "What you area studying that thing again? I mean to burn that paper." Rigdon replied: "No indeed you will not. This will be a great thing some day." When he was reading this manuscript he was so completely occupied that he seemed entirely unconscious of anything around him."

We have now proved that Rigdon had the Spaulding manuscript in his possession, and that he expected to make some great thing out of it and spent much time over it.

In June 1826 Rigdon was invited to preach the funeral sermon of Warner Goodall of Mentor Ohio, and so pleased the congregation, that they chose him their preacher, and he became a Disciple Preacher. He was now 33 years old. He had barely what was a common school education of those days, and was never a student or reader, except of the visionary and mysterious. He had a wonderful command of language, an extravagant imagination and a marvelous power of word painting. He excelled in declamation and in a kind of pulpit power, that arouses revival excitement. He never was regarded as a reasoner, or a man of profound thought. He was relied on as a revivalist rather than as a regular preacher. His favorite theme was the millennium, on which he was fond of declaiming, and entertained the ideas now found in the Book of Mormon. He was always talking of some great time, coming, some great thing going to happen. He brought with him many of his Baptist ideas, and never accepted all Disciple teaching. His power in revivals and his love of revival excitement, inclined him to the idea then popular in all churches, except the Disciples of direct and immediate or miraculous power of the Holy Ghost. His extravagancies and eccentricities gave constant annoyance to the Disciples, who overlooked them on account of his power as a revivalist. They would often say: "Oh well it is Rigdon. It is one of Rigdon's oddities." His imagination and love of the marvelous lead him constantly into exaggerations, that often were absolute falsehoods. Those who watched him closely were soon convinced, that he lacked logical mental power and moral stamina, and was unreliable in his statements, and wanting in moral principle. He was a vain showy pulpit orator but never was a trusted preacher among the Disciples. We propose now to show that Rigdon knew of the appearance of the Book of Mormon before it appeared, and knew of and described its contents. Adamson Bently Rigdon's brother-in- law and one of the most reliable men that Ohio has ever known, declares in the Millennial Harbinger of 1844, page 39: "I know that Sidney Rigdon told me as much as two years before the Mormon Book made its appearance, or had been heard of by me, that there was a book coming out, the manuscript of which was engraved on gold plates." Alexander Campbell whose word not even sectarian hatred ever dared to impeach, clinches the matter by adding his testimony:

"The conversation alluded to in Brother Bently's letter, was in my presence, as well as his. My recollection of it led me, some TWO or three years ago, to interrogate Bro. Bently concerning his recollections of it. They accorded with mine in every particular, except in regard to the year in which it occurred. He placed it in the summer of 1827. I placed it in the summer of 1826. Rigdon, at the same time, observed that on the

plates dug lip in New York, there was an account, not only of the aborigines of this continent, but it was stated also that the Christian religion had been preached on this continent, during the first century just as we were then preaching it on the Western Reserve."

That clinches the matter.

We will now introduce Darwin Atwater of Mantua, who testifies:

"Sidney Rigdon preached for us when the Mormon defection came on us, and notwithstanding his extraordinary wild freaks he was held in high repute by many. "For a few months before his pretended conversion to Mormonism, it was noted that his wild extravagant propensities had been more marked. That he knew beforehand of the coming of the Book of Mormon, is to me certain, from what he had said during the first of his visits to my father's some years before (in 1820). He gave a wonderful description of the mounds and other antiquities found in some parts of America, and said that they must have been made by the aborigines. He said there was a book to be published containing an account of these things. He spoke of them in his eloquent enthusiastic style as being a thing most extraordinary. Though a youth I took him to task for expending so much enthusiasm on such a subject instead of the things of the gospel. In all my intercourse with him afterwards he never spoke of the antiquities or of the wonderful book that should give an account of them till the Book of Mormon was really published. He must have thought that I was not the man to reveal to."

That is true. Darwin Atwater was not, Parley P. Pratt was. He was the right man for Rigdon's schemes.

Rigdon made a convert of Pratt then teaching school in Lorain county Ohio. Pratt began to preach for the Disciples. Rigdon let him into his scheme and Pratt entered heartily into it. We will now prove that Rigdon was away from home, engaged in getting out his manuscript, that he told his wife would be a great thing some day. Zebulon Rudolpho Mrs Garfield's father testifies:

"During the winter previous to the appearance of the Book of Mormon, Rigdon was in the habit of

spending weeks away from home, going no one knew whither. He often appeared preoccupied and he would indulge in dreamy visionary talks, which puzzled those who listened. When the Book of Mormon appeared and Rigdon joined in the advocacy of the new religion the suspicion was at once aroused that he was one of the framers of the new doctrine, and that probably he was not ignorant of the authorship of the Book of Mormon."

John Rudolph, brother to Z. Rudolph says:

"For two years before the Book of Mormon ap-





peared, Rigdon's sermons were full of declarations and prophecies that the age of miracles would be restored, and more complete revelations, than those in the Bible, would be given. When the Book of Mormon appeared, all who heard him were satisfied that he referred to it."

Almon B. Green, well known in Northern Ohio, says:

"In the Annual Meeting of the Mahoning Association held in Austintown in August, 1830, about two months before Sidney Rigdon's professed conversion to Mormonism, Rigdon preached Saturday afternoon. He had much to say about a full and complete restoration of the ancient gospel. He spoke in his glowing style of what the Disciples had accomplished but contended that we had not accomplished a complete restoration of Apostolic Christianity. He contended such restoration must include community of goods—holding all in common stock, and a restoration of the spiritual gifts of the apostolic age. He promised that although we had not come up to the apostolic plan in fall yet as we were improving God would soon give us a new and fuller revelation of his will. After the Book of Mormon had been read by many who heard Rigdon on that occasion they were perfectly satisfied that Rigdon knew all about that book when he preached that discourse. Rigdon's

sermon was most thoroughly refuted by Bro. Campbell, which very much offended Rigdon."

Scores of others who were present have made similar statements hundreds of times. Eri M. Dille testifies:

"In the autumn of 1830 Sidney Rigdon held a meeting in the Baptist meeting-house on Euclid Creek. I

was sick and did not attend the meeting, but my father repeatedly remarked while it was in progress that he was afraid that Rigdon was about to leave the Disciples for he was continually telling of what marvelous things he had seen in the heavens and of wonderful things about to happen and his talks indicated that he would leave the Disciples.

We will now prove that Rigdon came in contact with Smith in 1827-28-29, while Smith was getting out the Book of Mormon, Pomeroy Tucker, a native of Palmyra, New York, an intimate acquaintance of Impostor Joe, who read much of the proofs of the Book of Mormon says:

"A mysterious stranger now appears at Smith's and holds intercourse with the famed money digger For a

considerable time no intimation of the name or purpose of this stranger transpired to the public, not even to Smith's nearest neighbors. It was observed by some that his visits were frequently repeated. The sequel of the intimacies of this stranger and the money digger, will sufficiently appear hereafter. There was great consternation when the 118 pages of manuscript were stolen from Harris for it seems to have been impossible, for some unaccountable reason, to retranslate the stolen portion. The reappearance of this mysterious stranger at Smith's at this juncture was again the subject of inquiry and conjecture by observers, from whom was withheld all explanations of his identity and purpose. When the Book of Mormon appeared Rigdon was an early convert. Up to this time he had played his part in the back-ground and his occasional visits to Smith's had been observed by the inhabitants as those of the mysterious stranger. It had been his policy to remain in concealment until all things were in readiness for blowing the trumpet of the new gospel. He now came to the front as the first regular preacher in Palmyra."

Mrs. Eaton, wife of Horace Eaton D. D. for thirty-two years a resident of Palmyra says:

"Early in the summer of 1827 a mysterious stranger seeks admission to Joe Smith's cabin. The conferences of the two are most private. This person whose coming immediately preceded a new departure in the faith was Sidney Rigdon a backslidden clergyman, then a Campbellite preacher in Mentor, Ohio.

J. H. McCauley, in his history of Franklin County, Pennsylvania, states:

"As a matter too well known to need argument that Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism and Sidney Rigdon were acquaintances for a considerable time before Mormonism was first heard of."

Abel Chase, a near neighbor of the Smith's, testifies;

"I saw Rigdon at Smith's at different times with considerable intervals between them."

This disproves the statement that Rigdon never was at Smith's but once and that after the book appeared. He was there several times and some visits must have been before the book appeared.

Lorenzo Saunders, another near neighbor, testifies:

"I saw Rigdon at Smith's several times, and the first visit was more than two years before the Book appeared."

We have now brought Rigdon the second character in the origination of the Book of Mormon, in contact with the Imposter Joe Smith the third and last character in originating the fraud. This acquaintance could have been brought about in two ways. Parly Pratt the school teacher in Lorain county Ohio, that Rigdon converted, had been a peddler in Central New York, and was acquainted with every noted character in it. When Rigdon let him into the secret of his scheme, he could have suggested to Rigdon that the seer and famous money seeker of Manchester, with his wonderful p

the world, as a revelation by miracle. Or it could have occurred in another way. The work of Smith and his gang in digging over a large scope of country in southern New York, and northern Pennsylvania, had been extensively commented on by the press. Rigdon could have learned of this wonderful seeker after treasure, and his wonderful peep-stone through the press, and it occurred to him that here was the one to give his stolen manuscript to the world as a new revelation, by miracle, translating pretended plates with his peep-stone. We are now ready for a sketch of Imposter Joe.

Imposter Joe was born Dec. 23, 1805, in Sharon, Windsor county Vermont. The minister employed by the Home Missionary Society, to labor in Vermont 1809-10-11-12-13 says, in his autobiography, that in 1812 a religious imposter created an excitement in the neighborhood of the Smith's. He taught that miraculous spiritual gifts could and should be enjoyed now, and claimed to exercise them. He claimed to be a prophet, and then a Messiah, Christ in his second advent. Among the most active of his followers was Imposter Joe's father and mother, especially his mother. She prophesied, at the time, that Joe, then seven years old. would be a prophet, and give to the world a new, religion. Joe was raised with this idea before him. All the family were taught and believed it. Joe's father used to speak of Joe as the "genus," as he termed it, of the family. This accounts for Joe's peculiar gravity when but a child, and as a youth. He was to be a prophet, and he must not act as other children and boys did. In 1815 the Smiths moved to Palmyra N. Y. and in 1813 they squatted on an unoccupied piece of land, belonging to minors and lived there until they went to Ohio in 1830. Soon after coming to Palmyra, in a revival excitement, Joe showed


some interest in religious matters, and joined the class of probationers on probation, and was soon left off '; on suspicion" as the Yankee expressed a similar experience of his own. This is all there is of he long story that Imposter Joe wrote in 1843, twenty three years afterwards, of his wonderful vision, of his going to the Methodist preacher with queries, that would be in character, had the querist been a person of mature mind, well versed in the controversies of the age, but were utterly out of character in the mouth of an ignorant illiterate boy of fifteen, that was remarkable chiefly for his power of exaggeration and falsehood, and not for thought. The ideas that he said he had then, he never dreamed of until he learned them from Sidney Rigdon, years afterwards.

In Sep. 1822, while digging a well for Willard Chase, Imposter Joe's father found a singularly shaped stone of cloudy quartz, strangely resembling a child's foot, Imposter Joe, who was loafing around was very much interested in the stone and finally stole it from Mr. Chase's children. This stone is the Urim and Thummim of Mormonism. Rigdon had stolen the "Book of Mormon." Now Imposter Joe steals the Urim and Thummim, with which he pretended to translate Ridgons stolen manuscript. In Sept. 1823 Imposter Joe worked for W. H. Sabin, in Onandago Valley N. Y. Here he learned of the existence of the Spaulding manuscript then at Mr. Sabins in the care of Martha Spaulding, Solomon Spaulding's daughter. During the year 1823-24-25-26-27, Imposter Joe was engaged in loafing around, strolling over the country, pretending to find water by witching fur it with a witch-hazel rod, and pretending to find lost property, buried treasurers, and minerals, by means of the stone he had stolen from Mr. Chase's children. He had, a part of the time, with him, a gang of idle superstitious men, who dug holes over a large scope of country, in several counties

in southern New York, and northern Pennsylvania. His knavish tricks, and frauds, had attracted to him great notoriety. His proceedings with a gang of dupes were published and commented on in several of the papers of New York and Pennsylvania. By this means Rigdon who was still looking around for some means to publish his stolen manuscript heard of the Seer of Manchester, and his wonderful peep-stone. It occurred to him that here was the means of getting his new revelation—his "Golden Bible" before the world.






GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: — This evening I shall introduce first, some of the unmistakable corroborative evidences of the truth of the Book of Mormon as found contained in the reports and records of eminent travelers, explorers, scientists, historians and archaeologists, of the world.

The Spaulding Romance no doubt will still be the means of entertaining you upon the part of the negative, as it seems to be a much easier task for him to spin out that yarn, than to attempt to answer the arguments of the affirmative. I will promise you one thing however, that is, that the Spaulding tale shall not go unanswered, if the arguments of the affirmative are. I will show you before the close of the discussion of this question, if the negative holds out the time agreed upon, that, that thing is so rotten and deceitful in conception, so false and malicious in publication, so absurd and ridiculous in belief, that you shall in your hearts feel ashamed that you ever entertained the thought, that there might be something in it. In the meantime carefully follow him: he is a good reader and has the story well rehearsed.

But to the facts: In 1827 and 1828, when the greater part of the Book of Mormon was translated and put in manuscript, and in the year, 1829, when it was put in the hands of the printer, very little was known as to the peoples, ancient races and civilization, of the American continent. Taken in the light of what is known of these ancient peoples to-day with the later developments, there was comparatively nothing known at that time. There were then speculations and theories afloat as to the probabilities of an older people than the Indians in a few cases, brought out by the finding of a few relics of rude implements and ornaments together with some bones, &c., unaccounted for, and in a few instances speculation as to the cause of certain mounds of earth, whether such showed a higher state of civilization

and was the remains of an older people than was then to be found among the savages of the forest. But there was no one who for a moment thought that the country had been inhabited by a people whose state of civilization and enlightenment had equaled, if not surpassed, that of Europe itself. In the arts and the sciences; in agriculture and






mining; in masonry and architecture; in painting and sculpture; in engineering and mechanical skill, in physics and medicine and in mathematics and astronomy. Not only this, but to that time

no one speculated in all the domain of history, science or literature, that the continent had been successively inhabited by different peoples of a high state of civilization, who in turn had become extinct or dwindled into barbarism. It was also at that tune a speculative belief that the continent was settled from the north, the people gradually making to the south when it was settled, and that probably some of the rude tribes which inhabited northeast Asia had at some period wandered across Behring's strait and gradually made their way southward upon the continent. It was also speculated that perhaps at some time some of the daring and hardy seamen of maritime Europe had discovered the country and formed small settlements which were afterwards destroyed by the more powerful nations, for the relics discovered up to 1829, were only in certain places, which would only indicate the landing of a ship's crew at the point; and again, that the Chinese had been cast upon its shores in some accidental manner and the Indians were descended from them; and later by some, that the "Ten tribes of Israel," that were carried, away captive from Samaria by Shalmanesar, King of Assyria, may have made their way to the continent and after a time fallen into idolatry and a state of savagery. But in turn every one of these theories have given way as the light of discovery and research has been thrown upon them, and now none find a support as demonstrable facts. At the time before referred to however, there was published to the world by a young man in the State of New York, a record claiming to give a positive and correct account of the peoples who had formerly inhabited this continent. The places from whence they came; the different times of their coming; the countries of first settlement; the varied states of civilization;

their knowledge of (the arts, sciences, agriculture, languages and literature. The manner of

settlement, leading from south to north. The extent of settlement and the magnitude of the population. Giving a general account of their hundreds of cities and the glory and grandeur of them; of the industries, pursuits and character of the people, and their final overthrow. And singular as it may seem, every statement with reference to these matters is in harmony with the facts which have been developed by the later researches of science. And upon nearly every one of its marvelous revelations as to these people, the result of the work of the archaeologist has been to furnish corroborative evidence of their truthfulness. Notwithstanding the fairness and candor in which the statements of this record have been published to the world, from the day it met the public eye, self-constituted leaders, theologians, and paltry politicians have taken it upon themselves to inform the public mind of their views of its teachings, always careful, however, to, if possible. keep the record itself in the background lest it reveal their perversions, until at this time, I think I may safely assert and keep within the bounds of truth, that there is not published in America, a single Encyclopedia, Gazetteer, Geography, History, History of the Religious Denominations, Review of Expose which has spoken of the work and undertaken to give its statements, unless such publication was made by the friends of this record, that does not contain a false, garbled and perverted account of what it contains and teaches. I ask in the broad world of books everywhere, for one. Why is this my audience? If the book is a bad one will it not be sufficient to prove it so by giving its statements without perversion? Has it come to this! That men are compelled to resort to falsehood and trickery in order to overcome and put down an evil thing? In the apostles' time the injunction was, "to be not overcome of evil, and overcome evil with good." But perhaps this with the other good things of the New Testament was confined to the apostles, and "to those upon whom they laid their hands." The truth is my friends that there is method in this madness. Somebody is just afraid that if the light is turned on they may be discovered to be sitting in darkness. It may be said as of olden time: "Every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved." "But he that doeth

truth cometh to the light that his deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought in God."

It was stated by my opponent last night that Sidney Rigdon said in 1823, that a book would be published someday, "and be a big thing, "And," says he, "it is a big thing."

Well it seems to me he makes Rigdon out a prophet, and a true one too, rather early in the career. According to this Rigdon was a prophet while he belonged to the Baptists, and after he was with the Disciples; and I make my guess right here that if he had not found out they were not in accordance with the Bible and left them he would be accounted such with them to this day; yes, and the grandest and ablest of them all; making no exception to Campbell, or Scott or Barton

W. Stone. It is much like the case of Saul of Tarsus, who while he was a Pharisee was hail fellow well met. But when he became converted to the full light of the gospel, and afterwards preached good to the people and told them how many bad things he did when a Pharisee, "They cried out, Away with such a fellow, he ought not to be permitted to live upon the earth."

But to return to the "big thing." This work my friends will prove to be a big thing to this age yet; not to the destruction of Christianity, but to its full establishment. Why! do you not know that I can go side by side with the scientist and the skep-


tic into the National Museum of our country and corroborate that work by the collections, from the rude arrow-head of the Indian to the cities of the cliff-dwellers which are there set out in full representation, simply by turning to the wonderful history in this book? And not only in these but in the fossil and other collections from the time you strike the bones of the mastodon till you come to those of the common domestic animals. It is truly an ensign set up bearing the most indisputable tidings that Jesus was the Son of God and that God is, who created the heavens and the earth and revealed himself to man upon this as upon the other continent; and this fact alone ought to be a sufficient answer to the question, "Of what use is the book?" Since it is brought to light in an age of the world when whole multitudes disbelieve in the existence of God, and millions whose fear toward him are taught by the precepts of men, believe in him only as a God of the past, but not now having any especial thing to do with the human family, the use of it is as apparent as any known thing in the universe. Opening this record (the Book of Mormon), I hurriedly cite some of its pages upon the civilization of the continent.

First of the civilization which came out from Babel four thousand years ago. Page 520 of the record:

"And the whole face of the land northward, [that is from the straits, from what we term the Isthmus of

Panama northward], was covered with inhabitants; and they were exceeding industrious, and they did buy and sell and traffic one with another that they might get gain. And they did work in all manner of ore, and they did make gold, and silver, and iron, and brass, and all manner of metals; and they did dig it out of the earth: wherefore they did cast up mighty heaps of earth to get ore, of gold and of silver, and of iron and of copper. And they did work all manner of fine work. And they did have silks, and fine twined linen; and they did work all manner of cloth that they might clothe themselves. And they did make all manner of tools to till the earth, both to plough and to sow, and to reap and to hoe, and also to thrash. And they did make all manner of tools with which they did work their beasts. And they did make all manner of weapons of war. And they did work all manner of work of exceeding curious workmanship. And never could be a people more blest than they, and more prospered by the hand of the Lord."

Then I refer you to page 517 for another description:

"And in the space of sixty and two years," (that is from the time that Emer one of their kings began to reign), "they had become exceeding strong, insomuch that they became exceeding rich, having all manner of fruit, and of grain, and of silks, and of fine linen, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things, and also all manner of cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of sheep, and of swine, and of goats, and also many other kinds of animals which were useful for the food of man; and they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants, and cureloms, and cumoms, all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants, and cureloms, and cumoms."

Citing you now to page 43, I refer you to the situation of the country as it appeared and was found to exist when the second people came to the continent—Those who came out from the land of Jerusalem six hundred years before the birth of the Savior:

"And it came to pass that we did find upon the land Of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that

there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow, and the ox, and the ass, and the horse and the goat, and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals which were for the use of men. And we did find all manner of ore. both of gold, and of silver, and of copper."

On page 394 we have a further description, and also of the habits of the people:

"And behold, there was all manner of gold in both these lands, and of silver, and of precious ore of every kind; and there were also curious workmen, who did work all kinds of ore, and did refine it; and thus they did become rich. They did raise grain in abundance, both in the north and in the south. And they did flourish exceedingly both in the north and in the south. And they did multiply and wax exceeding strong in the land. And they did raise many flocks and herds, yea, many fatlings. Behold, their women did toil and spin, and did make all manner of cloth, of fine twined linen and cloth of every kind,"

Leaving the description of the country and the people as set out in the book, I next refer you to their society and moral and religious instruction. The book shows that the people were taught by Jesus when he manifested himself to many upon this continent. Jesus said unto them page 456:

"And as I have prayed among you, even so shall ye pray in my church, among my people who do repent, and are baptized in my name. Behold I am the light; I have set an example for you."

"Pray in your families unto the Father, always in my name, that your wives and children may be "blessed. And behold, ye shall meet together oft, and ye shall not forbid any man from coming unto you when we shall meet together, but suffer them that they ma. come unto you, and forbid them not; but ye shall pray for them, and shall not cast them out; and if it so be that they come unto you oft, ye shall pray for them unto the Father, in my name; therefore hold up your light that it may shine unto the world. Behold I am the light which ye shall hold up—that which ye have seen me do. Behold ye see that I have prayed unto the Father, and ye all have witnessed; and ye see that I have commanded that none of you should go away, but rather have commanded that ye should come unto me, that ye may feel and see; even so shall ye do unto the world; and whosoever breaketh this commandment, suffereth himself to be led into temptation."

I might cite its pages to show you with regard to the hundreds of cities that it refers to, and magnificent ones too, located upon different parts of the continent, and especially upon the part of the continent known as Central America, and of which I shall refer hereafter; and also that part of the continent known now as Peru and Bolivia. But will proceed at the present upon another line.

Having given you a glance into the history as published in the years 1829 and 1830, I will briefly enumerate some of the prominent things mentioned in the work which have since been verified, and then introduce the evidences from Archaeologists.

1. The book states that three civilizations have existed, flourished and decayed, upon parts of

the continent, and one on nearly every part.

2. One of these, first settled north of the Isthmus, or "narrow neck of land"as described by them, and inhabited first what is now called Central America, and afterwards the more northern parts of the continent.

3. The second settled on the east coast of South America and first inhabited that country occupying the territory that is now known as Peru and Bolivia, and from thence spread over the whole continent.






4. The third landed on or near the coast of what is now called Yucatan in Central America.

5. The last two of these civilizations were cotemporaneous, and that they after a time united and were known as one people.

6. That the habitation of each began about 590 years before the Christian Era, and the joint habitation ceased about four centuries after, except as to the estranged tribes.

7. That the occupancy of the first or original inhabitants ceased at least a thousand years before these.

8. That the last prophets understood the Egyptian language in part and wrote in a brief and phonetic system of their language.

9. That they also wrote in other languages as did also the earliest of the peoples. That the civilization so far as to the occupancy of the country were in each instance from south to north originally.

10. That they builded many great and fine cities in the northern parts of South America; also, on and near the narrow neck of land, and north in the country of Central America, where the cities were the finest, largest, and most numerous. They also builded farther north upon all parts of the continent.

11. That the ancestry of the last two peoples was Israelitish, but not the lost "Ten Tribes."

12. That there was early brought to the continent by the first people, the common domestic animals and many others. (Here I will also state that the fossil remains of many of these were not discovered or known to the world to have existed upon this continent till a very late date, some as late as the year 1860.)

13. That many of their cities were walled with solid masonry and made immense fortresses and that they had engines of war, and the battle ax, the cimeter, the sword and many other kinds of instruments of war.

14. That classes had fortified cities in the mountains far up, so much so that it was impossible to dislodge them, and they retired and lived there, except to sally forth and prey upon the people in the land or the agricultural portions.

15. That the structure and manner of building of their temples was upon a grand and magnificent plan and they were decorated with much expense and many curious and unique ornaments.

16. The enlightened and civilized part of the people were peaceably inclined and not warlike, and highly cultivated in morals and religion. This is the history as given in the Book of Mormon.

I will now turn to my evidences with regard to this, as ascertained and published by explorers since the publication of the Book of Mormon, citing you the first volume of John L. Stephen's explorations in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan, page 131. Mr. Stephens here sets forth the first reference made to the distinguished city of Copan. as being made by Francisco de Fuentes in 1700; but he only mentions it casually, and in his description he represented it as containing figures of men likewise represented in Spanish habits, with hose, and ruffle around the neck, sword, cap and short cloak. But that history has never been published in the English language. And little known of it in any part of the world, and it contained no true or full description of this ancient city.

"From this time," says the author, "there is no account of these ruins until the visit of Col. Galindo in 1836, before referred to, who examined them under a commission from the Central American Government, and whose communications on the subject were published in the proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society of Paris, and in the Literary Gazette of London." This was in the year 1834.

I might remark here that there is in the books reference made to, a Spanish gentleman, and also an explorer, who examined some of these ruins, and left his manuscript in the hands of the government, and which was published in London in the year 1822. But the publication in English of that manuscript was confined to such narrow limits that at the time Stephens wrote this work, (1841), he had never himself seen the work, and such a journal as the London Literary Gazette had never heard of it in 1834. Mr. Stephens continues with reference to the first published account by Col. Galindo in 1834, as follows:

"Not being an artist his account is necessarily unsatisfactory and imperfect, but it is not exaggerated. Indeed it falls short of the marvelous account given by Fuentes one hundred and thirty five years before, and makes no mention of the movable stone hammock, with the sitting figures which were our great inducement to visit the ruins. No plans or drawings have ever been published, nor anything that can give even an idea of that valley of romance and wonder, where as has been remarked, the genii who attended on King Solomon seem to have been the artists."

I cite you next to the account on page 142 of the same work, where the author in describing some of the sculptured art of this ancient people says:

"Between the two principal personages is a remarkable cartouche, containing two hieroglyphics well

preserved, which reminded us strongly of the Egyptian method of giving the names of the kings or heroes in whose honor monuments were erected. The headdresses are remarkable for their curious and complicated form; the figures have all breastplates, and one of the two principal characters holds in his hand an instrument, which may, perhaps, be considered a scepter; each of the others holds an object which can only be a subject for speculation and conjecture. It may be a weapon of war, and if so, it is the only thing of the kin 1 found represented in Copan. In other countries, battle-scenes, warriors, and weapons of war are among the most prominent subjects of sculpture; and from the entire absence of them here there is no reason to believe that the people were not warlike, but peaceable and easily subdued."

Do not forget the fact in the examination that the only account pretended to have been given prior to 1834 of this city, that of Fuentes in 1700, represented these relics as adorned in Spanish dress and costume, and which would have really misled a reader of the true character of the ruins.

On page 155 of the same work we have another concise description of their sculpture:

"The monument, unhappily, is fallen and broken. In sculpture it is the same with the beautiful half-buried monument before given, and I repeat it, in workmanship equal to the best remains of Egyptian



art The fallen part was completely bound to the earth by vines and creepers, and before it could be drawn it was necessary to unlace them, and tear the fibres out of the crevices. The paint is very perfect, and has preserved the stone, which makes it more to be regretted that it is broken. The altar is buried with the top barely visible, which, by examination we made out to represent the back of a tortoise."

Before Mr. Stephens visited Central America—and in a manner he was under the auspices of the government of the United States—he had visited all of the distinguished countries of the Eastern continent, and examined their cities, and had written or given partial accounts of them He was a man well calculated to look closely into these cities of Ancient America and give a reliable account and description of them.

I next refer you to page 310 of his second volume. In his description of the temple of Palenque another ruin city of Central America he says:

"It stands on an artificial elevation of an oblong form, forty feet high, three hundred and ten feet in front

and rear, and two hundred and sixty feet on each Bide. This elevation was formerly faced with stone, which has been thrown down by the growth of trees, and its form is hardly distinguishable. The building stands with it? face to the east, and measures two hundred and twenty-eight feet front by one hundred and eighty feet deep. Its height is not more than twenty five feet, and all around it had a broad pi ejecting cornice of stone. The front contained fourteen doorways, about nine feet wide each, and the intervening piers are between six and seven feet wide. On the left (in approaching the palace), eight of the piers have fallen down. as has also the corner on the right, and the terrace underneath is cumbered with the ruins. But six piers remain entire, and the rest of the front is open. The building was constructed of stone, with a mortar of lime and sand, and the whole front was covered with stucco and painted. The piers were ornamented With spirited figures in bas- relief."

On page 346 we have this further description:

"The principal subject of this tablet,"—that is one of the sculptured figures that was found there, called 'the tablet of the cross,'—"is the cross It is surrounded with a strange bird, and loaded with indescribable ornaments. The two figures are evidently those of important personages. They are well drawn and in symmetry of proportion are perhaps equal to many that are carved on the walls of the ruined temples in Egypt. Their costume is in a style different from any hereto ore given, and the folds would seem to indicate that they were of a soft and pliable texture like cotton. Both are looking toward the cross, and one seems in the act of making an offering, perhaps of a child; all speculations on the subject are of course entitled to little regard, but perhaps it would not be wrong to ascribe to these personages a sacerdotal character. The hieroglyphics doubtless explain all. Near them art other hieroglyphics, which reminded us of the Egyptian mode for the recording the name, history, office or character of the persons represented. This tablet of the cross has given rise to more learned speculations than, perhaps any others found at Palenque."

On page 356 we have this statement of the author in the conclusion of his description of the fallen city:

"Here were the remains of a cultivated, polished, and peculiar people, who had passed through all the

stages incident to the rise and fall of nations; reached their golden age, and perished entirely unknown."

I refer you next to the late work of Mr. John T. Short, entitled, The North Americans of Antiquity. On page 387, he says of Palenque:

"The accompanying cut shows Waldeck's drawing (employed by Mr. Bancroft). Four hundred yards south

of the palace stands the ruins of a pyramid and temple, which at the time of Dupaix's and of Waldeck's visits were in a good state of preservation, but quite dilapidated when seen by Charny. The temple faces the east, and on the western wall of its inner apartment, it-elf facing the eastern light, is found, (or rather was, for it

has now entirely disappeared), the most beautiful specimen of stucco relief in America. Mr. Waldeck, with the critical insight of an experienced artist

declares it 'worthy to be compared to the most beautiful works of the age of Augustus.' He therefore named the temple Beau Relief. The above cut is a reduction from Waldeck's drawing used in Mr. Bancroft's work, and is very accurate. However, the peculiar beauty of Waldeck's drawing is such that it must be seen in order to be fully appreciated. It is scarcely necessary for us to call the reader's attention to the details of this picture, in which correctness of design and graceful outlines predominate to such an extent that we may safely pronounce the beautiful youth who sits enthroned on his elaborate and artistic throne, the American Apollo. In the original drawing the grace of the arms and wrists is truly matchless, and the muscles are displayed in the most perfect manner."

I hope the audience will not overlook the fact of the high order of art here set out. This is the latest work on American antiquities, bearing the date of 1882. Fifty three years after the Book of Mormon was in the publisher's hands, and yet every line of these grand descriptions are in perfect keeping with the high attainments of the people set out in that book most full and complete.

On page 392 of the same works he says:

"The stuccoed roofs and piers of both the temples— Cross and Sun—may be truly pronounced works of art of a high order. On the former Stephens observed busts and heads approaching the Greek models in symmetry of contour and perfectness of proportion. Mr. Waldeck has preserved in his magnificent drawings some of these figures, which are certainly sufficient to prove beyond controversy that the ancient Palenqueans were a cultivated and artistic people. In passing to Uxmal the transition is from delineations of the human figure, to the elegant and superabundant exterior ornamentation of edifices, and from stucco to stone as the material employed. The human figure, however, when it is represented, is in statuary of a high order,

The elegant square panels of grecques and frets which compose the cornice of the Casa del Gobernador delineated in the works of Stephens, Baldwin and Bancroft, are a marvel of beauty which must excite the admiration of the most indifferent student of the subject."

(Time expired).






GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: A stock argument of Mormons in proof

of the inspiration of Imposter Joe, and that the Book of Mormon is true and a revelation, is stated, "The Book of Mormon based on the idea that the aborigines of is America were Israelites. Such an idea was not thought of or advocated, until years after the Book of Mormon appeared. Some years after its appearance, scientific research demonstrated the truth of the basic idea of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith was an unlearned man. He could have obtained such an idea by revelation, and in that way alone." Young men who were as great readers as Joseph Smith was, have originated as startling ideas, without inspiration. But we will now utterly explode this impudent falsehood I have here two books. One is "The Wonders of Nature and Providence," written by Josiah Priest, and copy-righted by him June 2d. 1824, in the office of R. R. Lansing, Clerk of the District of Northern New York, and printed in Rochester in 1824 The other is the

'Book of Mormon," copyrighted by Joseph Smith in the office of the same R. R.. Lansing, Clerk of me same district, June 10th 1829 printed in Palmyra, twenty miles from Rochester, in 1830

On the 297th page of "The Wonders of Nature and Providence," begins an article by Mr. Priest, the author, in which he argues at great length, that the Indians are descendants of the Israelites. Not only so, but he quotes from Clavigero. a Catholic Missionary, who advocated the same idea in the seventeenth century. From Wm. Penn, who advocated it in 1788. From a work published by Mr. Adair of New Jersey who advocated this theory in 1774. From a sermon of Dr. Jarvis preached before the American Historical Society in 1811. Jarvis quotes from books of Sewall, Willard and several New England historians. Priest quotes further from Menasses Ben Israel, from Dr. Boudinot, from Dr. Edwards, from Charlevoix, Du Pratz's History of Louisiana, from Lock and Escarbotus. Dr. "Williams, Governor Hutchison, Dr. Beatty McKenzie, Maraez, Col. Smith's History of New Jersey, and many others. Priest quotes in all from over forty writers, of whom over twenty were Americans, who advocated the idea that the aborigines of America were Israelites. Most of these lived and wrote before Smith was born. He proves that it was the almost universal opinion of the ministers of New England and the Middle States. That it had been, from the time of Elliott until Priest's own day. Not only is this true, but Priest, in his argument, quotes nearly all of the passages of scripture quoted by Mormons to prove the theory. It was from Priest's book that Rigdon and the Pratts stole their arguments. We show then that a book copyrighted in the same office as the Book of Mormon, published within twenty miles of Smith, circulated all over New York, Western Pennsylvania and Eastern Ohio, years before the Book of Mormon appeared, advocated the idea upon which it is based, and urged the same arguments in favor of the theory that Mormons use That ends all claim that Joe Smith must have obtained the idea by revelation It shows that not only did Rigdon steal the book, and Joe steal the peep stone to translate it, but Mormons stole their arguments to sustain it from Priest.

We will now take up my opponent's long array of prophecies. I might let them pass untouched, for he did not make an application of them, to the aborigines of America, that was worthy of notice There was published in London, a few years ago, a work by a Mohammedan, quoting and applying most of the same prophecies to the Ishmaelites to the Arabs and to the Koran. I have before me an argument, applying the same prophecies to the Anglo-Saxon race The stick of Ephraim is England, of Judah. America There is an organization, with many societies, that publishes a paper, advocating this idea. Scores of publications have been published, and they make a much better argument than Kelley has made. This shows the absurdity of such farfetched perversions of the poetic language of prophecy If we admit that the prophecies extend beyond Palestine, I defy my opponent to quote one prophecy that is not met by the dispersion of Israelites over the old continent, Israelites were scattered into Spain, Italy and the islands of the Mediterranean, in to Morocco. Congo, in west Africa, and over northern Africa, into Egypt and Ethiopia. Also into China, India, and over central and southern and western Asia. I defy my opponent to name one prophecy that extends beyond these countries to America Now here is a fair challenge and test. Until he meets this, his prophecies are worthless. Isaiah, XVI—8. refers to the dispersion of Moab, has not the least reference to Israel. Jeremiah XX—XXI refers to dispersion in Assyrian Empire. Has no reference to America. Bo of every quotation from Jeremiah.

Isaiah xi—11, The 16 verse reads: "There shall be a highway for the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria like it was to Israel in the day he came up out of Egypt." This shows that it refers to Israelit

come to the pet passage of Mormonism. Ezek. xxxvii—the sticks of Ephraim and Judah. The Book of Mormon declares in several places the Nephites were Manassehites,





and the people of Zarahemla Judahites. The stick of Ephraim can have no reference to them. Stick does not mean a book. The stick of Judah is not the Bible. The stick of Ephraim is not a book. Numbers, xvii. Aaron is told to take twelve rods or sticks and write on them just as Ezekiel is told to take two sticks and write on them. Aaron wrote the name of a tribe on a stick, writing twelve names, using twelve sticks Ezekiel wrote the name of a tribe or a nation on a stick—for Judah represented the southern kingdom and Ephraim the northern kingdom—using two sticks Gen xlix the rod, staff, stick or scepter of Judah is mentioned We read of the rod, staff or stick of Aaron that budded, that Moses used. Then stick is a symbol of power What the prophet's act meant was that the northern kingdom or Ephraim, and the southern kingdom or Judah, should be united again, after the captivity, as they were before the rebellion of Jereboam. In verse 23 the prophet declares these Israelite? were scattered in captivity for sin Lehi and Nephi were taken by the Lord from Jerusalem because they were so good to save them The prophecy cannot refer to the Nephites. Verses 26-27 declares the Lord will bring Israel or Judah from their enemies' lands, not from America, into their own land and leave none in their enemies lands We might examine every passage and show that they have no reference to America—can have none That the context confines the prophecy to Asia, North Africa, and that it refers to the return, under Ezra and Nehemiah , but this is sufficient. Isaiah xxix—In the first verse the prophecy is against the city where David dwelt, Jerusalem In the seventh verse the prophecy is confined to Jerusalem It has no reference to America. It speaks of the ignorance of the people of Judah, their failure to understand the prophets. It has not a ghost of reference to America We have shown that; the prophecies need not extend beyond the old world. We defy our opponent to name one mat need extend beyond the old world. We have proved by the context that in every instance they refer to the old world and usually to the immediate neighborhood of Palestine.

We are now ready for our opponent's Holy Ghost speech, a speech that the audience will heat a dozen times before we are done. My opponent charges the Disciples with denying the power of godliness, the power of God, the power of the Spirit of God. The Bible declares that God has accomplished all things by his Spirit and by his word, in these is all power that God has exerted in the Universe. There are four different exercises of power by the Holy Spirit mentioned in the Bible, I. The miraculous power, as seen in inspiration, and in spiritual gifts, including all miraculous power mentioned in the Bible. This the world, sinners, cannot receive. John XIV: 16-

17. "The Father will give you (the apostles) the Comforter, whom the world can not receive." This is not converting or sanctifying power, for the sinner can not receive it to convert him It is not sanctifying power, for it was to the apostles alone, and was to endow them with miraculous power for their mission, and not to sanctify them. It did not descend on the apostles at Pentecost, nor was it imparted to the Samaritans nor to John's disciples at Ephesus to convert them, for all these had been converted before. II. Converting power. Roman II; 16: "The Gospel is the power of God into salvation to all who believe." John IV; 36. "The words which I speak unto you, they are spirit and life." Peter 1.5: "We are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be

revealed in the last time." Ill Indwelling power Gal. IV: 6: "Because ye are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts." Because by the converting power, the Gospel, you have been made sons. God has sent the indwelling power into your hearts. Eph. 1:13- "Having believed in Christ, you were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise that is the earnest of your inheritance." John XIV: 23 'Jesus said 'If a man love me he will keep my words and my Father will love him and we will come unto him. and make our abode with him.'" Eph. III:15-17: "I pray that you be strengthened with might in the inner man. that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith." I John II 24. "If that which you have heard from the beginning abide in you. you shall continue in the Son and the Father." John III.: 23-24 "This is the commandment of God, that we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, and he that keepeth his commandments, dwelleth in God, and God in him." IV.. 15-16: "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God! God is Jove. He that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God in him." Col III.: 16. "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom."

IV. Resurrecting power Romans viii.— "If the Spirit of him that raised up Christ from the dead, dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead, shall also quicken your mortal bodies, by the Spirit of Christ that dwells in you." When? I These. 14-15-16 "If we believe that Jesus died and rose again even so those also who sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, and with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first." So also I Cor. xv. 51-52 We have proved that there are four manifestations of power of the Holy Spirit. 1 The miraculous. This is not converting power, for the sinner cannot receive it to convert him. The apostles and others who received it were already converted. II. Converting power. This is the Gospel, the word of God, which begets, makes alive, converts. III. Indwelling power. This is not miraculous power. It is by and through faith, belief, by the word





of God. God and his Spirit dwells in us, when his word dwells in us, and we live it out in life. IV. Resurrecting power at the general judgment. My opponent, with the Book of Mormon and all of Joe Smith's revelations, and with the inspiration of a Mormon Elder, and with all his miraculous illumination, is so grossly ignorant as to quote and jumble together passages in which these four manifestations are mentioned; and is as ignorant as a dead man of these palpable distinctions. The miraculous power has ceased. The resurrecting power is to come. The converting and indwelling power that are exerted through the truth remain, and we believe in them as God's word teaches, and not as Mormon ignorance and delusion teach. That is the difference between us. The miraculous power was not a moral influence. It was given to wicked men, and even to animals, to Baalam's ass. It was given regardless of character. It made men no wiser or better, when it had passed away from them, as the cases of Baa-lam, his ass, Saul, Jonah and Caiaphas show. It converted no one, unless it be Baalam's ass, and if Mormons belong to that class, they may be converted by it, as the other ass was; but men never we're converted by it.

We will now take up the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit. We showed that there is one baptism in the church, in water, into the name of Father, Son and Spirit, it is a memorial and

symbolical institution. There can be no other baptism, and baptism in the Spirit which was a miracle, ceased. My opponent can not touch this. We said that Joel's promise was to all flesh. That Christ's was to believers alone. That Peter's was only to believers that God should call. That is just what the Bible says. We said an apostle had to lay hands on believers, before they could receive the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit. That is just what the VIII chapter of Acts declares. We said that this power never descended to a third person. He has not found a case. We said that there is a more excellent way than the exercise of the best of these miraculous powers. That is just what Paul says. I said that prophesying, or speaking by inspiration, miraculous knowledge or revelations, speaking with tongues or miracles, signs were to cease. That is just what Paul says. Kelley asks who believes It? All who believe the word of God believe it. I said that the partial was the inspiration, the revelation imparted by this miraculous power. It was but a fragment of the truth, only that could be uttered at a time. The whole, that which is perfect, is the complete word of God. So says common sense. So says the word of God. The word is perfect, makes Christians perfect. I said that as one of the members of the comparison, the imperfect was a state of the church— the state when these gifts, these fragmentary revelations were given; the other member is a state of the church, when the word of God is completed, and these gifts; these fragments of revelation do not exist. So say Paul and common sense. He quotes "ask." I inquire how? "Seek." I ask how? "Knock." I ask how? In accordance with God's law and word. If we ask for miraculous power, we ask contrary to God's law. "If any man lack wisdom let him ask." How? In accordance with God's word. If he asks for miraculous power, he asks contrary to God's law. "We will manifest ourselves to him." How? Not in miraculous power, for that is contrary to God's word. "We will abide in him." How? In miraculous power? No, for that has ceased. "If two or three are gathered I will be in the midst." How? In miraculous power? No, for that has ceased. "Witness of Spirit." "The Spirit witnesses." How? In miracles? No, for he cannot utter teaching in that way. In his word, the word of truth, the only way one intelligence can testify to another "Born of Spirit." How? By miraculous power? No, "He that believes is born of God." "Christian experience." Must it include miraculous power? No, for that has ceased. "Son of God will dwell in our hearts." How? By miracle? No, for it can not be done in that way. We love him because he loved us. By learning his love for us. "Holy Spirit in Christian." How? In miraculous power? No, for that has ceased. When his word dwells in us richly.

"By one Spirit are we baptized." Yes, in obedience to command of one Spirit, just we are begotten of Christ in obeying his word. My opponent does not know enough to know that there is a difference between being baptized in the Spirit, and being baptized in obedience to the command of the Spirit. He says I deny the power of the Spirit. No. I do not confound the four powers of the Spirit as he does. I separate them as the word of God does, and believe that the miraculous power has ceased, as the word of God teaches. I remove God from men and religion now, he says. No. I believe that as God is not in the work of bringing animals and plants into being by creation now, but in the operation of natural law, so he is not in men and religion now, in miracle, but in the operation of his word. I no more remove God from religion than I remove him from nature. I believe he is present in a higher sense, and in a higher way. That miracle in each case was only preparatory to this higher operation of divine power. My opponent assumes that the only power of God in both cases must be miraculous.

How are apostles and prophets and the Holy Spirit in the church now? Just as Christ is present in the church. He is not present in person, OB earth. He is in heaven. He is present in his word and law. The apostles are present in their words. The Holy Spirit in his word. He blunders

over the illustration of the constitutional convention. The people were not in the convention in person, yet the constitution says: "We, the people, ordain this constitution." How did they ordain? Through





their appointed delegates, God in person never spoke to men "but three times. He speaks through his representatives. God organized the church, gave its constitution, the New Testament, through the apostles, just as the people ordained the constitution and government through their representatives. The apostle says "in Christ's stead— God in us—through us." They teach that they were God's representatives. His blundering in comparing apostles to trees is ridiculous. Miraculous power created the first trees, but miraculous power was no part of the things created. The apostles gave the constitution, the New Testament. and organized the church under it; but were no more a part of the church that they organized than delegates that framed our constitution are a part of the government they organized for us. Can my opponent understand that?

We want to call our opponent's attention to a defect in his stock argument on Mark XVI. Let us read it:

"Afterwards Jesus appeared unto the eleven as they (the eleven) sat at meat, and upbraided them (the

eleven) because they (the eleven) believed not. He said unto them (the eleven), 'Go ye (the eleven) into all the world, and preach, etc. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. He that believeth not shall be condemned. These signs shall follow them (the eleven again) who shall believe,' After the Lord had spoken unto them (the eleven) he was received into heaven, and they (the eleven) went forth preaching the word, the Lord working with them (the eleven) confirming the word (of the eleven) with signs following."

The language itself extends no farther than the eleven. They were the ones who were to preach. Those of them who believed and went forth and preached should have these signs. They believed, went forth and the signs followed their preaching. The promise does not necessarily or logically include a single human being except the eleven who were upbraided with unbelief, and who were to preach, and were told that if they believed and preached the signs would follow, for the conclusion says they (the eleven) went and preached, and the signs followed, the Lord working with them (the eleven). We will now resume our history of the Book of Mormon.

Rigdon visited Smith in the spring of 1827. The two concocted their scheme. Smith was to pretend to have a "Golden Bible," a book made of plates of gold, and pretend to translate it with his stolen peep stone. Spaulding had intended to pretend that his fabrication had been found in a mound, or in a cave, in MS. He intended to call his fraud "The Manuscript Found." From 1818 to 1827 there had been published accounts of finding glyphs or metallic plates, with strange characters on them, in mounds and old ruins in America. This suggested to Rigdon to claim that his fraud had been found in that way. A hoax started in 1827, that a pile of such plates, called "The Golden Bible," had been found in Canada, suggested the name. Rigdon always spoke of his fraud, when prophesying of its appearance, as a "Golden Bible." Smith, however, in publishing it, changed the name to the "Book of Mormon." But from the time the Smiths began to talk of Impostor Joe's wonderful revelations, they spoke of it as a "Golden Bible," and did so until about the time it was published.

In their conferences Imposter Joe told Rigdon of the existence of the other Spaulding manuscripts, then at Hartwicke, New York, in the house of Mrs. Davidson, formally Spaulding's

wife and widow. The two concocted a scheme to steal them and thus destroy all likelihood of detection of the theft of the Spaulding manuscript, and exposure of the fraud. Smith was loafing in Hartwicke, in the summer and early fall of 1827, superintending a gang of men, who were trying to find a silver mine, on the farm of Mr. Stowell. He dug some wells in the town also, one for Stowell. September 21-22, 1827, Smith succeeded in stealing some of the Mormon manuscripts of Solomon Spaulding, perhaps Mormon manuscript No 1, the one Miss Martha Spaulding had read a few years before at her uncles when the trunk was in her care, and the first one Spaulding wrote, the one he read to most of the witnesses who lived in Conneaut, also Mormon manuscript No. 2, the one he told Smith he was writing before he left Conneaut, the one of which he read a portion to J. N. Miller—the one to which he added the Zarahemla portion, This theft of the manuscripts is the true interpretation of Smith's wonderful visions of September 21- 22, 1827. Smith's neighbors say that he never mentioned his visions of 1820 and 1823 while in the state of New York, and his visions of September 1827, as first told, have no resemblance to his final version. The version quoted by Mormons was written in 1843 or 1844. In it he fabricated the first vision. He dressed up his hearing of the existence of the Spaulding manuscripts into his second vision of September 1823. He dressed up his theft of the manuscripts from Mr. Davidson's house into his third vision of September 1827.

Having in possession they supposed all means of exposing their fraud the confederates now went to work. Smith sat behind a blanket, pretending to look through his stolen peep stone, which was placed in his hat. He claimed that God, by miracle, caused one word at a time to appear before his vision. He announced this to a scribe who sat on the other side of the blanket, who wrote it, and then it disappeared, and another appeared. Some old Mormons say he handed out sheets of manuscript to the scribe who copied them. What he actually did, was to read from Rigdon's manuscript which was a remodeling of Spaulding's Manuscript No. Ill, which he had concealed behind the curtain. He may have handed out leaves of this manuscript at times. Martin Harris was his first chief scribe. It is said his wife and his brother-in-law wrote a little each. After 118 pages had been copied by Harris and others, Imposter Joe gave Harris the leaves to take home with him, to use in making converts, dupes or





confederates, in the scheme. Mrs. Harris took the manuscript and burned it, one night while her husband was asleep. There was dire consternation, and Rigdon appears on the stage. I want to call the reader's attention to a singular coincidence here. Mr. Lake, Spaulding's partner testifies that when Spaulding read to him his romance, Mormon Manuscript No. 1, he pointed out an inconsistency in the story of Laban which Spaulding promised to correct, but the same blunder is in the Book of Mormon. That can be explained. Spaulding no doubt did correct it in the manuscript prepared for the press, but when Mrs. Harris destroyed the 118 pages, Rigdon had to restore the stolen portion from an older manuscript, in which the blunder had not been corrected, hence we have it in the Book of Mormon. It took Rigdon some months to remodel another manuscript to replace the stolen portion, and translation did not begin till the next June or the three I'd, Joseph says it began in March.



GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: While I am on the subject of American antiquities, I shall refer you to one or two statements made by my opponent with reference to my argument of last evening, and at another time take up and answer them more particularly.

The first statement, or misstatement rather, was that Mormons continually claimed that it was in favor of their book because nobody ever claimed that the aborigines of this continent were of Israelitish origin before its publication. I had just stated to you, however, in my argument that such claims were made long before, Now, why he will make such a statement as that before you when I had stated to the contrary, is a question for this audience to answer. Is that the way to argue questions—to get up and state something as the claims of an opponent's people which they do not nor never did believe, and say that that is their faith or position, and attack it? I stated to you in the beginning of this part of my argument, fairly and fully, that one of the theories and speculations long prior to the year 1830, with regard to the settlement of the American continent was, that the "lost ten tribes," as they are termed, came to the continent; and that is what is referred to in Mr. Priest's work; but it is not what the Book of Mormon refers to, or teaches. There is where these would-be critics and story tellers are mistaken, and have been all the time.

Pursuing now my argument from the position of the scientific discoveries as left when my time was called, I cite the work of J. D. Baldwin, page 156. entitled, "Ancient America." He says:

"The evidence of repeated reconstructions in some of the cities before they were deserted has been

pointed out by explorers.

At Palenque as at Mitla, the oldest work is the most artistic and admirable. Over this feature of the monuments and the manifest signs of their difference in age, the attention of the investigators has lingered in speculation. They find in them a significance which is stated as follows by Brasseur de Bourbourg: 'Among the edifices forgotten by time in the forests of Mexico and Central America, we find architectural characteristics so different from each other, that it is as impossible to attribute them all to the same people as to believe they were all built at the same epoch.'"

Here are the two different civilizations, both of a high order and cultivation. That fact was never known or published to the world until years and years after the publication of the Book of Mormon, and you cannot find it in any work or record prior to the publication of that book. If you can, bring your record here and read it to the audience, any time. I come here claiming to be armed with facts, and will be only too glad to have them weighed and sifted to the bottom. But Mr. Baldwin proceeds:

"In this view, the substructions of Mayapan, some, of those at Tulha. and a great part of those at Palenque. are among the older remains. These are not the oldest cities whose remains are still visible, but they may have been built, in part, upon the foundations of cities much more ancient."

Remember that these are highly civilized nations that he is writing of, not a barbarous nation coming upon and occupying the land where a civilized nation had dwelt, but one highly cultivated and enlightened nation following and inhabiting upon the ruins of another, He says:

"No well considered theory of these ruins can avoid the conclusion that most of them are very ancient,

and that to find the origin of the civilization they; represent, we must go far back into the 'deeps of antiquity.' On all the fields of desolation where they exist, every thing perishable has disappeared. Wooden lintels are mentioned, but these can hardly he regarded as constituting an exception when the character of the wood, and the circumstances that contributed to their preservation are considered. Moreover, wooden lintels seem to have been peculiar to Yucatan, where many of the great edifices were constructed In the later times, and some

of them of perishable materials. Everywhere in the older ruins, nothing remains but the artificial mounds and foundations of earth, the stone, the cement, the stucco hard as marble, as other imperishable materials used by the builders."

Next in this investigation I introduce the work entitled, American antiquities, by Josiah Priest.

The book that I have was






published in 1833, and the earliest publication that I have ever seen of the work was made in the year 1831. If Mr. Braden has an earlier copy than that, as he claimed before this audience, I will examine his copy and see what it contains, and if there is anything in it of these marvelous works, which the Book of Mormon describes, I will give due credit to it on to-morrow evening. But I state here without fear of contradiction that it does not contain the remarkable things that the Book of Mormon sets out, neither as to the habitation, extent of civilization, or anything else. Neither does the book I have before me, which was published in 1833. But there is an account of a few interesting things in this. Turn to page 170, an account and description of articles obtained from a mound in the state of Ohio.

One, "The handle either of a small sword or large knife, made of an elk's horn; around the end where the blade had been inserted, was a ferule of silver, which, though black, was not injured by time; though the handle showed the hole where the blade had been inserted, yet no iron was found, but an oxide or rust remained, of similar shape and size." "About twenty feet to the north of it was another skeleton, with which was found a large mirror, about three feet in length, about one foot and a half in width, and one inch and a half in thickness; this was of isinglass, (mica membranacea). On this mirror was a plate of iron, which had become an oxide; but before it was disturbed by the spade, resembled a plate of cast iron. The mirror answered the purpose very well for which it was intended." "The knife or sword handle was sent to Peale's museum, Philadelphia." "On the south side of this tumulus, and not far from it, was a semicircular fosse, or ditch, six feet deep; which, when examined at the bottom, was found to contain a great quantity of human bones, which it is believed, were the remains of those who had been slain in some great and destructive battle; because they belonged to persons invariably who had attained their full size, while those found in the mound adjoining, were of all sizes, great and small, but laid in good order, while those in the ditch were in the utmost confusion."

"The mirror was a monstrous piece of isinglass, a lucid mineral, larger than we recollect to have ever heard of before, and used among the rich of the ancients, for lights and mirrors. A mirror of any kind in which men may be enabled to contemplate their own form, is evidence of a considerable degree of advancement in the arts, if not even luxury itself."

Passing from this important discovery as published by Mr. Priest, I call your attention to the work of Mr. Stephens, Vol. 1, page 105. Speaking of the remains which he had examined in his explorations of these peoples' cities he says: "Architecture, sculpture, and painting, all the arts which embellish life, had nourished in this overgrown forest; orators, warriors, and statesmen, beauty, ambition, and glory, had lived and passed away, and none knew that such things had been or could tell of their past existence."

Now I will call your attention to some authorities touching the nativity of this last people who inhabited Ancient America, showing their common origin with the Asiatic race known as

Hebrews. First, the work of Mr. George Catlin, published by H. G. Bohn, York Street, Covent Garden, London, in the year 1857, and entitled: "North American Indians, Vol. 2, page 231:

"The North American Indians and all the inhabitants of the South Sea Islands, speaking some two or throe hundred different languages entirely dissimilar, may have all sprung from one people."




He proceeds with the following thoughts:

"I believe with many others that the North American Indians are a mixed people.—That they have Jewish blood in their veins, though I would not assert as some have undertaken to prove, that they are Jews, or that they are the 'ten lost tribes' of Israel. From the character and composition of their heads, I am compelled to look upon them as an amalgam race, but still savages, and from many of their customs, which seem tome peculiarly Jewish, as well as from the character of their heads, I am forced to believe that some part of those ancient tribes who have been dispersed by Christians in so many ways, and in so many different eras, have found their way to this country where they have entered among the native stock."

"I am led to believe this from the very many customs which I have witnessed among them that appear to be decidedly Jewish, and many of them so peculiarly so that it would seem almost impossible, or at all events exceedingly improbable, that two peoples in a state of nature should have hit upon them and practiced them exactly alike."

"The first and most striking fact among the North American Indians that refers us to the Jews is that of their worshiping in all parts, the 'Great Spirit,' or Jehovah, as the Jews were ordered to do by divine precept, instead of a plurality of gods as ancient pagans and heathens did, and the idols of their own formation." Ibid., page 232.

Mr. Catlin then offers "TWELVE REASONS "why he accepted the idea that the American Indians are descendants from the Israelites in some way, and, as his investigations contain many facts which enter into this discussion, I offer them for your consideration.

1. "The Jews had their Sanctum Sanctorum, and so it may be said the Indians have, in their council, or medicine houses, which are always held as sacred places."

2. "As the Jews had, they have their High Priests and their Prophets."

3. "Among the Indians as among the ancient Hebrews, the women are not allowed to worship with the men, and in all cases also, they eat separately."

4. "The Indians everywhere believe that they are certainly like those ancient people, persecuted, as every man's hand seems raised against them."

5. "In their marriages, the Indians, as did the ancient Jews, uniformly buy their wives by giving presents, and in many tribes, very closely resemble them in other forms and ceremonies of their marriages."

6. "In their preparation for war, and in peacemaking, they are strikingly similar."

7. "In their treatment of the sick, burial of the dead and mourning, they are also similar."

8. "In their bathing and ablutions, at all seasons of the year, as a part of their religious observances—having separate places for men and women to perform these immersions—they resemble again."

9. "The custom among the women of absenting themselves during the lunar influences, is exactly consonant to the Mosaic law."

10. "After this season of separation, purification in running water and anointing, precisely in

accordance with the Jewish command, is required before she can enter the family lodge."





11. "Many of them have a feast closely resembling the annual feasts of the Jewish Passover, and. amongst others, an occasion much like the Israelitish feast of the Tabernacle, which lasted eight days (when history tells us they carried bundles of willow bows and fasted several days and nights), making sacrifices of the first fruits and best of everything, closely resembling the sin offering and peace offering of the Hebrews (See this history in Vol. 1, pp. 159. 170 of 'Religions ceremonies of the Mandarins.')"

12. "Amongst the list of their customs, however, we meet a number which bad their origin, it would seem, in the Jewish ceremonial code, and which are so very peculiar in their forms that it would seem quite improbable, and almost impossible that two different peoples should have hit upon them alike, without some knowledge of each other. These I consider go further than anything else as evidence, and carry in my mind, conclusive proof that these people are tinctured with Jewish blood." Ibid., Vol. 2, pp. 232 to 235.

In keeping with these facts and deductions of Mr. Catlin, are other authorities equally positive Mr. Bradford, in his researches into the origin or the Red race, adopts the following conclusions with regard to the ancient occupants of this continent:

1. "That they were of the same origin, branches of the same race, and possessed of similar customs and institutions."

2 "That they were populous and occupied a great extent of territory."

3. "That they had arrived at a considerable degree of civilization, were associated in large communities, and lived in extensive cities."

4. "That they possessed a use of many of the metals, such as lead, copper, gold, silver, and probably the art of working in them."

5. "That they sculptured in stone, and sometimes used that material in the construction of their edifices."

6. "That they had the knowledge of the arch, of receding steps; and the art of pottery—producing urns and utensils formed with taste, and constructed upon the principles of chemical composition; and of the art of brickmaking."

7. "That they worked the salt springs, and manufactured that substance."

8. "That they were an agricultural people, living under the influence of regular forms of government."

9. "That they possessed a decided system of religion, and a mythology connected with Astronomy, which with its sister science, Geometry, was in the hands of the priesthood."

10. "That they were skilled in the art of fortification."

11. "That the epoch of their original settlement, in the united States is of great antiquity," and lastly,

"That the only indications of their origin to be gathered from the locality of their ruined monuments, point toward Mexico."

Thus far I have read copiously from these celebrated authors, and yet their pages are filled with unnoticed and untouched corroborative proofs of what I have stated to you of the greatness

and grandeur of the ancient civilizations of this continent. I have also gathered in running through the works of various authors upon these things brief statements which will aid you in determining to some extent the certainty of the applications of my arguments to these ancient peoples as reflected in their own history, as I claim, set out, in the Book of Mormon. They are as follows:

1. 'They had a standard of measurement and had a means of determining angles." Baldwin p,


2. "These ruins were not built by the Egyptians." Stephens, Vol. 2, p. 441

3. Yet of a figure HI Palenque Mr. Short in his work p. 392. stales "The head dress has been

pronounced Egyptian by all who have seen it

4. "They had. Priests." Stephens, Vol., 2. p. 447

5. Diviners and Priests.' Ibid. Vol. I, p. 175

6. "They were agriculturists and also engaged in spinning and weaving." Baldwin. pp. 40, 41

7. "Made use of astronomical instruments." Ibid, 42

8. "Used military machines in war," Stephens, pp. 177, 178

9. "Believed in the flood, and had traces of the tower of Babel." Short. 263.

10. "Possessed a knowledge of the sciences, and metals, and used tools of porphyry." Baldwin, pp 39, 40.

11. "A phonetic system of writing was had among them.' Ibid. 187

These evidences are clear and satisfactory. I hope my opponent Will take them up one by one, and examine them. But during the remainder of my time this evening, I shall examine another matter. Look after his tirade upon character, etc.

The statement made by him on last, evening, that the Bible was believed in by the best minds of every age, and so the messages of the prophets, is not true, if he means by this what the world called best in their time. What the word called the best minds, did not accept God's messages through the prophets when brought, in any age. Scarcely a household received the message sent by Noah, and doubtless there were many plausible reasons hatched up, and set afloat, by the cunning craftiness and deception of malicious men, and rendered plausible, in order to feed the vain and foolish minds of the lovers of falsehood; and thus they were led along in blindness and darkness to destruction. Under the vile array of slander and falsehood, the masses were marshaled against Elijah the Prophet, and they sought his life, and he was compelled to flee his country for safety; and in the wilderness, he was fed by a bird of the forest. Moses was derided and falsely accused in the very camp of Israel, and it was necessary that


God open the earth and swallow up his maligners Isaiah was sawn asunder. Something was hatched up by the enemies of the truth, and made the basis of an accusation, which inflamed and encouraged this vile attack, or it never could have been made. Jeremiah was. accused as a traitor to his country, was imprisoned, and put in a pit of mire and filth, and left to die; and only escaped as by a miracle. Indeed, so universally had thy prophets been opposed, slandered, misrepresented, and lied about, from the days of Adam to Christ, that it was stated by him—and seems to have grown into a proverb—"A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country." Why not? Because of the misrepresentation

enemies of the message which he brings. Not being able to answer the message upon the ground of truth and fairness, they resort to unfairness, falsehood, and stories hatched up and ingeniously circulated in order to break down the prophet's character, to blind the people and prejudice them against the message, This was the devil's system of warfare from Adam to Christ, "When Jesus Christ came with a message from God, the arch-deceiver appeared upon the field of battle armed with the old weapons of slander and misrepresentation. The accuser always feigned great piety and love and reverence tor all past prophets and heavenly messages. He did this in order to more readily gull the pious. Among then first moves, they came to Christ and said: "Master, we would see a sign from thee." But; he replied, "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign." Indicating that honest men believe the truth from other evidences.

They were soon in counsel seeking to invent a scheme by which to destroy him, Matt. 12:14. They sent a committee to catch him in his words, and failing in. this they assailed his character and filled Jerusalem with slanderous stories. When ho did a good deed it was in their view, by the inspiration of the devil, "Beelzebub." They accused him of being born of fornication, of low parentage and of coming from a low city. Called him a "glutton and a wine bibber," and accused him of being a friend of publicans and sinners; he was so defamed, blackmailed, slandered, and lied about by certain of the people, that the masses were blinded and marshaled against him, and demanded his life; all from the stories of lying lips. This, too, while they were making great pretensions to piety and reverence for the ways of God and the prophets of the past.

Jesus discovering their hypocrisy, retorts:

"Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchers of the righteous and say. If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would riot have been partakers with them of the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses yourselves that ye are the children of them that killed the prophets. Fill ye up the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell. Behold, I send unto you prophets and wise men and scribes, and some of them ye shall kill and crucify ana some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city," etc.

Their great pretensions to the love of the cause of God was feigned, that they might more easily blind and influence the multitude against Christ. Did they assail his doctrine. oh no; that was too hard tor them. Moving in the dark, among the masses, peddling hatched up stories was the effectual way of procedure This ungodly method of warfare against the grandest; being that ever lived was carried on until Jerusalem was moved to join hands and demand the life of the Christ, and failing to make out a just case, they falsely accused him, and suborned witnesses to testify against him and he was condemned to death and crucified "Many bore false witness against him." Mark 14:56. The death of Christ did not relieve him from the false charges of his enemies While his body lay in Joseph's new tomb, then went they to Pilate saying. "Sir we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, after three days I will rise again. Command Therefore that the sepulcher be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night and steal him away, and say unto the people. He is risen from the dead, so the last error shall be worse than the first." Matt. 27: 63, 64. All this took place while the witnesses of Jesus were in the midst of the people, ready to vindicate his character, but they Lad no ears to bear them. They loved stories, and inventions and what the old neighbors said, rather than truth. Finally, when Jesus had arisen from the dead according to his word, it did not foil the persistency of his enemies. or assuage their malice or hate: so they circulated the story, "His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept; and, they gave the soldiers large sums of money to circulate

this story, with the promise, that if it came to the "Governor's ears, we will persuade him and secure you." Matt. 28:12, 13, 14. But the misrepresentations, cunning inventions, and slanders against the cause of Christ, did not stop here; they followed the apostles wherever they went, and called them "blasphemers," "pestilent," "and movers of sedition among the Jews throughout the world." Acts 25: 5. This was so widely circulated that it was said, "As concerning this sect, we know that it is everywhere spoken against." Acts 28: 22.

Later, in the time of the grandson of St. Luke, this same unjust course was followed, and they were published and vilified everywhere. But, says my opponent, they were false stories. Who said they were false? Their enemies or their friends? Why, the descendants of the enemies to this very day maintain that the stories were true, and that the Christians were deceivers. And in the narrative of such a learned historian as Gibbon, we have an account that in the time of these grandsons, before referred to, the Emperor of Rome sent a committee to interrogate them and spy out the







probable damage they might likely be able to inflict upon his kingdom, if let live, and the messenger returned the answer, that they were men who were settled on a little spot of ground, and had hard, rough hands from working as slaves for a livelihood, and nut worth noticing. Before this, a like interview had been had with the apostle Paul by one of the most noted scholars of the age, and he returned the answer to his Emperor that, "Paul entertained no opinions that were calculated to interest or benefit men of attainments and culture." Great God! I could reproduce such stories which were affirmed to be true for hundreds of years after Jesus' time against the early Christians, until I might arouse the indignation of this audience against them, were I disposed to stoop to gathering garbage for weapons. The books are so laden, that when Gibbon had gone through them, although before a devoted Christian, it nauseated his hope in Christ, and he turned from worship, saying it seems to me that if the great things told of in the scriptures are true they aught to be had by the people now as then, and I "find by running through the history of the world, that mankind have been more ready to accept the history as correct of what occurred in their forefather's time, than to believe the evidences of their own senses." He therefore came to the conclusion that no miracles were ever performed as claimed by Jesus and the apostles. The quotation is made from memory, but I am sure if not the exact wording, the true thought and idea is carefully preserved and presented.

Volumes might be adduced to show that the work of scandalizing, has been the method pursued by the enemies of truth and progress in every age; not only to meet prophets and religious truth, but scientific truth as well; and the battle has been waged almost in every instance when a new message has been sent to man, or a new truth revealed. With such a history before the world, is it not strikingly strange that in the blaze of the light of the nineteenth century, that men professing as profound a reverence for Jesus and the apostles, as the Jews did for Moses and the prophets, will accept this method of warfare, and scour the universe to hunt stories and gossip, to meet the claims and argument of a people, rather than accept the gage of fair and honorable warfare, and investigate their claims in the light of the facts presented. Strange as it may appear,

this is all the kind of warfare that has ever in the least succeeded against the message brought by the Book of Mormon, and believed by the Saints. It is much easier to call Joseph Smith an "infamous scoundrel," and a "fraud," than to prove his message false. It is easier to assert that Sidney Rigdon was "fanatical" and "lazy," than to prove the doctrine of the Latter Day Saints untrue.

It is far more suitable to perverted tastes to drink a little satisfaction from a misuse of the words, Mormon, Mormonism, and "it came to pass," than to accept the word of God.

Stories, slander, the traducing of character is the method adopted by my opponent. This is not new, but an old system of attack; but the only one that ever did succeed even momentarily against the truth.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, did you ever listen for so long a time, to such a dark and misty web as was spun by my opponent last night? The whole material of which was gathered from the ebony cloud of gossip, tattle and scandal. Somebody said that one Spaulding wrote a romance. Some one else said that they had heard it read. It would seem from one of the stories, that Spaulding made a business of going around and reading it to his neighbors. In process of time it was left with a printer. It was not seen afterwards. Sidney Rigdon was in the tanning business in that city; he was awful lazy, however; and of course he must have stolen it. The printer Patterson, said no such manuscript was ever there, but that is nothing, the story runs on just as glibly. Then there were some old trunks, over in Pennsylvania and York States, left in back-rooms and by- places, etc., etc. One Rigdon reads a book on one occasion and would not let his niece see it. This was in Ohio. Finally a stranger is seen in Palmyra, N. Y. No one knows indeed who, and there is no evidence in fact that there was one there. Finally the Book of Mormon was published in March, 1830, and in the fall of the same year Sidney Rigdon came in contact with the latter Day Saints, believed their message, and, therefore he is the author of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith is the cat's paw by which it is to be foisted upon the world under the inspiration of a peep stone which is stolen from one of his neighbor's children. Wonderful indeed! He did not tell us whether Joseph could really see anything extraordinary in the stone or not. If so, there might be something in the seeing business after all. If not what inducement was there for Joseph to steal one in order to perpetrate a fraud, when he had but to stoop down to pick one up and run no risks. It matters not however, which horn of the dilemma my opponent takes, his story will run on just the same.

(Time expired).









GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:—Mr. Kelley started, out with the assertion that at the time the Book of Mormon appeared, no one had thought of certain facts in archaeology, ethnology, philology and antiquities of America, that are assumed and stated as facts in that book. Therefore if scientific research has demonstrated, since the Book appeared, that these statements and assumptions are true, the Book must be true. It is either a revelation of such truths,

for it stated them before they were learned, by any human means of learning, or an actual history of them. He claims that it is an actual history given to Joe Smith, by revelation, and translated by him by inspiration. The Book of Mormon may be divided, into two portions: I. Certain assumptions and statement in archaeology, ethnology, philology and the antiquities of America.

II. Certain historical statements based on these assumptions, in archaeology, ethnology, philology and the antiquities of America, that assume to account for the antiquities of America, and to explain its archaeology, ethnology and philology. My opponent's argument has been an attempt to establish the truth of the first part. He has never touched the second. If we prove that all of the first part was well known long before the Book of Mormon appeared we refute his proof.

I have before me a work entitled "Atlantis," by I. B. Donnelly. In it he traces certain legends such as the Deluge, and certain stories all over America, and shows that they are found in Europe, in Asia, and Africa. He traces- resemblances between the arts and antiquities of the Old World and the New. He traces resemblances in philology or languages, between peoples of America and peoples of Asia, Africa and Europe. He traces ethnological affinities between the tribes of America and the Celts, the Scandinavians, Basques, Iberians and other Europeans—the Egyptians, ancient Africans, and the Negroes, the Chinese, Hindoos, Persians and Malays. He traces resemblances in arts, civilization, sciences, literature, customs between the peoples of America and peoples of Europe, Asia and Africa. A larger portion of the authorities he quotes were written before the Book of Mormon appeared. It has been known from the conquest of Mexico by Cortez, that there were three civilizations in Mexico, three immigrations into that country, the Toltecs, the Chicemas and the Aztecs, and that the first were very highly civilized. It has been known since the conquest of Peru by Pizarro that there had been three or more civilizations there, that of the Incas being the last. It had been known for more than one hundred years before the Book of Mormon appeared, that mounds, fortifications, ruins, antiquities and relics had been found all over North America. It had been decided that they had been the work of races that were in America before the Indians. If this is denied we will give the names of the authors. It had been a prevalent idea that the Indians were of Israelite origin. Affinities of some tribes to the Scandinavian, Welsh, Tartars, Hindoos. Chinese, Persians, Israelites and Egyptians, had been observed and published.

My opponent makes much of the cities of Central America. Cabrina and others had published descriptions of these long before the Book of Mormon appeared. It was such books and not the Book of Mormon that caused Stephens Squiers and others to explore Central America. Not only so but Cortez in his conquest of America conquered Central America, then a part of the Aztec Empire, and conquered these very cities, and his companions who wrote of his conquests describe them. They were inhabited when Balboa, another Spanish adventurer, explored the Isthmus and countries around it. So declare Herrera and other Spanish writers quoted by Wilson Prescott and other American writers.

Baron Humboldt visited Central America and described these ruins and his book was published in England and America in 1806. Spaulding was familiar with it. The Book of Mormon agrees literally with Humboldt. Where he is right, it is right. Where late research proves that he is in error, it is in error. That is all we need to say in regard to his long lingo in regard to antiquities.

We have proved that Solomon Spaulding was an enthusiast in American antiquities, believed that the Indians were descendants of the Israelites. As an earnest advocate of such theories, and as an enthusiast in American antiquities, he was well versed in the literature of the subject. Seventeen witnesses of the highest character testify that he wrote his "Manuscript Found" assuming all these facts and theories, pretending to give a history of the people who were the authors of these ruins

and antiquities several years before the Book of Mormon appeared. That Rigdon stole his manuscript and interpolated the religious matter. I challenge my opponent to name one theory or assumption in the Book of Mormon that research has sustained, that I cannot prove to have been well known before the Book appeared. This overturns his entire argument. Let him prove that the Jaredites, Nephites and Zarahemlites came to America and had such a history as recorded in the Book of Mormon. All that he quotes from the Book of Mormon was well known before it appeared. If he will prove the truth of its historic statements he will sustain his book. Proving that certain assumptions are true, no more prove that his book is true, than proving





that similar assumptions in Scott's novels are true, proves that those novels are real.

I will agree to take Scott's novels and prove that a far greater portion of Waverly or Ivanhoe is true in archaeology, antiquities, etc., than my opponent can prove to be true in the Book of Mormon. Not only so, but I will prove that its characters were real persons in a majority of instances, its places real, its battles real, and yet they are novels. He can not prove that a person, a place, or a battle of the Book of Mormon is real. I can offer ten fold as much proof of the very kind he offers, to prove the truth of the Book of Mormon, for Ivanhoe, and of the same kind. His line of proof is absurd to idiocy. He takes the romance written by Spaulding. in which he assumed certain things well known, as the basis, and claims it is all true, because these facts so assumed as the basis are true. I will prove Robinson Crusoe to be true and of divine origin in the same way.

We will now resume our history of the Book of Mormon. We have come down to the time of publication.

In the fall of 1829 Martin Harris, one of the gang, mortgaged his farm, and E. B. Grandin of Palmyra, began the publication of the Book. The manuscript was carried by several of the gang, a small portion each morning, and removed at night, for weeks. At last they were less careful. Mr. Gilbert says that the Imposter was very particular to insist that the manuscript be set up exactly as written. The translation had been done by inspiration, and it would be blasphemy to alter one iota. But as there was no punctuation, but little use of capitals, and as it abounded in misspelled words, and the most outrageous grammatical blunders, the printer absolutely refused to allow such an atrocious affair to go forth with his imprint on it. The printer was allowed to correct some blunders in the manuscript. When one reads the book, and sees the thousands of blunders in it, after all the printer's care, the query arises "What must the manuscript have been?" What a pity the printer interfered with inspiration, in the way he did. If the manuscript had been printed exactly as it came from the inspired lips of Joe, and as it was penned by the inspired Oliver, who had special divine commission and unction to do his work, no doubt the world would have been converted long ago by such sublime evidences of inspiration. That printer robbed the world of "the more part" of the inspiration of the Book of Mormon.

In the meantime Rigdon was preaching and working constantly to prepare the way for his scheme. He preached extravagant ideas of the millennium, such as are in the Book of Mormon—community of goods— restoration of miraculous gifts—new revelations and that something wonderful was going to happen. In private he approached persons as he did D. Atwater. A portion of the Kirtland Church of Disciples that was organized by him and made up

largely of his converts formed a common stock community and practiced feet-washing, another Mormon peculiarity at the beginning. They did this under the direction of Rigdon and Titus Billings, who became a Mormon with Rigdon. In June, 1830, Rigdon attended the Annual Meeting of the Mahoning Association in Austintown. In an address he presented his hobbies in regard to return to community of goods, and restoration of spiritual gifts, a restoration of everything in the apostolic churches. He was signally defeated, in discussion by Campbell. He left the Association soured and disappointed, declaring that he "had done as much for the Restoration as Campbell and Scott, yet they got all the honors." Tradition tells us that, by advice of Campbell, Rigdon was put up to preach on Lord's Day, as a plaster to his wounded egotism. He discoursed on "Envy," and took the conduct of Haman towards Mordecai as an illustration of the meanness of envy. all understood what he meant. Campbell and Scott were the Hamans, who, although mounted on the King's horse of public honor, were envious of Rigdon, the Mordecai sitting in the gate. When he came to a description of Hainan's triumphal procession on the King's horse, the horse ran away with Sidney. He mounted that horse and cavorted miraculously for some minutes. He turned him into a veritable Pegasus, and, like Bellerophon, he cleft the skies, and soared among the stars. As he was sky-scraping in his description of King Ahasuerus' horse, Walter Scott took aim at him, and brought him down from among the stars by roaring out in his broad Scotch, "Glory to King Ahasuerus' horse!" Rigdon had gone up like a rocket; Scott brought him down like a stick.

Rigdon returned home to Mentor. He sent for Pratt who came through Mentor in August, and went from Rigdon straight to Manchester, in the wilds of New York, thirty miles from any public thoroughfare, and Imposter Joe's mother says he arrived Saturday night, all worn out after an excessive day's journey, and was converted that night and made a preacher of the New Dispensation the next day, doubtless, "according to previous appointment," as the preachers say. Pratt visited his brother Orson and enlisted him in the scheme. Then he and Cowdery and Whitmer returned to Mentor. After weakly pretending to be ignorant of the scheme, and to oppose it, Rigdon is miraculously converted, by a vision, embraces Mormonism, goes to New York, he and Imposter Joe have a revelation, that Joe is the Moses, Sidney the Aaron of the movement, and that Kirtland is to be possessed by the saints forever, and Smith and his adherents, made up chiefly of confederates in his money-digging frauds and schemes, and confederates in the new fraud, the Book of Mormon, move to Ohio. Rigdon takes his new brethren around to the congregations for which he had preached, and which he had industriously prepared for his move, and the Rigdonites in these churches embrace Mormonism and the fraud


was fully inaugurated in Kirtland, Ohio, in 1831.

We have thus traced the origin of the Book of Mormon. We have proved that Solomon Spaulding- was the author of the historic portion. Sidney Rigdon the author of the religious portion, and that Impostor Joe gave it to the world by means of his stolen peep-stone. It was begotten by Spaulding in sin, conceived by Rigdon in iniquity, and brought forth by Impostor Joe in depravity and pollution. It has spoken lies from its birth, and has lived on fraud and fanaticism,

and has resulted in delusion and ruin to thousands. It has gone to seed in Utah, in pollution that would disgust Priapus himself, and horrify a satyr. Priapus Young and He-goat Kimball are the ripened fruit of the infamy. We will now take up the detection of the fraud. In an article published in the Boston Journal, May 13, 1829, Mrs. Matilda Davidson, formerly Solomon Spaulding's wife and widow, testifies:

"In 1834, a Mormon preacher, in a meeting in Conneaut, Ohio, read copious extracts from the Book of

Mormon. The historical part was immediately recognized, by all the older inhabitants, as the identical work of Mr. Spaulding, in which they had been so deeply interested years before. John Spaulding was present, and recognized perfectly the work of his brother. He was annoyed and afflicted, that it should have perverted to so wicked a purpose. His grief found vent in a flood of tears, and he arose 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 rile and shocking. The excitement in Conneaut, became so great that the inhabitants held a meeting, and deputised Dr. Philastus Hurlbut, one of their number, to repair to this place and obtain from me the original manuscript of Mr, Spaulding, for the purpose of comparing it with the Mormon Bible, to satisfy their own minds, and to prevent the friends from embracing an error so delusive."

We wish to call the reader's attention to this statement, that narrates an occurrence that attracted great attention at the time. It was published in the papers of the Western Reserve, and all over the United States. The citizens of Conneaut, in 1834, assembled to hear for the first time a Mormon preacher. They hear the first words of the Book of Mormon that any of them ever heard. Scores of them, and among the number Solomon Spaulding's brother, his sister-in-law, his business partner, one who had boarded in his family many months, one who had boarded him many months, and other acquaintances, without any expectation or previous concert of action on their part recognized in the Book of Mormon, the historical romance of Solomon Spaulding with which they were so familiar from 21 to 25 years before. Now let us hear some of their testimony. John Spaulding testifies: "I have read the Book of Mormon, and to my great surprise I find nearly the same historical matter, names, etc., as were in my brother's writings. I well remember that he wrote in the old style, and commenced, nearly every sentence: 'And it came to pass' or 'Now it came to pass' the same as in the Book of Mormon. To the best of my recollection the Book of Mormon is the same as what my brother, Solomon Spaulding wrote except the religious matter." Martha Spaulding, wife of John, and sister-in-law of Solomon, testifies: "I have read the Book of Mormon, which brought fresh to my recollection the writings of Solomon Spaulding. I have no manner of doubt that the historical part of the book of Mormon is the same that I have read and heard read more than 20 years ago. The old obsolete style and the expressions: 'And now it came to pass,' etc., are the same." Henry Lake, Solomon Spaulding's business partner, testifies:

"When my wife read to me from the Book of Mormon, she had read but a few minutes before I was astonished to find the same passages in it that Solomon Spaulding had read to me more than 20 years before from his Manuscript Found. I have examined the Book of Mormon and have no hesitation in saying that the historical part of it is principally if not wholly taken from the Manuscript Found. I well recollect telling Mr. Spaulding that so frequent use of the words: 'And it came to pass.' 'Now it came to pass,' rendered the book ridiculous. One time when he was reading to me the tragic account of Laban I pointed out to him what I considered an inconsistency which he promised to correct, but on examining the Book of Mormon, to my surprise I find it stands just as he read it to me. He left here in 1813, for Pittsburg, to get his book published, but I heard no more of his writings till I saw them in the Book of Mormon. Mrs. Davidson remarked to Mrs. George Clark, when, she handed her the manuscript of Spaulding's Manuscript Found to read: The Mormon Bible is almost a literal copy of that manuscript."

J. N. Miller, who boarded months in Spaulding's family, testifies: "I have examined the Book of Mormon, and I find in it the writings of Solomon Spaulding from beginning to end, but mixed up with Scripture and other religious matter, which I did not meet in the "Manuscript Found." Many passages in the Mormon book are verbatim from Spaulding, others in part. The names Nephi, Lehi, Mormon, and in fact all the principal names are brought fresh to my recollection by the "Golden Bible." Aaron Wright testifies: "Spaulding traced the journey of the first settlers of America from Jerusalem to America, as it is given in the Book of Mormon, except the religious matter. The historical part of the Book of Mormon, I know to be the same as I read and heard read from the writings of Solomon Spaulding, more than twenty years ago, the names especially are the same without alteration. In conclusion I will say that the names and most of the historical part of the Book of Mormon, were as familiar to me, before I read it as most modern history." Oliver Smith testifies: "When I heard the historical part of the Book of Mormon, I at once said it was the writing of Solomon Spaulding. Soon after I obtained and read the book, on reading it found much of it the same as Spaulding had written twenty years before." Nathan Howard testifies: "I have read the Book of Mormon and believe it to be the same as Spaulding wrote, except the religious part." Artemus Cunningham testifies: "I have examined the Mormon Bible and am fully of the opinion that Solomon Spaulding had written its outlines before leaving Conneaut." Joseph Miller of Amity, Pa., who took care of Spaulding in his last sickness, and familiar with his manu-






script says: "The longer I live the more firmly 1 am convinced that Spaulding's manuscript was appropriated and largely used in getting up the Book of Mormon. I believe that, leaving out of the book, the portions easily recognized as the work of

Joe Smith and his accomplices, Solomon Spaulding may be truly said to have been its author. I have no doubt of it." Ruddick McGee, who boarded with the Spauldings and became familiar with Spaulding's manuscript, says that "the Book of Mormon was founded on and largely copied from the romance of Solomon Spaulding." Dr. Dodd who attended Spaulding in his last illness, declared years before Howe's book appeared, that "Spaulding's manuscript had been transferred into the Book of Mormon, and that Sydney Rigdon had done it. This declaration was based on his knowledge of the manuscript, and what Spaulding had told him about Rigdon's stealing his manuscript. Rev. Abner Jackson declares: "The Book of Mormon follows Spaulding's Manuscript too closely to be a stranger to it. In both many passages appear, having the same names, found nowhere else. Such as Moroni, Mormon, Nephite, Laman, Lamanite, Nephi, etc. In the second romance called the Book of Mormon, we are told the same story Of the same people traveling from the same place in the same way, having the same difficulties and destination with the same wars, same battles and same leaders and same results, such as the Mormon account of the battle of Comorah in which all the righteous are slain. How much this resembles the closing scene in "Manuscript Found." Mr. Jackson, who was in the meeting at Conneaut, when the Mormon preacher read the Book of Mormon, says that Squire Wright shouted out, "Ola-come-to-pass has come to life again." Mrs. McKinstry, Spaulding's daughter, declares that the Book of Mormon is largely her father's Manuscript Found. His wife declares that it is a wicked remodeling of her

husband's work.

We might add scores of names who heard the Spaulding manuscript and recognized it in the Book of Mormon. The testimony of these seventeen witnesses, who were familiar with Spaulding's Manuscript Found" prove that the historical portion of the Book of Mormon what we charge Rigdon with stealing, is an almost verbatim reproduction of that "Manuscript Found." If my opponent were on trial for his life, one quarter of his testimony would hang him higher than Haman. He must do one of three things: I. Prove that these witnesses never so testified. II. Impeach them. III. Or disprove their evidence by rebutting testimony. Or lose his case. There has been some controversy over Spaulding's motives and object in writing his Manuscript Found. His wife and daughter strenuously insist that he wrote it merely to while away his time in declining health. That he had no intention of publishing it. That he refused to have it published, when Mr. Patterson offered to publish it. It is probable that he so told his wife. He may have had two reasons for it. He had failed in business continually. His wife supported the family and he might have feared that she would oppose the idea of publication as one of his visionary projects. For the preservation of peace and that he might pursue his purpose unopposed, he doubtless told her what she says he did. Again she seems to have been a woman of decided moral convictions, and he may have feared that she would regard such a scheme as very questionable if not a downright fraud. But there can be no doubt about his intentions to publish it. His brother says he wrote it for that very purpose, hoping to make money by it. So say Lake, Smith, both the Millers, McKee, John Spaulding, his wife, and Cunningham. Joseph Miller and McKee say he prepared a manuscript for publication and took it to the publishing house for that purpose.

There can be no doubt that he wrote it for the sole purpose of publishing it. and that he expected to make money by publishing it. There is nothing wrong about this. But that his motives, he knew, were some of them wrong, is evident from the fact that he kept them from his wife and daughter, and also lied to them in regard to his object in writing the manuscript. Some of his expressions show that his motives were very questionable. He intended to assert that his book was copied from a manuscript dug out of the earth, or found in a cave. He expected to deceive the world except the learned few, and cause them to believe this falsehood that he intended to palm off on them; and also to induce all, but the learned few, to believe his book to be veritable history as much so as any history. So he declared to Miller of Conneaut, Wright, Cunningham and others. No wonder he concealed his purpose from his wife and daughter. Howe says on page 289, of his history, that he has a letter in his possession that proves that Spaulding was skeptical in his last days. If so we can understand his caricaturing the Bible in the way he did, in his romance. The Book of Mormon was in its inception a deliberate fraud, conceived by a backslidden preacher, who intended to foist onto the world, the fraud by falsehood, stolen by another renegade preacher, who increased the blasphemy of the fraud by plagiarizing the Bible, so as to deceive the world by it as a revelation. Joe Smith, a money hunting, fortune telling impostor and infidel, gave it to the world by means of his peep-stone which he stole from Chase's children. We repeat that the whole affair was begotten by Spaulding in sin, conceived by Rigdon in iniquity and brought forth by Impostor Joe in depravity and corruption, and it has thrived on ignorance, fanaticism and pollution, and has culminated in Utah, in. infamy that would make devils blush.

Mrs. Davidson declares that Hurlbut wrote to her from Hartwicke that he found the Manuscript, and would return it to her when through with it. He came to Howe



with a lie and told him he only found a portion of an entirely different manuscript. He sold the manuscript to Rigdon and Smith took the money and went to Western Ohio and bought a farm, and Mrs. Davidson and her daughter, Mrs. McKinstry, could never get a word of reply from him although they sent several letters to parties who wrote; they gave the letters to Hurlbut. This answers the Mormon "Why did not the Spaulding publish the Manuscript Found?" Because Mormons had gotten it into their possession by bribing Hurlbut.

This careful analysis of evidence enables us to brush to one side the fog that Mormons have raised over Rigdon's copying the manuscript. He did not, he stole it. Over the size of the manuscript, Miss Spaulding read at her uncles. She read only the small manuscript, the first draft of the book, her father made. Also the fog over the fact that the manuscript brought by Hurlbut was not what the one's sending him to search the trunk expecting him to bring. It explains how the 116 pages of stolen manuscript, was replaced. They were replaced from another Spaulding manuscript, probably Mormon manuscript No. IT. This accounts also for the length of time that Spaulding spent in writing. He began in 1809 and closed in 1816, a period of time of seven years, and even after Rigdon stole his last manuscript he wrote on till he died. It accounts also for the differences in the descriptions of the witnesses Most of them heard read Mormon manuscript No.

I. Miller heard portions of Mormon No. II. Writing different manuscripts, and adding additional portions will account for discrepancies and contradictions. Such as Moroni saying his plates were full, and then writing the Jaredite portion. Spaulding added the Jaredite portion and forgot that he had made Moroni close the book with the destruction of the Nephites. Also the contradiction, which places Ethers plates in the hands of King Benjamin when they did not come to the knowledge of the Nephites until years after King Benjamin's death. The gross contradiction which makes Coviantumu the last Jaredite, die among the people of King Zarehemla about 200 years B. C., when the battle of which he was sole survivor occurred more than 600 years B. C. Either he was over 400 years old or the Jaredites were not exterminated until 200 B. C. instead of 600.





Let us now review the evidence we have presented, and settle several questions. I. Are the witnesses competent? II. Are they worthy of belief? III. What is established by their testimony? In determining the first and second queries there are several points to be weighed. I. Is the point at issue one that can be settled by testimony? No question is susceptible of clearer proof. The facts to be determined are I. Did Solomon Spaulding write a certain MS. II. What were its contents? II. Did they have adequate means of knowing these facts? No witnesses ever had better. Mr. Spaulding was a preacher, in poor health and out of employment, the very man that would attract company, and have much company, and of the highest character and intelligence. There was much excitement and curiosity over certain mounds that had been opened. Spaulding had taken great interest in the matter. He was writing an unusual book concerning this exciting topic. He was very fond of reading his productions to all who would listen to him. All this would secure him a circle of intelligent hearers. The singularity of his theme would cause his hearers to remember what they heard. To such hearers

competent in intelligence? No one can read their testimony and fail to see that they were persons of unusual intelligence—the very class of persons that such a man as Spaulding would attract around him — that would be interested in his theme — the very ones to whom he would read his work — and who would talk with him. IV. Were they persons of good charter for truth and veracity? Their character cannot be excelled. Compare them with the gang of loafing, money- hunting knaves and dupes, upon whose testimony the Book of Mormon stands. Their intelligence is infinitely above that gang of ignorant, superstitious, illiterate, ignoramuses. V. Were they interested in the points at issue? In no way whatever. On the other hand the witnesses to the Book of Mormon all expected to make money out of the fraud, and had gotten it up for that purpose.

VI. Is there any collusion in their testimony? There is absolutely none. Never were witnesses more independent and individual in their testimony. Each tells his story in his own way—tells what he knows, in his own way—is careful to tell no more— is careful where not certain to say so. Had they fabricated their testimony they would have stated more than they did. Contrast their evidence with that of the eight witnesses to the Book of Mormon. Those witnesses do not testify separately, but sign a statement prepared for them by Imposter Joe. They testified to what they did no know, and could not know. There is every evidence of collusion and perjury. The three witnesses are worse, for they testify to what an angel told them; the character of the entire twelve has been impeached. They had every motive to induce them to lie. They had concocted a fraud to make money and lied to carry it out. Our witnesses are absolutely free from all such fatal defects as those that utterly destroy the evidence of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon.

What facts are established by the testimony of the witnesses I. The plot and matter of Spaulding's "Manuscript Found." They describe it clearly and definitely. It is precisely the plot and matter of two Books and only two of all books that have ever been written. The Manuscript Found and the Book of Mor-






mon. II. That it purported to be a real truthful history of the aborigines—the first settlers of America. To this testify Mrs. Solomon Spaulding, Miss Martha Spaulding, John Spaulding, Mrs. John Spaulding, Lake, J. N. Miller, Smith Wright, Howard, Cunningham, Jas. Miller, McKee, Dodd and Sidney Rigdon. III. An attempt to account for the antiquities of America by giving a real history of their construction, Mrs. Solomon Spaulding, Miss Spaulding, John Spaulding, Mrs. John Spaulding, Wright, Smith, Howard, and Cunningham. There never were but two books that had this feature. The "Manuscript Found" and the Book of Mormon. IV. It assumed, that the Israelites were the aborigines of America. J. Spaulding, Mrs, J. Spaulding, Lake, Smith, J. N. Miller, Wright, Cunningham, Jackson. There were never but two books that had this feature, the Book of Mormon and the Manuscript Found. V. That they left Jerusalem; J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, Miller, Wright, Smith, Jackson. There never were but two books, the Book of Mormon and the Manuscript Found, that had this feature. VI. Journeyed by land and by sea. J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, J. N. Miller, Smith, Jackson. There never were but two books that had this feature, the Manuscript Found and the Book of Mormon. VII. Their leaders were Nephi and Lehi. Miss Martha Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Smith, Cunningham and Jackson.

There never were but two books that had this feature, the Manuscript Found and the Book of Mormon. VIII. They quarreled and divided into two parties called Nephites and Lamanites. J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Jackson. There were never but two books that contained this feature. The Book of Mormon and the Manuscript Found. IX. There were terrible wars between the Nephites and Lamanites, and between parties into which these nations divided. J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding; Lake, Jackson. There never but two books, the Book of Mormon and the Manuscript Found, that contained this feature. X. They buried their dead after the awful slaughter in their wars which were unprecedented, in great heaps, which caused the mounds. J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding. There were never but two books, the Book of Mormon and the Manuscript Found, that contained this feature. XI. The end of their wars in two instances was the total annihilation, in battle of all but one who escaped to make the record of the catastrophe. Jackson. There never were but two books, the Manuscript Found and the Book of Mormon, that contained this feature. XII. It gives a, historical account of the civilization, arts, sciences, laws and customs of the aborigines of America. J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Miller, Smith. There never were but two books, the Book of Mormon and the Manuscript Found, that contained this feature. XIII. These people were the ancestors of our American Indians. J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, Wright. There never were but two books, the Manuscript Found and the Book of Mormon, that contained this feature. XIV. The names Lehi, Nephi, Lamanite, Nephite, Moroni, Mormon, Zarahemla, Laban. Miss Martha Spaulding, J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, Smith, J. N. Miller, Wright, Cunningham, Jackson. There never was but two books, the Manuscript Found and the Book of Mormon, that contained these features. XV. These in every instance are the names of the same persons or places or things, and have the same characteristics and history, etc. J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, Miller, Wright, Smith, Cunningham, Jackson. There never were but two books, the Manuscript Found and the Book of Mormon, that had this feature. XVI. Written in scriptural style. Rigdon, Winter, Spaulding, Mrs. S. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, Jas. Miller, Smith, Cunningham, Jackson. There never was but two books, the size of either of these books, the Book of Mormon and the Manuscript Found, that had this feature. Small articles have been so written for burlesque but never such large books. XVII. Absurd repetition of "And it came to pass," "And now it came to pass." Mrs. S. Spaulding, J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, Cunningham, Jas. Miller. There never were but two books, the Book of Mormon and the Manuscript Found, that had were this feature. XVIII. One party left Jerusalem to escape judgments about to overtake the Israelites: Smith. There never were two books, the Manuscript Found and the Book of Mormon, that contained this feature. XIX. History was written and buried by one of the lost people. Mrs. S. Spaulding. There never were but two books that contained this feature, the Book of Mormon and the Manuscript Found. XX. The book was obtained from the earth. Lake, Mrs. S. Spaulding. Cunningham, There never were but two books claiming to be translations of manuscript dug out of the earth, the Book of Mormon and the Manuscript Found.

XXI. One party of emigrants landed near the Isthmus of Darien, which they called Zarahemla, and migrated across the continent in a north-east direction. J. N. Miller. There never were but two books that had this feature, the Manuscript Found and the Book of Mormon. XXII. In a battle the Amlicites marked their foreheads with a red cross so that they could distinguish themselves from their enemies. Jas. Miller, McKee. There never were but two books that had these features, the Manuscript Found and the Book of Mormon. XXIII. The book could be, and as an addition to the Bible by an imposter, as an addition coming from America. There never were but two books that had this feature, the Manuscript Found and the Book of Mormon.

We have now found that the Book of Mormon and the Manuscript Found contained twenty- three features, great features






exactly alike. Nothing but a miracle, scarcely credible, could have caused this agreement. One was stolen from the other. The Manuscript Found was in existence fifteen years before the Book of Mormon. It is as certain that the Book of Mormon was stolen from the Manuscript Found as that a child is the offspring of its parents.

Nearly all of our witnesses are careful to state that the religious portion of the Book of Mormon was not in the Manuscript Found. We will prove that Sidney Rigdon interpolated that into the manuscript that he stole. That will refute the objection raised by the three. I'd Joseph, that a Presbyterian preacher would not write such religious sentiments as those of the Book of Mormon. Nearly all of the witnesses in their descriptions mention only the historic part of the Nephite portion of the Book of Mormon. This shows that Spaulding had written only that portion, in his first manuscript. This meets a Mormon objection that some portions of the Book of Mormon were not mentioned by the witnesses.

We will now notice some of the retorts of Mormonism to this testimony. I. It is "the Spaulding story" So Antediluvians sneered at Noah about his "flood story," but the flood overwhelmed them all the same. Such evidence, given by seventeen witnesses can not be sneered down even by the

prophet, the three. Id Joseph, as, "the Spaulding story," II. "It is all a pack of lies." Why is it a pack of lies? Do they attempt to impeach the witnesses? No. Do they attempt to rebut the testimony? No. They jabber the great Mormon argument. "It is a pack of lies." III. The three Id Joseph says there is collusion in the testimony. He knew he was penning a falsehood when he wrote that sentence. There never were seventeen witnesses whose testimony was more independent, and marked with each one's personality than these. Contrast the seventeen independent statements, in which the individuality of each person appears, with the witnesses to the Book of Mormon. They sign a joint statement written out by Imposter Joe.

IV. It is improbable that they would know so much of the manuscript. We have given the reasons why so many persons heard so much of the Manuscript Found.

V. It is impossible that they would remember so much. 'The testimony shows that they were persons of more than usual mental power, with clear strong intellects. The contents of the manuscript were so peculiar that they would be remembered and recognized, when heard again, as the nick name old "Come to pass" and the exclamation of Squire Wright "Old come to pass, has come to life," show. VI. It is religious persecution. There was no suggestion of an attempt at religious persecution. Nor do the statements show any such spirit. They are remarkably calm and unsectarian in tone.




GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:—Last evening I took considerable time in presenting to you some of the evidences contained in the works of archaeologists and explorers of the ancient ruins and the remains of the extinct civilizations of the American continent; showing that the extent and greatness of them was equal to that given in the history, of the three civilizations which had existed here, two of them contemporaneous, as represented in the Book of Mormon. I was answered by my opponent at the time with this: "That those things were known to the world and were accessible to Joseph Smith at the time of the publication of the book;" and for proof he cited to Josiah Priest's work, which he said treated of these things and which was published it was averred, prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon. I did not state then that I did not believe it, for I was taught by my mother not to say a thing was not true until I had tested it 5 and I have made no statement to this audience but what I believed to be as true as that the sun has this day been on his daily course. Neither do I expect to state to this audience anything but what I believe to be true, and strictly true. But to his, Priest's, work:—I asked for the book and examined it. Instead of finding a work that treats upon antiquities, or civilizations, such as I have proven to have existed, I found that the book did not contain a single thing upon these:—neither, speculations upon ruined cities or a high state of enlightenment, nor a single mound referred to from which conclusions of a great civilization could be drawn;—not one single thing that tends to disprove a single statement that I dwelt upon last evening; and yet, you are expected to accept it as an answer to my argument. The work does not treat upon antiquarian researches even; but it is Mr. Priest's compi-






lation of certain things, entitled the "Wonders of Heaven and Earth." I stated in my opening remarks upon last evening that it was speculative, long prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon, that the ten lost tribes of Israel had been led to this country, and that afterwards they had dwindled into barbarism; and showed also that the common theory was that when the country was settled it was settled from north to south, and that, that was one of the main theories at the time of the publication of the Book of Mormon. I open this book that treats of the wonders of earth and heaven, and find an article referring to the ten tribes coming to this continent, giving the writer's speculations from what had been ascertained by conversing with the natives; and there is a long argument in it from page 297 forward for the purpose of showing that the people who inhabited this country, and of whom the Indians were descendants, were the lost tribes, as I had admitted in my opening argument upon these antiquities, stating that such were the speculations. But there is not a single work or mound cited in this book to prove it, or that the people attained a high state of civilization and builded great cities, etc., here as was my argument. But, turning to the book, page 201, I find that the speculation is here set out also, that they crossed at Behrings Strait, as I had claimed upon last evening, and afterward made their way southward. Not only that, but on turning further in this book I find some excellent things to show that the people upon this continent were of Israelitish origin, one of which is plainly and clearly set out, wherein it states that they formerly practiced circumcision on the continent. I call the attention of my opponent to that, because he challenged me to show upon a former evening, that any such thing as

circumcision had been practiced upon this continent. That is a proof from his own work. Will he take his own witness? I refer to this fact of the Saint's actual position upon this for the reason, that I do not wish you to misunderstand my position upon the point. While there were many speculations in regard to whether the Indians were the first inhabitants of America, and how they came here, at the time of the publication of this book, as I have before stated, there was no understanding and no knowledge extant in the world of the grand civilization that had occupied here, that outnumbered by thousands and millions the present population of the country, if we are permitted to judge at all from the ruins and the discoveries that have been made since that time, and of the great enlightenment of the people. I expected to have collated to-day and presented to you this evening a concise account by the best authors of just when this knowledge was first developed and published to the world through explorers, and I shall do so upon to-morrow or some future evening; showing that it was not known to the world prior to 1834. There was one English publication in 1822, but it was never known in this part of the world, and not widely in any; and I doubt if there is a man in the State of Ohio,—well, there possibly has been one in the State of Ohio,—but certainly not many more, who ever saw such a work or such an author as that of Fuentes or Del Rio. Mr. Stephens, whom I cited last evening, and who wrote in 1841, a traveler all over this globe, and a man that was versed not only in the English language, but in the Spanish also, in which Del Rio's work was originally written, had never heard of it at the time he first went to Mexico in 1839. But suppose that they had heard of the publication of the work, and that it had been all over the country in 1822, and that it contained anything of these great cities:—what would it benefit my opponent in this argument? His claim is that this "Romance" was written by one Solomon Spaulding in 1811. Well, if it was written in 1811, and the historical part of it gotten up by Mr. Spaulding, could Mr. Spaulding write correctly of these things when he did not know about them unless he was a prophet? Why not God inspire Smith to write and antedate these discoveries as well as Spaulding? The argument is, that neither Smith nor Spaulding could get these things out, for the manuscript of the Book of Mormon as they are described therein as early as the year 1829, (or 1811), and as they have since been found correct by the best authors. Not only that, but I read fully from the most authentic writers in support of the statements of the Book of Mormon, which was copyrighted and in the hands of the printer as early as the first part of the year 1829, on the question of the high state of the ancient civilizations of the continent; the magnificence of their cities, temples, palaces and works of art; their high attainments in the sciences, mechanical skill and inventions; and of the fauna as presented in the later-discovered fossils, etc. This however, was sneered at as though everybody knew of that, long before the Book of Mormon was printed, and that Smith could easily have located his Central American cities; told of the three different highly civilized peoples who had lived there; told what domestic animals they had, and what places on the continent these people first inhabited from such general knowledge, and thus had practiced a fraud upon the world. Now, my friends, nearly sixty years have passed since the book was published, with new discoveries being continually brought to light, and in an age when the means of transmission of news and knowledge was never so perfect it is thought; as gifted men as the times have produced, have given their attention and attainments to the research and development of these things, and the result is, they have gained no new light upon this subject, that was not possible for a poor, unlettered boy in ".the backwoods of New York State to gather and compile into a book in 1827 and 1828. Friends, can you swallow that? If you


can, it is possible you may swallow down and roll as a sweet morsel under the tongue the Spaulding tale, "Old come to pass," and all. What! says one, have not these new authors who have been publishing for the past fifty years unfolded something new as to the civilization that is not to be gained by reading the Book of Mormon? Nor anything either, that has been established as a truth that is conflicting with, or contrary to, that book? I answer they have not; and the book is full and explicit upon the civilizations. Will my opponent please show the new light or the fact of the difference or contradiction to the audience if they have? One demonstrable fact thus brought, which will show a statement in the book false, will have more weight with any honest investigator, than ten thousand Spaulding stories, all laid, brooded, hatched, raised and palmed upon the world years after the publication of the Book of Mormon.

This is his position fairly stated: The Book of Mormon was in press in 1829, and sent out as a publication in 1830.—A few persons under the guidance and leadership of one Philaster Hulburt, who, at the time had been cut off from the church of the Latter Day Saints for had conduct, and who had publicly confessed his crime and had been taken back upon his profession of repentance as I will show you by the church publications at the time, and was again cut off; and a few others at Conneaut, Ohio, of a like stamp, got together in 1833, with the Book of Mormon in their hands and vengeance and hatred in their hearts, and got up some affidavits as to a story which it was surmised had been written before by Solomon Spaulding, a broken down clergyman of that place. Afterwards they found a confederate in Mr. Howe, of Painsville, Ohio, who was terribly mad and jealous because his wife and sister had joined the church here in Kirtland, and so between Hulburt and Howe and these testifiers. they published their tale between the years 1834 and 1841, years after the publication of the Book of Mormon and with that book in their hands from which to make their garbled statements. Therefore, he concludes the thieving Joseph Smith who was always an honest and honorable man, stole the Book of Mormon from the Spaulding story and made of the theft a Bible. This is logic for you with a rush! Who again will doubt that my opponent is a profound logician? But I have yet to give you the rich part of his tale. A few of the best citizens of Ohio, at Conneaut, got together one night and appointed one of their beloved number, to wit, the said Dr. Hulburt, who had before been ostracized from the Latter Day Saints for an open insult to a young lady in Kirtland. to go to New York, Pennsylvania, and other places, to get statements from other first citizens of the country (like to themselves), and get up a story to beat the Book of Mormon. Did you ever before hear of so many of the first citizens of the country living near by you, who were never known outside of their neighborhood, except by the work of evil they did by signing false statements? His idea of best citizen is from the standpoint of whether they are on "our side;" not from a single truth he knows. But let me right here call your attention to the fact that he has not even presented the testimony of a single one of these best citizens he refers to in full. Not a single statement. Not even the poor show of reading to you a written statement in full of a single one of them. Not even the offer to read you a single affidavit of one of these "best citizens." I am 'hero to examine the evidence in this discussion, and if he has any statements, or affidavits, I want him to read them here, and give the people a chance to judge and me a chance to examine them. I deny, sir, that you can produce affidavits or respectable statements proving the statements and assertions you read last night; and demand the evidence.

Not a few lines from the witnesses but the testimony. I call attention to the fact that this opponent is the first I ever met who would stand before an audience and tell and rehearse what he says, somebody else said, old mother Grundy said about what somebody else said and did, and then ask his audience to take it for evidence. What would you think of an attorney, who after rehearsing his case to the jury or judge, without ever offering to introduce a witness or read a record except in extracts, would stand up and claim he had put his evidence in, and ask for a verdict in his favor? Can you not see, ladies and gentlemen, he has not proven a single thing? What evidence has he presented to you upon any matter? Mention, any of you who can. Oh, says one, he gave us Mr. Rudolph's testimony. Did he? I have not seen it or heard it read. I heard what Braden said Rudolph said Sidney Rigdon did; but what do you know about it? Mr. Rudolph is near here, if he knows anything, put him on this stand: you claim him as one of your own men, a Disciple Preacher. I want to examine him if his name is to be used, since he is near by and can be had. The only request I will have in the matter is that the evidence shall be taken on extra time; and that we do not take up the hour named for discussion. I deny here that Mr. Rudolph knows a single fact which can in the remotest degree connect Sidney Rigdon with Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon, prior to the time when Sidney Rigdon was converted to the faith of the Saints in the last part of the year 1830. And I make this statement fearlessly, after having had a conversation with Mr. Rudolph on the subject of the book myself last summer.

Another thing: I state fearlessly before you that Mr. Howe of Painsville, who first published the Spaulding story and the affidavits which were gotten up to blacken the character of Joseph Smith, (Sidney Rigdon, et al., and whose book is the key note from which all subsequent works have taken





their music, does not know one thing, not a single fact that can be made in the least to connect that Spaulding story with the Book of Mormon or show that Joseph Smith's character was bad; or that a single affidavit in his book is true. Will you put him on the stand here for examination? I will bear the expense of bringing him here as he is a little farther away than Mr. Rudolph. I do not make these assertions for bluff, or effect; but for the reason that the world has thought Mr. Howe knew something about the matter, or he would not have published the book which forms the basis of all other lying works; and if he does know anything now is the time to find it out. One other thing. It has been asserted here that he has a chain of evidence. A chain of evidence! What is it to make a chain of evidence? Can you use broken or pieces of links? Has Mr. Braden debated all his life and has not yet found out that to form a circumstance or truth, that the evidence of such circumstance or truth must be complete within itself and independent of another fact or circumstance which he claims to form another link? Each must be complete of itself to be evidence and constitute a chain. For illustration: It is said here by him that at one time a niece of Sidney Rigdon once saw him go to an old trunk, take out a manuscript, go to the fire place and read it, and that he would not let her sea it. Suppose this is all true as the story goes; what of it? Is it pertinent to the issue until they in some manner connect that same manuscript with the one claimed by Spaulding? Why! Rigdon might have had a hundred manuscripts and read them, and taken them from an old trunk, and put them back without first having given them to his niece to

read, and each and every one of them altogether different from the Spaulding manuscript; and if any such unconnected statement was offered as evidence in any court to sustain the most trivial case, it would instantly be ruled as improper. Before this can be made evidence the parties must also show by some other fact, or thing, that the manuscript which he is said to have read and would not let his niece see was the Spaulding Romance, and then they may use it all as a link to show that Rigdon did have an opportunity of copying the Spaulding manuscript. Don't you know that if Sidney Rigdon did have the Spaulding manuscript it is just possible he had another besides; mother Grundy's manuscript, a manuscript sermon, or manuscript article for publication, and that at the time his niece saw him he was reading mother Grundy or one of the other manuscripts instead of Spaulding? What then would be the true position of my opponent in this argument? Mr. Braden offering to show that Rigdon had the Spaulding manuscript by citing the time he read mother Grundy's manuscript, and offering the people a false thing as evidence and asking them to accept it as true instead of accepting the facts. Take another one of his proofs (?). Mr. Rudolph says, so Braden says, that one time during the year 1827, Sidney Rigdon, who was their pastor at Men tor," Ohio, went off some place and was away two or three weeks and they did not know where he went to. It might have been over to Hiram, down to Mantua, to Cleveland or Cincinnati; but no difference to him; he will have it at this very time he was in the wilds of Pennsylvania or New York, concocting the Book of Mormon, with Joseph Smith. Where is his witnesses showing where Rigdon was at this time, or that he was in New York? There is none, nor never has been. Now according to their idea Smith has no rights that even a rogue is bound to respect; and so if they can show that their pastor Rigdon was out on a spree. Smith will have to bear the blame. My friends, don't you know that it would sink any man, prophet, priest, or king, to undertake to make of him a scapegoat to carry away the sins of many pastors of the Campbellite Church.

But I have only been arguing the matter in this suppositious form—sifting it;—when I come to ask for the evidence, I find out the whole thing is trumped up to defeat Sidney Rigdon because he left their church. I shall now present to you a supposable case upon facts proven, and ask you to compare the two methods of argument. Upon the part of the affirmative I have shown that John the Revelator, in the 14th chapter and 6th verse of his book, says: "And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." I use this to support the truth of my claim. But how? 1. I show by it, the. time that is referred to, "The hour of God's judgment." 2. That it was to be after John's time, or the year A. D. 96, by turning to the preceding chapters. Rev. 1:19, 4:1, and 22:6. 3. That the hour of the judgment is the same as defined in Matt. 13 by Jesus. And it is "just afore the harvest," the same time referred to in Isaiah 18, when the ensign is lifted up; and that the ensign of God is the gospel of Christ; this is what he calls men to look to, saying, "Repent ye and believe the gospel;" and since it is the gospel and lifted up at the same time that John saw the angel bringing it, I must conclude they are the same in teaching at least, for there is but one gospel. 4. Then, when I notice that the same time and event is spoken of in both, as in Isaiah 29, and Ezekiel 37, where the message and event is represented as a book that should be brought to light which should contain "doctrine," and (connected with its publication), understanding attained, and the power of God brought to light, as was the gospel when it was in the world in its fullness before, as Paul says:— "Our gospel came not unto you in word only, but in power and in the Holy Ghost,



and in much assurance;" (1 These. 1:5), and that this is the same work specifically set forth as in the other texts, time, place and conditions each being complete of themselves and agreeing in all their phases, and that there is no reasonable interpretation or application of the prophecies agreeing with any other time, place, thing or event, I conclude that they all refer to the same thing, and that that thing is the gospel which is to be again committed to the earth at the time, "just afore the harvest;" in "the hour of His judgment," and hence committed again sometime after the apostles' time, and which may be in our own time, and must be in this or hereafter, for the harvest spoken of has not yet come. Having made such a connected chain as this, every link being in itself complete, since they all refer to a like, or the same thing, and that thing has a complete likeness in the coming forth and teaching of the Book of Mormon, and no other book known to men will answer to the fulfillment as this, and the time in the history of the world as predicted has arrived for the fulfillment, I say it is logical to conclude, and the evidence irresistible as showing that this is the prophetic work, notwithstanding Satan's old cry of deceiver.

How about his Spaulding story as compared with this logical deduction from admitted facts? In the argument of a proposition or the trial of an issue, there is what is termed an affirmative and a negative; a plaintiff and a defendant. One who affirms the truth of a matter and who must bring evidence to sustain this, and one who denies the sufficiency or application of the evidence, or else, admitting the statements of the one who affirms to be correct, he denies the conclusion, for the reason that something else is true which must destroy the correctness of the plaintiff's conclusion. This other thing or averment is what is termed an alibi, and may properly be made the defense in certain cases. But in other cases it cannot. For illustration: I set forth my claim and title to a certain piece of land, showing patent from the government, all due and legal transfers by proper conveyance; show that this patent and all transfers and steps of entry and possession are strictly in harmony and keeping with the law,—it would hardly be worth while for another to bring a suit to oust me under the plea that, it is true, he is properly entitled under the chain of title and I cannot break that claim, but then John Doe had a correct chain of title too, at one time, to a piece of land, and it is defendant's belief that plaintiff ought to be kept out of possession for the reason that John Doe now does not know what kind of land his was nor where it is. No judge would for a moment hesitate to say that not even an issue had been formed by such a plea. If my chain of title could not be broken, no amount of alibi's would help the matter in the case. That which is conclusive to the proving of a fact, which fact establishes the conclusion of a proposition, cannot be overcome by an attempt to prove some other fact: for the reason that it is a contradiction to suppose that two facts exist and one the opposite of the other.

To defeat my title to the land then, the defendant would be compelled to break the chain, and this would form a direct contest. In the discussion of the proposition before this audience, as the one affirming, I had the right to set out my claim;—chain of title; make it full and complete under the law; and my opponent's right was to break this chain, and under the law he must do so or fail; for the conclusion of the law is, that he who comes bringing this chain is true, for no man can get hold of the chain unless he is the true and accepted one.

God has set this seal upon it; man understands the things of man by the spirit of man which is in him; "even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." I Cor. 2:11. For this reason in determining who are of God and who are not, you may safely rely upon the rule, "He

that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." 2 John, 9th verse. He has established a law that man without the Spirit of God cannot look into his truth which is from above, and so select from it as to impose upon the people and at the same time conform to the truth. Jesus recognizes the rule as being correct in the 28th chapter of Matthew's gospel, wherein he tells his disciples, if they teach all things whatsoever he has commanded them he will be with them to the end of the world. He did not even promise to be with Peter, and James, and John unless they proved their mission by abiding in the doctrine. Not a part of it, but all of it, for this rule was to be given to his people and the world to test the true from the false; true teachers from false teachers; true prophets from false prophets. "If any man think himself a prophet or spiritual," says the apostle, 1 Cor. 14:37, "let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." Not acknowledge by mouth through dissimulation simply,—but let his teachings conform to the established test, and agree in all things with that which Paul had written. "He that is of God heareth God's words;" and in all things. "Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing; by their fruits you shall know them." Not judging their public acts by their doings in private life, nor by the lives of their followers; for this would destroy the entire list:—Noah, Moses, Samson, David, Solomon, Elijah, Peter and Paul; and judging simply by the fruits of the followers, it would also prove as false, Jesus and the apostles; for all, except the twelve went back at one time; Judas, one of those, turned traitor and sold Jesus; another, denied him and cursed and swore; all returned to their nets; and Thomas was so far gone that he said, he would not believe, unless "he should first thrust his hands into his side," while some in the churches in a short time were guilty of such abominations as were not known, the apostle Paul says, among" the Gentiles. Speaking






of those in Asia, Jesus signifies to his servant John, that some were so wicked and corrupt, that unless they repented they should "be brought down to hell." To judge them then in this way would be wrong;—contrary to the word of God. I will show you the way to judge men by their fruits. If those principles they teach are bad; or men or women are bad who are living in accord with, and carrying out in their Jives the principles taught, then it will prove the one bringing the message to be bad, and at the same time prove themes-sage bad. The argument is often made that the Christian religion is bad because those professing Christianity are bad. This is not a correct premise. Before the conclusion follows, it must be further shown that, in bringing forth this bad fruit, they who call themselves Christians did these bad things by conforming to the principles and teachings of the Christian religion.

Now, in this discussion, from the first, my opponent has chosen to leave the arguments of the affirmative and follow his own course; and he has attempted to crush me under the weight of the stories he had at his command against the character of Mr. Smith. What a ridiculous position! If my claim is true it is true, and no number of alibi's could affect it gotten up on life or character.

But by taking this course he virtually admits the position of the affirmative to be unmovable; because if he could move me what is the use of his alibi? I am affirming and must make my case. He simply denies; he does not in

has chosen to introduce the alibi of the old Spaulding Romance; (and romance it is), and to rely upon that, either as a counter proof sufficient, or as a means of prejudicing the people against an investigation of the facts. Whatever the object it matters not to me; but I take it that by so doing he has admitted as true the position of the plaintiff in the contest and now rests his case upon character, and the "Spaulding Romance."

Does he not know that his "very act in doing this is in itself another evidence of the truth of the Book of Mormon? and in this making certain the application of another part of the prophecy in Isaiah, 29th chapter, the conditions of which I claim are complete in the Book of Mormon. The book spoken of there to come forth is to be fought in such a way. If the opposition was from a different standpoint the prediction would be incomplete. The prophecy sets out sufficient to show that it might have been properly tried under the rule, for it is to contain the doctrine of Christ;— 110 mistaking this; verse 24: "They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine."

But notwithstanding this, it is shown conclusively in verses 15, 16, 20, and 21, that those who opposed the book would do so by turning things upside down;—reversing the order of trying things under God's law, and use works which were "in the dark;" "scorn" the claims made by the one bringing the book, and "watch for iniquity;"—try to find something against his character;—"make a man an offender for a word," "and lay a snare for him," for it was to be a work reproving the people for leaving the law; and finally, they were to "turn aside the just for a thing of nought."—Preferring to the great facts of God's law and the justice exemplified therein, those things that are of little account, a tissue and a refuge of lies as referred to in the fifteenth verse of the 28th chapter, or in other words the "Spaulding Story." Now, singular as it is, I have never met a man as yet, in the consideration of this question, who has not tried the book from this standpoint. It was said of Jesus that "he was numbered with the transgressors," to fulfill the prediction of the prophet, made long before; and if the certainty of agreement of prophecy and its fulfillment is such, that he who was the upright and true, the humble and meek, the forgiving and pure of the city of Nazareth, must be charged with disobedience to law, stirring up of sedition, and treason to the State, and suffer the final affliction of death between two thieves, why should I complain to suffer to the contest of lies, and ways that are dark, which the prophet speaks of as being brought to oppose at some day the Lord's work.

(Time expired.)



GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:—We wish to call the attention to a fact strangely overlooked by former writers—that Spaulding wrote several manuscripts. Our reasons for such a position are: I. The length of time he spent in writing his book. He begun in 1809, and the manuscript was taken to Patterson's office in 1814. He spent five years on it. II. Mrs. S. Spaulding, his wife, Miss Spaulding, his daughter, and J. N. Miller, declare that he had many manuscripts. III. The witnesses in Coneaut, with one exception, describe only the Nephite portion,

showing that he had only written that, when reading to them. The Zarahemlite and Jaredite portions were not written when he read to them. IV. Spaulding stated to J. N. Miller that he would lead" a retired life in Pittsburgh, and re-write his manuscript. Miller is the only one who describes the Zarehemlite portion. He had added that to his second Mormon manuscript. V. Patterson told him to rewrite it and prepare it for press. Jas. Miller says he did, and left this copy with Patterson, and that it was this, or his third Mormon manuscript, that Rigdon stole. VI. The manuscript that Miss Spaulding read at the residence of her uncle, W. H. Sabin, was not large enough to constitute such a work as the publishers would publish. It was his first draft on his manuscript No. II. Mormon I. VII. The contradictions between these portions as we will show, prove that they were written in different installments, and added to each other. VIII. When Mrs. Harris destroyed 118 pages Rigdon was sent for and he replaced them from another Spaulding manuscript, one of the ones stolen by Smith from Mrs. Davidson's, house in Hartwicke in 1827. IX. Even after he failed to get his manuscript published and the copy he prepared had been stolen by Rigdon, he continued to write on to the last. X. Spaulding's care in preserving his manuscript is seen in the fact that even the few leaves of his Roman manuscript were preserved, and found in his trunk in 1834.

This removes the quibbling of Mormons about Rigdon's copying so much manuscript. He did not, he stole it. Spaulding so declared in 1815-16. Rigdon showed the manuscript to Winters, and stated that it was the manuscript that Spaulding wrote— that Spaulding had left it at Pattersons— that he borrowed it—not copied it. Rigdon told Jefries he took the manuscript from the printing office. It settles also all quibbling about size of the manuscript Miss Spaulding read at her uncles. Rigdon had the one her father had prepared for press. She read the first draft or manuscript No. II. Mormon manuscript No. I. it also puts an end to the three Id Joseph's talk that Spaulding's heirs had the manuscript in their care all the time. It puts an end to the challenge of Mormons "Why did not the Spauldings bring out the manuscript and prove the theft and plagiarism by publishing the original manuscript?" Rigdon had stolen Mormon manuscript No. Ill that Spaulding had prepared for press, Smith, in 1827 had stolen other manuscripts.

Did Rigdon steal Spaulding's manuscript? We have proved that he was learning the tanner's trade in Pittsburg, when the manuscript was at Patterson's by Mrs. Echbaum. That he was intimate with Lambdin and was about the office so much that Engles the foreman complained of it. That he was much interested in the Spaulding manuscript that was a great curiosity in the office, by Mrs. Spaulding. That the manuscript was stolen and Spaulding blamed Rigdon, by Jas. Miller, McKee and Dr. Dodd. That Rigdon showed the manuscript to Dr. Winters in 1823 declaring it was Spaulding's manuscript, left with a printer, that he borrowed it, and told what it contained, by Dr. Winter. That he had it in 1826, and declared it would be a great thing some day, by his niece Mrs. Dunlap. We have proved that he knew of the publication of the Book of Mormon, long before it appeared, and described it, by D. Atwater, A. Bently, Alexander Campbell, Green and Dille. We have proved that he was often absent from home while it was being prepared for press, by Z. Randolph, and others. That he was seen at Smith's while it was being prepared- for press, by Tucker, Mrs. Eaton and McCauley, Chase and Sanders. We have proved that he prepared his congregation for the reception of the book and his ideas, and that his adherents went into Mormonism. We will, when we come to analyze the Book of Mormon, prove that there are Rigdonisms on nearly every page, and several on many single pages. I do not know how a stronger case can be made.

The constant jabber of Mormons, calling on persons to tell when and how Rigdon came in

contact with and obtained possession of the Spaulding manuscript, and when and how Rigdon and Smith came together, and concocted this scheme, and brought out this book, is an insult to common sense and every principle of law. If a man is arrested with stolen property in his possession, all the state has to do is to prove I. The rightful owner of the property. II. That it has been feloniously taken out of his possession. III. That it was found in the possession of the accused. That is sufficient to convict him of being a thief, or a receiver of stolen goods, that the law holds as guilty as the thief. The state does not have to prove that the accused stole the property. Having convicted him of having







stolen property in his possession, he has to prove that he came by it innocently, or be committed as thief or receiver of stolen goods. We have proved that Spaulding owned the Manuscript Found, that it was found in possession of Rigdon, that it was offered to the public as his own property by Imposter Joe. Unless Mormons can prove that Rigdon and Smith came by it innocently, they are convicted as thieves, or as receivers of stolen goods. As lawyers the three Id Joseph and his man Kelley ought to know this.

But we have gone far beyond what is necessary in order to convict Rigdon and Smith. Let me illustrate our work. Suppose that a man lives for years in Kirtland, who has a museum of rare relics. There are absolutely no duplicates of any of them. He is a sort of monomaniac over his museum, takes everybody to see it that he can in any way induce to look at it, and is constantly talking about it, and describing it. He moves away, and some years afterwards a couple of fellows come along and advertise a wonderful museum, that they claim an angel gave by miracle to one of them. People of Kirtland flock out to see this miraculous museum. No sooner do they cast eyes on it, than a shout goes up, "why this the collection of 'Old-come-to-pass,'" a nick-name they had given to their former neighbor. The two fellows are arrested for theft. The heirs of the old neighbor are looked up. They say the collection is in a certain trunk. When the trunk is examined it is found that not a single article of the collection is in it. The trial comes on. The former neighbors of the original owner come in and testify, describing the articles in the collection of their old neighbor, and describe nearly all the leading articles in the museum. The museum is placed before them. They pick out all the leading articles, but reject some, saying, "he did not have these." The thieves would go to the penitentiary, unless they could show that they came by them honestly.

But suppose the state proceeds to prove that the owner took his collection to a certain place to be prepared for exhibition. That one of the thieves was constantly around there, took great interest in them. That just before the owner's death, these relics disappeared, and that the owner and others blamed this fellow with stealing them. That a few years afterwards he showed them to persons saying that they were the deceased man's relics, that he had left to be prepared for exhibition, and that he had borrowed them from the one who was to prepare them for exhibition, in order to examine them. That he was seen with them in his possession and examining them years afterwards, declaring, "they would be a big thing some day." That soon afterwards he began to exhibit certain peculiar articles of his own manufacture, and to prophesy that an angel would

give to the world a museum, with certain articles in it, describing the articles of the deceased man. That he was seen in company with his confederate. That the confederate began to tell that an angel had given to him a museum of such articles, and in a short time the two began to exhibit the museum. containing the relics of the deceased, and the articles the first fellow had been exhibiting. The case would be made out as clearly as if a thousand men swore that they saw the theft.

We have proven that Solomon Spaulding exhibited for years, in Conneaut, and in other places, a cabinet of curiosities, that were absolutely nowhere else except in his Manuscript Found. That he was a sort of monomaniac over his Manuscript Found, forcing it on all he could get hold of, holding them like Coleridge's Ancient Mariner. That his mania had caused persons to nickname him, "Old come to pass." We have proved that when the Book of Mormon was exhibited in Conneaut, that those who had, through Spaulding's mania, been made familiar with his Manuscript Found, recognized the Manuscript Found in the Book of Mormon. Squire Wright shouting out, "Old come to pass has come to life." His brother arose and denounced the theft and fraud on the spot. His old neighbors sent a messenger to his widow, who sent them to the trunk, where the manuscript was supposed to be, and it was not in the trunk. It had been stolen. We have introduced the clear positive testimony of seventeen witnesses, who, in describing the Manuscript Found, give a better description of the Book of Mormon—the historic part— than the average Mormon preacher can give from memory. We have presented them the book of Mormon and they unite in picking out the historic portions as part of the Manuscript Found and in rejecting others as not in the Manuscript Found. We have proved that one of the accused, Rigdon, was around the place where the manuscript Spaulding had prepared for the press was last seen. That he took a deep interest in it. That Spaulding told James Miller and McKee and Dr. Dodd that his manuscript had been stolen and Rigdon was suspected of the theft. We have proved that Rigdon in 1822 or 3 showed the manuscript to Dr. Winters, stating that it was a manuscript that Spaulding a Presbyterian preacher had left with a printer, for publication, and that he had borrowed it from the printer to read as a curiosity. It was a Bible romance, purporting to be a history of the American Indians. That he told Jeffries he took it from the printing office and gave it to Smith to publish. That he spent so much time over it in 1826. as to cause his wife to threaten to burn it, to which he replied, "that it would be a great thing some day." We proved by Alexander Campbell,

A. Bently, and D. Atwater that Rigdon years before the Book of Mormon appeared stated that such a book would appear, it was dug out of the ground, was engraved on gold plates, contained a history of the aborigines of this continent, gave the history of the peo-


ple who construed the antiquities of America, that it taught that the gospel was preached in America, in the first centuries of our era, as the Disciples were then preaching it on the Reserve. We have proved that Rigdon preached the religious portions, the part that our witnesses did not recognize as Spaulding's. We have proved that Rigdon was away from home during the time that Smith was working on his pretended plates. That he was seen with Smith. That right after he began to visit Smith the latter began to tell about finding the plates and began his pretended translation of them. We have made our case.


1761—Solomon Spaulding was born in Ash-ford, Connecticut.

1785—Solomon Spaulding graduated with the degree of A. B. at Dartmouth College. 1787—Solomon Spaulding graduated in Divinity. He received the degree of A. M. from

Dartmouth College.

1788—Solomon Spaulding preaches as Congregational preacher till compelled to stop by ill health, in 1800.

1793—Sidney Rigdon was born Feb., 19th near the village of Library, St. Clair township, Allegheny county, Pennsylvania.

1796—Joseph Smith, Sen., and Lucy Mack married in Tunbridge, Vermont.

1800—Solomon Spaulding moves to Cherry Valley, New York, and engages in merchandizing till 1805, and marries Matilda Sabin.

1805—Imposter Joe Smith born Dec. 23, in Sharon, Windsor county, Vermont.

1807—Solomon Spaulding having failed in business moves to Coneaut, Ohio, and engages in business.

1808—He becomes very much interested in the mounds around Coneaut, and has several opened. He begins a historical romance, assuming that their builders were the descendants of shipwrecked Romans. His Manuscript No. 1. His Roman Manuscript.

1809—He abandons this idea as too near his own time and begins his Manuscript No. II. Mormon Manuscript No. I. He assumes that the aborigines of America were Israelites from Jerusalem. He fails in business and announces to his creditors, his purpose to publish his romance, as "Manuscript Found," and pay his debts.

1810-11-12—Spaulding continues to write on his romance, and to read to all that he can induce to listen to him. His monomania causes his neighbors to nick-name him "Old come to pass" on. account of the absurd frequency of that expression in his manuscript. He begins Manuscript No. Ill, Mormon Manuscript No. II, adding the Zarahemla portion. He moves to Pittsburg to prepare his manuscript for publication. A religious impostor in Vermont, creates much excitement in the neighborhood of the Smiths. Mrs. Smith is very active in the excitement, and prophecies, that Joe, then a lad of seven, will be a prophet, and found a new religion. Joe is reared with that idea constantly before him. The family are all taught it.

1813-14—At the advice of Patterson, Spaulding prepares for press his Manuscript No. IV, Mormon Manuscript No. III. It is carried to Patterson's office for publication.

Sidney Rigdon is learning the tanners trade in Pittsburg. He is very intimate with Lambdin a leading employee of Patterson. He is around the office so much, that Engles, the foreman, complains of it. He takes great interest in Spaulding's manuscript.

Spaulding moves to Amity, Washington county, Pa., and his wife keeps tavern. 1815—The Smith's move to Palmyra, New York.

1816—Spaulding informs Jas. Miller, McKee and Dr. Dodd, that his manuscript has been stolen from Patterson's office, and that Rigdon is blamed with the theft. Spaulding died October 20th, 1818. His widow collects his papers that she can find and takes them with her, in a trunk, to the residence of his brother, W. H. Sabin, Onondaga county, New York.

1817—Sidney Rigdon joins the Baptist Church on Piney Fork of Peters' Creek, May 31st. 1819—The Smiths squat on a piece of land belonging to minors in Ontario County, New York.

Rigdon studies theology with Rev. Clark of the Regular Baptist Church in Beaver County, Pa.

1819—Rigdon is licensed to preach by the Connequessing Baptist Church.

1820—Rigdon goes to Warren, Trumbull County, Ohio, where an uncle is a prominent member of the Baptist Church. He joins that church March 4th. He is ordained to preach by that church April 1st. Marries Phebe A. Brooks. Mrs. Spaulding, Spaulding's widow, goes to Pomfret, Connecticut. Rigdon preaches for the Baptist Church in Warren, and for others in the vicinity.

1821—Rigdon continues to preach for the Baptists in Warren. In this year, or in the year following, Mrs. Spaulding marries Mr. Davidson of Hartwick, Otsego County, New York, and goes there to live.

1822—Rigdon moves to Pittsburg. Is elected pastor of the First Baptist Church Jan. 28.

During this year or the year following, he shows to Dr. Winter, a prominent teacher in Pittsburg, a Baptist preacher, and an intimate acquaintance, Spaulding's Manuscript No. IV,





Mormon Manuscript No. III. He says: "It is a Bible romance, purporting to be a history of the American Indians, that a Presbyterian preacher named Spaulding wrote, and left with a printer for publication. I borrowed it to read through curiosity."

In digging a well for Willard Chase, Joseph Smith, senior, the father of Imposter Joe, found a stone of cloudy quartz, that singularly resembled a child's foot. Imposter Joe who was loafing around, stole it from Chase's children. This is the famous peep-stone of Imposter Joe, the Urim and Thummim of Mormonism.

Rigdon had stolen its Bible, now, Imposter Joe stole its Urim and Thummim.

1823—Rigdon preaches for the Baptist Church until Oct. 11th when he is excluded for doctrinal heresies. He goes to the Court House and preaches to his followers.

Imposter Joe begins his course as imposter. He pretends to witch for water with a witch hazel rod, and to find lost property and hidden treasures and mines with his stolen peep-stone by putting it into his hat and holding his face into his hat.

In September, while working for W. H. Sabin, where Miss Spaulding, Spaulding's daughter was living, with her father's papers in her care, Joseph Smith learns of the existence of the Spaulding manuscripts. This is the true interpretation of his wonderful vision of Sept. 23, 1823, when Moroni, now an angel, appears to him, and reveals to him the existence of the plates he—Moroni—had buried hundreds of years before, and lets Joe have a peep at them.

Joseph Smith manufactured that story twenty years afterwards in 1843. He told of no such vision then. The true interpretation is he learned of the Spaulding manuscript while working for Sabin in Sept. 1823. 1824—Mrs. Davidson has the trunk containing her husband's papers sent to her in Hartwicke, N. Y.

Rigdon preaches for his adherents until in the summer, in the Court House. He then quits preaching and works in a tannery, and begins revising his stolen manuscript. It was a period of great religious excitement and new parties were springing up continually. The excitement of the movement of the Campbells was beginning to be the chief topic in Western Pennsylvania. Rigdon had adopted some, but not all of their ideas. He saw he could not be a leader, in competition with them if he went into it. He conceived the idea of remodeling the Spaulding manuscript by interpolating portions of the Bible, and his own peculiar religious

ideas, pretending that it was a record kept by the Israelites, who came to America, just as the Bible was kept by Israelites in Asia, and was as much a revelation as the Bible.

He intended by such fraud to start a new religious movement with himself as prophet, and his stolen manuscript thus revised as its new revelation. 1825—Rigdon continues his revision of his stolen manuscript and works in the tannery.

Smith is in the height of his glory as imposter, He has a gang of loafing dupes and knaves digging through southern New York and northern Pennsylvania for buried treasures, mines of precious metals that he pretends to see through his stolen peep-stone. He extends his operations to Harmony, Pa. He makes the acquaintance of Emma Hale. Asks her hand in marriage. Is decidedly refused by her father on account of his bad character.

1826—In the latter part of winter Rigdon. moves to Bainbridge, Geauga county, Ohio. He spent so much time on. his stolen manuscript that his wife threatened to burn it. He replied; "that the manuscript would be a great thing some day." Smith is in full blast as imposter. He extends his operations until the extreme parts are 150 miles apart. The doings of Smith and his gang, and the peep-stone of Smith are extensively commented on by the press of the region.

In June Rigdon preaches the funeral sermon of Warner Goodall in Mentor. He pleases the church, and it selects him as pastor and he becomes a Disciple preacher.

1827—Smith goes to Harmony, Pa., in the absence of Mr. Hale, runs off with his daughter and marries her in South Bainbridge, N. Y. The ceremony is performed by Tarbell, J. P., Jan. 18th.

Rigdon tells Darwin Atwater that a book will soon appear giving an account of the aborigines of this continent and the origin of American antiquities.

He tells A. Bently that a book was about to be published that was found engraved on plates of gold. A. Campbell testifies that he said also that it was dug out of the earth in New York. It contained an account of the aborigines of this continent. That it said that the gospel had been preached in America just as the disciples were then preaching it on the Reserve, during the first centuries of our era.

Rigdon preached during this and the three succeeding year, the peculiar ideas that are in the Book of Mormon. He indoctrinated all of his hearers, that he could, with these ideas, and prepared for the coming of his new revelation.

In the spring of 1827 a stranger was ob-


served at Smith's house. Shortly after he made his appearance, the Smiths began to tell of the golden bible.

People of Mentor began to notice that Rigdon was often absent from home for days, and no one knew where.

Spaulding had intended to assume that his romance was a translation of a manuscript found in the earth. From 1818 to 1827, the papers contained accounts of finding glyphs of metallic plates, covered with unknown characters. In the spring of 1827, a story was started that a book of such glyphs had been found in Canada, and that it was called a "Golden Bible."

Rigdon adopted this idea, and the scheme was concocted to pretend that Smith had found a

book of gold plates called the "Golden Bible." Smith was to pretend to translate it with his peep stone, stolen from the Chases children. He was in reality to use Rigdon's revision of the manuscript he had stolen from Spaulding, and pretend that it was a translation of the plates that he pretended that he had found.

Smith informs Rigdon of the place where the rest of the Spaulding manuscripts could be found. The confederates dare not publish their fraud while they were in existence. In September, 1827, Smith was loafing around Mrs. Davidson's neighborhood, superintending a gang, digging for a silver mine, on the place of Stowell, and also a well or two were dug in the neighborhood.

September 22 he succeeded in stealing some of the Spaulding manuscripts. This is the true interpretation of his wonderful vision of September 21-22, 1827. They had now, they supposed, all the Spaulding's Mormon manuscripts in their possession, and they supposed all means of detection were destroyed.

Smith then began his pretended translation of his pretended plates.

In the fall Smith moved to Harmony, Pennsylvania, to his father-in-law. "While on the road his goods were searched twice for stolen property. His father's house was searched about the same time.

1828—Martha Spaulding, Spaulding's daughter, marries Dr. McKinstry and moves to Munson, Massachusetts to live.

Rigdon makes a convert of P. P. Pratt, a teacher in Lorain county, Ohio, who begins to preach for the Disciples. He lets Pratt into his scheme, who goes into it and eventually becomes the Paul of Mormonism.

Smith begins to translate. Martin Harris is his scribe. In July Smith let Harris have 118 pages to take back to Manchester to use in making dupes and enlisting confederates, in the fraud. Mrs. Harris who was bitterly opposed to the fraud, burned the 118 pages, without her husband's knowledge.

Great consternation ensues. Rigdon comes and gets the Spaulding manuscript that Smith had stolen and reconstructs from this the portion that had been burned.

Smith has a long revelation telling what had been done by malicious persons—telling what no one had done or dreamed of doing. Smith did not know what had been done, and the Mormon God concocts a plan to circumvent a scheme that had never been even dreamed of.

Smith returns to Waterloo, New York, in the fall. The angels plow seven acres of wheat and sow ten acres of plaster to enable Whitmer to go and move Smith.

(1829). In March Oliver Cowdery is made Smith's scribe. Rigdon comes and gives Smith what he has revised of the Spaulding manuscript, and translation proceeds.

May 5th, John the Baptist appears to Joseph and Oliver, and gives to them the keys of the first priesthood, etc. Smith has a cave dug in which to hold levees with angels.

Smith gives Harris a scrawl to take to Anthon in New York City. Harris returns and publishes a false statement about the interview.

Early in June the translation is completed. In about two months Oliver Cowdery, an inexperienced blacksmith, wrote out at least two thousand foolscap pages, or an average of over thirty pages per day.






GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I know you have been entertained with the story and the gossip that has been brought forward. The wonderful amount of testimony, too, that you have heard from those fourteen witnesses! Have you not been anxiously waiting here, and listening, and watching to have something read in the shape of evidence? Yet, you have not heard one single affidavit read, one single statement read, one single thing read that could with any show of truth be properly called evidence. It is the first time I ever heard a man get up and state what he had culled from statements, or purported affidavits, to an audience and ask them to take it as evidence, without hearing the entire statement of the party read, or if it is printed giving the reader the privilege of reading the entire evidence for himself. I will pick it out and select just what I want the audience to hear, and thus in fact stand as judge for the audience. That is the position of my friend before you. I will say, however, with regard to his story, (and "he has made out his case he says,) he is done now; just understand that:—that it is, with one exception, the most singular thing that I ever saw or heard. There is one gotten up that is a fair parallel to it, however,—one just like it. I have it in a book in my house, and intended to have brought it over to-night and exhibited to you, but forgot it. It was published by Alexander Smythe in Chicago in 1880. Instead, however, of being against the Latter Day Saints, it is against the early, or former day saints. The author sets out by making the apostle Paul the hero of the Christian religion. He plays him as the master mind of the whole scheme transacted in Palestine. He concocted the plan in order to establish a church and found a new religion in the time in which he lived. As a starting point and for the purpose of awakening the people to the scheme, this man says, that Paul procured a poor crazy fanatic, called John the Baptist, and sent him into the wilderness of Judea and had him preach a while to tell them that one who was then standing in their midst would soon come, and ho would be the Messiah and restore all things to them. After a while that one that was to be the Messiah is brought out to play his part, according to the tale. He was a relative of John the Baptist, he says. It happens, too, that the party mixed in a grain of truth here in order to deceive, as Christ was a relative. Then the story proceeds to the effect, that, after a while when the apostle Paul thought that he had used John the Baptist all he wanted to, he puts up a job on John and has Herod behead him. Then he has Jesus play the Messiah until the time that he thinks things are about ripe for to spring some great excitement in the world. All the time this author cunningly represents the apostle as playing behind the scenes, until Jesus has made himself well known, then he foists some horrid stories upon the ears of the populace in Jerusalem against the Messiah, and just at a time when he is approaching the city, (Jesus not knowing anything about Paul's perfidy,) and the excited people rise and put him to death. The Apostle Paul then steals his body and makes away with it; so the story goes. And after he had done that he starts down to Damascus, and all of a sudden the apostle gets converted to the new religion by a great miracle, and goes back in order to make a great sensation in the world, telling his wonderful experience; and from that time becomes the "ringleader." You take that book, my friends, and read it, published in the nineteenth century, in the year 1880, and observe the things that it takes from the Bible, excerpting here and there, in order to make a show of truth, and notice the ingenuity with

which the false statements are thrown in between, and then compare with his Spaulding story, and you will find that it is a far more plausible story than he has presented to you in trying to account for the origin of the Book of Mormon.

But he has chosen in this discussion to rely upon, as a defense, as I was just saying before my time was called, the Spaulding story, and character; either as a counter proof sufficient or as a means of prejudicing the people against an investigation of the facts. But whatever the object it matters not to me, for I shall canvass the story itself, and see what truth if any there is in it. Properly it does not belong to this question; as foreign to it in fact as were the stories and false charges of "deceiver," "gluttonous man," "wine bibber," &c., to ascertaining the truth of the mission of Jesus. Notwithstanding this, some want it examined,, and I assure you it is but an easy task to drag it to the bottom.

How bad indeed according to my opponent's arraignment was this Smith crowd. The old man, the old lady, the boys and the girls. One would gather from his talk that they had been under the general espionage of the secret service department all along down the previous century. Yet, no crime was ever even charged against one of them, except in the old women's tales and gossip, spun by the pious (?) of the neighborhood. From before the time they left the State of Vermont they were thought to be squeamish. Yet, the old lady brought with her to New York State, a certificate of good standing in the Presbyterian church. Were Presbyterians, and especially those of the old New England stock, in those times, immoral, impious, and Sabbath breakers? In New York, their sons Hyrum and Sam-







uel and their daughter Sophronia also Joined the Presbyterian church and were in good standing in that church during this time; yet they were awful bad folks. They quietly remained members of this body, which was considered one of the straightest sects, up to the year 1827, when they deliberately withdrew from it themselves because of their conversion, as they claimed, to the restored gospel. Joseph, an attentive listener at the Methodist church, and he is just about to be taken in as a member, when he happens to think that he will go and pray; —ask God what he shall do; for he is in a confusion of mind over what to do. My friends, have any of you ever been in such a state! and if so did you go to your heavenly Father to ask his advice?

Now this is the sum total of the crime of the fourteen-year-old boy at this time. He went and asked God for wisdom, and said the Lord spoke to him and told him what to do. It would never have been of note in the world about his asking, had he not stated that at the time he received an answer; and such an answer. What was it? "That the churches were not right." This was before Mr. Campbell ever left the Baptist church, sir, and while Charles and John Wesley were singing,

"Almighty God of love,

Set up the attractive sign.

And summon whom thou dost approve For messengers divine.

From Abram's favored seed, The new apostles choose;

Go. spread throughout the earth around.

The dead reviving news."

Was it any worse for young Joseph Smith to say these churches were wrong, and did not meet in full the measure of the Almighty than others? All! but he said God told him so, in answer to prayer. Well, did he never tell my friend anything in answer to prayer.

Answer me that, and do not forget it as you did at Wilber!! If Jesus or his messengers, did not tell him this, where did he get it? He was not the learned and scholarly man that you claim for Mr. Campbell; nor in a part of the world where he could gain from the wisdom of the Wesleys. Yet, he is the first of the age to come out boldly and frankly and say, "none of them are right." Not that they were wrong in all things, for he recognized that there was some good in each and all of them. But that none were all right—acknowledged of God. Sixty-three years have passed away and now who says it among the religious teachers? Mr. Campbell soon did; Walter Scott, Sidney Rigdon, Henry Ward Beecher. Dr. Thomas, Dr. Cheeney, Prof. Swing. W. H. H. Murray, and a host of others. And this, too, notwithstanding the great reformation wrought under Campbell. His might be termed the water reformation! Young Smith, as any young boy would have done under such circumstances, with confidence in his heart and faith in the justice of his cause, goes directly with his answer to his preacher, the pastor; states his case; and what would you have supposed the reception under the circumstances, of a person of his age going to the pastor with the story. "The Lord showed me in the vision that the churches were all wrong." Now take the opposite view. Suppose the answer to Smith had been, You join the Methodist Church, (there was no Campbellite Church in the world to this time), as that is more acceptable to me than the Baptist or Presbyterian. Do you think the Methodist preacher would have called the boy a liar, and said he had no such vision? No, you all know, he would have put young Joseph at the head of the converts, and had him testify every night. It makes a big difference whose ox is gored sometimes.

Why I remember well last winter reading an account of a lady in the Methodist church in Coldwater, Michigan, who claimed to be actually healed by the power of faith in that church, and the church accepted it. While the Saints at the same place for the last twenty years had been affirming that God so wrought with them and that they had had many instances of such blessings, yet they were looked upon as fanatical, unorthodox, superstitious, because of this belief. Is it because it did not happen in our church that we are to say:— "Oh, it is all stuff; they are a set of fanatics." But there is another thing that young Smith said the angel told him, that is more remarkable, if made up, than the other; it was a prophecy:—"That his name should be both good and evil spoken of among all nations, kindreds, tongues and people." How did this young boy know that his name should be spoken of among all people, every nation;—by his friends as being a good man and by his enemies as being an evil man? The prophecy is clear and distinct, the fulfillment is complete-no one to gainsay it. The wonderful statement made by the then boy and the subsequent fulfillment should cause the most incredulous to stop and think before he condemns. How did he know this? Take the greatest villain on the earth or the most worthy man, are their names, even in this later time of the easy transmission of news, known among all nations, kindreds, tongues and peoples. Strike the heart of Africa and the Mohammetan country, and they have all heard of Smith, and they hold him in one relation or the other. But go to the heart of these same countries and they have not even heard of the terrible character that struck down our President, who, it seems, in his iniquity, would have been known all over the world if any one possibly could by this means. And yet this young boy stated early in 1823 that the angel said to him that his "Name should be both good and evil spoken of among all nations, kindreds, tongues

and people. Can you point me to a prophecy in the Bible that has been more literally fulfilled?

Now I propose to examine my opponent's alibi, as he has rested his whole case upon that, and you watch and see if he is not driven from his "SPAULDING STORY" AND





CHARACTER!! I referred to the fact that this old falsehood was met and vanquished when it was first circulated in 1835 and 1886, and later in 1839 and 1840; but he replies that I must meet it here and not tell about what has been done. Very well, my affirmative arguments being in no way answered, lean well afford to meet it here; so now for the Spaulding story as a theory. Will you reply to my arguments upon this? We will see.

The following are the claims made for that:

First, That one Solomon Spaulding, a Presbyterian clergyman, about the year 1811, lived at Conneaut, Ohio, and being in poor health, for diversion in his invalid state, wrote a story and left it in manuscript form, which was like the present Book of Mormon, except as to errors.

Second, That from Conneaut, Ohio, he removed to Pittsburg, Pa., in 1812, and while there handed the manuscript of this story to a publisher by the name of Robert Patterson for examination and publication. Third, That the manuscript instead of being published was returned to Mr. Spaulding, and in the year 1814 he left Pittsburg and went to Amity, Pa., where he died in the year 1816, when his effects, including the manuscript, fell into the hands of his widow.

Fourth, That at the time the manuscript was in the office of publisher Patterson, one Sidney Rigdon was engaged at, or in some way connected with said printing office, and in some way got the manuscript and purloined the same.

Fifth, That Sidney Rigdon at the time, knew of Joseph Smith and had opportunity to get this manuscript to him, and

Sixth, That Rigdon being a preacher at the time did this in order to start a new church and have a basis for his scheme.

Before, during this discussion, I showed by the illustration of "a chain of title" to property, if the chain was perfect in all its, parts it would stand the test, but if faulty or disconnected by a single transfer it would not. In the examination of one's title if you are able to show that one link in the chain is not a true one, forged, or obtained through fraud, the whole thing is void. But in this pretentious claim of the Spaulding Manuscript, which he has set up, I am not only able to prove that one link is at fault, but that the entire chain is bad, and every link at fault; from the inception by Philaster Hulburt, who had been twice, as I have before shown, excommunicated from the Latter Day Saints for immoralities, to the conclusion of it as published and completed by Howe of Painsville, who had the Spaulding manuscript destroyed while in his hands. I enter upon the investigation with the hope that I shall have your candid and unbiased judgment in the consideration of the evidence.

First, did Spaulding ever write such a manuscript? I claim that he did not; and for proof of this refer you first to their own witnesses.

1. The manuscript Spaulding is said to have written was too meager a thing to in any sense compare with a manuscript that would make a book the size of the Book of Mormon.

2. The character of the "Manuscript Found," which is the one all rely upon as the romance,

was entirely different to the Book of Mormon.

3. He was such an invalid at the time it is alleged he wrote his manuscript, that it would have been impossible for him considering his circumstances in life, together with his broken constitution, to have written such a manuscript had it been possible for any man of his own knowledge to write such a one as the Book of Mormon, which I deny.

Taking up the first reason it will at once be clear to you that a manuscript written in the English language, as they concede Spaulding's was, to contain the amount of matter that is included in the strictly historical part of the Book of Mormon, would cover at least fifteen hundred pages of foolscap paper. Was the "Manuscript Found" such? The statements of those who claim they saw the "Manuscript Found," place it beyond doubt that it was no such. Mrs. McKinstry, the daughter of Solomon Spaulding in her evidence says, that she, "Read the manuscript frequently when she was about twelve years of age, and that it was about one inch in thickness." She read it frequently, so it could not have been very large. Then their other trumped up witnesses all, or nearly all, say they heard it read. Henry Lake heard it read. John N. Miller heard it read from beginning to end. Aaron Wright heard Spaulding read it, etc. Mrs. Matilda Spaulding, wife of Solomon Spaulding, states in her testimony published in the Illinois Quincy Whig, that it was about a third as large as the Book of Mormon and that her daughter (Mrs. McKinstry) read it frequently. Hulburt who was commissioned by Henry Lake, John Miller, Aaron Wright, et al. (Braden's witnesses), to go and get the Spaulding writing, went and got it he says, and the only one in Spaulding's hand writing which the widow had. That he delivered it to E. D. Howe of Painsville, who was writing the book to break down the Mormons, and Howe says, page 288, of his book in describing it, that, "The trunk referred to by the widow was subsequently examined and found to contain only a single manuscript book in Spaulding's hand writing, containing about one quire of paper."

Then according to the description of the manuscript itself by those who actually saw it, it must have been a very small affair indeed in comparison to the historical portion of the Book of Mormon. In fact there was no comparison of the one, to the other, whatever.

But Howe goes further with his description and shows the style, subject, matter, history, and all different. This brings us to notice that the second proposition in my statement is true. This agrees with Mrs.


Spaulding's description of the "Manuscript Found." In the letter to the Boston Recorder, she says: "He (Mr. Spaulding) was enabled (while writing this manuscript) from his acquaintance with the classics and ancient history, to introduce many singular names which were particularly noticed by people and could readily be recognized by them." Page 43, Smucker against the Mormons.

Then in the same letter she says: "Mr. Spaulding had a brother John Spaulding, residing in the place at the time, who was perfectly familiar with the work and repeatedly heard the whole of it read." What an easy thing my audience for a man to read repeatedly, a manuscript of two thousand pages: besides it must have been the most enticing novel ever written Just to think of repeatedly reading such a manuscript! Now I hope the friends won't be backward again about

giving me their names for a copy of this enticing book, that can be had for only one dollar and a quarter. And thrown in this letter is Braden's theory that Mr. Smith did all this copying, working, digging for money, traveling, studying, planning, delving,—what a lazy boy! in order to start a church. Ridiculous! Did you ever hear of such a theory? For men to work for years and years, and labor and hire men, and dig holes, and mine and sweat in order to get an excuse for starting a new church? Did not Mr. Campbell start a new church without any such an excuse? Did not Mr. Smith and Mr. Rigdon have as good a right to start a new church without all this as Mr. Campbell or Mr, Wesley or Mr. Luther or near a thousand others who have started new churches since the time of Christ? It seems to me that starting new churches is not confined simply to a few individuals; we have too many to admit of such an idea. And look everywhere you may and you cannot tell which is right unless you accept the doctrine which is taught in the New Testament, and abide by the rule, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him." But my friend does not accept that doctrine.

Then again, "the old neighbors were enabled to identify it by reason of the names taken from the classical authors and ancient history." Were enabled to identify it by reason of these historical and classical names! Here you have set out by Mrs. Spaulding herself how they were enabled to identify the work. What name have they got? Why he found one the other night, I believe it was "Mormon." It was a Greek word. Will you show me the word "Mormon" in Greek as used in the Book of Mormon?

Mr. Braden: Yes sir.

Mr. Kelley: You say you will but you will never do it. Mr. Braden: That is to be seen.

Mr. Kelley: There is such a term as Mormo that they think that the Greeks used just the same as we use the word "Mormon." But to any person who will think a moment it is evident there is not and never was the slightest connection. The word Mormo was used to denote a hobgoblin, bug-bear, object of fright, etc. Mormon was simply a man's name as used in the Book of Mormon, the name of a place of pleasure, etc., and in no sense as the Greek word Mormo was used The similarity of sound between the two when they are written in English argues nothing. I can show that words of similar sound, so far as that is concerned in different languages have no relation whatever either in derivation or meaning, and are never used by the people to indicate the same or similar things That idea about the Greek word Mormo being the root of the word Mormon as found in this book is simply ridiculous. A thing gotten up by certain persons and tried to apply to the word as used in the Book of Mormon to deceive the ignorant. But I will see when Mr. Braden brings it

But again: "Spaulding's manuscript represented an idolatrous people," they say The Book of Mormon does not The Spaulding "Manuscript Found" was delivered into the hands of this Dr. P. Hulburt who had got up all these lying affidavits, about Smith and the Book of Mormon and he takes it to Howe of Painsville, Ohio, the very place where they are trying to destroy the authenticity of the Book of Mormon Howe because he was mad about his wife and sister joining the church, and Hulburt because he had been cut off from the church,. —they take the manuscript under promise to Mrs. Davidson that they would publish and send her a copy and divide proceeds

„ and when she gets no returns she writes to them about it and they answer her: "It did not read like we expected and we did: not use it." How about the manuscript now? Traced right into the hands of the bitterest opposers of the Book of Mormon, by your own witnesses, and long after the publication of the Book of Mormon This is the manuscript story which they am claiming was

in the hand-writing of Solomon Spaulding who died before the publication of the Book of Mormon and whose hand writing could be identified by his manuscript sermons, as Mrs. Spaulding and Mrs McKinstry testified;—and from such a manuscript as this ten words preserved in Mr. Solomon Spaulding's hand-writing would have been sufficient to have identified the two, if the Book of Mormon was the same, beyond all dispute whatever—and these opposers with their statements and affidavits in their hands, deliberately destroy the "Manuscript Found," which they got from Mrs. Spaulding (Davidson) and maliciously publish their statements Here is "old come to pass," right in their own, hands in the year 1834. Now who is the imposter; the deceiver? But further, when it is first published that Mrs. Spaulding (Davidson) claimed the Book of Mormon, was a copy of the manuscript a gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Jesse Harper, visits at once Mrs (Spaulding) Davidson, Mrs.






McKinstry, and Dr. Ely, in Massachusetts, and interviews these persons, and writes his account to the Quincy (111.) Whig, a bitter anti-Mormon journal; stating that in the interview he asked and received answers to the following questions, to wit:—

Q. "Have you read the Book of Mormon?

A. I have read some of it.

Q. Does Mr. Spaulding's manuscript and the Book of Mormon agree? A I think some of the names are alike.

Q. Does the manuscript describe an idolatrous or a religious people? A An idolatrous people.

Q. Where is the manuscript?

A. Dr. P. Hulburt came here and took it, said he would get It printed and let me have one-half of the profits.

Q. Has Dr. Hulburt got the manuscript printed?

A. I have received a letter stating that it did not read as they expected and they should not print it.

Q. How large was the manuscript?

A. About one-third as large as the Book of Mormon."


(To Mrs. McKinstry.)

Q. "How old were you when your father wrote the manuscript?

A. About five years of age,

Q. Did you ever read the manuscript?

A When I was about twelve years of age I used to read it for a diversion.

Q. Did the manuscript describe an idolatrous or a religious people?

A. An idolatrous people.

Q. Does the manuscript and Book of Mormon agree?

A. I think some of the names agree.

Q. Are you certain that some of the names agree?

A. I am not,

Q. Have you ever read the Book of Mormon?

A. I have not."

Then the following interview with Mrs. McKinstry on April 4th, 1882, in Washington City:—

Q. "Mrs. McKinstry, have you the Manuscript Found, Mr. Solomon Spaulding is said to have written, in your possession?

A. I have not.

Q. What became of it?

A. My Mother delivered it up for publication to a Mr. Hulburt who came to our house in Mass, for it, bearing letters of introduction from my uncle, a Mr. Sabine, a lawyer in New York State.

Q. Why do you not get the manuscript again?

A I have sent for it but Hulburt claims he did not get any.

Q. Does Hulburt say he did not get any manuscript from your mother?

A. That is what he claims now.

Q. How do you account for the fact Mrs. McKinstry that your father, while being such a good man and a minister, should write such a bad book as the Book of Mormon?

A. "Well we never could account for that.

Q. Could you identify the manuscript was it now produced?

A. I don't think I could.

Q. Have you any of the old writings and manuscripts of Mr. Spaulding?

A. Yes, I have some leaves of his sermons.

Q. And with these you think you could not identify the manuscript?

A. No, sir, I think not. (Mrs. Col. Seaton, who is present at the interview.) Why yes, mother, if you have his writing you ought to identify it.

Mrs. McKinstry: Well, perhaps I could.

Q. Was it written on common foolscap paper or the clergymen note paper?

A. It must have been written on foolscap as they had no clergymen note paper in those days.

Q. How do you come to remember any of the names that were in that manuscript?

A. Well, I suppose I should not, but Mr. Spaulding had a way of making a very fancy capital letter at the beginning of a chapter and I remembered the name Lehi, I think it was, from its being written this way."

That is the way she identified it—on account of the word Lehi beginning with a very fancy capital letter. Suppose instead of being Lehi the word had been Levi. Would not the capital letter have been just the same and might there not have been the same fancy about it? And still a different thing altogether. Instead of being Levi, suppose it had been Lincoln. There would have been the same fancy capital letter. But perhaps I ought to read the evidence without comment, and make my comment afterwards, so I return to that. The question is asked:--

Q. "When did you first think about the names in the Book of Mormon and the manuscript agreeing?

A. My attention was first called to it by some parties who asked me if I did not remember it, and then I remembered that they were."

These parties were the old neighbors; Aaron Wright, Miller, etc.

Did you ever have a case in court, my friends? If so, did you ever know the man on the other side to go to certain parties and say, "Now, see here, you are a good friend of mine and I am in a

little trouble and I guess you know something to help me out. Don't you remember that a certain fellow upon a certain day said a certain thing?— And I will tell you what it was now, and see if you don't remember it?" Why! there is so much evidence manufactured in this country in that way that corruption is beginning to rule insomuch that it is thought that never in the history of the world before, did so much evil creep into courts of justice, by reason of the manufacturing of testimony and suborning of witnesses.


I again call your attention to the thought:— After her attention was called to it by these good, estimable, best citizens, etc., then she thought she remembered it.



Q. "Was you acquainted with Joseph Smith?

A. No. I never heard tell of him till I heard of the Book of Mormon.

Q. Was Sidney Rigdon ever about your father's house?

A. No, I never saw him."

August, 1883, is another important interview.

I will give the evidence of Mr. Howe, but not claim it as evidence if my friend upon the other side of the question will put him on the stand here for cross-examination. I want you to listen to his examination. It is as follows:—

Q. "Mr. Howe, did Hulburt bring the manuscript to you he got of Mrs. (Spaulding) Davidson?

A. Yes, he brought one; but it was not the one we wanted; it only told about some tribes of Indians and their wars along the lakes here and pretended to be the writing of some shipwrecked crew. It was the wars of the Winnebagoes, Chicagoes or Niagaries, I believe.

Q. Why did you not publish it?

A. Because it did not do us any good."

Now, who has got the stolen property that he has made such a parade over? These other parties who are seeking for evidence in order to show that Mr. Smith has stolen property in his possession go and get the original manuscript—the manuscript in the handwriting of Solomon Spaulding—in the penmanship of Solomon Spaulding, and they bring it here to Painsville, Ohio, and it is traced into the hands of Mr. Howe and Mr. Hulburt, the ones that are determined to crush out the faith of the church:—And what do they do? Publish it? Keep it? Preserve it? Oh, no! "They did not use it." Why did they not use it? The reason is too evident to require naming. Ten words preserved in Mr. Spaulding's handwriting would have been sufficient to have identified the two if the Book of Mormon was the same. And these opposers, both sworn enemies of Mr. Smith and the Book of Mormon, with their affidavits in their hands, deliberately destroyed the "Manuscript Found," which they rot from Mrs. (Spaulding) Davidson, and published their statements and affidavits, instead of the manuscript that they got. Mind you they got the "Manuscript Found," and the only one ever so called in fact, and 1 will show that they did. I know that Mr. Howe tried to make a dodge afterwards and say that Spaulding had another manuscript called the "Roman Manuscript," so my opponent says; but Mr. Howe last summer did not give it as the Roman Manuscript, and I am prepared to prove that he said it treated of some Indian wars

along the lakes here, too. And prepared to prove it with such testimony as will impeach him, so that if he will put himself under oath, I can send him to the penitentiary of Ohio for it. I have asked you (Mr. Braden) to put him on the stand here for examination and you dare not. I make these statements fearlessly, because I want the truth of this; one witness that heard him make such statement is upon the stand here now.

Now, who is the imposter, the deceiver?

But I will continue with Mr. Howe's statement of last summer: "What do you know personally about the Book of Mormon and the Spaulding story being the same?

A. I don't know anything.

Q. Why did you publish a work claiming that the Book of Mormon was the Spaulding Romance?

A. Because I could better believe that Spaulding wrote it than that Joe Smith saw an angel.

Q. Are those your grounds?

A. Yes, sir, they are; and I want you to understand that you can't cram the Book of Mormon down me."

No, sir! Not down him. He is on Mr. Braden's side.

Q. "Do you swallow the Bible?

A. That is my business.

Q. Have you not published a pamphlet which does not endorse the Bible?

A. Yes, I have." (Time expired.)





GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:—It is pretended that the plates were

shown to three witnesses early in June, and shortly after to eight more. A contract is made with E.

B. Grandin of Palmyra, to publish the book? Harris mortgages his farm to pay for printing, and in return has a monopoly of the new revelation, that is "the fullness of the gospel." He intends "to make money out of it even if it is a lie" he tells his wife.

The manuscript is carried to the printer with a great deal of torn foolery. Smith has two guards to protect his sacred person. The manuscript is to be seen only by the printer, and the elect. It is all to be taken out of the office each night by the elect.

Rigdon preaches more wildly than ever. Is absent from home much of his time. Some of his adherents in Kirtland adopt his community of goods, and organize a community, wash feet, etc.

1830—The Book of Mormon comes from the press in the latter part of the winter, with the name of Joseph Smith on it as "Auther and Proprietor." April 6th the first Mormon church is organized at Smith's in Manchester, N. Y. In June the first Mormon conference is held in Fayette, N. Y.

Rigdon attends for the last time the Disciple Association of Mahoning, held in Austintown. Here he makes his last effort to engraft his hobbies on to the movement of the Disciples. Campbell

exposes their extravagant unscriptural character. Rigdon preaches his famous sermon on "King Ahasuerus' horse" and leaves the Disciples forever, utterly soured and disappointed. He remarks to Mr. Austin of Warren: "I have done as much for the Reformation as Campbell or Scott, yet they get all the glory."

He goes back to Mentor, and sends for Pratt, who comes through Mentor in August, and goes from Rigdon straight to Smith, thirty miles off all public thoroughfares, travels a great distance, and reaches Smith's Saturday night, just as meeting begins, is converted, on the spot, and made a preacher of Mormonism the next day.

In October, Pratt, Cowdery and Whitmer come to Mentor. Rigdon pretends to be ignorant of the whole affair, and to oppose it for a day or so, then is miraculously converted by a silly vision. In December he goes to Smith in New York, preaches the first and only Mormon sermon ever preached in Palmyra. Is recognized as the "mysterious stranger" who has been visiting Smith during the last two years.

Mrs. Davidson, Spaulding's wife and widow, goes to Munson, Massachusetts, to live with her daughter, Mrs. McKinstry. She left the trunk that contained her husband's papers, all that she had of them, in her possession, in the care of her brother-in-law, Jerome Clark, of Hartwicke, New York.

1831—Joseph and Sidney get a revelation that the Mormons should move to Kirtland, Ohio, which is to be theirs forever. May 17th the Elders were sent out by twos. June 7th the first endowment given. The Rigdonites all over the Western Reserve fall in with Mormonism, and the imposture is in full blast.

June 17th, in obedience to direct revelation, Joseph Smith and a party start for Western Missouri to locate "Zion." August 3rd Joseph locates the corner of the Temple of Zion, three hundred yards west of the Court House in Independence, Missouri. Floods of revelations are poured out. A city with golden streets, a Temple that never had been equaled, and other wonders were to spring up in that generation.

1832—February 16th, Rigdon and Smith have a sky-scraping revelation. Rigdon mounts "King Ahasuerus' horse" and cavorts miraculously and generally all over the universe. March 22, Rigdon and Smith are tarred and feathered in Hirom, Portage county, by persons that have been swindled by their lies and for Smith's amours.

Joseph Smith visits Missouri. It is high time. By their threats and boasts, the Mormons had aroused the Missourians. They were also in a general row among themselves, over Rigdon's pet idea — community of goods.

1833—March 8th. In order to keep Sidney quiet, who finds that Joseph Smith, whom he expected to use as his tool, has gobbled all the results of their fraud, Rigdon is made councillor with root and herb quack, F. G. Williams, and the first Presidency is organized. July 23, Joseph Smith lays the foundation of Kirtland Temple. Citizens of Missouri extort a promise from Mormons that half of them will leave before January 1st, 1834, the rest before April 1. October 30th Missourians destroy ten Mormon houses. Mormons kill two Missourians and shed the first blood in the war.

1834—Feb. 20th. Joseph Smith starts on a fool's crusade, with a baud of men to Missouri. They find a skeleton in a mound in Pike county, Ills. Joseph



Smith has a grand old time revelating over it. This crusade which began and was carried on amid a flood of revelations so-called, and had been attended with suffering, sickness and death, ends in a fizzle in central Missouri. The fools that were not dead begged their way home.

Joseph Smith, whose head had been made giddy by his elevation from a loafing money hunter to that of a prophet, began to talk about the saints conquering the world, spoiling their enemies, ruling over the Gentiles, and announced that he would be the Mohammed of the century.

July 29th. Joseph Smith returns to Kirtland and finds the saints in a miscellaneous row. Sidney had just smashed things in his absence. He wanted the saints to build him as fine a house as the prophet had, and to give him a gold watch, and rig him up generally as fine as they had the prophet.

During this year a Mormon preacher had preached in Conneaut, Ohio, and read from the Book of Mormon. Solomon Spaulding's old acquaintances recognized his Manuscript Found. Squire Wright shouted out: "Old come to pass has come to life." There was great excitement over the discovery of the theft. D. P. Hurlbut who was getting up an expose of Mormon-ism, was sent by the citizens of Conneaut to Mrs. Davidson, to get the manuscript of her former husband, Solomon Spaulding. She gave Hurl-but an order authorizing him to go to Clark's, in Hartwicke, N. Y., where she left the trunk with her husband's papers, and get them.

Hurlbut gets a manuscript of the Manuscript Found, writes to Mrs. Davidson that he got it. He gives to those who sent him an entirely different manuscript. Lies and says that is all he obtained. He sells the manuscript of Manuscript Found to Mormons for $400 and goes to western Ohio and buys a farm. Never answers the letters of Mrs. Davidson and her daughter in regard to the manuscript he obtained.

1835—Feb. 14. The first quorum of apostles were ordained in Kirtland, and Young and Kimball were among the holy number. Classes of instruction and schools of prophets were established. Orson Pratt invents a new celestial alphabet for the saints. Why did he not adopt the reformed Egyptian from Smith's plates? Mormons have a craze of studying Hebrew. What need was there for that among people who had the gift of tongues? Rigdon delivers six lectures on faith. All their sense and the scriptural ideas in them are what he heard among the Disciples. They are about the only sensible thing in Mormonism—that is after Rigdon's Mormon stuff had been thrown out. Mormons have tried to rob Rigdon of the credit of being author of these lectures, and give it to Joseph Smith. Rigdon did the lion's work in bringing down the game and Joseph took the lion's share, and scarcely left to Rigdon the bones that the lion leaves for the jackal.

1836—Kirtland Temple finished at a cost of $40,000, dedicated March 29. Smith pretends that he sees the house full of angels—that a pillar of fire was seen on the temple—that outsiders heard a great noise—that caused them to flock to the Temple. That the Mormons spoke with tongues. That Jesus. Moses, Elias, — who was he, — and Elijah appeared to him, gave him keys of priesthood, which had been promised years before.

June 29. The Mormons in Clay county, Missouri, are requested to move to Davis, Jackson, and Caldwell counties, because they

the rights of the rest of the citizens. They wisely decided to move and do so, and are kindly treated by the Missourians.

1837—In January, Orson Hyde and Kimball are sent to England as missionaries.

In the spring the Mormon Wild Cat Bank is started in violation of law without a charter. The Mormons have a big hotel, tannery, mill, factory, big stores and big things generally. Smith and other leaders build fine houses, live like nabobs and dress like fops on other peoples' money and goods obtained by credit, fraud and rascality. Things are booming in Kirtland.

In November Joseph's Wild Cat Bank, his printing office, his big store, his mills, his big land speculation, blew up generally. Rigdon and Smith are fined one thousand dollars each for their swindling bank frauds. Print-ting office levied on and Smith declared insolvent with all his revelations.

The printing office sold. The Mormons burn the printing office and the Methodist church. 1838—January 12th, Smith and Rigdon light out in the night to escape the penitentiary for

swindling and fraud.

They arrive in Missouri in March. They scatter the saints over several counties in order to obtain political ascendency. The Missourians begin to be alarmed, when they see that the Mormons elect none but Mormons, and that their property and rights are taken from them, and Mormons will give them, no protection.

Smith who had tried to seduce a woman in Pennsylvania, and who had much trouble in Kirtland about his intrigues with beautiful sisters, now began to tell his confidents that he had received





a revelation in favor of spiritual wifery, Rigdon's doctrine.

Rigdon, Smith, Cowdery and other leading Mormons had practised lewdness and adultery and Rigdon defended it with his spiritual wifery. Now Smith told his intimates that he had received a revelation sanctioning it. He did not reduce his revelation to writing but he practised its ideas more openly.

This was one objection that Missourians urged to Mormons. Their loose conduct and family relations and the illegitimate children among them.

July 4th. Rigdon delivers his bombastic harangue, that the Mormons call "Sidney's Salt Sermon." He mounts King Ahasuerus' horse and cavorts, breathing defiance and destruction to Missourians and apostates.

The Danite Band is organized with Smith's sanction and authority, under David Patton, one of the twelve apostles. Dr. Arvard, a leading Mormon, instructs them that it is their mission to defend Mormons in their crimes, by lying, stealing, perjury, profanity and murder.

Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris and David Whitmer, the three witnesses charging with lying, stealing, counterfeiting and defaming Smith are cut off.

Orson Hyde, T. B. Marsh, W. W. Phelps and many other leading Mormons apostatize. They accuse the Mormons of stealing, murder and other crimes. They accuse Smith with planning and being active in the outrages of the Danites and the rest of the Mormons.

Sidney Rigdon and 84 other Mormons retort by accusing the apostates with many infamous crimes. Outsiders conclude that rogues have fallen out and decent people are learning the

facts. That both sides tell the truth on each other.

Several quarrels occur between Missourians and Mormons. The Mormons steal eighty stand of arms at Richmond, Mo. They fire on the inhabitants at Crooked River, and kill several. The inhabitants return the fire and kill Patton, the Mormon Commander.

Sept. 30. In retaliation for the murder of their companions, the militia massacre and outrage Mormons at Hahn's Mill.

The Mormons are driven out of Missouri. Are given homes, food, clothing and sympathy by the people of Illinois. This should be remembered. The citizens of the Western Reserve, Ohio, treated them kindly until Mormon conduct exasperated them beyond endurance.

The Missourians were glad to see their country settle up until Mormon outrages, insolence and crime enraged them. Then their conduct became outrageous, but Mormons began the trouble.

The people of Illinois were lavish in their kindness and favors. No emigrants were ever loaded with favors as were the Mormons by the people of Illinois.

Smith was arrested by the militia, who were determined to shoot him. He and leading Mormons handed over to civil authorities. They allow them to escape believing that to be the best way to get rid of them.

1839—March 25, Brigham Young and others relay the corner-stone of the Temple. The Elders cut off many that had been leading Mormons, for crimes they charged them with.

May 9. Smith goes to Commerce, Illinois. Dr. Galland gives him a great tract of land. Smith immediately gets a revelation that Zion is on his land. He calls the Mormons to his land, and sells to them what was given to him, and becomes uncommonly rich for that day and country.

September, Brigham Young and Kim-ball are sent to England. Orson Pratt does not go although revelation said he would.

October, Smith goes to Washington to get redress from the general government for wrongs to the Mormons in Missouri.

1840—April 21. The name of Commerce is changed by revelation to Nauvoo, which in Smith's reformed Egyptian means beautiful.

The Mormons began to build a temple at Nauvoo, although revelation had declared that a temple should be built in no other place than at Zion, near Independence, Mo.

October, Mormons petition for a charter. It is granted. They are given a charter granting them powers that no government but an absolute despotism exercises.

1841—February. The charter goes into operation. Nauvoo is organized an independent nation almost under it.

Nauvoo Legion is organized with Smith as Lieutenant General, and with as many Major Generals, Brigadier Generals and Colonels, as would have officered both armies in our civil war.

April 6. The corner-stone of Nauvoo Temple laid with great military parade, by Smith, although he had declared not ten years before that the only Temple that should be built and that speedily, was at Zion near independence, Mo.

1842—Smith sends his Danite assassin, Port Rockwell, as he said, "to fulfill prophecy"in assassinating Ex-Gov. Boggs of Missouri.

Smith and other leading Mormons practiced spiritual wifery still more openly. It leads to trouble between him and his wife. She drives his concubines out of the house.

1843—In January Smith uses Jacobs as a cat's-paw to try the mass of uninitia-



ted Mormons, in regard to polygamy.

Smith and Jacobs select all passages of the Old Testament that refer to polygamy, and publish them in the "Wasp" a Nauvoo paper, with comments, and special pleading justifying polygamy. It creates great excitement among the Mormons, that are not admitted behind the curtain of its mysteries.

May 11, 1843, Smith sealed to Eliza Pat-ridge, Emily Patridge, Maria Lawrence, and Sarah Lawrence, in the presence of Emma Smith, his wife, and Lovinia Smith his brother Hyram Smith's daughter, by James Adams a High Priest of Mormonism.

Smith hypocritically denied any connection with the doctrine avowed by Jacobs, and denounced it. But he had taught it to too many—had practiced it too long, and with too many—had sealed too many in polygamy, too many leading Mormons had practiced it too long, and too much for it to be concealed.

Too many others had learned of the practice and were eager to gratify their lusts as Smith had done, and as other leaders had done. Smith's wife and others had to be pacified and quieted,

July 12. Smith dictated to Wm. Clayton the infamy, that he blasphemously called "A Revelation in Regard to Celestial Marriage."

Joseph C. Kingsbury and N. K. Whitney took a copy of it. Then it was showed to Joseph's wife.

The indignant and outraged wife denounced it as from hell and burned it.

Kimball, Hyram Smith, Hyde, and at last the Pratts accepted it.

August 12. The revelation is accepted and indorsed by the twelve in High Council. 1844—February. Smith announces himself as candidate for the Presidency of the United States, to

the great delight of the Saints.

Trouble had been brewing between the Mormons and the people of Illinois, who received them so generously and kindly. The Mormons elect Mormons only to office in Hancock county.

They had the entire control of all administration of justice in Nauvoo. The rights of citizens were outraged and they could get no redress. They lost property and traced it to Nauvoo, and their attempts to recover it only exposed them to danger in Nauvoo, and to retaliation and injury from the Mormons.

Mormons were insolent and tried to drive Gentiles out of the entire country that they had control of. The law and the rights of the others were trampled on by Mormons, until the outraged people of Illinois rose in arms in self-defense.

In addition to this the testimony of Higby, Martha Brotherton and scores of others in regard to the pollutions of Smith and the leading Mormons in the Endowment "Rooms, and their polygamy or spiritual wifery, increased the indignation of an incensed people.

April. Smith tries to seduce Nancy Rigdon the daughter of Sidney Rigdon the author of the doctrine of spiritual wifery—the wife of Wm. Law—the wife of Dr. Foster and others. The incensed husbands and fathers start a paper the "Nauvoo Expositor" to expose Smith and his confederates in their infamies.

June. The first number contained the affidavits of sixteen ladies of the highest standing in Nauvoo, testifying that Smith and his confederates in infamy, leading Mormons, had tried to seduce them into lewdness called spiritual wifery.

Smith gets his tools in the council to pronounce it a nuisance and orders its destruction. Law,

Foster and others flee for their lives, Dr. Foster flees to Carthage for his life pursued by Danites.

He sues out a writ for Smith's arrest. Mormons prepare to resist. Smith refuses to obey the writ.

The State military forces propose to enter Nauvoo and take Smith. He flees. Marks and Smith's wife indignantly call him back.

Smith goes to Carthage declaring that his hellish spiritual wife doctrine had brought him into the condition in which he stood and would cost him his life.

The conscience-smitten guilty wretch meets his fate by assassination June 27, iii Carthage jail.

The mass of the Mormons follow the lead of the Twelve Apostles and that of Priapus Young and migrate to Utah.

Small bands follow the lead of Rigdon, Law, Cutler, Strang, and others during the years from 1844 to 1852.

1850—William Smith, brother of Joseph, calls a conference in Covington, Kentucky. 1852—June 1. A conference held in Beliot, Wis. through the efforts of J. W. Briggs. In October a conference held in Lafayette county, Wisconsin.

1853—In January the Committee of Elders of the Josephites issue a manifesto to reject polygamy. April 16. Conference in Lafayette county, Wisconsin. Nothing special seems to have been done. 1860—In April at the conference at Amboy, Illinois, Joseph Smith, son of the prophet—so called—took his father's place in that portion of the Mormons who called themselves; "The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints," who reject Priapus Young and his






1860 to 1884—the record is merely a record of Conferences and no important or startling events are to be recorded.

Unless it be the visit of Joseph III to Utah and his discussion in his paper with the Brighamites over the issue "Was Joseph Smith II the author of polygamy, and the revelation in favor of so called celestial marriage, dated July 12, 1843.

In this discussion Joseph III conies out badly worsted. While one may sympathize with his desire to rescue his father's name from infamy, the facts of history are against him.




I. Do you deny the clear and positive declaration of Mrs. 8. Spaulding, Miss Martha Spaulding, John Spaulding, Mrs. John Spaulding, Lake, J. N. Miller, Smith, Wright, Howard, Cunningham, Joseph Miller, McKee, Dr. Dodd, Jackson, and Sidney Rigdon to Dr. Winter, that Solomon Spaulding wrote a historical romance in Bible style? If you do, on what ground do you deny it? Do you deny that the witnesses gave such testimony? Do you impeach the witnesses? Do you rebut the testimony.

II. Do you deny the statement of the witnesses concerning the plot of the romance? That it was precisely as they stated it, the plot in one other book, and only one other, the Book of Mormon?

III. Do you deny the positive statements of Mrs. S. Spaulding, Miss Spaulding, J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, J. N. Miller, Smith, Wright, Howard, Cunningham, Jas. Miller, McKee, Dr. Dodd, Jackson and Rigdon to Winter, that it purported to be a veritable history of the aborigines of America?

IV. Do you deny the positive statements of Mrs. S. Spaulding, Miss Spaulding, J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Wright, Howard, Smith, Cunningham, that it attempted to account for the construction of the antiquities of America, by giving a veritable history of their construction?

V. Do you deny the statements of J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, Smith, J. N. Miller, Wright, Cunningham, Jack-sou, that it attempted to prove that the Israelites were the aborigines of America, by giving the history of such aborigines?

VI. Do you deny the statement of J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, J. N. Miller, Wright, Smith, and Jackson, that Spaulding gave an account of their leaving Jerusalem, to start their migration?

VII. Do you deny the statement of J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, J. 1ST. Miller, Smith and Jackson, that he delineated their journey by land and sea, until they reached America?

VIII. Do you deny the statement of Miss Spaulding, J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Smith, Cunningham, and Jackson that he represented Lehi and Nephi to be their leaders?

IX. Do you deny the statements of Mrs. J. Spaulding, J. Spaulding and Jackson, that they quarreled and divided into two parties, the Nephites and Lamanites?

X. Do you deny the statements of J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, and Jackson, that in the wars between the Nephites and Lamanites and between the parties into which these nations divided, there were awful slaughters, such as are unprecedented in any other wars?

XL Do you deny the statements of J. Spaulding, and Mrs. J. Spaulding that they buried their dead after the awful slaughters in great heaps, which caused the mounds, found in America?

XII. Do you deny the statement of Mrs. S. Spaulding and Jackson that after these slaughters, persons who were sole survivors wrote a record of their people?

XIII. Do you deny the statement of Mrs. S. Spaulding, Lake, and Jackson that the survivors buried the records in the earth?

XIV. Do you deny the statement of Mrs. S. Spaulding, Lake and Cunningham, that this history was found in the earth, where it had been buried:

XV. Do you deny the statement of J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, J. N. Miller; and Smith that it gave an account of the civilization, arts, sciences, laws and customs of the aborigines of America?

XVI. Do you deny the statement of J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, Wright and Rigdon to Winters, that these aborigines were the ancestors of our present Indians?

XVII. Do you deny the statements of Miss Spaulding, J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, Smith, Wright, J. N. Miller, Cunningham, and Jackson, that it contains the names Nephi, Lehi, Laban, Nephite, Lamanite, Mormon, Moroni, Zarahemla, etc.?

XVIII. Do you deny the statement that in every instance the names were the names of the same places and persons, with the same characteristics and history, as the names in the Book of Mormon?

XIX. DO you deny the statements of Mrs. S. Spaulding Miss Spaulding, J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, Jas. Miller, Smith, Cunningham, Jackson, and Rigdon to Winter, that it was written in scriptural style?

XX. Do you deny the statement of Mrs. S. Spaulding, J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Jas.

Miller, Lake, and Cunningham that the manuscript was rendered absurd by its beginning nearly every sentence with: "And it came to pass," "Now it came to pass"?

XXI. Do you deny the statement of Jackson that Spaulding got the nick-name of "Old come to pass"from this absurdity?

XXII. Do you deny the statement of Smith that one party left Jerusalem to escape divine judgments about to fall on the Israelites?

XXIII. Do you deny the statement of J. N. Miller that one party landed at the Isthmus of Darien, and called the land of Zarahemla, and traveled across the continent to the northeast?

XXIV. Do you deny the statement of Jas.



Miller and McKee, that in a battle between the Amlicites and Lamanites the Amlicites marked their foreheads with red crosses to distinguish them from their enemies?

XXV. Do you deny the statement that the Spaulding manuscript could have been used for a pretended revelation, an addition to the Bible?

XXVI. Do you deny the fact that there never have been but two books, the Spaulding Manuscript Found and the Book of Mormon, that had these features, that ever had a single one of them? How do you account for the fact that these two books agree in all these great features, and in all particulars, except the religious portion, as accurately as any author can reproduce from memory his manuscript, and more accurately than most authors, with but very rare exception could reproduce their manuscript? Do you claim that by miracle Spaulding wrote exactly what Joseph Smith had given to him by the angel twenty years afterwards?

XXVII. Do you deny that when a Mormon preacher read to a Conneaut audience portions of the Book of Mormon, that Spaulding's old acquaintances recognized his Manuscript Found?

Do you deny that Mrs. Davidson declared as she gave the MS of the Manuscript Found to Mrs. George Clark to read that the Mormon Bible was almost a literal reproduction of that manuscript?

XXVIII. Do you deny that Spaulding in the seven years prepared several MS several drafts of the story? That as James Miller, Miss Spaulding and Rigdon declare that he prepared and sent to the printer for publication a copy of his story?

XXIX. Do you deny Mrs. Eichbaum's statement that Rigdon was intimate with Lambdin and hung around the office of Patterson, where Spaulding's MS was taken, until Engles, the foreman, complained of it?

XXX. Do you deny the statement of Mrs. S. Spaulding that he took great interest in the story?

XXXI. Do you deny the statement of Jas. Miller, Dr. Dodd and McKee that Spaulding said that his MS had been stolen and that Rigdon was blamed with the theft?

XXXII. Do you deny the statement of Dr. Winter that Rigdon showed him the MS in 1822 or '3 stating that it was a Bible romance, written by Spaulding, a Presbyterian preacher, and left by Spaulding at a printers, and that he had borrowed it, as a curiosity?

XXXIII. Do you deny Mrs. Dunlap's statement that her uncle Rigdon had the MS and spent

so much time on it that his wife threatened to burn it, and he replied, £'It will be a great thing some day.

Do you deny Jeffrie's statement that Rigdon told him that he took Spaulding's MS from the printers and gave it to Smith to publish?

XXXIV. Do you deny that Rigdon foretold the publication of the Book of Mormon years before it appeared, to A. Campbell, A. Bently and D. Atwater—that it was dug out of the earth, engraved on gold plates, was a history of the aborigines of this continent, gave a history of the origin of American antiquities—that it said that the gospel had been preached in America in the first century of our era just as the Disciples were then preaching it on the Reserve?

XXXV. Do you deny the positive statement of Z. Rudolph and other old acquaintances that Rigdon was frequently absent from home for weeks while the Book of Mormon was being prepared for the press, and gave no account of where he had been?

XXXVI. Do you deny the statement of old acquaintances and neighbors of the Smiths, Tucker, Mrs. Eaton, Chase, Sanders and McAuley that Rigdon was seen at Smith's residence before the Book of Mormon appeared?

XXXVII. Do you deny that Rigdon preached as his peculiar hobbies the peculiar features of the Book of Mormon", the community of goods, restoration of spiritual gifts, millennial ideas, his old baptistic opposition to secret societies, etc., as Green J. Rudolph, Dille and others state?

XXXVIII. Do you deny that the Book of Mormon approves of what Rigdon approved of before its appearance, and condemns what he condemned?

XXXIX. Do you deny that where he differs from the Disciples the Book of Mormon differs from them, and that it is peculiarly bitter on those points?

XL. Will you tell us: Did Rigdon by miracle preach the doctrines of the Book of Mormon before it appeared? Or did he interpolate his hobbies into the MS he had stolen from Spaulding, when he was preparing it to be used as a pretended revelation?

XLI. On what ground do you assail the evidence? Do you deny that the witnesses so testified? If so, specify what witness?

XIII. Do you assail their character or attempt to impeach them? If so, specify what witness? On what ground?

XLIII. Do you try to rebut their testimony? If so, what witness do you attack? What rebutting evidence or witnesses do you introduce?

XLIV. Do you attempt to show defects in their testimony? If so, what witness do you assail?

What are the defects in the testimony of each?

Until Mormons answer these queries let them stop their brazen sneers at the "Spaulding story" that are almost idiotic in their lack of reason or argument. Kelly will not, dare not answer these queries. The Prophet, the three I'd Joseph dare not publish them in his paper and answer them in order one by one.





opponent on last evening he undertook to show you that he had been fair in reading from his papers as I have been in my argument. I claim that he ought to present in full his important statements and affidavits, especially so, since they ought to be in the argument if published, as they are not accessible to but few people; and that if the statements in full are presented I claim they bear the stamp of condemnation upon their face. To permit him to read a small portion here, and then run the entire thing in the book would not be fair either, as that would give him an undue advantage in space, (and time consequently) in the discussion. Besides, it would not be his matter in fact and I would have no opportunity of reviewing it here, and a statement or affidavit which he relies upon and wishes his hearers to, in making his affirmative statements good I claim he ought to introduce in full.

He turns around and says: "Kelley has done that all the time. Hasn't he read a bit here and another bit there from the Bible?" Now if I did that, without reading or introducing sometime the full connection, I did not do right. But I deny that I have scrapped in this manner. When I have read to you from the Bible I have read to you the full connection. But this is different from his affidavits or statements in more ways than one. All persons have the Bible at hand so that when a passage is cited they can turn and read for themselves. Again there is no contest on the Bible here. We have agreed that it is the standard of investigation, and I abide by it as heartily as he. Not so with his purported statements and affidavits.

They are not admitted, but absolutely denied, and to come then and stand the test as evidence they must appear in full, with time, place, circumstances, and reasons for making, etc. At best, they are such a doubtful class of proofs that the rules of evidence regard them with grave suspicion from any standpoint, and courts pay very little if any regard to them. They are not in their character to be considered in the nature of reliable evidence. Then we ought to have in this discussion a full, fair look at them. Last evening in my introduction of evidence I read several full statements. There were one or two statements of witnesses that I merely referred to, but not those upon any very important matter. I wish to state another thing before entering upon the argument. I have objected throughout this discussion to his manner of misrepresenting my views to the audience under the cloak of pretending to tell what I believe. Some of you may have thought that I was particular about this and that it was simply because I claimed the right to represent my own belief and views and those of the Latter Day Saints that I have so strenuously objected. But this is not the fact. The real reason is, because I see my opponent is laboring under a mania. It is an old habit I find of Mr. Braden of misstating or at least of misunderstanding the views of others. He misjudges evidently others from reading their views. I have before mo A. Wilford Hall's Microcosm, one of the ablest journals that is published in the United States; and the editor, A. Wilford Hall, Ph. B., in reviewing an article of Mr. Braden in the January number, 1884, says:—

"We simply state for President Braden's information, that we never taught or thought of teaching any such doctrine as he has attributed to us. We never once intimated or even thought that matter was made out of spirit. We never thought of teaching that God took a portion of his spirit and condensed it into a material world. We never dreamt of teaching that there are but two substances in the universe, much less one, and that these two substances are spirit and matter. We hold, on the contrary, and distinctly teach that there are many essentially different substances in the universe under the general classification of material and immaterial entities, and that, spirit essence belongs among the immaterial substances of nature. How President Braden could deliberately assert and repeat it in different forms of expression about twenty times that we teach but one substance,— spirit,—and that matter came into existence by the condensation of spirit, is a mystery we leave the reader to solve."

Now, I read this to show you that sometimes he misapprehends and misstates other men's meaning, and I want him to be more careful when he undertakes to give my views to the audience, or be patient till I give them myself. If he does not, I shall bring some very serious things against him here, too.

When my time was called upon last evening I had just finished reading the statement of Mrs. Solomon Spaulding, her daughter Mrs. McKinstry, Mr. Howe, and a second account of Mrs. McKinstry, the only persons of whom we have any account who ever had knowledge sufficient to testify as to the character of the manuscript Mr. Spaulding wrote except Hulburt;—reading from the statements of the witnesses to show what kind of a manuscript, if any, Spaulding ever wrote. What do these witnesses' statements show as thus read, giving them full credit,—and they are all bitterly partizan and prejudiced against the Saints?

1. That the manuscript they claim Solomon Spaulding wrote was about one-third as large as the Book of Mormon.

2. That this manuscript contained many singular names from the classics and ancient history not one of which is common to the Book of Mormon, or in any way similar.

3. That the Spaulding manuscript treated of an idolatrous and not a religious people.



4. That it was a speculation as to the "ten tribes" having come to this country.

5. That neither of the persons who actually saw the Spaulding manuscript could identify a single word in it as being like the Book of Mormon.

6. That the manuscript, whatever it contained, they gave to Mr. Hulburt who gave it to Howe, these being the two who were trying to get up a work against the Mormons.

7. That afterwards Hulburt and Howe wrote back word that they did not use it because it did not read as they expected.

Now I will introduce Hulburt's statement as published by another enemy of the book, Mr.

Patterson of Pittsburg. Hulburt writes:

"GIBSONBURG, OHIO., Aug. 19, 1879.

"I visited Mrs. Matilda (Spaulding) Davidson at Monson, Mass., in 1834, and never saw her afterwards. I then received from her a manuscript of her husband's which I did not read but brought home with me and immediately gave it to Mr. E. D. Howe, of Painesville, Ohio, who was then engaged in preparing his book, 'Mormonism Unveiled," I do not know whether or not the document I received from Mrs. Davidson was Spaulding's 'Manuscript Found,' as I never read it; 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 Mormon-ism, to Mr. Howe. I did not destroy the manuscript nor dispose of it to Joe Smith nor to any other person. No promise was made by me to Mrs. Davidson that she should receive any portion of profits arising from the publication of the manuscript if it should be published. All the affidavits procured by me for Mr. Howe's book, including all those from Palmyra,

N. Y., were certainly genuine. D. P. HULBURT."

With this I refer you to the statement of Mr. Howe, Hulburt's partner in the business of publishing the story, as made by himself, see Mormonism Unveiled, page 288, as follows:

"The trunk referred to by the widow was subsequently examined, and found to contain only a single manuscript book in Spaulding's handwriting, containing about one quire of paper. This is a romance purporting to have been translated from the Latin, found on 24 rolls of parchment in a cave on the banks of Conneaut creek, but written in modern style, and giving a fabulous account of a ship's being driven upon the American coast while proceeding from Rome to Britain, a short time previous to the Christian era, this country then being inhabited by the Indians. This old manuscript has been shown to several of the foregoing witnesses who recognize it as Spaulding's, he haying told them that he altered his first plan of writing, by going farther back with dates, and writing in the old scripture style, in order that it might appear more ancient. They say that it bears no resemblance to the 'Manuscript "Found." "

It was never taken back to Mrs. Spaulding, the widow, or to Mrs. McKinstry, the daughter, from whom it was obtained, and the only persons in existence competent of identifying the 'Manuscript Found,' but carried up to a few of the 'old neighbors,' who were at war with the Saints, and who said they heard the 'Manuscript Found,' read twenty-three years before, for identification.

They say, says Howe, it bears no resemblance to the manuscript. But it is evident that they lied, if they said so, for Howe who read it says:

"This is a Romance, purporting to have been translated from the Latin, found on 24 rolls of parchment in

a cave on the banks of Conneaut Creek, but written in modern style, and giving a fabulous account of a ship's crew being driven upon the American coast while proceeding from Rome to Britain a short time previous to the Christian era, this country then being inhabited by the Indians."

"Found in a cave." This is the very manuscript remember, that they have claimed all the time that Spaulding wrote, traced right into Mr. Howe's hands—the one that was "found in a cave," so said. It proves itself to be the Manuscript Found, the very one they got, and the very one they made way with, as I will show you, lest it should spoil their little game.

The truth of the matter is very clear;— Hulburt and Howe in their madness had before this, skulked down to Conneaut, and over into Pennsylvania with statements for a few of these ready witnesses who were embittered against the Saints, (for a large number of people had accepted the faith about Conneaut, Mantua and other places, and thus made the sects rage), got the parties to sign their stuff which they had garbled from the Book of Mormon, and afterwards when they got the Spaulding manuscript they went back to see what the trouble was,—it did not read right. As might have been supposed the witnesses were caught; they could not deny that it was Spaulding's manuscript, too clear a case for that; Hulburt had been and got it right from the Mrs. Solomon ( Spaulding) Davidson herself: What do they do? Invent another lie to get out of the first, by saying: "Spaulding told them that he had altered his first plan of writing by going farther back with dates, and writing in the old scripture style in order that it might appear more ancient." Did you ever!! Right out of the book that Braden fats on!!! Spaulding is made to go to each one of these witnesses, or they come to him, that he may tell them he altered his first plan of writing and he a stranger to them as it were, for all the time he was in that part of the country was but two years. Well, had they known his first style? If so, why did they not state something about it before they were caught? And how came it that they never struck upon this modern style while they read the Spaulding manuscript so much, which they try to foist upon the world? A man that will take up and believe this contradictory and abominable stuff gotten up by a set of conspiring fanatics and tools more than three years after the publication and sale of a work they are trying by this very means to break down, and with that work right in their hands to draw their names from as admitted in their statements, se

with the class of people the apostle speaks of, as living in the last times when such a message of truth as the Book of Mormon contains should be presented to the people, who would oppose the work, the truth:—

"With all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of

the truth that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 These. 2:10, 11,12.





Men must examine a message from the true standpoint, God's standard: "He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Bon." Don't break God's law by speaking mean and slanderous things against those who differ from you in religion; there is neither sense nor argument in it. "Speak evil of no one." "Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them;" and know assuredly, that, "whosoever transgresseth [this law] and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, he hath not God." So says the apostle John, and so say I! The Book of Mormon is presented to the world and claims to be the truth; it is presented to the people as such and demands a fair investigation. As in every age of the world when God has sent a message, Satan can't stand to see the word, the truth, take root in the heart; so he begins on stories, and character, manufacturing and multiplying scheme after scheme, falsehood after falsehood, until in this instance the Spaulding "Romance," came along, not even claiming to be a thing of truth, but a speculative lie,—theory-; and the people who are too self-righteous and fanatical to believe the truth, at once drink in the theory of the "Romance."

The evidence from their own witnesses is complete in showing one thing, that is, that Spaulding never wrote an article of any kind that would in size, character, style, sense, taste, sentiment, or in any manner compare with the Book of Mormon. But how about "old come to pass," says one. Like the pretended remembrance of the names Lehi and Nephi, the false story of it was put into these witnesses' mouths and they thought it a smart thing to say; that is evident to a man who will think. Why should they so persistently call Spaulding "old come to pass?" Turn to the Bible, in almost every part it abounds with the expression. In some parts of St. Luke's gospel it is as frequent as in the Book of Mormon. How could it receive the title of "old come to pass," from singularity, when the expression was already a familiar one? Such a statement is only equaled by the brazenly one put into the mouth of Henry Lake of the La-ban account. "I pointed out to him what I considered an inconsistency, which he promised to correct; but by referring to the Book of Mormon, I find to my surprise that it stands there just as read to me then." Did you ever hear the like my friends? Where is the inconsistency this wise man pointed out, who although he had not seen or heard anything in the Spaulding Romance in twenty years, pretends in twenty minutes reading to detect it by the same passages which Mr. Spaulding had read to him; only think, just read to him, more than 23 years before. Take another of Braden's witnesses, John

N. Miller, the fellow who worked for Lake, another of their holy crowd. Twenty-two years passed away with no word from the manuscript, and then ho remembers the names Nephi, Lehi, Moroni, Zarahemla, (the entire book they have here; the first part, middle, and last part where the name Moroni is found) and he has the history so well that Braden says, "the average Mormon preacher," and I suppose he refers to me by this, "could not to-day give it better." No, sir! But this

smart John Miller can give it from having read it in the old manuscript twenty years before. And Braden drinks it down! What a wonderful Miller this was! Can't you give us a, further clue to his life and services to his country? But stop, my friends! He further testifies. Let me read:—"He (Spaulding) said that he designed it as a historical novel, and that in after years it would bo believed by many people as much as the history of England." There! Can you beat that? And yet there is to be no more prophets! This is Braden's prophet. I might thus fake up and show the duplicity, cheek, falsehood and spuriousness of every one of these, said to be statements, but I shall not so dispose of my time. They are all effectually, fully and completely set out and accounted for beyond a doubt by any man who wants the truth in another manner, and which I shall soon present you. I am asked to answer the question, How will you dispose of them? "Attack their character?" What! Don't he yet know me well enough to know, that I will not make of myself a bird of carrion to pass over all proper and respectable ways of testing a matter, to gather from the sepulcher of the dead and rotten? I too highly respect the Bible and the Christian religion, as well as myself, for this. If character is to be the test and that proven by one's enemies, our Bible is not worth a straw; the entire list of writers will go down in the mire. And should we test the issue of Bible writers on character by the admissions of friends, one half of our inspired men of the Bible would go down. No sir; I have from the first taken such grounds, that I could maintain my faith clear through, in the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon. Consistency is a jewel to be admired. Who is so blind as to not see that if character is to be the test, that is to try the faith of the Saints, and that character proven by their enemies, the same rule must be followed in trying others also. The position is more desperate than was entertained by ancient heathens. "The good that men do" says Mark Anthony over the dead body of Caesar, "lives after them, the evil is oft interred with their bones; so let it be with Caesar," But Braden says, let us find some evil and perpetuate that. Character! What would he accept as good under his rule? Nobody ever lived of prominence in God's work who has not been slandered and berated. Doubtless many things, too, were true against the early Christians; they were true in part; so admitted in the Bible. But I am not a teacher of the doctrine of infallibility in mankind. I believe with Jesus that none are good, (except God), "no, not one." Now his long abuse and misrepre-


sentation of the characters of Mr. Smith, Rigdon and others last evening is entirely foreign to the question under discussion. Suppose they did do wrong and many absurd and foolish things! what weight can that have in determining whether the part God is said to have done is wrong? Try this matter upon its merits. I do not, nor does the church of which Mr. Smith was under divine Providence the founder, claim for these men perfection. Many of the things that he stated about these men and what they did may be true; but as to the majority I am satisfied they are as false as hell itself. And the list which he calls his "Mormon Chronology," is dotted about occasionally with a fact, that he may thereby hide the deformity of a hydra-head, which he hopes to force upon the people. But his chronology as a whole is a brazen piece of deception and of false statements, drawn from such works as Howe, Tucker, &c. Suppose I take up Mitchell's history of the United States and read the infamous story recorded against the character of John Wesley in Georgia,

charging a crime against that religious teacher more heinous than any ever made against Smith, how would it affect the Methodist religion? Suppose I take John Calvin, who permitted one of his own adherents to be burned at the stake because he differed with him on religion. Suppose I take the case of the great reformer Luther, and the noble Melancthon, and show that they consented to one of their members entering into polygamy, the great Luther actually performing the marriage ceremony! Shall I thrust it in the face of the Lutheran Church upon a trial of their faith? I know this was done by certain parties this last Fall upon the return of the 400th anniversary of the "Pious monk," but how despicably mean and spiteful it seemed to thinking men and women! The rule is wrong. We must get upon a higher plane. Who wants to take the office of "the accuser of the brethren?"— Gathering and sowing the evils spoken against men. Enter the mission of Satan in the world! No, sir; not me. Don't need to ask me, if I will try to hunt up your witnesses' character, unless I had those same witnesses where they could face the ones they are accusing, and they in turn could face their accusers. This is demanded in decency. Why! do you suppose if I was debating with an infidel I would rake up the past life of Col. Ingersoll? Is that what you call impeaching character? To go and rake up all you can find about a man and peddle it—send it forth—publish it. That is the way they slander men, but not the way they impeach them. Suppose an infidel should attack the character of the writers in the Bible in the same way, and they often do, would I then resort to such a course? No, sir. Such a contest would be decided upon the ground of who could get hold of and tell the biggest falsehood, and I would engage in no such littleness. But I have already devoted more time to this than it deserved. It has been because I did not know but possibly some one present might think there was a little argument in such a tirade as we heard from the negative last night, and for that reason only, I have noticed it. As for myself I could listen for weeks at such abuse and vilification if necessary with simply a sense of pity and shame for the one who spins it. But I shall now finish my review of the "Spaulding Romance," and every one of his witnesses' testimony, and then each evening I shall have new matters of evidence on the question under discussion, and many that have never been presented to any audience. Here I might ask the question, Do you still want proof that Spaulding never wrote a manuscript like the Book of Mormon, in any sense, or feature? The total basis for all of their huge stories and false statements about "Spaulding's manuscript," was this one thing:—Spaulding, who came to New Salem, now Conneaut, Ohio, and remained for about two years, first representing himself as a preacher, then a dealer in real estate, and thirdly undertook to erect a "forge," (in all of which he failed, and suddenly left, leaving his debts unpaid, so stated by their own witnesses), at one time during his stay at New Salem, told some parties that he had found an old manuscript in a cave on Conneaut creek, which gave an account of a long lost shipwrecked crew on the American coast, and it would be greatly interesting when published, and he would be able to make a raise of enough money to pay all his debts and be independent. He wanted a little more money out of them so he could go to Pittsburg and have it published. He roped in a few and left, but instead of getting up the startling publication, he stayed but a short time in Pittsburg and went to Washington county, Pennsylvania, where he died in 1816. He never, however, reported to his creditors and they were left in the suds, waiting for a check from the broken-down clergyman. Twenty-one years pass away, and no tidings. In the meantime the Book of Mormon is published and is making a great excitement in the world, and these duped creditors of Spaulding's begin to think of the startling shipwreck tale, of which Spaulding had told them he would make his fortune; and they got hold of a copy of the Book of Mormon and the base Hulburt, who had been cut off from the Church of the Latter Day Saints; got out their statements and sent Hulburt after the

Spaulding manuscript. This they found carefully laid away in the trunk of Spaulding's widow, and it is brought back by them and put into the hands of Editor Howe, of Painesville, Ohio, who reads it and finds no resemblance whatever to the Book of Mormon. Howe says, page 288 of his book entitled "Mormonism Unveiled:" "This is a romance, purporting to have been translated from the Latin, found on twenty-four rolls of parchment, in a cave, on the banks of Conneaut creek, but written in modern style, and giving a fabulous account of a ship's being driven upon the American







coast while proceeding from Rome to Britain, a short time previous to the Christian era, this country then being inhabited by the Indians."

Here is the Spaulding tale in a nutshell! The whole thing entirely different from the Book of Mormon; the style, dates, names, peoples, and all. The whole thing as foreign to the Book of Mormon as heaven to hades, but it is the little nit from which the enemies of Mr. Smith hatched this terrible "Spaulding Story."

This is his alibi. How I ask you, does his evidence stand upon the first point? Did Solomon Spaulding ever write a manuscript like the manuscript of the Book of Mormon in any sense? I say the evidence from his own witnesses is against him and ask him to now meet the issue he has made.

But he does not only have to show this, but to show also:

2nd. That Rigdon and Smith in some way stole it and that Smith used it.

3d. That Rigdon knew of Smith and the Book of Mormon before the book was published in 1830, and was connected with the two in some way.

4th. That Parley P. Pratt did not bring a copy of this book and present it to Rigdon while Rigdon was a Disciple Preacher, and then and there, in 1830, Rigdon first knew the contents of said book.

In beginning upon the second proposition, I am reminded of the story that is told of the absent juror. He had been subpoenaed to attend a session of court; but when the day arrived and court was called, he was not there; and the judge abruptly demanded to know the reason. The juror's friend arose and said there were several reasons. And proceeded to give them. The first is, he said, that the man is dead. There! that is enough, said the judge, you need not give any more.

Now it seems to me that if I have shown you clearly that Spaulding never wrote such a manuscript as the Book of Mormon, or one that had any resemblance to it, from their own witnesses, that ought to be enough on this; but lest some one may yet have a doubt I will produce some further evidence. First a letter from Sidney Rigdon to the editors of the Boston Journal.

"COMMERCE, May 27th, 1839.


There was no man by the name of Patterson, during my residence in Pittsburg, who had a printing office: what might have been before I lived there I know not. Mr. Robert Patterson, I was told, had owned a printing office before I lived in that city, but had been unfortunate in business and failed before my residence there. This Mr. Patterson, who was a Presbyterian Preacher, I had a very slight acquaintance with during my residence in Pittsburg; he was then acting under an agency in the book and stationery business and was the

owner of no property of any kind, printing office or anything else, during the time I resided in the city. If I were to say that I ever heard of the Rev. Solomon Spaulding and his wife, until Dr. P. Hulburt wrote his lie about me, I should be a liar like unto themselves."

Rigdon is emphatic, when he talks, you know, because many of you used to hear him talk.

"Why was not the testimony of Mr. Patterson obtained to give force to the shameful tale of lies? The only reason is, that he was not a fit tool for them to work with: he would not lie for them; for if he were called on, he would testify to what I have said. This Hulburt once belonged to the Methodist Church, but was excluded for immoralities. He afterwards imposed himself upon the church of Latter Day Saints, and was excluded for using obscene language to a young lady, a member of said church, who resented his insult with indignation, which became both her character and profession. After his exclusion he swore —for he was vilely profane—that he would have revenge, and commenced his work. He soon found assistance; a pious old deacon of the Campbellite church, by the name of Onis Clapp, and his two sons, Thomas W. Clapp, and Matthew S. Clapp, both Campbellite preachers, abetted and assisted by her Campbellite preacher, by the name of Adamson Pently. Hulburt went to work catering lies for the company. Before he got through, his conduct became so scandalous that the company utterly refused to let his time go out with the lies he had collected, and he and his associates had made, and they substituted the name of E. D. Howe. The change, however, was not much better."

Then he refers in terms to Mrs. Matilda Davidson, but it is not material and I have not it copied in here. I will read it if necessary.

"A man of character would never have put his name to a work which Hulburt was concerned in. The tale in

your paper is one hatched up by this gang from the time of their expulsion."

Respectfully, S. RIGDON."

From the strong language of this letter it is easy to see that Mr. Rigdon had been maligned by the Campbellite, the people with whom he had formerly been connected—to such an extent that it was almost impossible to bear it any longer; and the reason of this was simply because he saw fit in the honesty of his heart, to step out and embrace what he believed to be a better and higher religion than was to be had by remaining with his Campbellite brethren. Hence it is, that when he speaks, it is with that sternness and force, what was a terror to his maligners.

Heretofore they have generally told about Rigdon working for Patterson, but Braden has seen this go to the wall once, as he did also his "woman preacher story," at Wilber, Neb., so he has deftly yelept it this time; that is better than no fairness; when you are driven clear to the wall drop it; and if he was not so eager to grab at something else he would improve in the world much better.

This letter of Rigdon's effectually shows that he never worked in a printing office in Pittsburg; that Patterson had no such office when he was there to his knowledge, and was not engaged in the business of printing; and, referring to Mr. Patterson, who was at the time a Presbyterian preacher, as a man who would corrobrate this statement. Afterwards Patterson does corroborate it. Rigdon says, the first he ever knew of the Book of Mormon was in the year 1830, when a copy was handed him by a minister of the Latter Day Saints by the name of P. P. Pratt.

(Time called.)





GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:—Mr. Kelley told you last night that Mrs. Smith, the mother of Joe Smith, and some other members of the family brought letters from a Presbyterian church in Vermont and joined the Presbyterian church in Manchester, New York. In the life of Joseph Smith by his mother she says she allowed herself to he baptized in Vermont, but refused to join any church; that she rejoiced when the Mormon church was started, that she then found a church that she could join. Not a Smith ever belonged to a church in. Palmyra. Not a Smith ever belonged to the Presbyterian church in Manchester, for there was no Presbyterian church in Manchester until 31 years after the Smiths left Manchester; not one of the Smith family ever belonged to any church until Mormonism was started, for although very superstitious, they were noted for their neglect and disregard of the church and all things connected with religion. That statement of my opponent is one of those statements sometimes said to be made out of whole cloth. My opponent forgets that his talk here will be stereotyped into a book and will stand for generations when he makes such reckless misstatements as he did last night.

The reader will read in my argument that I introduced Priest's "Wonders" to show that the idea that the aborigines of America were Israelites was hundreds of years older than the Book of Mormon, and a widely believed theory, and that I said not a word on "mounds" or "antiquities" in connection with that book. He will then read Kelley's statement that I introduced it to off-set his argument on antiquities and ask himself. "What does the fellow mean by such reckless assertions?"

He will read my statement that if the Nephites were circumcised Israelites they belonged to the same fold as those Jesus was addressing and could not be the other sheep not of that fold; or if they had abandoned circumcision they were no longer Israelites and the prophecies Kelley quoted could not apply to them, and then read with amazement that I said or hinted that they were not circumcised. I never said so for there never were any Nephites to be circumcised. The reader will read Kelley's assertion that I introduced no witnesses, read no testimony, and then turn back and see in different type from my speeches the testimony of 29 witnesses—see that I read the testimony of some witnesses two or more times: that I had read more of Mrs. Davidson's testimony than he did: longer portions from several witnesses than he did from any that he introduced; I introduced and read testimony just as he did. and exclaim: "What can the fellow mean by such falsehoods?" He will read Kelley's assertion that I said that Rigdon worked in Patterson's printing office at Pittsburg and turn back and read my statement that he did not work there but was in Pittsburg learning, the tanners' trade and was in Patterson's office as a crony of Lambdin, one of the printers, and in that way learned of the existence of the Spaulding manuscript, which was attracting much notice in the office, and became much interested in it, and stole it, as is proved by witnesses, and exclaim: "Why, what does that fellow by such reckless falsehoods? "

He will read my clear proof that Spaulding wrote several manuscripts of his Manuscript Found and then read with amazement Kelley's reckless assertion that he wrote but one. The manuscript described by Mrs. Spaulding was his first brief draft. It was this that John Spaulding read through; it was this that Mrs. McKinstrey read. The reader will read with amazement the

objection that Spaulding's Manuscript Found represented the aborigines of America as idolaters, and the Book of Mormon represents them to be worshippers of the one God: when he remembers that I showed that Rigdon changed the manuscript when remodeling it to use as a pretended revelation. He will read with amazement Kelley's assertion that Hulburt obtained from Mrs. Davidson the manuscript of the Manuscript Found when she says she only gave him an order to examine a trunk hundreds of miles away in Hartwick, N. Y., to see if it was in the trunk. The reader will read with amazement Kelley's fabrication that Howe said that he received from Hulburt a manuscript of the Manuscript Found. Howe distinctly and pointedly declares that he did not receive a manuscript of the Manuscript Found but the beginning pages of an entirely different manuscript—the manuscript of the first romance written by Spaulding, written before he began the Manuscript Found. In that first romance Spaulding assumed that the Indians round the Great Lakes were descendants of shipwrecked Romans. He abandoned this theory and began the Manuscript Found, in which he assumed the aborigines of America and the ancestors of all Indians were Israelites. Howe does not say that he received the Manuscript Found and that the Manuscript Found was not what he expected it to be as Kelly falsely asserts he says. He says that he did not receive the Manuscript Found but the manuscript of an earlier and entirely different story and the manuscript that he received was not what he expected, for it was not the manuscript of the Manuscript Found, which was what he expected to receive. Why did not he receive the manuscript of the Manuscript Found? "We will a tale untold" that will explain that. In a letter written to J. E.





Casson in 1842, Mrs. Davidson says that shortly after Hurlbut left Munson with the order from her to get the manuscript of the Manuscript Found from the trunk at Mr. Clark's at Hartwicke, N. Y., she received a letter from Hurlbut, in which he told her that he had obtained from the trunk what he had come for, the manuscript of the Manuscript Found, and that when he had taken it to the parties that sent him, and it had been used for the purpose for which they wanted it, that is published to expose the plagiarism of the Book of Mormon from it, he would return it to her.

Hurlbut came to the people at Conneaut and Howe, and lied, and said that the only manuscript he found was the part of the manuscript we have described above. Up to this time he had been very active in getting up the book Howe published; he had spent months and much money in collecting the evidence used in it: now he suddenly abandons all. takes no further part or interest in it and. goes to Western Ohio and buys a farm; when, before he had not money enough to pay his traveling expenses. Mrs. Davidson, on reading Howe's book and Hurlbut's statement as given in it was amazed and wrote to him reminding him of what he had written to her and that the Clark's had written that he had got the manuscript of the Manuscript Found. She demanded that he return the manuscript to her. Her daughter also wrote repeatedly. The letters were sent to persons who wrote that they handed them to Hurlbut. He never answered one of them. The Rev.

J. A. Clark published in the "Episcopal Recorder" that the Mormons in Missouri said they paid Howe $400.00 for the manuscript. The Rev. Storrs in a letter published in "Gleanings by the Way" states that Hulburt boasted that he made $400.00 out of the manuscript. He sold it to the Mormons in Kirtland. These charges Hurlbut never met, but laid under them till his death. This

answers the demand why the Spauldings did not publish the manuscript of the Manuscript Found and expose the fraud. That is the very thing they tried to do, but the agent by whom they sent the manuscript to Howe, the publisher, betrayed them and sold it to the Mormons. Hurlbut's false and contradictory statements and absurd stories to Mr. Patterson in 1880 proved that he was guilty of what he was charged with and was trying to lie out of it. The reader will read with amazement if not too much disgusted at its stillness the attacks on Hurlbut's character by Kelley and ask what has the character of the scribe who collected the evidence to do with the truthfulness of the statements of the witnesses? He will read in the same way the statements over which Kelley so idiotically makes such great eyes and mouths that Howe said that personally he knew nothing about the facts stated by the witnesses whose testimony he published and ask what odds does it make if the lawyer does not know personally the facts his witnesses state? Kelley asks why is not Zebulon Randolph here? Kelley has quoted Howe, Mrs. McKinstrey and several others why are not they here? Why does he not have them here instead of telling us what he says they told him and by the way Mr. Howe contradicts flatly Mr. Kelley's statement in his case. His silly objection puts out of court all his own witnesses. Has not Kelley sense enough to see that in such objections he puts a club in my hands with which I can beat out his own brains if he has any? He asks what is the connection between Mrs. Dunlap's statement that Rigdon spent so much time over a certain manuscript, and Rigdon's authorship of the Book of Mormon? The intelligent reader will see the connection when he reads evidence that Rigdon stole the Spaulding manuscript: that he had it in his possession before this time and that he also stated to two witnesses that he also obtained the Spaulding manuscript from the printing office and told one of them that he gave it to Smith to publish as the Book of Mormon. Placed between such evidence Mrs. Dunlap's evidence is another link in a chain Mormons cannot break. He asks what relevance in the statement of Zebulon Rudolph and old citizens of Mentor that Rigdon was absent from home for weeks at a time and no one knew where during the three years that preceded the appearance of the Book of Mormon? When taken in connection with the testimony that he was seen at Smith's during the same time as stated by Case, Saunders, Tucker, McAuley and Mrs. Eaton the reader will see the force of the evidence.

Such, ladies and gentlemen, is the attack on our array of testimony; reckless falsifying of evidence, reckless fabrications of what has no proof, and indeed is flatly contradicted by the evidence and weak pettyfogging. I confess I have been amazed at the weakness of the reply. Is that the best that the chosen representative of Mormonism with all its inspiration, spiritual gifts, illumination and revelations, can do?

I have presented the evidence of 29 witnesses. Has he attempted to prove that they did not testify? No. That they are wanting in truthfulness? No. Has he attempted to rebut their evidence? No. He has falsified their statements, misrepresented them, fabricated rebutting evidence, playing false witness and pettyfogger at the same time. Such is the great Mormon Champion's attacks on the Spaulding story. If my opponent would present one quarter of the evidence I have presented to prove his right to an estate it would be given him.

Kelley denies that there is such a Greek word as "Mormon." Donnegan gives the following Mormon (anglicized Mormon) "A female specter, a phantom." Other lexicons give the word and define it "a hobgoblin, a bugbear." Spaulding from his knowledge of Greek used the word as significant of the character of his fabrication. Smith and Rigdon were too ignorant to know the irony there was in the word and published to the world their new translation as the "Book



of Mormon"—"Book of Phantom, of Hobgoblin, of Bugbear," the most appropriate title for the fraud and the evil work it has done among fools. But think of Israelites over in America who did not know there were such beings as the Greeks in existence, using pure Greek names! My opponent betrays his ignorance when he asserts that the Greek word is "Mormou" or "Mormoun." He evidently mistook "Nu," the Greek N. for U. which corresponds to the Greek Upsilon. Mormon must belong to the Reformed Egyptian of Joe Smith and his disciple Kelley. Alma is a pure Latin word. Nephi is a Greek word. Israelites in America using Greek and Latin words!




Having given the history of the origin of the Book of Mormon we shall now analyze the book itself. We have already described what the work purports to be. It was given to the world in the following manner:—Joe Smith asserts that an angel revealed to him the existence and location of certain plates engraved with certain characters; that he obtained these plates and that by inspiration, the miraculous power of God, he translated them. These plates had been buried by Moroni about 1400 years before Smith obtained them. They contained an abridgment that Moroni and his father had made by inspiration of the history of the aborigines of America. This abridgment was based on an immense library of plates written by inspired men during the period of over 4,000 years, beginning with Jared's brother, who was contemporary with the building of the Tower of Babel. Mormons defend this claim in three ways: first, by an appeal to the external evidences, the affidavits of the eleven witnesses; second, that the utterances of the Book of Mormon agree with the teachings of the Bible and are good; third, by a most vindictive, malicious, infidel attack on the Bible when the absurdities of the Book of Mormon are exposed. The first line of proof displays some craft. They parade the eleven witnesses. If we impeach these witnesses as we can and shall do, they can raise the cry of persecution and attempt to rouse sympathy. We shall not be deterred from duty by any such cry. As they have introduced the witnesses and staked all on their testimony, we shall impeach them. In reply to the second line of proof we shall show that all that is good in the Book of Mormon is feloniously stolen from the Bible, and is good because it is the teaching of the Bible and not because it was given by inspiration in the Book of Mormon. Because a counterfeit resembles the genuine it is no proof that it is genuine, but that it imitates the genuine in order to deceive, and because a book pretending to be inspired resembles one that is inspired, it is no proof that the first is inspired, but that the counterfeit imitates the inspired book in order to deceive. Counterfeits imitate every feature of the genuine if they can. Hypocrites and impostors imitate every feature and sentiment of the good and true. Some of the most infamous hypocrites have imitated, copied and uttered, the best sentiments that have ever been uttered. The discourses and writings of the most infamous characters that have ever lived have contained the very best of truth and goodness and often not a word but what is true and good. The devil can transform himself into an angel of light, and talk as much truth and goodness as an angel of light. Because he talks as perfect truth and goodness as an angel of light does not prove that he is an angel of light. If the Mormon plea that we must accept a man as a good man because he talks so, be true; there can be no means of detecting hypocrites and an imposter, for does not he talk all right? If the devil repeats to us the doctrines of Christ and the truth we must

accept him as perfectly good and declare that he has the Father and the Son and is inspired, if he asserts that he is. This claim, the pet argument of Mormonism, is the most ineffable balderdash that I have ever met.

The Mormons reverse the line of argument. They absurdly assert that the claims, the pretensions of a book should determine the character of the book. Common sense declares that we should carefully investigate the character of the book to determine whether these claims be true. They claim that we should accept their book as divine because its author claims to be a prophet, and eleven men assert that he is inspired. Common sense says accept a man as a prophet because the contents of his book prove him to be a prophet. The one sole argument of the Mormon is a constant jabber of one passage. "He that hath the Doctrine of Christ hath the Father and the Son;" that is, he must be a child of God a good man, and inspired, if he claims to be inspired. Imposter Joe presents to us in his book the Doctrine of the Christ, and although we show that every word that is good was stolen from the Bible, we must believe that he has the Father and the Son that he is a good man; that he is inspired because he says he is, and that the Book of Mormon is of divine origin because imposter Joe says so. The devil presents to us a book that contains the doctrine of the Christ stolen from the Bible. According to Mormon logic, because he has the doctrine of the Christ, no matter how obtained, no matter what his character may be, no matter what his motive may be, in presenting in, the devil has the Father and the Son, is a child of God, and if he says that he is inspired we must believe him and accept his book as of Divine origin.

When we remember that every good thing in the Book of Mormon is stolen from the Bible, the absurdity of the claim that because the truths of the Bible are in the possession of these thieves therefore they are inspired and their book of Divine origin can hardly be appreciated. To claim that the thieves were good men is an insult to common sense, but to claim that they were inspired of God in the theft, because they





stole the Divine utterances of the Bible and mendaciously presented them to the world as their own inspired utterances is idiocy that is almost sublime in its magnitude. Priapus Young presents us the unvarnished Mormon argument when he declares —

"The Doctrine the Prophet Joseph teaches is all I care about. Bring anything against that it you can. As

for anything else 1 don't care if the Prophet Joseph acted like the devil. He brought forth a doctrine that will save us if we will abide by it. He may have got drunk every day of his life, slept with his neighbor's wife every night, ran horses and gambled every day; I care nothing about that, for 1 never embrace any man in my faith. The doctrine the Prophet Joseph produced will save you and me, and the whole world." If you can find any fault with his doctrine, find it!"

Kelley is not as frank and as honest as Priapus Young, but that is what he means when he jabbers "He that hath the Doctrine of the Christ hath the Father and the Son."

We will admit this much. If the doctrine in the Book of Mormon be true we should accept it as truth, because it is truth. But that does not prove that Joseph Smith was even a good man, for the Devil can utter truth. It does not prove that his book is true in its historic statements, nor that it is what it claims to be—a history of the aborigines of America; for the biggest fraud ever concocted may contain good doctr

wag a good man, his assertion that he was inspired, even if his doctrine were true, would not necessarily be true; for many a good man has been deceived and thought he was inspired when he was not and that his talk was revelation when it was not. This whole line of argument is the most absurd and idiotic that has ever been presented to a thinking people. There are several queries to be settled. Even if the moral and religious ideas of the Book of Mormon be true, who presents it to us, a good being or an evil one? Is it presented honestly or hypocritically? Is it genuine or counterfeit that has stolen the features of the genuine in order to deceive. If it claims inspiration, is the one claiming inspiration one that would be chosen of God as a medium for inspiration. Is he honest or is he hypocritical? If honest, sincere and good was he mistaken or is his claim true? Then what is the character of the proposed revelation?

The third line of argument is not only maliciously hostile to the Bible but is a gross fallacy. If Mormons could prove every word of the Bible to be false and that the Bible had every fault that we find with the Book of Mormon, it would only overthrow the Bible. It would not establish the divine origin of the Book of Mormon. Proving that Webster's dictionary is full of faults does not prove that a book that contains those faults is correct, but on the contrary, it destroys Webster as authority. When the vile character of Joe Smith and the founders of Mormonism is exposed Mormons point to the character of Baalam, Saul, King of Israel, Jonah, and Caiaphas. If they are willing to place Imposter Joe in the same category as Baalam with his greed of gain and evil character, Saul with his murderous hatred and vile character, Jonah with his rebellious wicked character, Caiaphas with his murderous sectarian hatred of Jesus, we will remind them that though God did, in the dark surroundings of those days use those persons for certain unimportant purposes, he did not make them founders of dispensations, much less the last one, and the one that is the fulness of the Gospel. For such purposes he chose a Noah, an Abraham, a Moses, an Elijah, a Paul, and a Jesus the Son of God.

If the Mormon points to the sins and errors of Noah, Lot, Abraham, and others that were children of God, or inspired according to the Bible, when we point out the sins of Joe Smith and the founders of Mormonism we wish to remind him that Noah's drunkenness was accidental and the Bible does not say it was repeated There is not one particle of proof that Noah knew what would be the effects of fermented grape juice until he was made drunk by it, or that he ever repeated the act. Lot's incest was not voluntary; there is not one scrap of evidence that Lot was inspired; the Bible does not say that he ever was. Abraham's acts were the sins of his age; his polygamy was rather the act of Sarah and in accordance with the custom of the day than a wilful sin of Abraham. There is no proof that Abraham knew that he was doing wrong. The sins of Isaac and Jacob were the sins of their times, resulting from the evil advice of others. David's sins were the sins of his age; he was terribly punished for them. Solomon was not a child of God or inspired after he sinned. Paul's sins were those of honest bigotry; he was a grand character, honest and manly even in his persecution. Peter's sins were those of cowardice and disappointment, inasmuch as the Messiah did not act as he expected he would. These persons repented. Their sins were the sins of their age. They were in advance of their age. They were great characters notwithstanding their sins. In the case of Joe Smith we have one who tells us that he examined all religious parties. He found that all had apostatized. None were good enough for Joe. He was the chosen instrument of heaven to found a purer system than the world had ever seen. He can not be placed on a level with Noah, Abraham, David, or Paul and their surroundings. He came after eighteen hundred years of progress under the gospel of Christ. He appeared in the purest Christian surroundings of this century. He was to give to the world a religion that stood related to apostolic

Christianity as that stood related to Judaism, "the fullness of the gospel."

His system was to be as much above his surroundings as Christianity was to its surroundings when it appeared. God in selecting Noah. Abraham, Moses, Elijah, John the Baptist and Paul, selected the grandest characters in their age. He did


this In the dark surroundings of former dispensations. What would he do in selecting a person for a mission that Smith pretended was committed to him, and in the surroundings in which Smith appeared Smith should be as much superior to Noah, Moses and Paul as his surroundings were superior to theirs, and his mission higher than theirs. The Book of Mormon should be as much superior to the Bible as the New Testament was to the Old Testament. Its inspired author, its surroundings should be as much superior. That is what Mormons claim for it.

This argument of Mormonism is merely the silly retort of the sneaking boy who when caught in lying or theft and exposed, hangs his head and mutters, "Well I don't care, you're another." It is as full of infidelity as Ingersoll's attacks on the Bible. Unable to lift their contemptible false prophet to the skies, the level of the Sons of God, they would, with the malice of fiends, drag the angels of religion down to his vile level. When we expose the ignorance, the illiteracy, the contradictions of their vile imposture, the Book of Mormon, they assail with all the malignity of infidelity the character of the Bible. If their foul imposture is exposed, they strive with the malice of Infidel hate to befoul the Bible by loading it with the same faults. When we expose Impostor Joe's blasphemous interpolations and change of the text of the Bible, we are treated to a malicious re-hash of old exploded infidel attacks on the authenticity and genuineness of the Bible; we have a malicious infidel attempt to drag the Bible down so low that Impostor Joe's corruptions of it. will be of no more consequence than changing one of the thousand versions of nursery tales. We have in Mormon writings, in the preface to a pretended inspired translation of the Bible as malicious infidelity as can be found in Ingersoll's writings. In the defense of Impostor Joe and his illiterate blundering frauds can be found as cowardly malicious attacks on the Bible, Bible characters as can be found in any infidel production. It is time that the sheep's clothing was stripped off of this imposture that claims to be the fullness of the Gospel of Christ, but shows its hatred of the Bible when its real character is exposed. Judging from its attacks on the Bible, the purity of its text, the proofs of its origin, the character of its prophets, and the literary character of the Bible, Mormonism is the vilest system of infidelity extant, for it is the most hypocritical. Pretending to restore the Bible in its purity, Christianity in its primitive power, it bedaubs in its slanderous assaults the Bible as a book, its evidences, its literary character, the character of its prophets, and tries to drag them to a level with Joe Smith and his frauds. As the Book of Mormon is so largely stolen from the Bible, the Mormon in his infidel attacks destroys his own book when he destroys the Bible. It is not enough that the Book of Mormon be as good as the Bible, it must be far better. The same circumstances cannot be urged in its defense that can be urged in defense of the Bible. But few of the writers of the Bible tell us they were inspired, the writers and speakers of the Book of Mormon are constantly telling us that the Spirit of the Lord has told them that it is talking through them. There is scarcely one that does not inform us of his inspiration. Not only so but these inspired persons were inspired above all writers and speakers of the Bible except the

apostles of Christ after the day of Pentecost. The Holy Spirit was not given in the name of Jesus and in all his fullness until that time, but Lehi and Nephi, the first writers and speakers of the Book of Mormon, had the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus 600 years before Jesus came, as fully and completely as Paul. They had revelations 600 years before Christ that were as perfect and complete as any given to the apostles, in fact more complete. The apostles did not settle by revelation every subject of religious controversy of the nineteenth century as positively and completely and dogmatically as any controversialist could do it. The inspired men of the Book of Mormon did so and were inspired far beyond the apostles.

But few of the Bible writers were told to write what they wrote; nearly every writer of the Book of Mormon writes in obedience to a personal divine command. But few of the writers of the Bible were cautioned to take steps, very careful precautions to preserve what they had written; nearly all of the writers of the Book of Mormon were so warned and commanded. We have no instances of men being inspired to revise and correct the books of the Bible; such was constantly the case with the Book of Mormon. Not a particle of the Bible was preserved by miracle; each and every portion of the Book of Mormon and the authorities on which it is based were so preserved. Again, the Book of Mormon, stands related to the New Testament as the New does to the Old: it contains the "fullness of the Gospel," or which the New Testament is but an outline. There were churches and all the teachings of Christ among the Nephites for hundreds of years before Christ as perfect as ever existed among the Israelites after he came, and of course the revelations to such a highly favored people must have been as much more perfect and complete. The Israelites in the old continent had only vague outlines of the gospel in their revelations. The Nephites had the Gospel as perfect as the Apostles had it. The Israelite prophets had to study what their own utterances meant. The Nephites had all the words, acts and teachings of Christ and his Apostles in the very language of Christ and his Apostles. The Nephites enjoyed for hundreds of years "the fullness of the Gospel, while the Israelites on the old continents were in the darkness of its dim twilight. The writers, speakers and actors of the Book of Mormon ought to excel those of the Bible as much as their condition excelled that of the writers and speakers of the Bible.





GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:—When my time was called I had just

read the statement from their own history with regard to Mr. Rigdon, and made a few hurried comments upon the same and passed to a review of his work as a minister to the time when Mr. Pratt called upon him with the Book of Mormon.

Up to this time Rigdon had been an enthusiastic and constant laborer in the "Reform Movement," as it was then called, as Is fully set out in the history of the Disciples themselves, and his time so occupied in his ministerial labors that it was not possible for him to have left his work and duties to visit Smith who at this time lived, by the nearest way of travel, 250 miles distant in the uncultivated interior of the State of New York, and when there were no pleasant and easy lines of travel as now. 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, Mantua, Perry, and Painsville, and using the words of their own history, which shows a disposition to bemean him all possible, because he made up his mind the Disciples did not have the truth, he is shown to be the leader of them. It says:

"Sidney Rigdon was an orator of no Inconsiderable ability. In person, he was full medium height, rotund Inform, of countenance, while speaking, open and winning, with a little east of melancholy. His action was graceful, his language copious, fluent in utterance, with articulation clear and musical."

Oh! This is the pompous old Rigdon that Braden is talking about is it? This is the fellow from whose crown Bro. Scott plucked a feather, and pulled off of Ahasueras' horse. Here Rigdon is traced by their own history till October, 1830, where he is found as a live worker for the "Reform Movement," as they called it, when three of our ministers open up meetings in the district of Rigdon's charge and for the first time he meets the expounders of the gospel of Christ in its fullness, and also has an opportunity of reading that same gospel as contained in the Book of Mormon.

What does he do? Like my friend Mr. Braden here, he makes opposition with all his great eloquence and powers, contesting the "New religion," as they called it, at every step, till every argument was taken from him, when from the honesty of his heart and desire for truth rather than error, he accepted the faith, was publicly with his wife, then and there baptized, preferring to endure the reproaches of Christ fora season by accepting the full and complete gospel, rather than to reject and retain his popularity in the world. Was he the "ignoramus," my audience, Braden has made him out to be? Many of you knew him! After this he ceases preaching and goes to work and in a few months he goes to New York State and for the first time in his life sees and makes the acquaintance of Joseph Smith. In this connection I introduce the affidavit of Mrs. Katherine Salisbury:


Kendall County ) SS.

I, Katherine Salisbury, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a resident of the State of Illinois, and have been for forty years last past: that I will be 68 years of age July 28th, 1881.

That I am a daughter of Joseph Smith, Sen , and a sister to Joseph Smith, Jr., the translator of the Book of Mormon. That at the time the said book was published, I was seventeen years of age; that at the time of the publication of said book my brother, Joseph Smith, Jr., lived in the family of my father, in the town of Manchester, Ontario County, New York, and that he had all of his life to this time made his home with the family.

That at the time, and for years prior thereto, I lived in and was a member of such family, and personally knowing to the things transacted in said family, and those who visited at my father's house, and the friends of the family, and the friends and acquaintances of my brother. Joseph Smith, Jr., who visited at or came to my father's house.

That prior to the latter part of the year A. D. 1830, there was no person who visited with, or was an acquaintance of, or called upon the said family or any member thereof, to my knowledge, by the name of Sidney Rigdon; nor was such person known to the family, or any member thereof,

to my knowledge, until the last part of the year A. D. 1830, or the first part of the year 1831, and some time after the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ by Joseph Smith, Jr., and several months after the publication of the Book of Mormon.

That I remember the time when Sidney Rigdon came to my father's place, and that it was after the removal of my father from Waterloo, N. Y., to Kirtland, Ohio. That this was in the year 1831, and some months after the publication of the Book of Mormon, and fully one year after the Church was organized, as before stated herein.

That I make this statement not on account of fear, favor or hope of reward of any kind, but simply that the truth may be known


with reference to said matter, and that the foregoing- statements made by me are true, as I verily believe.


Sworn to before me, and subscribed in my presence, by the said Catherine Salisbury, this 15th day of April, A. D. 1881.

J. H. JENKS, Notary Public."

P. P. Pratt, in the city of New York, at the time this Spaulding story first came out, gives his testimony and knowledge of the matter for publication In a letter to the New Era, N. Y. He says:

"I myself had the happiness to present it" (the Book of Mormon), to him" (Rigdon), in person." "He was much surprised, and it was with much persuasion and argument that he was prevailed upon to read it, and after he had read it, he had a great struggle of mind before he fully believed and embraced it."

The idea has been thrown out to the world that Sidney Rigdon drank right into the faith of the Saints, without an effort to disprove it. This is far from the truth, as the witnesses upon both sides testify. There is absolutely no contradiction of this by any reliable testimony upon either side. Does not this evidence then completely break every link in the cunning device gotten up and peddled out as the "Spaulding romance?"

1. The only witnesses well enough conversant with the manuscript to testify show it was entirely different from and not sufficient by hundreds of pages to make the Book of Mormon.

2. It was not in Pittsburg when Rigdon was there, and Rigdon never got or saw it.

3. Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon never met until near two years after the book was in press and a year after publication.

4. The persons who had the manuscript in their possession and claimed that their affidavits were true, were the very ones who destroyed the manuscript lest it destroy their affidavits.

5. In the very places where they say Spaulding's manuscript was best known is where the Saints gathered many converts and were the most successful in disproving these stories.

But he says, "what about the evidence of John Spaulding, where he arose after the reading of the book in the meeting and denounced it." This is what I say about it. It bears the stamp of falsehood upon its face and in this:—It was the statement in a meeting held by a Mormon woman preacher, who read the book, they say. The church in the first place never had a woman preacher. I deny that there ever was such a preacher. Yet this is the basis for the story that they arose and

denounced it. See Smucker page 43, History of the Mormons.

2. John Spaulding, nor no other Spaulding, ever arose in any meeting of the Saints and made any such a claim. It would never have been done without the Minister reporting it to the society and none was ever so made. John Spaulding never placed himself where he could be cross- examined on this matter, and none of their other pretended witnesses, not one. But Mr. Braden has already taken a course in which he abandons his claim of Rigdon's connection at Pittsburg, and wants to show that Smith stole the manuscript and went to Ohio, and roped Rigdon in. Smith he says, worked for Sabine in 1823 or 1824, and this is when the second revelation came out. He had access to the Spaulding story. All! but he is caught here again. Mrs. Spaulding and her daughter were at Sabine's till 1820, when Mis. Spaulding got married to Davidson.

Then 'they leave and order their trunk sent to Jerome Clark, New York, for safe keeping, from which place she afterwards got it and the contents were all right so she says, including the manuscript.

What is the insinuation here—that Smith either stole the manuscript and copied it himself, or else during the time he was working for Sabine he went to Ohio and gave it to Rigdon. But Smith was no scribe so that would not do and there was no chance for him to get to Ohio, if he worked for Sabine. Why! a man who can believe such a yarn as that, it seems to me, ought to believe most anything. Gulliver's travels, Robinson Crusoe and all. They have not the first fact to base the story upon. Smith did not work for Sabine as they claim in 1823 or 1824. He was then a boy in Wayne county, New York, at least 50 miles from where Sabine lived. Then, canvass for a moment the weight there is in the claim that the Histories, Encyclopedias, Theological Dictionaries, etc., state it was the Spaulding Romance.

This is like his testimony on the Polygamy question over at Wilber. Most all of these works give both sides of the question — set out Smith's claim, and then set out his enemies' claim. Now if the fact that one being in these works makes it true, it will equally follow with the other. None of them claim that there are sufficient facts to sustain the Spaulding romance as to justify them in refusing a word from the friends of the Book of Mormon. If these works have found facts to settle it for the side of the romance, what is the use of our debating? Why not send this audience a book that will settle the question and let them read for themselves! Don't forget also, that in the most of those same works there is such a prejudiced account as to many of the different religious bodies, that very few of the denominations are satisfied that they have justice done them, the Disciples with the others.

I will now call your attention to some proofs with regard to this matter of what Smith did, how these stories were started about him and Rigdon, etc. Also to some things that have been referred to by my opponent. Taking up the testimony of Mr. Saunders first. I read you a published interview of March 5th, 1881, Saints' Herald, page 165, as follows:







Entering upon conversation with reference to our business, Mr. Saunders at once said: "Well you have come to a poor place to find out anything. I don't know anything against these men myself," (Evidently judging that we wanted to get something against them only).

Q. Were you acquainted with them Mr. Saunders?

A. Yes sir; I knew all of the Smith family well; there were six boys; Alvin, Hyrum. Joseph, Harrison, William and Carlos, and there were two girls; the old man was a cooper; they have all worked for me many a day; they were very good people; Young Joe, (as we called him then), has worked for me, and he was a good worker; they all were. I did not consider them good managers about business, but they were poor people; the old man had a large family.

Q. In what respect did they differ from other people if at all?

A. I never noticed that they were different from other neighbors; they were the best family in the neighborhood in case of sickness; one was at my house nearly all the time when my father died; I always thought them honest; they were owing me some money when they left here; that is the old man and Hyrum did, and Martin Harris. One of them came back in about a year and paid me.

Q. How were they as to habits of drinking and getting drunk?

A. Everybody drank a little in those days and the Smiths with the rest; they never got drunk to my knowledge?

Q. What kind of a man was Martin Harris?

A. He was an honorable man. Martin Harris was one of the first men in the town.

Q. How well did you know young Joseph Smith?

A. Oh! just as well as one could very well; he has worked for me many a time, and been about my place a great deal. He stopped with me many a time, when through here, after they went west to Kirtland; he was always a gentleman when about my place.

Q. What did you know about his finding that book, or the plates in the hill over there?

A. He always claimed that he saw the angel and received the book; but I don't know anything about it. Have seen it, but never read it as I know of; didn't care anything about it.

Q. Well you seem to differ a little from a good many of the stories told about these people.

A. I have told you just what I know about them, and you will have to go somewhere else for a different story."

I claim your attention next while I read the statements of J. H. Gilbert taken down as he made them and afterwards published and furnished him. He is asked first the question: "What did you know about the Smiths, Mr. Gilbert?" and answers:

I knew nothing myself; have seen Joseph Smith a few times, but not acquainted with him. Saw Hyrum quite often. I am the party that set the type from the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon.

Q. Did you change any part of it when you were setting the type?

A. No, sir; we never changed it at all.

Q. Why did you not change it and correct it?

A. Because they would not allow us to; they were very particular about that. We never changed it in the least. Oh well, there might have been one or two words that I changed the spelling of; I believe I did change the spelling of one, and perhaps two; but no more.

Q. Did you set all the type, or did some one help you?

A. I did the whole of it myself, and helped to read the proof, too; there was no one who worked at that but myself.

Q. Did you ever see one of the first copies?

A. I have one here that was never bound. Mr. Grandin the printer gave it to me. If you ever saw a Book of Mormon you will see that they changed it afterwards.

Q. They did! well let us see your copy; that is a good point. How is it changed now?

A. I will show you (bringing out his copy). Here on the first page it says (reading) "Joseph Smith, Jr., author and proprietor." Afterwards they left that out, and only claimed that Joseph Smith translated it.

Q. Well, did they claim anything else than that he was the translator when they brought the manuscript to you?

A. Oh, no; they claimed that he was translating it by means of some instruments that he got at the same time that he did the plates, and that the Lord helped him.

Q. Was he educated, do you know?

A. Oh, not at all then; but I understand that afterwards he made great advancement, and was quite a scholar and orator.

Q. How do you account for the production of the Book of Mormon, Mr. Gilbert, then, if Joseph Smith was so illiterate?

A. Well, that is the difficult question. It must have been from the Spaulding romance—you have heard of it, I suppose. The parties here, then, never could have been the authors of it, certainly. I have been for the last forty-five or fifty years trying to get the key to that thing; but we

have never been able to make the connection yet. For some years past I have been corresponding with a person in Salt Lake by the name of Cobb, who is getting out a work against the Mormons; but we have never been able to find what we wanted.

Q. If you could connect Sidney Rigdon with Smith some way you could get up a theory?

A. Yes; that is just where the trouble lies; the manuscript was put into our hands in August, 1829, and all printed by March, 1830, and we cannot find that Rigdon was ever about here or in this State until some time in the fall of 1830. But I think I have got a way out of the difficulty now. A fellow that used to be here by the name of



Saunders, Lorenzo Saunders, was back here some time ago, and I was asking him about it. At first he said he did not remember of seeing Rigdon until after 1830 sometime; but after studying it over a while he said it seemed to him that one time he was over to Smith's and that there was a stranger there he never saw before, and that they said it was Rigdon. I told him about Cobb, of Utah, and asked him if he would send Cobb his affidavit that he saw Rigdon before the book was published, if he (Cobb) would write to him; he finally said he would, and I wrote to Cobb about it, and gave Saunders' address, and after a long time I got a letter from him saying he had written three letters to Saunders and could get no answer. I then sat down and wrote Saunders a letter myself reminding him of his promise; and wrote to Cobb also about it; and after a long time Cobb wrote me again, that Saunders had written to him; but I have never learned how satisfactory it was, or whether he made the affidavit or not.

Q. Is that Saunders a brother of the Saunders living down here, Orlando Saunders?

A. Yes, sir; they are brothers.

Q. Is he older or younger?

A. Younger; about fifteen years younger.

Q. Then he must have been quite young before the Book of Mormon was published? A, Yes, he was young.

Q. This Saunders down here don't talk like a great many people; he seems to think the Smiths were very good people; we have been there to-day.

A. Oh I don't think the Smiths were as bad as people let on for. Now Tucker in his work told too many big things; nobody could believe his stories.

Q. What kind of a man was Martin Harris?

A. He was a very honest farmer but very superstitious.

Q. What was he before his name was connected with the Book of Mormon?

A. Not anything I believe. He was a kind of skeptic.

Q. What do you mean by his being superstitious? Was he religious?

A. Well, I don't know about that but he pretended to see things.

Q. What do you think of the Book of Mormon as a book; you are well posted in it?

A. Oh, there is nothing taught in the book but what is good; there is no denying that; it is the claim of being from God that I strike at.

Q. Well, is it any more wonderful than that God gave the Bible?

A. No, not a bit, and there is a good deal more evidence to show that that, is divine than there is for some of the books in the Bible. Why, it is all nonsense to think that Moses wrote some of the books attributed to him in the Bible.

Q. Then you don't believe the fish story, either, Mr. Gilbert?

A. No, nor that Jonah swallowed the whale.

Q. How about Samson catching the three hundred foxes and the firebrands?

A. Yes; that is a good one, you fellows will do.

Q. Much obliged, Mr. Gilbert.

A. You are quite welcome; I wish I could give you more than I have."

Next I refer you to the statements made by three of the Jackaways at Palmyra, especially to show you about the stories of money digging, how they started, &c., and that they had no foundation in fact. The following among other questions were asked these parties:

Q. "Where was Joe when he was translating his book?

A. At home; it was translated in the farm house.

Q. Mr. Gilbert across here, said it was done in a cave; now you don't agree. What does Tucker say? (reading Tucker.)

A. They all differ. Now Tucker ha? a statement from Willard Chase in his book, and Chase said Tucker never called on him at all to find out what he knew.

Lady.—Yes; I have heard Willard Chase say Tucker never even asked him for what he knew, and Chase lived next door to him, too. Chase is now dead.

Q. Well, did you ever see Hulburt or Howe, who published a work against the Mormons?

A. Yes; Hulburt came around first. I believe, soon after the thing started, and they had gone to Kirtland, Ohio, trying to find things against them, and there have been a good many around trying to connect Sidney Rigdon with them."

Q. "How far aid you live from town when the Smiths were in this country? A One-half mile south of Palmyra.

Q. Were you acquainted with Joseph Smith and his early followers?

A. Yes, I knew them; seen them a many a time—old Joe and young Joe.

Q. How far did you live from them?

A. It was about a mile.

Q. You knew about their digging tot money, so Mr. Gilbert said; he sent us to you.

A Oh. yes; I can show you the places now, there are three places over there where they dug.

Q. Well, we want to see them. Did you help them dig?

A. No. I never helped them.

Q. Well, you saw them digging?

A. No; I never saw them digging.

Q. How do you know they dug the holes you refer to?

A. 1 don't know they dug them, but the holes are there.

Q. Did anybody else dig for money at that time there?

A. I believe there were some others that dug, but I did not see them.

Q. Do you know any of them?

A. I only know one now; he lives up at Canandaigua."

I next introduce the evidence of Dr. John Stafford, of Rochester, N. Y., son of William Stafford, made so conspicuous by




Tucker in his work against the Mormons. In answer to a question as to the character of Joseph Smith. Dr. Stafford said:

"He was a real clever boy. What Tucker said about them was false, absolutely.

Q. What about that black sheep your father let them -have?

A. I have heard that story, but don't think my father was there at the time they say Smith got

the sheep. I don't know anything about it.

Q. You were living at home at the time, and it seems you ought to know if they got a sheep, or stole one from your father?"

A. They never stole one, I am sure; they may have got one some time.

Q. Well, doctor, you know pretty well whether that story is true or not that Tucker tells. What do you think of it?

A. I don't think it is true. I would have heard more about it if it had been true. I lived a mile from Smith's. lam 76 years old. They were peaceable among themselves. The old woman had a great deal of faith that their children were going to do something great. Joe was illiterate. After they began to have school at their house he improved greatly.

Q. Did they have a school at their house?

A. Yes, sir; they had school in their house and studied the Bible.

Q. Who was their teacher?

A. They did not have any teacher; they taught themselves.

Q. Did you know Oliver Cowdery?

A. Yes; he taught school on the Canandaigua Road, where the stone school house now stands, just three and a half miles from Palmyra. Cowdery was a man of good character."

Thomas Taylor at Manchester said when interrogated about Mr. Smith and family as follows: "Yes; I knew them very well; they were nice men, too; the only trouble was they were ahead

of the people, and the people as in every such case, turned out to abuse them because they had the manhood to stand for their own convictions.

Q. What did the Smith's do that the people abused them so?

A. They did not do anything. Why! these rascals at one time took Joseph Smith and ducked him in the pond that you see over there, just because he preached what he believed and for nothing else. And if Jesus Christ had been there they would have done the same to him. Now I don't believe like he did; but every man has a right to his religious opinions, and to advocate his views too; if people don't like it, let them come out and meet him on the stand and show his error. Smith was always ready to exchange views with the best men they had.

Q. Why didn't they like Smith?

A. To tell the truth, there was something about him they could not understand; some how he knew' more than they did, and it made them mad.

Q. But a good many tell terrible stories

about them being low people, rogues and liars, and such things. How is that?

A. Oh! they are a set of liars. I have had a home here, and been here, except when on business, all my life—ever since I came to this country, and I know these fellows; and they make these lies on Smith because they love a lie better than the truth. I can take you to a great many old settlers who will substantiate what I say, and if you want, to go, come to my place across the way, and I'll go with you.

Q. That is very kind Mr. Taylor; but we are first going to see these fellows, who, so rumor says, know so much against him?

A, All right; but you will find they don't know anything against those men when you put them down to it; they could never sustain any thing against Smith."

I have read you the foregoing interviews for the reason that they were taken down as they came from the lips of the parties and may be relied upon. To my knowledge there has never been a single contradiction of one of these statements by a single one of the parties whose testimony I have just read except Gilbert's, and at the proper time if the question is raised I will examine his.

This thing which they got up about the Saints is an entire fraud, and I will prove it by comparing the work, that from which my opponent draws his testimony, this Howe and Hulburt history, with our works, and show you that they nave deliberately garbled and falsified, and most mischievously perverted our works.

Where our works are plain and distinct, they have, in order to make them ridiculous, taken out words and clauses, taken put entire sentences, to present the teaching as bad. Yet, this is the book that he has commended to you and been reading his statements and affidavits from. I will show you further in the discussion that what are called affidavits or statements of John Spaulding and Martha Spaulding were never made by them, and that in fact he has no such: and if I don't prove all of this, then I want you to denounce me before this audience.

Mr. Braden: Why, you are getting excited, my friend.

Mr. Kelley: Not at all, not at all, Bro. Braden. I am emphatic and positive in my positions, and if you have any evidence, bring it on.

Entering upon an examination of this work of Hulburt and Howe, I cite you first some of their false representations and spurious quotations, contrasting what they pretended to quote from our works with the true reading.

1. Howe, page 27 says:—"He represents Nephi as making plates in the wilderness with no ore."

Book of Mormon, Palmyra Edition, page 43, shows the plates were made after the people arrived upon this continent, and after they had found ore with many other things.

2. Howe, same page, "Has a comma



ment from the Lord to make plates for the special purpose of making a record of his own ministry and his own people."

Book of Mormon, page 17 "I have received a commandment from the Lord that I should make these plates for the special purpose that there should be an account engraven of the ministry of my people."

3. Howe again: "Our hero introduces himself as a minister."

Book of Mormon, page 17: "And now I, Nephi, proceed to give an account upon these plates and of my proceedings and my reign and ministry."

4. Howe, page 32. "It brought them all safely on the borders of the Red sea, with the exception of Ishmael."

Book of Mormon, page 42 "And we did sojourn for the space of many years, yea, even eight years, in the wilderness. And we did come to the land which we called bountiful, because of its much fruit. And we beheld the sea, which we called Ireantum, which being interpreted is many waters." Notice—There is no Red sea about it.

5. Howe, page 35: "Whether the ship was propelled by oars, or by a current, or by the wind, or by the power of the spindle, we cannot inform our readers, for it is not stated."

Book of Mormon, page 48: "And it came to pass that after we had all gone down into the ship and taken with us our provisions and things which had been commanded us, we did. put forth into the sea, and were driven forth before the wind towards the promised land."

6. Take another specimen of his professed truths: Howe, page 38, states that there is an exact copy of the 48th and 49th chapters of Isaiah to be found in the Book of Mormon; and that they are introduced with the same words that commence the chapter in the Bible, intending thereby to show that they were copied from the Bible after it was divided into chapters and verses. This is wilfully false; for on comparison, it is found that the wording of the prophesy is different in its very introduction, and there are numerous differences between the two books, in words, sentences and verses. Neither can one tell where the division for a new chapter should be made in the reading of the Book of Mormon, save by noting the last word found in the 48th chapter of Isaiah, until he gets to the close of the 49th chapter, where the subject of these two chapters ends, and a new subject is introduced, and there the writer of the Book of Mormon left off writing. The claim is false, and made obviously to deceive. They are not alike, as claimed by Howe. Book of Mormon, page 52 to 56.

7. Again Howe says, page 42: "The Nephites warred with each other until they exterminated the whole race except three, who were immortalized."

Book of Mormon, pp.493 to 496: "Yea, even all my people, save it were those twenty and four who were with me, and also a few who had escaped into the south countries,

and a few who had dissented over unto the Lamanites, had fallen and their flesh and bones and blood lay upon the face of the earth "

8. By way of an argument it is again stated: Howe, page 44. "The Book of Mormon is hard to understand."

"Would it not be reasonable to conclude that any book whose author was the Holy Ghost, would be clear and perfect in all its parts—so plain that the wayfaring man need not err."

I suggest that Mr. Braden try John's Revelation by this rule, and see how long he can endorse his backer Howe. But I proceed with the contrast.

9. Howe, page 52: "We are likewise told in the same discourse that the plates or. book would be sealed up, and should finally be found by an unlearned man, who should see them and show them to three others."

Here is found the great bugbear, sought to be kept before the people to deceive. How different, however, it is from the true reading.

Book of Mormon., page 110:

"Wherefore, at that day when the book shall be delivered unto the man of whom I have spoken, the book shall be hid from the eyes of the world, that the eyes of none shall behold it, save it be that three witnesses shall behold it, by the power of God, besides him to whom the book shall be delivered, and they shall testify to the truth of the book and the things therein. And there is none others which shall view it, save it be a few

according to the will of God, to bear testimony of his word unto the children of men."

10. Another illustration, Howe, p. 65:

"And if Christ had not risen from the dead or have broken the bonds of death, that the grave should have no victory, and that death should have no sting, there could have been no resurrection."

He endeavors to prove by the tense of the verb here, that it was written after the crucifixion of Christ, and to deceive quotes only a part of the text.

Book of Mormon, page 169: "'And now if Christ had not come into the world, speaking of things to come as though they had already come," &c. This he deftly leaves out. But again,

11. Howe, pp. 68, 69: Mosiah causes all records to be revised, and "transcribes" the plates of brass brought out from Jerusalem."

Book of Mormon, page 216:

"Now King Mosiah had no one to confer the kingdom upon, for there was not any of his sons which would accept the kingdom; therefore he took the records- which were engraven upon the plates of brass, and also the plates of Nephi, and all the things which, he had kept and preserved according to the commandments of God, and after having translated and caused to be written the records which were on the plates of gold, which had been found by the people of Limhi which was delivered to him by the hand of Limhi, and this he did because of the great anxiety of his people, for they were desirous beyond measure, to know concerning those people which had been destroyed. And now he translated them by means of those two stones which were fastened into the two rims of a bow."

12. Howe, page 77:

"Smith used a stone in a hat for the purpose of translating the plates. The spectacles (Urim and Thummim) and plates were found together, but were taken from him and hid up again before he had translated one word, and he has never seen them since." "This is Smith's own story."

The following is the account by Mr. Smith himself:




"I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them, which I did between the time I arrived at the house of my wife's father, in the month of December, 1827, and the February following."

Again, see his own history by himself:

"By the wisdom of God they (the plates Urim and Thummim and breast-plate,) remained safe in my hands until I had accomplished by them what was required at my hand, when according to arrangements the messenger called for them; I delivered them up to him and he has them in his charge until this day, being the second day of May, 1838."—Pearl of Great Price, page 44.

See also Cowdery's statement: "Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, Interpreters, the history or record called the Book of Mormon." Ibid, page 46.

13. Here is still another glaring perversion and misrepresentation. Howe, page 89: "The whole record being handed down and altered according to our manner of speech."

Book of Mormon, page 538: "And now we have written this record according to our knowledge in the characters, which are called among us reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us according to our manner of speech."

The writer says the characters which they used in writing had been changed; Howe says, the record was changed.

14. Again, Howe, page 90: "God marched before them in a cloud."

Book of Mormon, pp. 541, 542, and 48: "The Lord did go before them, and talked to them while he stood in a cloud, and gave directions whither they should travel."

15. Howe, page 90: "They make a hole in the top to admit air and one in the bottom to admit water; in each hole was put a molten stone, which when touched by the finger of Jesus became as transparent as any glass and gave them light under the mountain waves. Two of these stones were sealed up with the plates according to a prediction before Abraham was born.

14 Thou shalt make a hole in the top thereof and in the bottom thereof, and when thou shalt suffer for air, thou shalt unstop the hole thereof and receive air. And if it so be that water come in upon thee thou shalt stop the hole."

"And he did put forth the stones into the vessels which are prepared, one in each end thereof."

Howe, page 90: "The Lord commanded him that he should seal up the two stones which he had received and show them not." Not a word about Abraham.

16. Howe, page 124: "Even their wine they used for communion they were ordered to make from cider and other materials."

Book of Covenants, page 102: "You shall not purchase wine, neither strong drink from your enemies, wherefore you shall partake of none save it is made new among you."

Nothing about cider and other materials as said by Howe.

17. Again, Howe, page 129: "If thou lovest me, thou shalt serve me and keep my commandments; and behold thou shalt consecrate all thy properties, that which thou hast, unto me, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken."

The true reading of the Book of Covenants, page 143: "If thou lovest me, thou shalt serve me and keep all my commandments. And behold, thou wilt remember the poor, and consecrate OP thy properties for their support, that which thou hast to impart unto them, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken; and inasmuch as you impart of your substance unto the poor, ye will do it unto me."

Howe says, "Thou shalt consecrate all thy properties, that which thou hast, unto me." The truth is they were required to consecrate of their properties that which they were able to donate for that purpose; and the promise was, "inasmuch as ye impart of your substance unto the poor, ye will do it unto me."

(Time expired.)



GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:—The Books of the Bible were written on papyrus, parchment, perishable material; and they had to be copied and revised to preserve them; and this was done by uninspired men liable to err. The Book of Mormon was engraved by inspired men, on plates, imperishable material, and needed no copying. If the Bible was revised or arranged, it was done by uninspired men. The Book of Mormon was revised, abridged, by inspired men. The manuscripts of the Bible were written, preserved, and handled by uninspired men. The plates of the Book of Mormon were engraved, preserved and handled by inspired men. The Bible has come down to us without any miracle in its production, except in the inspiration of its inspired men. The Book of Mormon was written by miracle, preserved by miracle, its existence revealed to Smith by miracle.

Our translation as made by uninspired men. They had to determine which of the various readings is the true one, which of the various meanings of Greek and Hebrew words is the right one in each passage, then the meaning of the passage, from the meaning and use of its words, its context, its grammatical structure, and this was the work of uninspired learning. But Smith had to compare no various readings. He had the exact words, that the inspired Mormon engraved. He did not have to search lexicons, and grammars for meanings and uses of words. He looked into his interpreter and God himself by miracle caused the word to appear before Smith's vision. If there is any mistake God made it—not Smith. The only chance for error was that Smith could not read the word correctly, or that his scribe did not understand the word as Smith gave it to him; but as Smith was inspired he could make no mistakes and as Cowdery was directly called and qualified, according to the revelation in the Book of Doctrines and Covenants, he could make no mistake. We can see how. mental peculiarities and lack of education could affect the writers of the Bible, and understand that they should appear in the books of the Bible; but Smith's illiteracy, his mental peculiarities, and style, ought not, could not, appear in the Book of Mormon, for God, by miracle, placed the word before Smith, and all Smith did was to read it and repeat it to Cowdery, and all Cowdery did was to write it. Smith and Cowdery had no more to do with the words, style, truth, literary character, of the Book of Mormon, than a speaking trumpet, or a telephone, or

phonograph have with what a man utters through them.

The angel Moroni declares in the inspired preface, which is a direct revelation from the angel God authorized to give this revelation to the world, that it is "written by way of commandment and by the spirit of prophecy and revelation, written and sealed, and hid up by the command and inspiration of God; to come forth by the inspiration and power of God; and the interpretation (by Smith) was by the gift of God." It was all done by inspiration, by God himself. Not only so, but the three witnesses testify "We know that the records have been translated by the gift and power of God for his voice declared it unto us, wherefore we know of a certainty that the word, the Book of Mormon is true." Why? Because God's voice declared that it was true.

The only opportunity there is for human error in the Book of Mormon, is in typographical errors, and there can be none of these, for it was proofread by inspired men; and the caveat that it is pretended Moroni issued in the preface "If there be fault it be the mistake of men," is a deliberate lie, since God inspired the speakers, actors, and writers, as fully as he did the apostles, since he inspired and superintended all copying, since he gave every word himself, by direct miracle in the translation, as Moroni himself tells us in the same preface, since he said, with his own voice, to the three witnesses that the translation was his own work; and that the Book is true. There can be no mistake of man, for man had no more to do with it than a telephone has with what it utters. The statement of Moroni is as remarkable for its morality as for its grammar "If there be fault it be the mistake of men." The Almighty, in his last and most perfect revelation, sends out faults, a bundle of falsehoods with the truth that he gave to the world word by word by Joe; and which he commanded the three witnesses, with his own voice, to declare all nations and tongues to be true.

We are now ready to examine this revelation we affirm:

1. That God would not give, in so wonderful and entirely miraculous a manner, a book that did not commend itself to the common sense and reason of men, as worthy of him, and divine.

2. He would give it in a manner worthy of himself and such a miraculously given book.

3. The person through whom it was given would be worthy of such a wonderful mission.

4. The surroundings should be worthy of such a work.

5. Its utterances should agree with all established truths.

6. They should agree with other revelations in the Bible.

7. They should agree with other revelations in the Book of Doctrines and Covenants and all other revelations of Joseph Smith, or any other inspired men.




8. They should agree with the inspired translation of Joseph Smith.

9. They should agree with themselves.

10. They should be as much superior to the Bible, as their origin was superior to the origin of the Bible.

The first edition of the Book of Mormon had on the title page written by inspiration, "Joseph Smith jr., Author and Proprietor." Joe's egotism led him to tell the truth, a part of the truth, for he did not give credit to Spaulding and Rigdon, but he fearfully contradicted the declaration of inspiration, in the Book which declares that Mormon and Moroni are the authors. Inspired Joe noticed this contradiction and corrected it in all later editions. According to this inspired title page, Jehovah gave, in the most miraculous manner possible, a revelation higher and better than all he had ever given before for the salvation of the human race and constituted ignorant, lazy, loafing, lying, drinking, swearing, lewd, fortune-telling, money-hunting Joe Smith its sole proprietor and sole sharer of its profits. He gave to Imposter Joe, under the seal of R. R. Lansing, District Clerk of Northern New York, the sole right to vend this revelation that is the fulness of the Gospel.

In the introduction to the first edition it seems that the Mormon God had not found out what Lucy Harris did with the 116 pages that she burned. The Mormon God issues a long manifesto to guard against a trick that no one ever dreamt of trying. The Mormon God undertakes to circumvent any persons trying a trick that never was imagined, by telling Joe to publish a deliberate lie. He is to translate the plates of Nephi, until he comes to the same event as the one

with which the translation from the plates of Lehi in the stolen pages ended, and finish with the plates of Lehi. He then is to publish the whole as a translation of the plates of Nephi, and tell a lie. How did Joe know when he reached that point, as he did not have the plates? Why could not the Mormon God re-translate from the plates of Lehi, as well as translate from the plates of Nephi, since he had both? The truth is that Lucy Harris burnt the 116 pages of Spaulding's Mormon Manuscript No. III., and that much was gone beyond recovery. Rigdon had to re-model a portion of Mormon Manuscript No. IT. to take the place of what had been burnt.

We will now begin our analysis of the matter in the book itself. On page 1, Nephi, an Israelite born and reared in Jerusalem, as his fathers before him had been for generations, tells us that he writes his record in the language of his fathers, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians. There are four ridiculous blunders in these few words. I. The writer evidently meant to imitate Stephen, who says "Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians." He gets it the learning of the Jews, when they were inferior to the Egyptians in learning. He meant, perhaps, the learning of the Egyptians. II. The term Jew is not in the original of the Bible. It is an English nickname, just as "Yank" is a nickname for Yankee. The term Judahite or Judean was not national, the name of a people till after the return from captivity. III. The preposterous idea that an Israelite raised in Jerusalem, where only the Hebrew was spoken—whose fathers had lived in Jerusalem, where only the Hebrew was spoken—could say that the language of his fathers was Egyptian, a language that the Israelites abhorred, as they did everything Egyptian. The superstitious reverence of the Israelites for the Hebrew is well known; yet the language of Nephi, Hebrew of Hebrews, was Egyptian. IV. The idea that Jehovah spoke to an Israelite in Egyptian, when he never used in his revelations to them any language but the Hebrew. It also contains a falsehood, for Nephi's fathers were not Jews, but Mannassehites; the learning of his fathers was not that of the Jews.

We could drop the Book of Mormon right here. None but an ignoramus like Rigdon, an ignoramus in biblical literature, would have committed four such blunders as those we have given. No Israelite ever did. On the succeeding pages, from 2 to 9, we are told that Lehi was compelled by persecution to flee from Jerusalem, leaving everything behind, and taking nothing but his family, some tents and provisions. By command of the Lord Nephi is seen returning to Jerusalem to obtain certain plates in the possession of his kinsman Laban. Nephi offers Laban his father's property for the plates. Laban refuses, and drives Nephi and his brothers out, taking their property by violence. Nephi returns, makes Laban drunk, murders him, lies to his servants gets the plates and returns to his father who has a shouting time over the results of murder and lying. This account is full of absurdities and contradictions. I. It asserts that the writing material of the Israelites was metallic plates. They used papyrus, tanned leather, parchment, vellum, linen smeared with gum, tablets smeared with wax, but never used metallic plates. We read of metallic plates but once in the Bible—in the Book of Job, who was not an Israelite, and nearly 1,000 years before this time. II. The idea that God approved of Nephi's making Laban drunk, murdering him, lying to his servants, and robbing him of his property. III. On page 8 we have a talk of a Church and Brethren 600 years before Christ. Sidney Rigdon's gross ignorance is manifest in such a blunder. Let us see what these five men carried away: (A.) The books of Moses on metallic plates. (B.) The records of the Jews from the beginning. That is, all who spoke Hebrew were called Jews, from the beginning. As well say that all who spoke English were called Yanks from the beginning. This would take an enormous pile of plates, (c.) The writings of all of the prophets and writers of Israel from the beginning. All the Old Testament written before Zedekiah. All


the books it mentions that were used in writing the Books of Kings and Chronicles. All the works of the prophets mentioned in the Book of Mormon, but not mentioned in the Bible. Doubtless many prophetical writings never mentioned. (D.) Genealogical tables from Joseph to Laban. All this voluminous literature, which would have made a wagon-load if on parchment, was engraved on plates and not on papyrus, the only material then in use, and was carried off by five men, who

were dodging round to save their lives, when it must have required a caravan of teams to have hauled it. This rigmarole represents copies of the Pentateuch and the Scriptures as being common, well known, in open use with their tables of genealogy. Not a hundred years before they were almost unknown; and in the days of Zedekiah's father so little were they known that reading a copy found by accident revolutionized the nation. This enormous load of plates was carried by Lehi in all his journeyings. Laban's sword was steel, when it is a notorious fact that the Israelites knew nothing of steel for hundreds of years afterwards. Who but as ignorant a person as Rigdon would have perpetrated all these blunders? When Lehi saw that caravan-load of plates, gotten by making the owner drunk, by murder, robbery and lying, he revelates and prophecies that these plates of Laban shall go forth to all nations. As not a single plate of Laban has ever gone forth to anybody, the Mormon God was mistaken when he inspired Lehi with that prophecy.

On page 14 we have a beginning of a series of violations of the most positive requirements of

the law of God. Manassehites begin offering sacrifices in flagrant violation of the law of God. On page 16 the Mormon God commands Nephi to make plates to receive the record of the ministry of his people. Although Lehi had brought with them only tents and provisions, Nephi digs ore, smelts it, casts plates, makes tools to do all this, and engraves on them in a wilderness where a dozen persons are alone with only tents and provisions. From page IT to page 32 Rigdon makes Nephi and Lehi talk like preachers of the nineteen century. They foretell the history of John the Baptist, Mary the mother of Jesus, and the ministry of Jesus, giving the names of persons and places with great minuteness; also what they should do and say. The prophets of Israel never did any such prophesying. They rarely give names of persons or places, and never foretell the exact language persons will use. Rigdon makes Nephi and Lehi discourse like Disciple preachers. They discuss all the leading topics of the gospel as Disciple preachers do, and discuss many themes of modern theology. They plagiarize Paul's parable of the olive tree. Lehi declares he has the Holy Spirit in the name of Christ and through faith in Christ 800 years before Christ came. Rigdon airs one of his hobbies that he retained from the Baptists and in which he differed from the Disciples. John tells us that the Holy Spirit was not given in that way till after Jesus was glorified. Jesus declares that the Holy Spirit would not be given in his name till after his ascension, but Lehi knew better than Paul and Jesus. Paul declares that these gospel themes were mysteries until the apostles of Jesus revealed them. Paul was mistaken, for Rigdon tells us that Lehi and Nephi knew all about them 600 years before Paul lived. Not only so, but God revealed to Lehi and Nephi far more than he ever did to the apostles of Jesus. He revealed to them all about the Romish Apostacy, its errors and crimes, the peculiar doctrine of Luther's reformation, settles several questions of modern theology, and always in harmony with Rigdon's ideas.

One of the most monstrous absurdities in the Book of Mormon is the Liahoni, Lehi's brass

director or compass. We are told that Lehi had given to him by miracle, direct from the workshop of the Mormon God doubtless—a brass ball of curious workmanship. The reader will admit that it was of most curious workmanship when he hears it described, "and it was of fine brass, and within the ball were two spindles, and one pointed out the way we should go in the wilderness." How could they see the two spindles inside of a hollow brass globe? "One pointed the way they should go." Of what use was the other? It pointed the way they should not go, I suppose. Page 86: "These spindles (inside of a brass globe) worked according to the faith of the possessor." If they worked as the possessor wanted them to point, of what use were they? How did they see how they pointed if they were inside of a brass globe? By faith and the power of God I suppose, as Imposter Joe saw the translation of the Book of Mormon in the crown of his old hat as he was peering into his stolen peep-stone; but as the possessor knew they pointed the direction he wanted them to point, it did not make any odds whether he saw them or not. "On these spindles was written "—on two fine spindles inside of a brass globe where nobody could see—"a new writing." It must have been an extensive writing that was all on two fine spindles. "Plain to be read." Yes it must have been very plain on two fine spindles and inside of a brass globe where nobody could see, "and it gave us instructions concerning the ways of the Lord," all on two fine spindles and inside of a brass globe where nobody could see; "and it was written and changed from time to time"—yes all on two fine spindles or needles inside of a brass globe where nobody could see it. Then Sidney remarks with exceeding unction, "Thus we see that the Lord accomplishes great things by small means." Yea, verily, Sidney; and when the Lord gave the fulness of the gospel to

the world through such a lying, extravagant ignoramus as you, in such balderdash as the above he accomplished the greatest work with the smallest means ever tried.

Next Nephi is told to build a ship and




showed in a vision where to find material. Lehi left Jerusalem with nothing but tents and provisions, for he fled for his life and is away in a wilderness and without tools. Nephi alone, for the rest opposed and ridiculed him, and there were only 15 men and women in all, digs ore, builds furnaces, forges and machine shops, smelts ore, casts implements, forges, tools, "every tree to cut down," cuts the trees and builds the ship "all his own self," as the boy boasted he accomplished his task. But then Nephi tells us that he did not construct it after the fashion of men, but after a manner that the Lord showed him. I am so glad that he told us that, or we might not have believed his story. I suppose the Lord's plan or patent on ships don't require any work. What a pity that he did not leave the plan, by which one roan can, all by his own self, do the work of hundreds and in next to no time. If it be said that this was done by miracle, then what need of Nephi's doing anything? Why was not the ship furnished ready made, like Lehi's wonderful brass compass?

Lehi and his host set sail in this wonderful ship made after the Lord's plan. Notwithstanding this wonderful series of miracles that Nephi had worked before their eyes, Nephi's brethren rebel and bind him, and "lo and behold," to use the celestial language of this Divine translation of Reformed Egyptian, the wonderful brass compass gets balky and refuses to work, and the rebels know not whither to steer the ship, "inasmuch that there arose a great storm, yea, a great and terrible tempest." Awful, Sydney! perfectly awful! Now whether the tempest so great and terrible, was caused by the compass ceasing to work, or by their not knowing which way to steer, is not plain, but the language declares "it was one or tother." The ship is driven back; now if they did not know which way they were going how did they know whether it was driven back, or forward, or sideways. Nephi is released and the compass points—the way they should go? No, the way Nephi wants it to point. That compass was as valuable as the California hog scales. It is said that out there they used to lay a rail across a log, put the hog on one end and a pile of stones on the other, until they balanced, and then guess at the weight of the stones.

If it be said that Nephi knew what course they ought to go, then of what use was the compass to him? If the compass showed him, how did he know when it ceased to work? And how did it show him when he made it point the way that he wanted it to point? That compass was as serviceable to Nephi as the man's snuffers who snuffed the candle with his fingers and put the snuff into the snuffers. Finally they reach the land of promise, and they find in the wilderness both the "cow" and the "ox." Now here is a miracle which ends all cavil as to the divine origin of the Book of Mormon. Cow and ox cannot mean two different species of animals, and as one is sufficient to designate the genus has; ox means the male upon which an operation has been performed to change him from a bull into an ox. Now, as man had not been in this land, we have the blasphemous ludicrous insinuation that the miraculous power of the Almighty had been exerted to change these animals from bulls into oxen to prepare them for Nephi's use. Now we know of a certainty, Sidney, that the Book of Mormon is of Divine origin. While they were in the wilderness before building the ship Nephi was told to make brass plates. One of two things is certain, either he had to dig up copper and zinc, smelt them and manufacture brass plates, and that without tools to do it, for they had fled from Jerusalem with nothing but tents and provisions, or he wrote on nothing or made the plates out of nothing.

On landing in America, the Mormon God is so careful about having Impostor Joe get these

plates that he orders Nephi to make some more plates—gold, silver and copper are mentioned, but no zinc; but Nephi has got used to making things out of nothing, and it was no trick at all for him to make copper without zinc, build furnaces, work mines and make machine shops without tools, and nothing to do it with.

On page 44 it is declared that the darkness at the death of our Saviour should cover the whole earth and last three days. The Bible says it was only over the land in which he was crucified, and was only three hours; but hifalutin spread-eagle Sidney never did things by halves; he had it over

the whole earth and three whole days— none of your cheap little miracles for Sidney; they might do for the Bible, but they wont answer for miracles in the "Fulness of the Gospel."

On page 56, Lehi, in a sermon, quotes whole sentences of Paul's writings more than 600 years before Paul wrote:—"By the law 110 flesh is justified. He offereth himself a sacrifice for sins which layeth down his life according to the flesh and taketh it up according to the spirit that he. may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead being the first to rise." Which shall we believe, that an Israelite in the wilds of America quoted Paul's language, whole sentences, 600 years before Paul was born, or that the Disciple preacher Rigdon interpolated Paul's language into the romance he stole from Spaulding when he was remodelling it to be used as a pretended new revelation?

From pages 59 to 60 is a pretended prophecy of the Patriarch Joseph concerning Imposter Joe. "He is a choice seer." Verily he was! He shall bring forth the Nephite Word of God. He will be of the seed of the Patriarch Joseph, the Son of Jacob. His name shall be Joseph, His father's name shall be Joseph. Now here is a dilemma. The Nephites were all exterminated; the only descendants of Lehi and Joseph in America are the Lamanites. They were cursed with a skin of blackness and became





Indians. Did Imposter Joe come from the Nephites that have not existed for 1400. years, or from the Indians? Of what tribe is he the "big injun?" Perhaps he is one of the three Nephites that never died. The Patriarch Joseph prophesied of Sidney Rigdon also. The Lord was to raise up of the fruit of the loins of the Patriarch Joseph a spokesman for that seer. Again we are in trouble. Did Sidney Rigdon come from the Nephites that have been exterminated 1400 years, or is he "Big Injun" of some tribe of Lamanites? Perhaps he is one of the Nephites that never died, and Imposter Joe's father, who was of the seed of Joseph, was the third. Is this prophecy or is it a fraud of Sidney Rigdon?

Page 62 we have a long soliloquy that Nephi engraved on the plates made up of patches of the Psalms and Jeremiah badly put together. Then Nephi marches off into the wilderness with all of the company except two sinners, Laman and Lemuel, and their rebellious seed, who remain behind and are cursed with a skin of blackness and became Lamanites — Indians. Nephi and his company, however, keep the law of the Lord according to the statutes of Moses. We shall see how well they do it. Now we encounter a blunder that is sufficient to brand the Book of Mormon as the most blunderingly constructed fraud, the most transparent lie ever told.

The largest estimate that we can possibly put on this company, will not make it more than ten married couples—all of whom, except Lehi, are married after leaving Jerusalem; yet, already they are divided into two nations, and Nephi teaches one of these mighty nations how to make weapons and defend themselves against the mighty nation of Lamanites, two men, two women, and their children born during twenty years. This mighty nation of Nephites composed of not more than eight adults, four men and four women, and their children born during twenty years, erect in the wilderness of America a temple like unto the temple of Solomon; they work in iron these eight men and women, erect furnaces, forges and machine shops, work in copper and gold, yes, and in brass and steel, which Mormon inspiration tells us are native ores. The origin of the American Indians has puzzled all ethnologists; but Sidney Rigdon explanifies the whole matter. To prevent the Nephites from mixing with the wicked Lamanites, the Lord wrought a stupendous miracle—he cursed the Lamanites with a skin of blackness. There now you have a great scientific problem solved by inspiration. I commend this wonderful scientific explanation to Kelley as the crowning evidence of the Divine origin of the Book of Mormon.

After asserting that they kept the commandments of God, according to the law of Moses,

Nephi coolly tells us that they erected a temple in America instead of at Jerusalem—consecrated priests out of the tribe of Manasseh instead of Levi. And these usurper priests offered sacrifices in the wilderness of America instead of at Jerusalem in a temple built in violation of God's law. God blessed these sacrilegious violators of his law far above the most favorite obedient Israelite in Palestine, revealed to them the Gospel, and conferred on them its blessings as fully as on the most

favored apostles of Christ 600 years before Christ came. God terribly punished Korah, Dathan and Abiram for violating his law, though they did not violate is as flagrantly as did these Nephites, and placed far above all mankind these sacrilegious Nephites who trampled nearly every precept under foot. These Nephites preached the Gospel of Christ as clearly as Sidney Rigdon could preach it, and as he preached it; and enjoyed every blessing of the Gospel as fully as Rigdon could, yet Nephi declares that "notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we obey the law of Moses." What a falsehood, for he tells us they violated all its great principles and "look steadfastly unto Christ until the law be fulfilled." The law was to prepare a way for the knowledge of Christ, and then became useless having fulfilled its purpose. The Nephites obeyed the law for 600 years after they knew all about the Gospel, and obeyed it when the law was useless to them, and they could not obey it for they were obeying the Gospel. This blundering, unscriptural introduction of the Gospel 600 years before Christ who alone was to reveal and introduce it, is in flat contradiction of every idea of God's word. But Rigdon was bound to have his Nephites far greater fellows than their brethren in Palestine, even if he did contradict God's word in doing it.

The Nephites who violate God's law far excel Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel in prophesying. They quote whole chapters of the Old Testament, whole paragraphs and sentences

of the New, quoting the exact language hundreds of years before the ones who uttered it lived. "They that are filthy are filthy still. They shall go away into everlasting punishment. He commandeth all men that they must repent. Where there is no law there is no punishment, and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation." These are a few of scores of instances that could be cited. Who is such a sodden idiot as to believe that men in America preached all the doctrine of Christ and his apostles 600 years before they uttered it, in the exact words in which they uttered it, rather than that Sidney Rigdon interpolated these quotations into the manuscript he had stolen from Spaulding when he was remodeling it to make a "big thing of it" as a new revelation?

It is perhaps necessary that we repeat our answer to our opponent's endless talk about American antiquities. We will concede that if he can prove that Joseph Smith gave to the world a single fact or truth regarding American antiquities or archaeology or the history of the aborigines of America that was not known before his day, or that scientific research has discovered since his




day, that he was inspired and the Book of Mormon is of Divine origin. Our opponent cannot ask more than that of us. Will he meet the issue and prove that Joseph Smith has done so? We have proved that from the days of Cortez and Pizarro until Solomon Spaulding, scores of writers had published every idea in regard to American antiquities to be found in the Book of Mormon—that more than a score of such publications were issued during the lifetime of Solomon Spaulding in the United States— that Spaulding was well versed in these theories and an earnest advocate of them— that where the works of his day were correct his ideas in the Book of Mormon are correct—where they were in error his ideas in the Book of Mormon are erroneous.

My opponent tries hard to make something out of the fact that Priest published his works after Spaulding's death, and the last work after the Book of Mormon was published. Unfortunately for his effort, the authorities that Priest quotes in both works were published before Spaulding died and some of them before Smith was born. I defy my opponent to name a single idea in the Book of Mormon in regard to American antiquities that was not published before Spaulding wrote his Manuscript Found and most of them before Spaulding was born. They had been published in the United States and were the belief of most preachers in New England and the Middle States when Spaulding wrote his Manuscript Found. Sir Walter Scott wrote his historical novels and incorporated into them certain facts of Scotch antiquities, archaeology and Scotch history. His novels agree with the results of scientific research into Scotch antiquities to a vastly greater extent than the Book of Mormon agrees with the results of scientific research into American antiquities. Not only so but they contain innumerable facts of Scotch History, many accurate pictures of persons well known in Scotch History and innumerable incidents in their lives. The Book of Mormon does nothing of the kind: not a historic incident or character in it can be found outside of

the Book of Mormon except what it plagiarizes from the Bible. Now to argue as Mr. Kelley does that the Book of Mormon is true, a veritable history, and of Divine origin because it harmonizes with certain ideas in regard to American antiquities that had been current in the United States before its author was born is infinitely more absurd than it would be to claim that all of Scott's historical novels were true, veritable histories, and of Divine origin, for they contain vastly more concerning Scotch antiquities that is true than the Book of Mormon contained concerning American Antiquities; and they contain almost innumerable facts of Scotch history, multitudes of real historic characters, with accurate descriptions of them and innumerable facts from their lives, while the Book of Mormon does not contain a single historic fact or character or incident. All that part of it is pure fabrication. Its history is as pure fabrication as Gulliver's travels or Baron Munchausen's Tales. The truth is simply this that as Scott incorporated certain facts of Scotch antiquities that were known in his day into his historic romances, so Spaulding incorporated into his historic romance the Manuscript Found certain ideas in regard to American antiquities that were current in his day. But Spaulding was not nearly as accurate as Scott and did not incorporate into his romance one hundredth part as much truth as Scott did. If Spaulding was inspired and the Book of Mormon stolen from him a revelation Scott was an hundred fold more inspired. Until my opponent clearly proves that there is a single fact or truth in the Book of Mormon that was not well known before it appeared his archaeological argument for its divine-origin is colossal in its impudence and absurdity.





GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: —There are but two more evenings upon this question. [The original agreement was for eight sessions, but after this evening was extended to ten.] I am glad again of this privilege of standing before you to advocate the divine sanction claimed for the Book of Mormon, because I think it is God's truth; I not only think it is true, but I am confident—I know that it is as claimed. I do not give you my personal knowledge, however, that you may take it for evidence in this discussion; but I offer you the knowledge from God's word, and if that is in accordance with my positions, I wish you to take that.

This evening I shall first take up and conclude my review of the kind of evidence Mr. Braden has offered you to prove his case, and asked you to rely upon, viz: through the book of witness, (he says lawyer), Howe.

Don't deceive yourselves, my friends, by imagining that he is a lawyer. I have never known a lawyer yet, who would deliberately publish for truth what purported to be extracts from the works of a body of people in order to bemean them, and to accomplish this end would publish garbled, wicked and lying statements. I have known of many low and mean things resorted to by priests and people in order to try to make the Saints out monsters of crime and iniquity, but not many so brazen and impudent as to deliberately pretend to make a quotation from their books and then corrupt it, in order to keep it from knocking in the head their malicious scheme.

When I concluded last evening I was contrasting Howe's spurious quotations with the genuine, on the charge that he was trying to make out, that the early authorities of the church were after the people's property.

Howe, as I was before reading, pretends to quote: "Thou shalt consecrate all thy properties, that which thou hast, unto me." Page 129.

The true reading is, and I read from the first publication of the Book of Covenants, here in Kirtland, published five years before Mr. Howe's work: "Thou shalt remember the poor and consecrate of thy properties for their support, that which thou hast to impart unto them." Sec. 13, par. 8.

18. Again, Howe says: "He (the bishop) shall appoint every man a steward over his own property."

Here Howe, to carry out the evil

bishop appoint a steward for every man.

The record is: "Every man shall be made accountable unto me [Christ], a steward over his own property."

In the record a man is made a steward over his own by Christ, and is held responsible by Christ the head of the Church, and to no one else.

19. Again, Howe: "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out, and shall not receive again that which he has consecrated unto me; for it shall come to pass, I will consecrate the riches of the Gentiles unto my people which are of the house of Israel."

Here he wants to prove the lying assertions so often made that the Saints expected to get other people's property. A false assertion, as I have before stated.

Hear the record upon this: "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out of the church, and shall not receive again that which he has consecrated unto the poor and needy of my church, or in other words, unto me; for as much as ye do it unto the least of these ye do it unto me; for I will consecrate of the riches of those who embrace my gospel among the Gentiles, unto the poor of my people who are of the house of Israel."

Then is there any foundation for the assertion that has often been thrown to the world by these perverters of our faith, that we expected to consecrate of the property of the Gentiles? It is so represented by those who have perverted the faith, and have garbled it, in order to misrepresent us to the world.

The rule laid down and the notice given as to getting back donations of property made, is precisely according to the law of the land, and differs as to other denominations in this: The Saints are plainly told before giving they cannot expect to get their properties back if they should at some future time be severed from the church; on the ground that it will have likely been disposed of, for the purposes for which it was given, to wit: the poor and needy. Thus every man is put fully upon his guard when the gift is sought that he may not be deceived. Whereas, in other churches they take the monies without ever hinting that they can't get them back if the donors are cast out afterwards. And because they have not been given back when asked afterwards, I have known, and doubtless all of you have, a large number of law-suits against other churches to reclaim such properties and donations, on the ground of bad faith. The custom of the Saints is fairer and less likely to deceive than any other church with which I am acquainted. The people are fairly and fully notified before they give to the church that they cannot get anything back that they give to the poor or for the good of the church. But are you notified by anybody else in that way? Notice is fairly given that a man shall account unto Him (Christ) and render in the final day of summons





as to the stewardship over his own property.

Every man was recognized a steward over his own property, to do as he pleased with it. But Mr. Howe makes it read the bishop appointed men stewards over the property of others. Mr. Howe says, "that after the bishop received the property of the church, that it cannot be taken from the church." The revelation says, that while men are acting as stewards over their own property, and shall see fit to consecrate "of them" unto the "poor" etc., and the bishop shall receive "testimonies" concerning the consecration of the properties of the church, they cannot be taken from the church. The revelation leaves every man free to do as he pleases with his properties; to be his own "steward," to give to the poor as he may feel prompted; but when once given, it cannot be withdrawn; while Mr. Howe teaches that the bishop appointed men stewards over their own property and that they were required to consecrate "all of their properties," etc. Do you discover a disposition here to be fair, or present only facts?

20. Continuing upon page 130, Howe in order to make his case out against the Saints, attacks with the same wicked and vehement spirit Jesus and the early Christians. He says; "If Smith and all his witnesses were to now come forward and say that his pretensions were a wicked deception, they (the Saints), would not believe a word of it—because [they claim] the Spirit had shown that it was true." "Here," he says, "Is the sure refuge, the fast hold of every imposter. This something

which is the Spirit or Holy Spirit, has been the standing, unequivocal, incontrovertible and true witness for at least twenty-four false Messiahs, for Mohammet who is considered the prince of imposters, and for nearly fifty others who have come with pretended commission from heaven."

Here is fairly shown the grand sequel of Howe's bitterness against the Saints: They claim that there is such a thing as "the Spirit" or "the Holy Spirit;" and whoever in the world's history according to Howe, has made such a claim, was a deceiver and an "imposter." How do you like your, witness now who attacks the Savior, Christ, as vehemently as he does the Book of Mormon?

21. Again, says Howe: "His [Smith's] predictions are always found far off' equivocal, and ambiguous, and always relate to some events which everyone supposes to be quite probable." Then he goes on to falsify as to what some of these prophecies were as has been proved was the manner of his other garbling. But let us examine Smith's statements and show the roguery of the assertions:

1. That his "name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds and tongues; or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people."

Is there anything ambagious or equivocal about that? And again, page 105, Book of Mormon;

"And because my words shall hiss forth, many of the Gentiles shall say, A Bible, a Bible, we have got a Bible and there cannot be any more Bible." What do you see equivocal or ambiguous about this? The Book of Mormon was published to the world under the title of the Book of Mormon. The title of Bible is not by it, nor by its friends, ever been claimed for it; neither by them the term used for the plates from which it was translated. Yet, the prediction is a literally true one; it is far and near, by the enemies of the Saints, called a Bible, and perhaps there never was more than a dozen, if even so many as two, Campbellite preachers in the state of Ohio, who did not thus in calling it the Mormon Bible contribute to the truth of the prophecy in regard to it, at the same time they misrepresented the people and denounced the whole thing as false. This prophecy was given or the statement made by Joseph Smith two years before the book was published and sent to the public, that when the book should go to the world the people would say, "A Bible." What do you see equivocal or ambiguous about this?

Another one, Book of Mormon page 496: "And it [ the book] shall come [forth to the world], in a day when the blood of the Saints shall cry unto the Lord because of secret combinations and the works of darkness." Where is the ambiguity here? How did Mr. Smith know, or how could he foresee, except by the illuminating light of heaven, that in this land with a constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, his people should be slain by wicked hands; that men who had warred for freedom in the great revolution should be hewn to the ground by religious bigots without mercy; that men, women and innocent children should be butchered without mercy; and finally that a state should be permitted to rob thousands of its citizens, and banish them as exiles, to die upon other territories through the hardships and rigors of a fearful winter. Aggressors did you say? Turn to the official address of Major-General Clark of the forces that were sent to aid the mob in Missouri when the Saints were defending their homes and their wives and children against the efforts of the grandest set of rascals the world ever saw, to drive them from the state, and then say aggressors if you dare! Says he, to as faithful and true men and women as ever graced God's earth, as good and noble citizens, and as loyally patriotic as the Republic ever produced, as they were then deprived of the comforts of their hearth and homes: and encamped upon the bleak prairies of north Missouri:

"It now devolves upon you to fulfill the treaty that you have entered into, the leading items of which I now lay before you. The first of these you have already complied with, which is that you deliver up your leading men to be tried according to law. Second, that you deliver up your arms—this has been attended to. The third is that you sign over your properties to defray the expenses of this war—this you have also done. Another thing yet remains for you to comply with— that is that you leave the State forthwith; and whatever your feelings concerning this affair, whatever your innocence, it is nothing to me."



Can you point to a grander outrage in all the annals of the world's history than this against a people? "Whatever your innocence, it is nothing to me." You shall not even be permitted while you are in the midst of the mobocrats to retain the arms with which you could defend yourselves from their vengeance of death. No, like them of old they cry out, "Crucify him! Crucify him! But release unto us Barrabas," the robber.

I could mention the relatives who have been in the halls of Congress of men who were hewn down there, and as able men as there are in America to-day, if I would take up my time to do so. And yet, such actions are defended here by a pious-minded, high-toned elder of the Campbellite Church. Ladies and gentlemen, I begin to see why it was that when they could not cope with Mr. Smith and Rigdon over at Hiram, in argument, they "got rid of them" by the old way of applying the argument of "tar and geese feathers."

But let me tell you here and now, that if ever in my life-work I shall meet with such a case of rapine and oppression, or unlawful vengeance against any people of any denomination, or any party, whether Christian or infidel, I shall not fail to exert every power within me to protest against it; and it is a cardinal principle of the faith of the Saints, and ever has been, that they should be as ready to stand for and defend the rights and privileges of others as themselves. I know how Col. Lovejoy and an associate was shot down in the streets of Alton, 111., because he dared to express his political opinions and stand for the principle of the freedom of the press in this country; and it was a like evil and cowardly crew that has been defended in this controversy by the negative, who destroyed men and women for religious opinions' sake. But to return to the examination of Howe, as a witness (lawyer), and the Spaulding romance.

The prophecies he says are so ambiguous. Take another, same page: "It shall come to pass in a

day when there shall be heard of fires and tempests [tempest is a violent wind as the now familiar cyclone], and vapors of smoke in foreign lands [like to the great disturbance of the earthquake last fall, which the scientific say so filled the atmosphere of the world that it has occasioned the crimson red phenomena of the sun's appearance], and there shall also be heard of wars and rumors of wars, and earthquakes in diverse places: yea, and it shall come in a day when there shall be great pollutions upon the face of the earth; there shall be murders and robbings and lyings and deceivings, and whoredoms, and all manner of abominations, when there shall be many who will say, do this, or do that, and it mattereth not for the Lord will uphold such at the last day."

I could in this manner read to you the entire hour, of the certain, unmistakable and definite prophecies in this book, many of which have already had a complete and literal fulfilment. Why is it, then, that this deceiving work of Mr. Howe is sent forth to the world? No wonder he don't want to put Mr. Howe upon the stand for examination. I will ask him where he got his compilation from, and if he did not know he was misrepresenting the faith of this people. I have met many men in my time who could stand up and with all the powers of dissimulation of innocence and modesty tell to others what I believed; pretend to give my belief from the Bible and other books, when there was not a shadow of truth in what they were saying. Turning over the book I shall pass at this time the terrible mess set out in the letters of Ezra Booth, and notice the pretended affidavits of Peter Ingersol, Wm. Stafford, Barton Stafford, purporting to be signed before a judge of the Court of Wayne county N. Y., Thomas P. Baldwin, which, upon the face is shown to be a humbug, for there is not one in due form of law had the officer properly signed, and had there been such; but upon diligent inquiry I failed to find that even the officer existed as such. Having my doubts aroused as to the matter through an article in the Chicago Inter-Ocean a short time ago, I wrote to the clerk of the courts of Wayne county, N. Y., and received the following reply:


E. L. KELLEY, ESQ., Dear Sir:—Yours of the 31st instant duly received, and in reply will say that I have looked for the name of Thomas P. Baldwin as an officer in the county and fail to find his name at all. Looked back to the time the county was organized, (1823).

Very Respectfully,



Again, not quite satisfied, thinking perhaps he might be mistaken, I wrote to him again, asking

him who was the County Judge in 1833, when these purported affidavits of Mr. Howe say that they were signed by Thos. P. Baldwin County Judge. He answers me February 7th, 1884:

"In reply to your favor of the 6th ult., will say that David Arne, Jr., was County Judge in 1833."

Very Respectfully,



[Since the conclusion of the debate of this proposition, the clerk has written to Mr. Braden stating that he overlooked the officer when examining the records at my request. And upon this I claim nothing upon the point that Baldwin was not a Judge.—KELLEY.]

Do you blame me, then, ladies and gentlemen, for stating before you I cannot take as evidence anything that has passed through such hands as Mr. Hulburt and Howe, unless I have the original statement to compare, or it can be proven outside in some way that these statements that he has been referring to—but never reading in full to you—are unaltered and genuine? Here is where he gets his John Spaulding, Martha Spaulding, Henry Lake, John Miller, Aaron Wright, Oliver Smith and Nahum Howard. Do you want me to swallow their contradictory, self-accusing, wholly improbable, malicious falsehoods, rather than accept the truth of God? Could any-





thing pure and immaculate have passed through that sewer of filth and come out worthy of the palate of decent men and women? Answer for yourselves. But I proceed further with the examination. I now call your attention to the letter of Mrs. Matilda Davidson, another of his witnesses, to a Boston newspaper and published May, 1839, this a person too, better informed upon these matters, who had a better opportunity to be so than all the others he has referred to; and she also manifests a terrible feeling against the people that I represent. She says, "That any sane person should rank it higher than any other merely human composition is a matter of the greatest astonishment, yet it is received as divine by some who dwell in enlightened New England, and even by those who have sustained the character of devoted "Christians." Yes, and right here I might say, that when I traveled through "enlightened New England" but about four months ago, I found many churches of the same people, and hundreds of good, faithful, Godfearing and worshiping men and women in them, all the way from Providence, R. I., to Addison, Me. But she continues, and I read extracts, for the letter is very long and in great part but conclusions which are in no sense evidence, and which would not interest you: "It [the manuscript] claims to have been written by one of the lost nations and to have been recovered from the earth." [Got out of the cave on Conneaut Creek], "and assumed the title of "Manuscript Found." Assumed it? How? By writing its own title on its back? No, certainly not? Evidently by these parties who we next hear about whom Spaulding told that "he got it out of a cave on Conneaut Creek." "The neighbors would often inquire how Mr. Spaulding progressed in deciphering the manuscript, [Translating from the Latin as he claimed,] "and when he had a sufficient portion prepared he would inform them and they would assemble and hear it read. He was enabled from his acquaintance with the classics and ancient history, to introduce many singular names, which were particularly noticed by the people, and could be easily recognized by them."

"Mr. Spaulding had a brother John Spaulding, who repeatedly heard the whole of it read."—Repeatedly heard the whole of it read, which abounded in "names from the classics and ancient history."

All! yes; here it is identified beyond a doubt; the same old scrap of forty or fifty pages that was said to have been found in a cave, and which she gave to Hulburt, who gave it to Howe, who destroyed it, lest it destroy the affidavits he and Hulburt had gotten up. Howe now says Hulburt wrote the affidavits. But she proceeds:

"He, Mr. Spaulding, exhibited his manuscript [same one] to Mr. Patterson, (at Pittsburg,) who was very much pleased with it, and borrowed it for perusal. He retained it for a long time, and informed Mr. Spaulding that if he would make out a title page and preface, he would publish it, and it might be a source of profit. This Mr. Spaulding refused to do." Refused to make out a title

page and to have it published for profit, although Braden's witnesses make out that he was to pay his debts out of this. Spaulding did not go back and pay his debts, as Smith and Harris did with Saunders in New York. No; he was a pious Presbyterian minister. But she continues:

"At length the manuscript was returned to its author, and soon after we removed to Amity, Washington county, Pa., where Mr. Spaulding deceased in 1810."

Notice, that she says that they went to Amity, Pa., where he died in 1816. Left Pittsburg, then, before Sidney Rigdon was ever there according to their own testimony.

"The manuscript then fell into nay hands," she says, "and was carefully preserved."

Did I not tell you I would expose the fraud by witnesses that were from the other side? But again:

"It has frequently been examined by my daughter, Mrs. McKinstry, of Munson, Mass, [the same whose testimony I have before introduced in this discussion], with whom I now reside, and by other friends."

Again: "A woman preacher appointed a meeting there [at New Salem], and in the meeting read and repeated copious extracts from the Book of Mormon." "Mr. John Spaulding was present. His grief found vent in a flood of tears, [Here is where these witnesses bring the lachrymose John in,] and he arose 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.

Oh, how his feelings were hurt!

"The excitement in New Salem became so great that the inhabitants had a meeting and deputed Dr. Philastas Hulburt, one of their number, [yes, one of their number, citizens of Kirtland; but the same who had been banished from our society for an insult to one of your lady citizens], "to repair to this place and to obtain from me the original manuscript of Mr. Spaulding for the purpose of comparing it with the Mormon Bible, to satisfy their own minds"—[Remember, they were not satisfied before]— "and to prevent their friends from embracing an error so delusive. This was the year 1834. Dr. Hulburt brought with him an introduction and request for the manuscript, which was signed by Messrs. Henry Lake, Aaron Wright and others.

I am reading from her letter all the time. 11 Henry Lake, Aaron "Wright and others." Who are these Henry Lake, Aaron Wright and others that send a letter to Mrs. (Spaulding) Davidson for the purpose of getting the manuscript? The same ones that he pointed out as the best men, or among the best citizens, of Geauga county,—"old Geauga county!" Wondered if I would say anything against them! Not personally against their character. I do not assail men in that way. Don't have to, these men.


These are the same parties whom he has introduced as witnesses from Howe.

"Thus an historical romance, with the addition of a few pious expressions and extracts from the sacred scriptures (All! Smith and Rigdon did not put them in then, they were in the original), has been construed into a new Bible and palmed off upon a company of poor deluded fanatics as divine. I have given this brief narration that this work of deep deception and wickedness may be searched to the foundation, and the authors exposed to the contempt and execration they so justly deserve.


My friends, are you still wanting evidence as to where the Manuscript Found went? Positively and certainly traced into the ranks of its friends, and with this in the hand-writing of Solomon Spaulding, who was dead before the Book of Mormon was published, ten identical words and expressions of which, as I have before stated, would have been sufficient to have identified it if there was any such thing written as these witnesses tell about, and yet they destroy the manuscript and publish their lying statements. What do they do? Send Hulburt back to tell Mrs. Davidson she gave him the wrong manuscript and to get the right one? Oh no! she never hears oft!, em until she writes to know what they did with it, and Howe and Hulburt write back word, "It did not read as we expected, and so we did not use it." Nor do they in this letter to her ask if she did not have another manuscript or extra original leaves of the "Manuscript Found" which their witnesses had

sworn to. Had the one sent been another than the true one, ten chances to one it would have been similar in words, phrases, and often sentences, to any other Spaulding ever wrote, had another been written by him, and a few words in his hand-writing would have fully tested the matter. But no, they destroy it. The only first evidence under the sun to detect the fraud, if there was a fraud, and this right in the hands of the lawyer, Braden's lawyer!! A man who will, after he has all of the facts before him, believe such a story as this, must be ready to gulp down the most egregious tale that it is possible for the most depraved and licentious to weave and concoct against an innocent and God-fearing people.

I might further call your attention to the fact that aside from these contradictions by Mrs. (Solomon Spaulding) Davidson of the statements of John and Martha Spaulding, relatives, neither of their purported statements bear any date, time or place of making, or by whom made; that they are quoted from something else and not the original statement as they show upon their face, and in such a way as to neither make John, Martha or any one else responsible for them. This is the testimony he so pompously thrust in my face the other evening; the best he has. How do you like to swallow it, my friends?

The publication by Howe of these purported statements and garbled extracts from our works in his History of Mormon-ism, shows that the enemies of the Book of Mormon had nothing of truth to sustain their wicked attempt to overthrow it, or they would have used it. It shows, too, that the term falsifier is a tame enough word to apply to any one so base as to falsify a people's faith by such great garbling and trickery, and present it to the world for truth; and shows further the kind of company one is liable to be found in if he essays to peddle such stuff in order to destroy the character of honest men.

All of the statements he has referred to have now been examined except those of Mr. Campbell and Adamson Bentley—this Bentley the one Rigdon referred to in his letter that I read on last evening to you.

(Time expired.)





GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--I will notice first a mis-statement made by my opponent Saturday night. I said on Friday night, after reading a series of questions, that I would have them copied in type-writing and give them to my opponent". I did so before noon on Saturday, and he had them in his possession eight or nine hours before the debate began on Saturday night. He has had them in his possession ever since, and has them now. Yet he said Saturday night that he did not have them. If he claims that he referred to another portion of my speeches, I remind him that he has had everything that he has asked of me. I think that after giving him my speeches to examine at his leisure, and prepare himself to reply to them—a thing no other opponent would do—I deserve at least fair treatment, and should not have false statements made about me. When the reader reads in Kelley's speeches that I did not give names, and that I gave persons testimony in my own words; and then turns back and reads the names of the 29 witnesses and their testimony in different type from the rest of the matter, and in their own words verbatim, he will see to what desperate straits my opponent must be driven, when he will make such reckless assertions. His desperation can be seen in his pettyfogging and misrepresentation.

He repeats the statement that we have exposed several times, that the manuscript of Spaulding's Manuscript Found was brought to Howe. He says that Howe and Hulburt skulked over to Conneaut and got witnesses to sign what they wrote. The truth is, a Mormon preacher visited Conneaut and preached his first sermon and read extracts from the Book of Mormon. John Spaulding and others arose and exposed the theft of the Manuscript Found. It was in a meeting of citizens of Conneaut and not in a Mormon church meeting. It was a Mormon preacher, and not a woman preacher. That is a misprint in Schmucker's book—as other books, that I have, show. This

detection of the theft was published in the papers. Hulburt heard of it. He went to Conneaut, and such men as Judge "Wright, Lake, a leading business man, and others of the best citizens of Conneaut wrote out their statements and gave them to him. There never was a number of affidavits more marked with independence and individuality. Contrast them with the joint statements of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon written out by Imposter Joe and signed by his confederates. Contrast their courteous testimony with Rigdon's blackguardism, the worst of- which Kelley dared not read.

He says they never mentioned the Roman manuscript until Hulburt brought it from Hartwick. No, nor did they mention Spaulding's sermons, and the stories he wrote for his children. There was no occasion for so doing until it was presented to them. He assails Miller's recollection of names. Readers of the debate will decide whether Miller's clear, rational and straightforward story is reasonable or not. I asked him whether he impeached the character of witnesses for truth and veracity, and he affected a holy horror of the thought, that is ridiculous, after his assaults on Howe and Hulburt. He, with a silliness that is idiotic, denies that Spaulding wrote the manuscript of the Manuscript Found, in the face of the clear testimony of 17 witnesses, one of whom is Rigdon himself. He blunders over Smith's working for Sabine. He says Mrs. Spaulding and her daughter left Sabine's in 1820, and that the trunk was taken from Sabine's in 1820. In 1820 Mrs. Spaulding left Sabine's, leaving her daughter with the trunk in her care at Sabine's, and went to Connecticut. Some time afterwards she married Mr. Davidson in Pomfret, Connecticut. Some time after this she returned to Hartwick, N. Y., to live. Some time after this she sent for the trunk. It was years after 1820, and it may not have been until near the marriage of her daughter to Dr. McKinstrey in 1828, that she sent for the trunk. Miss Spaulding was married at her uncle's in 1828, and afterwards went to Munson, Mass. Mrs. McKinstrey positively says that Smith worked for her uncle while she was there with the trunk in her care; and that ends all Kelley's impudent denials.

He reads Rigdon's denial. Of course a man who would steal would lie in order to lie out of it. Criminals are not allowed to swear themselves clear. The same is true of Pratt his confederate. Kelley deliberately falsifies my statements. I did not say that Smith stole the manuscript and brought it to Rigdon in Ohio. I said Rigdon stole the manuscript Spaulding prepared for press, remodeled it to suit his purpose and took it to Smith in New York. Then Smith informed Rigdon of the rest of the manuscripts in the possession of one who had been Spaulding's wife, and stole all of them that he could, to prevent detection of the fraud, and exposure of the cheat. He says that Tucker did not see Willard Chase before publishing his statements. Wonderful! Tucker used an affidavit that Chase had sworn to, when the events were fresh in his memory, and I quoted the same affidavit, and not from Tucker. I will attend to David Whitmer's testimony in good time. What bearing has his attack on Howe's analysis of the Book of Mormon, on the truthfulness of the testimony of the witnesses and other parts of Howe's book. He reads an affidavit from Mrs. Salisbury, Joe Smith's sister. In order


to make out that she must have known it, if Rigdon visited Smith, she said that Joe lived at their father's from 1827 to 1830, and while he was translating the plates, and translated them at their father's Lucy Smith, her mother, Joe Smith, David Whitmer, P. P. Pratt and others say that Joe moved to Pennsylvania, over one hundred miles away, in the fall of 1827; and Lucy Smith says that Joe took the horse and wagon of one who came to move him to Pennsylvania, to get the plates He went right after finding the plates and before any translation, to Pennsylvania Mrs. Smith and Whitmer and Joe and others say he returned to New' York after wheat sowing in 1828. He was in Pennsylvania a year. Whitmer says he returned to Whitmer's father's and finished the translation. Mrs. Smith says he lived away from home, and that the plates were shown to the three witnesses away in another neighborhood. None of the translating was done at Joe's father's. Joe was not at his father's, but over one hundred miles away, for over a year, and was in another neighborhood, and not at his father's during the rest of the time. If Mrs. Salisbury lied, as we have proved she did, in saying that Joe was at their fathers, when he was not there, she would lie in

saying Rigdon was not there, when he was. Tucker, Mrs. Eaton, McAuley, Chase and Saunders say that he was there, and some say at least eighteen months before the Book appeared. Finally we have a long reading from the Saint's Herald of June 1881. In the Weekly News, of Cadilac, Mich., of April 6th, 1880, the Rev. C. C. Thorp, of Manchester, N. Y., published an article asserting that old acquaintances of Joe Smith, in Manchester, N. Y. made these statements:

"I knew Joe Smith, personally to some extent, saw him frequently, knew well his reputation, he was a lazy drinking fellow, and loose in his habits in every way." Danford Booth—"Smith's reputation was had. I was acquainted with Oliver Cowdery. He was a low pettifogger, the cat's paw of the Smiths to do their dirty work." Orrin Reed—" I knew the Smiths but did not associate with them for they were too low to associate with. There was no truth in them. Their aim was to get in where they could get property. They broke up homes in that way. Smith had no regular business. He had frequent revelations." Wm. Bryant.

In the spring of 1881, one quiet Lord's day morning, several old people in Manchester were interviewed by a couple of Danites. They did not tell their names or business; said it was no matter. They asked questions about the Smiths, and treated these old people as an impudent lawyer treats witnesses he wants to bulldoze. Several of these old people indignantly refused to talk to them after they had insulted them.

June 1st, 1881, an article appeared in the Saints' Herald, signed by one of these Danites. It was read to you by the other Danite Saturday night. It asserts that Mr. Thome did not talk with some of the parties he mentioned in his article, and lied about what others said. Mr. Thome had taken and placed on file in Canandaigua, Ontario Co., N. Y., in the County Clerk's office, these affidavits:

"Danford Booth, of the town of Manchester and county of Ontario, N. Y., being duly affirmed, deposes. He has read the article in the Cadillac Weekly News of April 6th, 1860, respecting 'Cowdery and the Smith family,' over the signature of C. C. Thorne. The interview therein mentioned between deponent and Thorne did take place The matters therein set forth, alleged to have been stated by the deponent to Thorne, were so stated by deponent to Thome. He has read also, in a paper called the Saint's Herald, of June 1st, 1881, an article purporting to give what was said in an interview between W. H. Kelly and another party and the deponent, in which it is stated that deponent informed said parties that deponent and Thome never bad an interview as alleged by Thorne. Deponent declares that he did not so inform said parties, and that he has no recollection of such a question being asked him by them.

"Sworn to and subscribed before me, July 1st. 1881.


(Signed) N. K. COLE, J. P."

"Orrin Reed, of the township of Manchester, county of Ontario, N. Y., being duly affirmed, deposes: His age is 77. He was born in the town of Farmington, about four miles from what is called 'Mormon Hill.' During the last 46 years he has resided in the town of Manchester, and in the same school district in which Joseph Smith and family, of Mormon notoriety, resided, and three-fourths of a mile from 'Mormon Hill.' He has read an article published in the Cadillac Newt of April 6th, 1880, respecting 'Cowdery and the Smith family,' over the signature of C. C. Thome. The matters therein set forth and alleged to have been stated by deponent to Thome were so stated by deponent, at the time and in the manner stated in said published article.

(Signed) ORRIN REED.

"Affirmed and subscribed before me June 29th, 1881.


(Signed) N. K. COLE, J. P."

"Amanda Reed, being duly affirmed, deposes: She is the wife of Orrin Reed. She heard the conversation between her husband and C. C. Thome. The statement made in the article published by Thome in the Cadillac News of April 6th, 1880, respecting Cowdery and the Smith family, were in fact so made. The language employed by her husband was substantially as therein stated.


Affirmed and subscribed as above.

(Signed) AMANDA REED."

"John H. Gilbert, of the town of Palmyra. Wayne county, N. Y., being duly sworn, deposes: That in the article published in the Saint's Herald, at Piano, Ill., June 1st, 1881, over the signature of W. H. Kelly, purporting to give an interview with the deponent on Mormonism, the deponent is grossly misrepresented in almost every particular. Words are put in the mouth of the deponent that he never uttered. The pretended answers to questions that the deponent did answer, are totally at variance with the answers that the deponent really gave. The deponent believes that such misrepresentation was done designedly.

(Signed) JOHN H. GILBERT."

Sworn to and subscribed before me July 12th, 1881.

"M. C. FINLEY, J. P."


The originals are on file in the Clerk's office in Canandaigua, Ontario County, New York. I object to Mr. Kelley's playing pettifogger and witness any more in this case. I have impeached the witness. When we come to introduce witnesses on the character of the Smiths, I shall not allow the impeached witness to testify. Readers can see how much dependence can be placed on his statements concerning what Howe and Mrs, McKinstrey said. I could read a letter from Howe, if necessary, denying his statements.

We will now resume our analysis of the Book of Mormon. Nephi follows Lehi, quoting 13 chapters of Isaiah, and he explains its fulfillment in the ministry of Christ, as only Sidney Rigdon, with the New Testament open before him, could do it. He uses the exact language of Christ and his apostles, 600 years before they




uttered it. We have 20 pages of Rigdon's preaching, and in it he tells us that these plates shall be hid up and found by "an unlearned man," and shown to" three witnesses;" not thirteen remember as Mormons now tell us and then hid up again. Rigdon's Nephites know all about the Gospel, and obey it, and still obey the law of Moses, while they are trampling it under foot, and are blessed of God, above all that have ever Jived, while violating his law; and he would lain have us believe that God revealed the entire Gospel to them, in violation of every principle of the Bible This absurd, unscriptural, blundering fraud is the "Fulness of the Gospel."

On page 118 King Jacob tells us that a hundredth part of the wars, contentions and exploits of the Nephites could not be engraved on his plates. About forty years before this, six women left Jerusalem—but one was then married. Their posterity, in about forty years, have divided into two nations, and one nation has built a temple like Solomon's, built cities, and even the inspired Jacob can not engrave one hundredth part of their exploits on his plates. Sidney never did things by halves when he mounted King Ahasuerus' horse.

On page 119 King Jacob, alias Sidney, preaches", and has a perfect knowledge of the atonement and modern theological speculations concerning it, and the resurrection and the world to come. The Apostle Paul declares that these things were mysteries, hidden from even the angels, until revealed to the world by the apostles of Christ. Poor Paul did not know what the Lord had done for the ancestors of Imposter Joe, and manuscript-stealing Sidney in the wilds of America, 600 years before his day; although they habitually trampled under foot nearly every precept of his law. King Jacob, alias Sidney, now gives a parable from the Mormon prophet Zenos. The terse, beautiful parables of our Savior concerning the unfruitful tree, the husbandman and his vineyard, and Paul's parable of the olive tree, that would cover not a page of the Book of Mormon, are diluted, caricatured, and mixed and spread over eight pages, as only hifalutin Sidney could do it. In his awkward attempts to imitate the authorized version in style, he begins thirty sentences on these 8 pages with "and it came to pass," thirty-one with "Behold." "Beheld" and "Beholdest" occur nearly a score of times each. "Wherefore" and "thereof" nearly as many times. These cant words of the writer compose a large portion of the parable from Zenos. An eccentric, illiterate character, popularly called Lord Timothy Dexter, wrote a book and compelled the printer to print it exactly as he wrote it. There was not a capital letter, nor a mark of punctuation, nor any division of matter into paragraphs or sentences in it. The book was eagerly bought up as a curiosity. In printing a second edition Dexter stated in an appendix that some had found fault with his book, because there were no capitals or punctuation marks in it; and for their benefit he added the appendix. Then followed many pages, some covered with capital letters, in all conceivable styles, each style having several lines given to it. Then followed whole pages of commas, then semi colons, until every conceivable printers' mark was printed in this way. The author remarked at the close that each reader might take as many and such capital letters and punctuation marks, as he pleased, and place them to suit himself. I would advise the printers of the Book of Mormon to print several thousands of "And it came to pass" —" Behold "—" Wherefore "—" Therefore" —- "Thereof" and other cant words, and let readers do, as Lord Timothy Dexter advised his readers to

do, select such cant words as they pleased, and as many as they pleased, and place them where they pleased.

Let us quote a sentence or two of this "Fulness of the Gospel," that is to the New Testament as the New is to the Old.

"And it came to pass that he pruned it, and digged about it, and nourished it according to his word" (nourishing a tree according to the word!) "And it came to pass that after many days it began to put forth somewhat, a tender little branches."

Who doubts that it took inspiration to bring forth that sentence? Again,

"Ye shall clear away the branches which brings forth bitter fruit, according to the strength of the good, and the size thereof, and ye shall not clear the 'bad thereof, all at once, lest the roots thereof be too 'strong for the graft thereof, and the graft thereof 'perish."

As Imposter Joe declares in his revelations about stores and land offices "Lo here is wisdom." The wisdom of God is manifest in such stuff as that, doubtless! "Who dares to doubt that it took the highest display of inspiration ever made among men to indite such twaddle as that? Seriously is it not transcendent blasphemy to even suggest that Jehovah inspired a man to steal the sublime parables of the Son of God, and the Great Apostle to the Gentiles, hundreds of years before they were uttered, and to torture their terse and beautiful language into such balderdash as that, then inspired another to engrave it on plates which he preserved miraculously, and then sent an angel to Imposter Joe to tell him where the plates containing such stuff were to be found, and put the climax to this series of miracles, by doling out to Imposter Joe, as he peeped through his stolen peep stone into the crown of his old hat, this gibberish, word by word, so precious was this "fulness of the Gospel," the power of God unto Salvation?

In the next chapter Jacob explains this wonderful parable of the Mormon prophet Zenos, in what would be a good Disciple exhortation, if there were more sense in it, it, and closes with this characteristically Rigdonian sentence "Finally Brethren I bid you farewell, until I shall meet you before the pleasing 'bar of God,' which bar striketh the wicked with awful dread and 'fear.'" The Nephite Jacob, 500 years before Christ, knew all about the English legal idea or phrase "bar," at which a criminal is arraigned. He knew all about


the general judgment, hundreds of years before it was revealed, by Christ and his apostles. What a consistent metaphor is the expression "the pleasing bar of God which strikes with awful dread and fear." King Ahasuerus' horse got away with Sidney's good sense that tune. In the next chapter we have a debate between Jacob and a Deist, in which the mediatorship of Christ, the atonement, and kindred New Testament ideas and modern theological speculations, are discussed, very much after the manner they were, in controversies between Rigdon and a skeptical Justice of the Peace in Beaver county, Pa., to which my father listened about sixty years ago. There is an awkward caricature of the miracle of Paul's striking Elymas blind, and there is more talk about "plates" and how they were to be kept, so that no reader of the Book of Mormon could have any doubt about Imposter Joe's plates.

On page 137 we have another miracle. Mosiah, a Nephite. discourses to the people of Zarahemla—Judahites—who left Jerusalem eleven years after Lehi's departure They had lost all knowledge of God, and were atheists, for they denied his existence, and their language had become so changed that they could not understand Mosiah, yet these atheists, who could not understand Mosiah, rejoiced exceedingly when he told them what they did not believe, and what they could not understand. Now we will call attention to one of the most gigantic of blunders in this bundle of blunders, the Book of Mormon. We are told, on page 137:

"And it came to pass that after the people were taught the language of Mosiah Zarahemla (their chief) gave a genealogy of his fathers according to his memory, as they were written, (what the fathers!) but not on these plates. And it came to pass that the people of Zarahemla (the chief) and Mosiah (the chief) did unite together, and Mosiah (the chief) was appointed to be their King And it came to pass in the days of Mosiah there was a large stone brought unto him with the engravings on it, and he did interpret the engravings by the gift and power of God. And they gave on account of one Coriantamur and the slain of his people And

Coriantamur was discovered by the people of Zarahemla (the Chief) and he dwelled with them (the subject of the chief Zarahemla) for the space of nine moons."

If this language means anything it means that Coriantamur died among the subjects of the chief Zarahemla in Zarahemla's time. That was about 150 years before Christ, Turn to the Book of Ether and we learn, that Coriantamur was the last of the Jaredites, who were all slain but Coriantamur 600 B. C. Mormons may take which horn of the dilemma they please. If the Jaredites were slain before Lehi came to America, Coriantamur was 500 years old when he came among the subjects of King Zarahemla. Or the Jaredites and the Nephites inhabited the same country for 450 years, living together, knowing nothing of each others existence!

King Benjamin, alias Rigdon, declares in a sermon, 150 years before Christ,

"Behold I come to declare unto you glad tidings of great joy, Behold the time cometh when the Lord shall come down from heaven with power, and shall dwell among the children of men, in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, the deaf to hear; and curing all manner of diseases, and shall cast out devils and evil spirits which dwell in the hearts of the children of men: And he shall suffer temptations and hunger, and thirst, ana fatigue and pain of body even more than man can suffer, except to be unto death, for behold blood cometh from every pore"—You see King Benjamin knew all about the physiology of the blood 2000 years before Harvey) "so great shall be his anguish for the sins and abominations of his people. And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things, from the beginning, and his mother shall be called Mary. and lo He cometh to his own that salvation might come to the children of men, even through faith in his name; and even after all this, they shall considered Him a man, and say that He hath a devil, and shall scourge Him, and crucify Him, and He shall raise the third day from the dead, and behold He standeth to judge the world."

Did Isaiah, who stands among the prophets of the Old Testament, as the prophet of the Messiah, ever utter such prophecies as these? Rigdon interpolated the history of Christ, as he took it from the New Testament, into Spaulding's romance, when he was remodelling it so that he could make a "big thing out of it" as a new revelation

Benjamin, alias Rigdon, proceeds. Remember Benjamin is an Israelite, living under the law.

150 years before the birth of Jesus.

"Salvation cometh to none except it be through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ. There shall be no other name given under heaven, nor any other means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only through the name of Christ. Except they humble themselves, and become as little children, and believe that salvation was and is and is to come (a Disciple Idea) in and through the atoning blood of Christ (One of Rigdon's revival expressions.) For the natural man is enmity against God and has been since the fall of Adam. (More modern theology.) But if he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit (one of Rigdon's revival isms) and putteth off the natural man and becometh a Saint, through the atonement of Christ our Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, humble, meek, patient, full of love, willing to submit to the things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict on him even as a child doth submit to his father."

Seriously, now, as persons of sense, shall we believe that an Israelite, under the law of Moses, preached in that way, 150 years before the birth of Christ? Or that Rigdon interpolated these sentences from the New Testament, these phrases from modern theology, these revivalism? of his own, into the MS he stole from Spaulding—when he was fixing it up to make "a big thing" out of it as a new revelation?

In the sermon of a prophet, Abinadi, which is as much like one of Rigdon's sermons as the sermons of King Benjamin, Rigdon completely "gives himself away," as the slang expression has it. Page 174. "If Christ had not risen from the dead, or have broken the bonds of death (Shades of Murray, what grammar), that the grave should have no victory, and that death should have no sting, there could have been no resurrection. But there is a resurrection from the dead, therefore the grave hath no victory, and the sting of death is swallowed up in Christ." Rigdon forgot that he was trying to put the resurrection of Christ into the mouth of an Israelite be-




fore it, occurred, which demands the future tense, and used such language as the real speaker, Rigdon, should use, and spoke of Has a past event, saying, "had risen," "has broken." On page

277 we have doctrine taught that is as clearly the work of Rigdon as is his blackguard letter to the "Boston Journal," or his glorification of King Ahasuerus' horse. Immersion for the remission of sins is preached over 100 years before John the Baptist, and in the name of Christ, more than 150 years before the day of Pentecost, just as Disciple preachers preach it; and to clinch the matter, that it is Rigdon, immersion in the name of Christ is for the miraculous gilt of the Holy Spirit, what Rigdon believed and brought from the Baptists, and the Disciples do not believe. Observe the teaching agrees with the Disciples as far as Rigdon agreed with them, and disagrees with them, just where he differed from them. Converts were added to the church, which was completely organized and in full operation more than 150 years before Jesus said, "I will build my church," proving that it did not then exist. Here again we have an instance in which Rigdon differed from the Disciples, On pages 192, 193, 194 and 195 we have descriptions, of churches of Christ, Christian teaching — Christian ordinances. Church discipline, all in accordance with Rigdon's ideas of what these things should be, A wicked son of a preacher is converted, just as men were converted under Rigdon's preaching, a regular miraculous Baptist"experience." This was followed by a regular series of Rigdonish revivals, under preachers preaching like Rigdon, the gospel in all of its fulness, according to Rigdon's notions. On page 233 we have a long extract from one of Rigdon's sermons:

"Ye must repent and be bore again, for the spirit saith (where except in John III in the exact words of Jesus) if ye are not born again ye cannot enter the kingdom of God; therefore come and be baptized unto repentance, that ye may be washed from your sins, that ye may have faith on the Son of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, who is mighty to save and to cleanse from all unrighteousness: Yea I say unto you come and fear not, lay to one side every sin which doth so easily beset you which doth bind you down to destruction, yea come and go forth and show unto your God that you are willing to-repent of your sins, and enter into a covenant with Him, to keep His commandments, and manifest it unto Him this day, by going down into the waters of baptism, and whosoever doeth this, and keepeth the commandments of God, from this time forth, the same will remember that 1 have said unto him that he shall have eternal life according to the Holy Spirit which testifieth in me.

Let me ask any person of common sense which do you believe, that an Israelite, under the law of Moses, preached in that way, in the exact words of Christ and his apostles, more than 100 years before Christ? Or has Rigdon interpolated one of his exhortations into the manuscript he stole from Spaulding when he was making "a big thing," in the shape of a new revelation out of it? Old acquaintances of Rigdon in this audience can almost hear hifalutin, spread eagle Sidney in one of his revival exhortations, as they hear that language.





GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN —Before entering upon my main argument I will notice one or two objections that have been made by my opponent.

First, with regard to the purported affidavits that he read.—Take and read the statement showing the manner of interviewing the witnesses I introduced,—when the language was taken down at the time—the parties own words—and compare it with the manner of running around and getting up an affidavit when the other side is not there and you will soon discover who has the truth.

Mr. Braden: Was Mr. Thorn present when you interviewed those parties?

Mr. Kelley: I have not presented any affidavits, sir. I have given their exact language taken at the time; written in their presence. That is the manner of getting this, and it is so stated here. I will read from the conclusion of the interview:

"These facts and interviews are presented to the readers of the Herald impartially, just as they occurred the good and bad side by side; and allowing for a possible mistake or error from a misapprehension or mistake in taking notes, it can be relied upon as the opinion and gossip had about the Smith family and others among their old neighbors. It will be remembered that all the parties interviewed are unbelievers in. and some of them bitter enemies to the faith of the Saints; and it is not unreasonable to suppose that they all told the

worst they knew. So we submit it to the Herald readers without comment, with the expectation of sending each one of the parties interviewed a copy when published."

When this was published each of the parties was sent a copy of the Herald with the interview, and not one from whose affidavit Mr. Braden has read has had the manliness to write to Mr. Kelley of Coldwater, Michigan, and say that he was misrepresented. But somebody can run around and get up an affidavit that does not men-



tion a single material contradiction, and a couple of them sign it. How many affidavits did he have from the witnesses I read from last night? From nobody but from Major Gilbert, and Major Gilbert fails to point out a single thing in which he is misrepresented. Did you not notice that? He says that he was misrepresented, but he does not state wherein he was misrepresented. The fact is, Major Gilbert, if he made that affidavit, lied, and I know that he did. I am willing to face him in Palmyra, or any other place, and say that it is not true because I know his language was taken at the time. As far as the contradiction is concerned, I do not care anything about it. I wanted it to come before this audience. I knew what Gilbert had done when he found he was caught; and what Braden had to bring, but I wanted to show this audience how easy it was to run around and get affidavits and statements from persons and prove things, when you write 'hem up yourself and have them signed The way it started, this Mr. Thorn, a Presbyterian preacher, was living there in the neighborhood, and he heard of Elder Kelley's preaching at Cadilac, Michigan, and he went to these parties to get their evidence, and he sent it over to Cadilac, Michigan, to publish it there in order to defeat Elder Kelley's preaching.

Elder Kelley, instead of saying "O! you're another," went directly to the parties themselves,

and there upon the ground took their statements, and took them down in writing and sent their statements back to them afterwards. Mr, Thorn never did any such thing with Mr. Kelley. nor with these witnesses, when they said they had made other statements, as Mr. Braden represents. I leave it then, for the honest and candid thinkers, and those who love truth rather than falsehood, to decide who has told the falsehood and who has told the truth, if there is any antagonism between these parties. There is, in fact, no worthy contradiction of W. H. Kelley's report of the interview, as yet. Major Gilbert does not state a single thing wherein he has been misrepresented. Was it in the statement that he had been trying for fifty years to collect evidence against the Book of Mormon? Was it in that he said he had a way out of the difficulty now he thought; that he had spoken to Saunders to testify that Rigdon was there, and afterwards had written him,. but Saunders had not received it? Was it in that he is reported as disbelieving in the Bible? He is the only witness whose testimony I read before you, who has said he was misrepresented. The majority have stood by their evidence as published in the interview. The others I could say something about, but I will not at this time.

Here I will refer to one or two other matters and then proceed with my argument. First, with regard to the "woman preacher" referred to in Mr. Spaulding's letter, as found in Smucker's

History. Does he not know that that is the original statement from which all the rest of these histories of Mormonism go to for their material, and yet the rest of them have struck out the word "woman." What right had they to do that?

Mr. Braden: "When was Smucker's book copyrighted? "

Mr. Kelley: "I do not care when Smoker's book was copyrighted? Mr. Braden: "In 1878?"

Mr. Kelley: "I did not get it from Mr. Smucker. I got it from a book that was published long before Smucker. Mackey's History of the Mormons, published in England. I will hand you the book any time you may wish to examine. It is a book published long before Smucker, and it has the words 'a woman preacher;' and it is the oldest work that I have seen that contained the letter. These others have taken it out of the letter because it killed them so easily. You quoted from works that had deliberately garbled the letter and have used such before this audience.

I was, in a former speech, speaking of these purported statements of John and Martha

Spaulding, as set out by Howe, showing that they are quotations from something and not the original. He does not give any date to these statements;—no time or place, or party by whom they were taken. They are put in quotations in the book, and they do not, in any sense, amount to statements. If they did, they are so contradictory to what Mrs. Spaulding herself states, that they could not possibly be relied upon. This is the testimony he so triumphantly threw into my face the other evening—the best he has. How do you like to swallow it down? The publication by Howe of these purported statements, and the garbled extracts from our works in his "History of the Mormons, or Mormon-ism Unveiled," shows that the enemies of the Book of Mormon had nothing of truth to sustain their wicked attacks and overthrow it, or they would have used it.

All of the statements which he has produced have now been examined, except that of Mr. Campbell and Adamson Bent-ley, the last of these the one whom Rigdon referred to in the letter that I read to you last evening. I did expect to refer to Mr. Campbell's this evening. I guess I shall, as I am in this connection—also Mr. Bentley's.

Mr. Campbell, you remember, mentioned in his statement that he was not- positive with regard to this; that is, that he thought that he would like to see what brother Bentley had to say about it before he gave his testimony It is not independent evidence by either of these parties This Adamson Bentley is the same party who was referred to 'by Sidney Rigdon; who. from the outset (1831) under took to destroy him; and Mr. Campbell says, as you will find by reading his letter, "that the conversation alluded to in Bro. Bentley's letter, in 1841. was in my presence as well as in his. My recollection of it led me, some two or three years ago, to interrogate Bro. Bentley concerning his recollection of it."




But I will produce the article and statements of these parties in full, so that all may properly judge them:—

—Millennial Harbinger for 1844, page 38.— Mr. Campbell heads these articles as follows:—




He then publishes an article entitled "Mormon"—The means by which it stole the "True Gospel," taken from the Evangelist, one of their own papers, then edited by Mr. Scott.

The article is as follows:—

"It is well known that the Mormons preach the true gospel, and plead for immediate obedience to it on the part of the hearers, as the advocate of original Christianity. This was not an original measure of Mormonism; for, indeed, baptism for the remission of sins is a phrase not found in their book, A few of their leaders took it from Rigdon at Euclid, on the Western Reserve, as may be learned from Brother Jones account of their first visit to Kirtland, published in a preceding volume of the Evangelist, Rigdon. we were perfectly aware, had possessed himself of our analysis, and the plea for obedience raised thereupon, tut net choosing to rely on my own recollection of the means by and the times at which they were imparted to him, we wrote to Mr. Bentley, who is his brother-in-law, for the necessary information. Mr. Bentley's letter shows, not only whence he received his knowledge of the true gospel, but also that, coward that he was, he had not the independence necessary to preach it in his own vicinity after he had received it. Thus the knowledge of ordering and pleading the elements of the true gospel by that people, is seen to arise near the same time, and from the same source, as that of our own reformation. Mr. Bentley's letter is as follows:—


"SOLON, January 22.1841.

"Dear Brother Scott:—Your favor of the 7th of December is received. I returned from Philadelphia, Pa., on the 10th, and the answer to your acceptable letter has been deferred. I was much gratified to hear from you and family, but would be much more to see you once more in the flesh, and talk over our toils and anxieties in the cause of our blessed Redeemer.

"You request that I should give you all the information I am in possession of respecting Mormonism, I know that Sidney Rigdon told me there was a book coming out (the manuscript of which has been found engraved on gold plates) as much as two years before the Mormon book made its appearance in this country, or had been heard of by me. The same I communicated to brother A. Campbell. The Mormon book has nothing

of the baptism for the remission of sins in it; and, of course, at the time Rigdon got Solomon Spaulding's manuscript he did not understand the Scriptures on that subject." [Of course he did not. He was in the Campbellite Church then, and they never understood the Scriptures as they ought to have done] "I cannot say he learned it from me, as he had been about a week with you in Nelson and Windham, before he came to my house. I, however, returned with him to Mentor He stated to me that he did not feel himself capable of introducing the subject in Mentor, and would not return without me if he had to stay two weeks with us to induce me to go. This is about all that I can say. I have no doubt hut that the account given in Mormonism Unmasked this is Howe's book "Mormonism Unveiled," which he refers to. They all go back to that for their information] is about the truth, It was got up to deceive the people and obtain their property,, and was a wicked contrivance with Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith, Jr. May God have mercy on the wicked men, and may they repent of their great wickedness! May the Lord bless you. brother Scott, and family.

Yours most affectionately,



This is a genuine Campbellite letter, as it has all of the ear-marks. He wants to tell something, when it is evident without the least comment that he knows nothing at all. He is Sidney Rigdon's brother-in-law, and since Rigdon has left his church wants to give him a dab, and he does not care how so that he is not caught. He had been intimate with Rigdon all along during the years 1823, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30: the two working together, preaching together; and Bentley knew perfectly well that Rigdon could have had no more to do in getting up the Book of Mormon than he had; and yet because Rigdon had united with the Saints he was mad and wanted to destroy him. He indorses Howe's book as no doubt being "about the truth."' This is the book which I showed you so perverted, misquoted, garbled, and wickedly falsified our works in order to write down something against them. Bentley drinks it down. And the "May the Lord bless you, brother Scott." That was the spirit that marked the career of this man, at the time, to a dot. Never mind anybody else. No difference what their claims. Hound them down because they do not follow us. But the Lord bless us! me and my wife, my son John and his wife, brother Scott and his wife, us poor, and no more.

I reserve comment upon this statement of Scott's and letter of Bentley till after presenting the review of it, and the evidence, as Mr. Braden has termed it, of Mr. Campbell. You will observe at

once that this letter of Bentley's was too brazenly absurd for Campbell to swallow for a moment.

Mr. Campbell says:

"Brethren Scott and Bentley are both mistaken as to the fact of baptism for the remission of sins not having been found in the Book of Mormon; and one of them in the inference contained in the note appended to Elder Bentley's letter." [Here, then, are two mistakes, at least, and by both on one of the points.]

"The conversation alluded to in Brother Bentley's letter of 1811, was in my presence as well as his." [This is a third, for Bentley says, "I communicated It to brother A Campbell," "and my recollection of it led me, some two or three years ago to interrogate brother Bentley, touching his recollection of it," [Here is a fourth contradiction of brother Bentley, for he said he 'communicated to brother A, Campbell.'] "which accorded with mine, except the year in which it occurred, he placing it in the year 1827, and I in the summer of 1826." [This is the fifth contradiction.] Rigdon. at the time observing that in the plates dug up in New York there was an account, not only of the Aborigines of this country, but also it was stated that the Christian religion had been preached in this country just as we were preaching it on the Western Reserve."

Here is the sixth; and a very essential difference. Mr. Campbell says that Rigdon was telling them about an account that was contained upon plates dug up in New York, but Mr. Bentley puts it in his letter "the manuscript of which had been found engraved on gold plates." Here, Bentley is convicted of deliberately lying in order, if possible, to make a show of connection between the "Spaulding Manuscript," which at this time, was in the possession of Howe, and the Book of Mormon; and so he wickedly puts the word "manuscript" into his letter to mislead.

Mr. Campbell proceeds:—

"New, as the Book of Mormon was being manufactured at that time, for the copyright was taken out to June 1829, two years according to Elder Bentley, and three years according to me, after said conversation (and certainly it was not less than two years), the



inference of brother Scott touching the person upon whom the theft was committed would be plausible if it was a fact that baptism for remission of sins is no part of the Book, but something super-added since from the practice in Ohio in the end of 1827 and beginning of 1828; a year or more after Rigdon made the aforesaid statement."

Mr. Campbell proceeded then to make quotations from the Book of Mormon, to show that Messrs. Scott and Bentley were wrong and over conclusive, quoting from pages 240, 479, 581 and 582 of the book, and then says:—

"Certainly this is testimony enough without further readings. The note on the text of brother Bentley's letter shows how easily men may reason wrong from false facts, or from assumed premises. If the Editor of the Evangelist were not above the imputation of envy, jealously, or vanity, the whole affair might be construed disadvantageously, but as it is. it seems to show the necessity of a scrupulous examination of the premises before we presume on such grave conclusions."

Just so. There are a great many earmarks visible to the naked eye about this alleged conversation with Mr. Rigdon, showing "the necessity of a scrupulous examination of the premises before we presume on such grave conclusions." Mr. Campbell, undoubtedly, made a large number of his followers wince when he struck these two conclusionists that little blow; and had he on this occasion heeded the advice tendered to others, another erroneous, yet "grave conclusion" would not have been arrived at.

The only remarkable thing about this statement of Campbell's at all, is the fact that any man can be so blind as not to see that there is not a shadow of proof in it that in the least points to Sidney Rigdon as a party having any connection with the origin of the Book of Mormon. Suppose that the memory of Mr. Campbell to be entirely correct in giving this conversation at least ten years after the time fixed for its occurrence (and he shows it is not, by himself stating that he first asked Mr. Bentley about it to see if he had it right), and what have we? Simply that Sidney Rigdon stated in his presence in the year 1826 or '27 that there was a claim made by some person in New York State, not even the name of the party then known to him it seems, that some plates of gold had been dug up in that State, giving an account of the aborigines of this country, and stating that the Christian religion had been preached in this country just as we (Campbell, Rigdon, Scott and Bentley) were preaching it on the Western Reserve. This same claim (with the exception of the words "just as we were doing upon the' Western Reserve"), doubtless, to this time had been repeated by more than ten thousand people in the United States; for the claim was in the public press before this, the announcement being made as early as 1823, and the plates were obtained in September, 1827; and would it be a strange thing or proof of guilt for Sidney Rigdon to also talk about it with others? Indeed, when you turn the thought over, the strength of the evidence is the other way, for had Rigdon been connected with this in any wise he would not have spoken of it to Mr. Campbell and Mr. Bentley But, says one, why did he use the words "just as we were doing on the Western Reserve?" I answer, because he did not know anything about it, for had he, he could not have so spoken. The record from the plates did not teach as they were teaching on the Western Reserve, but in nine-tenths of all its principles taught the reverse. Mr. Rigdon could not have made the statement had he been connected in any manner in getting up the Book of Mormon. All through, that book contains doctrinal principles entirely different to the teachings of Mr. Campbell and these preachers of the Western Reserve.

When Joseph Smith first announced that the angel said to him that there was a record of the ancient inhabitants of this continent written upon gold plates and deposited, to be brought forth in the own due time of the Lord, immediately all the good old deacons and pious preachers of Manchester and Palmyra, New York, started the story of a "Gold Bible." It was published over the country; and since Campbell and Bentley can not agree within a year of the time when they say Rigdon spoke of the notice, who will dare to say the conversation was not in 1828, or even 1830, instead of 1826 or 1827. They can not agree within one year of the time themselves; yet, they pretend to give such certain testimony, as they would have you believe, although your salvation may be shadowed in the grand hereafter by it, for having rejected the truth.

Persons who will take such statements for evidence do so because they love that which appeals to their own selfishness and evil desires, and which is fallacious, rather than God's word,

which says, "To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them." And again; "He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." Well, but Mr. Braden says, "the devil may come abiding in the doctrine."

When did you ever know of him coming and abiding in the doctrine of Christ? It is the New Testament my opponent attacks upon this, and not me. Are we not to practically rely upon John's statement, wherein he says: "If any come bringing not this doctrine, receive him not?" the converse of which is, if any come bringing this doctrine, no difference who; he may be good, although called bad, him receive. It is founded upon the certain ground that the devil will not come preaching the truth, for it would destroy him;—it would be contrary to his own existence. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." For this reason Satan "abode not in the truth from, the beginning," says Jesus I am surprised that a professed minister of the Gospel should take the indefensible ground that you must denounce a thing whether it contains the doctrine of Christ or not. In this he gives the entire Christian religion away,





The standard is "Though we, or an angel from Heaven preach any other gospel," [anything other than the truth or doctrine of Christ] "let him be accursed." But my opponent would have you give them a little cursing if they do bring the Gospel. My friends, you need never be afraid that the Devil will come around abiding in the doctrine of Christ. He might teach one thing. He might teach for instance, baptism by water only; but he will never teach baptism by water and of the Holy Spirit, to the believer, because God alone can give the Holy Spirit, and the Devil could not teach that, without soon being detected and exposed in the deception. Do not understand me as referring to my opponent or the Disciples as Satan. I was only making the argument by way of an illustration. (Laughter).

I have all of his questions here: forty-two questions, 1 believe. He said I would never look at or examine them; but I have and find no basis to them whatever, except the false statements, as I have shown, that he referred to at the first. I need not say to you that I do not have to take up my time in

examining each one of them separately after having shown that the basis of everyone of them is false. Let him get upon a true basis and argue the facts essential to this case if he can. I think, perhaps, he might do better had he a different case. But, in the name of common sense what has he accomplished by the forty questions presented? Simply changed the form of the statement of what he claims his witnesses say and puts it interrogatively. Do I have to take up this same evidence which I have shown before to be entirely unreliable and examined it because now he has revamped it and put it in the shape of questions? You would certainly call me silly to so waste my time. I have, by showing the falsity of the statements upon which his questions are based, struck his foundation down, and what care I now for the twists he takes in the debris. If he has anything to offer in support of his foundation, or any new evidence, I shall gladly take the time to examine it. I have already examined all of his testimony, except, possibly, a few of the parties referred to by Patterson in his pamphlet. Should I find the statements of any others than whom I have examined I shall refer to them hereafter.

Now I will proceed to the argument upon the main question, taking up first and answering objections made.

My opponent, on the last evening of the discussion said that all the good there was in the Book of Mormon Smith and Rigdon stole from the Disciples, alias the Campbellite, but this is a thing to be proven, if true. I confess, viewing the matter from one standpoint, that it seems as though there might have been some tampering with the Campbellite faith, some time, if there was ever any special good in it, as it seems to be quite barren of any good thing now; but whether it was stolen from them by the Latter-Day Saints remains to be shown.

He says: "It is all balderdash," to argue that "whosoever abideth in the doctrine of Christ he hath both the Father and the Son." Yet this is the emphatic statement of the word of God.

Remember it is not the language of myself, but he calls it balderdash. He says that bad men and the devil might come around abiding in the doctrine, but they would not have the Father. Then the apostle must have missed it. It is not true that bad men or the devil ever did or ever will abide in the doctrine. Of the devil it is distinctly said "he abode not in the truth." Abiding in the doctrine is one rule given by John to test true teachers from false ones. The true ones abide in the doctrine; the false ones do not.

Mr. Braden and his Disciple friends do not abide in the doctrine, as I will show more particularly in discussing the next proposition; and they also argue that God cannot be with them only in the word; hence they have neither the Father, Son nor Holy Ghost. He is fighting the inspired evangelist, not me.

Again, he says when Mormonism is attacked by showing the bad character of those engaged in it that I retort by dragging the Bible down to the level of the Book of Mormon, attacking it. My opponent knows too well the tendency of the kind of argument that is resorted to by him to defame and destroy the Book of Mormon and blast the reputation of its friends; but if the argument is good against the Book of Mormon and its adherents, as showing that God did not inspire or direct them, the same argument is good against any other class of men making similar claims. All of you can see that if the Book of Mormon is to be rejected because somebody slandered the character of those who brought it to light, that the New Testament must be under the same hypothesis; that if it be true that God would only select pure and exalted characters, such as would at no time of life do a wrong thing, through whom, to reveal his will, then pretty much all of the Bible is to be rejected, for Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Peter and Paul, those with whom God is said to have communed, were not men of such exalted and perfect characters. There was none good, so far as that term is used, "no, not one." When my opponent accepts them as mediums through whom God revealed himself, what becomes of his position taken here, that if he can show that if some of the leaders who brought to light under divine guidance the Book of Mormon did things some time in their lives that was not just right, he has proven the Book of Mormon false.

Among the first things which Moses did was to kill an Egyptian and hide him in the sand and then flee his country. Abraham, the father of the faithful, had a concubine, "Sarah's maid." Noah got drunk soon after he touched dry land, after the great flood. David had wives and concubines too numerous to mention; Solomon the same, combined with the sin of being an idolater. Abijah, after five hundred


thousand had been slain in battle before him, the Lord being with him, waxed mighty and took 14 wives and begat 22 sons and 16 daughters. 2 Chron. 13.21, 22. Hosea went and took a woman of whoredoms and lived with her, and then took his friend's wife; but still went on prophesying, and my friend claims to believe the prophesy. Peter cursed and swore, denied his Lord, and yet who would discard his epistles? Saul assented to stoning Stephen to death, and afterwards he was an apostle and had many trials and temptations, and yet the list is not full. All of this is in the Bible

My opponent assumes to believe in the inspiration of pretty much all here mentioned, just because their names occur in the Bible, not because they did no bad things during their lives, yet he endeavors to sink the Book of Mormon by connecting something to the lives of Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon that is not just right He can see that if such arguments will destroy the Book of Mormon's claims to being divinely inspired it destroys that of the Bible also, and while he fats in bringing an array of accusations against Smith and Rigdon and others, which he has failed to prove,—with him it is dragging the Bible (which he claims to believe in) down, to apply to it in an argument the same kind of warfare.

For the sake of the argument. I might admit (that which is not true) that Smith. Rigdon et al were as bad as he represents them to have been, they would then be entitled to a respectable standing among the very best of those whom he admits that God revealed himself through. He has only got beside himself. It does not drag the Bible down to tell the truth about it. It must stand

on its merits just like the Book of Mormon. I am a believer in both. It is consistency, truth and fairness that we want.

He objects to the Book of Mormon because one of the writers says: "If there be faults in it they are the mistakes of men;" claiming that if it is inspired there should be no faults. But the Book of Mormon does not claim to be wholly inspired any more than the Bible claims to be wholly inspired. The writer says he writes according to his knowledge in the characters;—confessed that they had an imperfect language and that they could not write as well as they could speak, When done his record, he asked that men might read the book with charity in their hearts, and not condemn it on account of finding some fault; and then the writer gees on and says: "If there are faults they are the mistakes of men; but I know of no faults." He then exhorts not to condemn the things that are of God, This is the honestly declared statement of the writer.

As I examine these objections it becomes more and more apparent that brother Bra-den has not made any criticism on the Book of Mormon yet that will stand the test of examination; neither will he. That you may see how much his assertions are worth, just note the fact that he said, on the last evening of the discussion, that the word "Jew" was not known to Bible writers until after the Jewish captivity. In II Kings, xvi. 6, the King of "Syria drove the Jews from Elath." This was about 742 years before Christ, and 120 years before the Jewish captivity. The word Jew is found in Jeremiah xxxiv. 9, 590 years before Christ, and long before the return of the Jews from their captivity. The word was in use 710 years before Christ, in the time of Hezekiah, King of Judah, II Chron., chap, xxxii. 18. It was applied to all Israelites 580 years before Christ, Dan. viii. 12.

Again, he asserts as an objection to the Book of Mormon that it speaks of steel and its uses, and that the Jews knew nothing of steel, that it was not known in old Bible times; only mentioned, he says, once, and that in the Book of Job That should have been enough to remove his objections, but he is keen to find fault, and "a drowning man will catch at straws." In 2 Sam I 22- 35, it is stated, "He teacheth my hands to war; so that a bow of steel is broken in my arms." This was only 1018 years before the time of Christ. The same thing occurs in Psalms of David, chap. 18, v 84, as well as in Job 20 24; and this is said to be the oldest book in the Bible

My opponent does far better with his stories than he does in dealing with things that can be tested right here in this discussion If he wishes to succeed he had better go on telling his yarns, and not undertake to handle edged tools.

Again, he says, the Israelites did not make and write on plates which would have been the case if Lehi could bring plates from Jerusalem. Very true, now let us see. In I Kings, 7: 30 we are informed that they made "Plates of brass," These plates were used in building the temple, and the 36th verse says: "Graved [engraved] cherubims, lions and palm trees" on them. In Exodus, 39:3 we read: "They did beat the gold into thin plates." They wrote, or engraved, also on gold plates. "And thou shalt make a plate of pure gold and grave upon it like the gravings of a signet, Holiness to the Lord!" That which was the most highly prized, beautiful and sacred they wrote on gold plates. Ex. 28: 37, Ex. 39:30. They made a plate of pure gold, and wrote upon it a writing like the engraving of a signet, Holiness to the Lord." The Israelites not only engraved upon gold and brass plates, but also upon stones of various kinds, see Ex. 28 9, 11,

21, and 30 -6, 19. But working in brass and iron commenced with Tubal-cain. Gen. 4 22, and the art of engraving on hard substances was known 1700 years before the Christian era. See Gen. 38:18, 25.

So much for his objection to the Book of Mormon because they wrote on gold plates and brass plates.

Again, he ridicules the idea of God giving Lehi the "Liahona," or compass; and says that "one spinel pointed the way they should go; the other the way they





should not go," of course; but the record says nothing about the way they should not go. He thinks they could not read a writing on the spindle in a brass globe, but the writing was on the spindle and they could see the spindle. This is too marvelous a story for my opponent to believe;

but he can swallow Jonah and the whale and then be ready for more like it. He can believe that God wrote the tables of the law and went before the Israelites and fed them on manna for 40 years; when they got hungry for fresh meat God would send a shower of quails, and when they were thirsty the water would roll out of a dry rock to quench their thirst. He can gaze with delight and the utmost rapture at the spring of water as it gushed from the jaw-bone of an ass in Samson's hand, and drink them all in and then think them but common things, and still be ready for more like it. But when the Book of Mormon claims that God guided the Jaredites and the Nephites by miracle it is not to be believed; it is all one of Joe Smith's fables gotten up to deceive. Whether Smith stole this part of the Book of Mormon, (the big stories), from the Campbellite or not, remains to be proven along with the rest. Now there is not as astounding and miraculous things stated in the Book of Mormon as there is in the Bible; yet, my opponent objects to the Book of Mormon because it states that God by miracle aided the people who came to this continent, notwithstanding the huge miraculous accounts that are to be found in the book which he admits to be true.

Nephi does not say, as asserted by my opponent, that he made plates in the wilderness where there was no ore; but that after they had arrived at the promised land they found "ore of gold,"

and here he made his first plates. So much for his statement that they made plates out of nothing.

He objects to the Book of Mormon because the word church is used in it before the Christian era. Church means an assembly of worshippers. The Book of Mormon is a translation into English. No matter what an assembly of a like kind may have been called in old time it would be called a church when translated into English. Besides Stephens says, Acts, 7:38 that there was a "Church in the wilderness," in the time of Moses. He objects to the Book of Mormon because it says the gospel was preached on this continent before the time of Christ, It was preached to Abraham, Gal. 3 8, and to Moses and the Israelites, Heb. 4: 2. He objects to the Book of Mormon because the Nephites professed to have the Holy Ghost before Pentecost Day; and said the Holy Ghost was not given until after Jesus was glorified. Peter says "Prophesy came not in old times by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter, 2:21. This Holy Ghost inspired all of the prophets and saints from Adam to Christ; why not the Nephites? After Christ commenced his ministry on earth, his disciples were not to receive the Holy-Ghost until after the ascension. He says: "If I go not away the Comforter will not come."

While he was in the world he was the especial light of the people. That is the way it was, Mr. Braden. There is no clash herewith the Book of Mormon. The Holy Ghost and the gospel were enjoyed before the Savior's ministry on earth, and they kept the law of Moses, also.

(Time expired.)




GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:—On page 234 we have a description of many kinds of coin, and some of them were very large. Why have we never found any of these coins in America? In ruins in the old world millions of coins have been found. Why not on this continent?

On page 235 a Nephite preacher solves all the disputes of modern theology concerning the resurrection, and 100 years before Christ. Men may differ in their interpretation of the general truths taught by Christ and his apostles, but there can be no dispute over the minute, dogmatical revelations of the Nephite prophet, who, strange to say, gives by inspiration the exact ideas of Rigdon. 1800 years before Rigdon lived to preach them.

"Now there is a death which is called a temporal death; and the death of Christ shall loose all bonds of this temporal death, that all shall be raised from this temporal death. The spirit and the body shall be re- united again in its perfect form, both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper form, even as they now are at this time, and shall be brought to stand. before the bar of God, knowing as we now know."


There, that settles the vexed question in favor of a literal resurrection. God inspired the Nephite Amalek, long before the birth of Christ, to explain the resurrection and temporal death and spiritual death, just as Rig



Rigdon's ideas on eschatology. On page 289 we have the modern term "Dissenter" —a word never used until men dissented from the creed and practice of the church of England. On the page we have a description of Episcopalians, and the Lord's day is mentioned. This is followed by pages of preaching in which nearly every idea of modern theology, even the most abstruse, is discussed and settled in a manner that utterly eclipses the general teachings of Christ and his apostles; and what is more miraculous, these Nephites always agree exactly with Rigdon's theology in their revelations. On page 280 we have the Church of God described, and it is described as having perfect Christian teaching concerning topics the New Testament declares were mysteries until revealed by Christ and his apostles. On page 326 we read:

"He prayed for blessings of Christ to rest on the brethren so long as there should be a band of Christians to possess the land, for thus were all true believers of Christ, who belonged to the Church of God called by those who did not belong to the Church. And those who belonged to the Church were faithful, yea all those who were true believers of Christ, took upon them gladly the name of Christ or Christians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ."

The New Testament declares that the disciples of Christ were first called "Christians" at Antioch over one hundred years after the Book of Mormon declares they were called Christians universally in America.

I wish now to call attention to one of those little things that speak volumes. There was a difference of opinion among the co-adjutors of Campbell concerning what should be the name of the followers of Christ. Campbell, Sheppard and others insisted that they should be called "Disciples of Christ." Walter Scott and others insisted that they should be called "Christians" and that the Church should be called "the Church of God" or "Church of Christ." Rigdon agreed with Scott. Observe that his ideas are repeated several times in the above extract. By inserting into his stolen manuscript his ideas, he contradicted the New Testament concerning the time the name Christian was first given and made his "big thing" a tissue of absurdities. According to the Book of Mormon there were great numbers of Churches of God and multitudes of Christians hundreds of years before Christ came. They had a perfect knowledge of his Gospel and the most abstruse ideas of modern theology, all settled by revelation, long before Christ; and the most singular fact is that the Lord agreed with Rigdon in all of these revelations that he gave these highly favored Nephites. How highly favored these old prophets were in receiving, by inspiration from God, all of Rigdon's theology 1800 years before the advent of Sidney.

We come now to another of those little things that speak volumes. Rigdon as a regular Baptist preacher, had a bitter prejudice against all secret societies. In the days of the anti-Masonic excitement of the time extending from 1824-5 to 1834-5 Rigdon was a rabid anti-Mason. On page 382 he gives the Masons a dig and airs his anti-Masonic ideas. Gadianton and a band of robbers have a Masonic lodge and act just as anti-Masons said Masons acted. Again on pages 365-6 he airs his anti-Masonic ideas. A band of cutthroats have a secret society with oaths, grips, signs, pass-words, and swear to protect each other in crime. On page 399 and on several pages following we have a repetition of Rigdon's anti-Masonic ideas. Seriously, is this the work of a Nephite before Christ, or is it the work of the anti-Masons, Spaulding, Rigdon, or Smith—one or all of them? Page 474 a prophet tells the Nephites that on the night our Savior is born it will be as light as day all night. The sun will set and rise, but the light will not be diminished in the least. The Bible flatly contradicts such stuff. On page 415 we are told again that the darkness at our Savior's crucifixion will last three days. The Bible says three hours. Page 422 we are told that it remained as light as mid-day (Sidney never does things by halves) all one night and a star was seen, the night our Savior was born. What sort of a star could be seen in mid-daylight we are not told. Perhaps all the Nephites had peep stones and looked into their hats and saw the star. For some years Gadianton's wicked Masons vex the righteous anti-Masonic Nephites terribly but at last the righteous anti-Masons prevail and exterminate these vile Sons of Darkness the Masons and righteousness prevails all over the land as the result. Page 431 Mormon, who informs us that he is a fully developed Christian, says that he cannot write all that he wants to write because of the imperfection of the language. The Almighty has inspired a man to engrave a revelation on brass plates and suddenly finds himself balked by the imperfection of the language that he has in his

ignorance chosen. As the Mormon God is not infinite he might make such a blunder. Then follows a description of the three days of darkness, and Sidney just cavorts on King Ahasuerus's horse in depicting the horrors of that time, that according to the Bible never was. After this was "heard the voice of our Savior, and it was heard over all North America. Sidney's miracles are always something worth while; none of your little miracles such as the Son of God wrought in Palestine, nothing but sky-splitting and universe-shaking miracles will do for Sidney. Then a small voice—not a loud voice—is heard that pierces their frames and causes their hearts to burn; and our Savior, speaking in this small voice, says to the Nephites on this continent, "I am the Alpha and the Omega." Let the reader stop fora moment and think of the absurdity of the Sou of God saying to Nephites on this continent, who knew nothing at all about the Greeks or their language, "I am the Alpha and the Omega," the first and the last letter of the Greek alphabet. He might as well have





used the first and last letters of the Cherokee alphabet.

After this our Savior, who had been resurrected at Jerusalem, appears on this continent and preaches one of Sidney Rigdon's discourses to them, and commands them to use Sidney Rigdon's baptismal formula, "Having authority given me of Jesus Christ I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." By the way, Sidney dropped the Disciple peculiarity of saying "Spirit" instead of "Ghost," and went back to his old Baptist formula. "Who is such a simpleton as to believe that our Savior visited America after his ascension into heaven, in violation of the New Testament that declares his next coming after his ascension will be at the end of his dispensation; that his mission was to preach one of Sidney Rigdon's sermons to the aborigines of America, and to give as the law of heaven, by solemn revelation of the glorified Son of God, that they must use Rigdon's baptismal formula. On page 444 we have one of Rigdon's idiotic extravaganzas. Our Saviour commanded doubting Thomas to thrust his fingers into the nail prints in his hands and feet, and into the side that had been pierced. Such a simple natural affair as that would not do for the hifalutin spread-eagle glorifier of King Ahasuerus' horse. He tells us that the entire multitude went forth and each thrust his fingers into the nail prints in his hands, into his feet, and into his pierced side. We learn from a following page that there were at least 2,500 of them. It would be very rapid work for a person to go up and put a finger into a nail print in each hand, each foot, and into the pierced side, in fifteen seconds. Suppose they did the work as expeditiously as that, it took ten hours and twenty minutes to go through this farce. The Son of God came down from heaven, stood ten mortal hours while 2,500 persons filed past him, thrusting fingers into a nail print in each hand, each foot, and into his pierced side. Our humorous papers used to have cartoons caricaturing Grant's hand-shaking when he shook hands with a few hundred for an hour or two; but this "beats Grant." If those who raised the cry "Any tiling to beat Grant" had called on Sidney he could have beat him all hollow and not half tried.

Our Saviour, after this idiotic tomfoolery is finished, delivers a discourse made of badly arranged scraps of his discourses recorded in the New Testament. We cannot say that his glorification has improved his revelations. Rigdon can tell bigger yarns than the truthful history of the New Testament, but when it comes to making revelations that is another thing. It is to be observed that our Saviour follows King James version. Even the obsolete English words, style, and mistranslations are followed exactly. He appoints twelve apostles and Nephi baptizes himself, and then the eleven, and the scenes of Pentecost are outdone. Jesus did not come back from heaven on the day of Pentecost, but poured out the Holy Spirit. But then Sidney's Nephites were always far above their brethren back in Palestine. Our Saviour examines Nephi's plates, so as to have everything fixed for Imposter Joe, and corrects one error. The plates did not contain the prophecy that the multitudes would arise in America at our Saviour's resurrection. The Nephites admit that the prophet did say so, and declare that prophecy had been fulfilled. Observe, again, how these Nephites of Sidney outdo their brethren in Palestine. In Palestine a few arise at the crucifixion; in America great multitudes at the resurrection of Jesus. We have then a specimen of

Mormon extravagance of ignorance. Our Saviour in rebuking Peter, tells him that if he were to order that John should remain on earth till his second coming, it is no concern of his, and that he is to attend to his own work. John further declares that our Saviour did not say that he should remain. Here was something that just suited Mormon ignorance and folly. Rigdon makes our Saviour tell three Nephites that they shall never see death, and remain till he comes again. Sidney's Nephites are blessed again above all others. There is no doubt here. Our Saviour says three shall remain instead of one. He bestows a boon he did not bestow upon his beloved disciple John. Imposter Joe and Oliver Cowdery have a revelation, on parchment from John that he did not die, and did re, main on earth, in flat contradiction of God's word. Just such silly wonders as these are what Mormonism feeds on. The book closes with a prophecy of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and denounces fearful woes on all who do not receive the tomfooleries of Sidney Rigdon, Solomon Spaulding and Imposter Joe.

The Book of Nephi, the son of Nephi, is an unimportant one. It tells us on page 481 that masonry revived, and that Satan was let loose and iniquity did fearfully abound. Sidney must have been exceedingly malignant against the Masons. Moroni takes up Mormon's work and he informs us that Masonry shall be prevalent when the Book of Mormon appears; and that churches shall be worldly and proud and that it will be a time of unmeasured apostacy. Above all men shall deny that miracles and revelations are possible. Then Sidney goes for the Disciples who would not accept the Baptist idea of a direct and miraculous influence of the Holy Spirit. We have Sidney's ideas for several pages and one of his exhortations in his most approved camp meeting style.

We find another of these incidental matters that expose the fraud in this Book of Mormon. We have proved that Spaulding wrote several manuscripts. To his second Mormon manuscript he added the emigration of the Zarahemlites, closing his manuscript with the book called the "Book of Mormon." He very appropriately has Moroni declare that he finishes the record of his father; and that he has only a few things to write, a few things that his father has commanded him to write on the few


page? left on the plates. He declares his father made the record and declares its intent. He then says he would write more if he had room on the plates but he cannot for the plates are full and he has no ore to make any more and is alone. He then adds the few pages he declared he would and the book appropriately closes.

When Spaulding went to Pittsburgh at Patterson's request, he rewrote the romance, writing Mormon Manuscript No. Ill, and adding the Jaredite portion. He overlooked this language of Moroni, with which he had appropriately closed the Manuscript No. IT. and as the Book of Mormon now stands, Moroni wrote 56 pages—the whole of the Jaredite portion, no nothing, for his, plates were full, and he could write no more. That one blunder is enough to condemn this fraud.

In this Jaredite Portion, written on nothing, and with nothing as a basis for it, we have a wonderful series of stories. Mormon has buried all the plates except "these few plates," that he handed to Moroni, the Plates of Ether with the rest years before. Where did Moroni get the plates of Ether to use in writing the 56 pages he wrote on nothing? He wrote on nothing and had nothing to write. The Book of Ether says that the speech of the Jaredites was not confounded at Babel. The Bible declares that the speech of all mankind was confounded. If time would permit we could multiply almost indefinitely such contradictions. We will now give an idiotic caricature of the history of Noah and the ark and defy anyone, outside, or inside of a lunatic asylum to equal it. Noah took eight persons into the ark. Jared took with him twenty-two grown persons and their families. Noah took with him into the ark, at most, two of all animals and fowls that could not subsist in or on the water: Jared took two of all animals and fowls, swarms of bees and wonder of wonders, two of all kinds of fishes and all kinds of seeds. Sidney never does things by halves. Jared was to take food and water for this large company of persons, for all his fowls, and fishes, and flowers for his bees. If the cubit used was the sacred cubit, as was doubtless the case, the ark

was 60 feet, long, 100 feet wide, and 60 feet high. Jared built eight cigar shaped canoes, and each was mall, set light on the water, was sharply pointed at each end, and as tight as a dish, for we are told "the top thereof was as tight as a dish, and the sides "thereof was as tight as a dish, and the 11 bottom therefore was as tight as a dish." Each of these barges was the length of a tree and not more than 75 feet. Since the ends were sharply pointed, the ark would hold as much as 2000 such barges or 250 fleets of such barges. All kinds of animals could enter the ark; there were many that could not enter one of these canoes. Noah was told to have a system of windows in the ark for that is the meaning of the Hebrew word. Jared made his as tight as a dish. He took into these eight canoes, sharply pointed at each end, not longer than a tree, twenty-two grown persons with their families, two of all kinds of animals, two of all kinds of fowls, two of all kinds of fishes, swarms of bees, and food and water for all for 344 days, and then shut down the door. No wonder he halloed to the Lord for light and air, shut up with such a crowd in a tight little canoe, as tight as the inside of a jug with the cork in.

The Lord finds that he has made a mistake in ordering Jared to make the canoes after the Divine pattern. He seems to have forgotten that animal life needs light and air. How does he remedy it? With infinite wisdom he tells Jared to knock a hole in the top and another in the bottom of each barge. Now, being an unbelieving Gentile, and not a spiritually enlightened and inspired Mormon, I can see that the hole in the top would let in the air and light, if it was big enough, and it would let in water and drown them all in a storm also, but for the life of me I cannot see what that hole in the bottom was for, unless it was to let in water and drown them. With ordinary mortals, holes in the bottom of such heavily loaded canoes would send every soul of them to "Davy Jones's Locker" quicker than you could say Jack Robinson, with your mouth ready puckered, as the Yankee expressed it.

But something like Mormon inspiration seizes me; I see it all as clear as mud. An Irishman's

boots had holes in the toes. Pat sagely cut a hole in each heel. When asked what that was done for, he replied, "Why, to let the wather out at the hael when it comes in at the toe, sure." As Jared's canoes were to go plunging and diving through the water, much of the time under water, the hole at the bottom was to let the water run out, when it ran in at the top. Having provided ventilation on the most approved scientific principles, and having guarded, in the most scientific manner, against drawing by the water let in at the ventilating hole, the Lord then provides light for them, and his mistakes are all corrected. "And Jared did moulten out of a rock" (shades of Johnson, what English)! "sixteen small stones, and they were all clear like glass"—another scientific discovery— glass at the time of Babel. He brought them to the Lord, and the Lord touched them with his finger, and immediately they let out a flood of light, and Jared did not have to use kerosene, and he was independent of the Standard Oil Company. Jared placed one of these stones in each end of each canoe, and the Lord and Jared got out of all of these scrapes except one small mystery. How did the Lord and Jared get several times as much as Noah took into the ark into less than one two hundred and fiftieth part of the space, and how did they get into one of these canoes, animals that must have been much taller than a canoe was deep; and then what about that big tank of fish, or did the fish get along without water to live in, and were then taken





into the canoes to save them from being drowned? But then such questions will spoil the best revelations in the world, even the revelations of Sidney Rigdon. Two of the stones mentioned above were the stone interpreters of Jared's brother, and imposter Joe found them with the plates buried by Moroni, although Moroni never had them, and never buried them, and no Nephite ever saw them, and they were never to come forth until the Gentiles were all converted.

On page 509 Moroni prophecies that the one who finds these plates shall show them to three persons. Joe showed them to eleven. David Whitmer, says Moroni, showed them to his mother, and Emma Smith says she saw them for days on the table and handled them only covered with a thin cloth, and, strange daughter of Eve that she was, she never "peeked" under that cloth. With all our respect for the "Elect Lady" we can not swallow such a miracle as that. On the same page we

have this balderdash "Jared's brothers did put forth these stones into the vessels which were prepared, one into each end thereof, and behold they did give light unto the vessels thereof." "Thereof" means of it or of them. The vessels thereof then means the vessels of the ends, for that must be what "thereof" refers to. Such balderdash as that is the "Fullness of the Gospel," given by inspiration—the fullest inspiration man has ever known, was preserved by miracle, revealed by miracle, and given to the world, word by word, so precious is it, by direct miracle of Almighty God. Who dares to stand up and blaspheme the Almighty by such an assertion?

At last the Jaredites set sail. Their canoes were in the depths of the sea, far under the water, and not a drop of water ran in through these two holes, one in the top and the other in the bottom of each canoe, and they had air with these holes under the water. Bah! Let us stop! If, as Imposter Joe tells us, God saves the world by folly, there is idiocy enough in that one scrap of Mormon "Fullness of the Gospel" to eternally save a whole universe of Mormons.

On page 514 we are told that Masonry broke out among the Jaredites and of course Satan was let loose. We have a combination of Herodias and Tullia, Herod and Tarquin. Jared, a murderous conspirator, promises the hand of his wicked daughter to Akish if he would bring him the head of the king, Jared's father. Akish starts Masonry among the Jaredites to accomplish his infamous purpose, and then "they all did swear unto Akish, by the God of Heaven, and also by the heavens, and also by the earth; and also by their own heads," ( What a fearful job of cussing they did do), "that who should vary from the assistance that Akish desired" (what English) "should lose his head, and whoso should divulge what Akish made known unto them, the same should lose his life." Ordinary mortals would suppose that when a man loses his head, he lost his life; but then Mormon inspiration is a wonderful thing. The difference between losing his head and losing his life is as great as the Irish Justice of the Peace discovered when he declared, "It makes all the differ in the wurruld, in the eyes of the law, whether he said, 'Come out of the hoos McCarty,' or 'McCarty come put of the hoos.'" "And Akish did administer unto them the oaths which were given to them of old, who also sought power, which had been handed down even from Cain, who was a murderer from the beginning." There you have it—Cain was the first Mason! "And they were kept up by the power of the devil," (The devil originated the first Masonic Lodge) "to administer those oaths unto- the people and keep them in darkness, to help such as sought power, to gain power and to murder and to plunder and to lie and to commit all manner of wickedness and whoredoms. Now it was the daughter of Jared who put it into his heart to search up these things of old. and Jared put it into the heart of Akish, wherefore Akish administered it unto his kindred and friends, leading them away by fair promises, to do whatever he desired, and it came to pass that they formed a secret combination, even as they of old, which combination is most abominable and wicked above all things in the sight of the Lord." There Masons put that in your pipes and smoke it. The Lord is not a Mason, "for the Lord worketh not in secret combinations." "Neither doth he will that man should shed blood, but in all things hath forbidden it from the beginning of men." The Lord is an anti-Mason, and don't you forget it.

"And I, Moroni, do not write the manner of their oaths and combinations." He is not a

Morgan, then, "for it hath been made known unto me they are had among all people and they are had among the Lamanites, and they have caused the destruction of this people of whom I am writing, and also the destruction of the Nephites." What an awful thing this Masonry has been, and now listen: "Whatsoever nation shall uphold such secret combinations to get power and gain, until they spread over the land, behold they shall be destroyed, for the Lord will not suffer the blood of his saints shall be shed by them; they shall always cry unto him from the ground for vengeance upon them, and yet he avenge them not." Now listen, Masons: "Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things shall be shown unto you, and that thereby ye may repent of your sins and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you which are built up to get power and gain, and the work, even the work of destruction shall come upon you, even the sword of Justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you." Won't they catch it, though!! "To your overthrow and destruction if you shall suffer these things to be, wherefore God commandeth you when you shall see these things come among you that you shall awake to a sense of your awful condition"—



one of Rigdon's revival expressions—"because of this secret combination which shall be among you all. Woe be unto it, because of the blood of them that hath been slain, for they cry for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up, for it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations and countries." The anti-Mason rant of 1825 to 1830. "And it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil." There, Masons, you have it—the devil is the founder of Masonry, and Cain was the first Mason! "Who is the father of all lies." There, Masons, that cooks the Masonic goat to a cinder!!

Page 517 King Heth turns Mason, and, of course, plots to murder some one. Page 522 Masonry breaks out in a new spot and Satan is let loose of course. In all there were over a score of stabs at Masonry, covering several pages. Every charge made against Masonry in the years 1825 to 1830 is reiterated several times. When we learn from Mrs. Spaulding that Spaulding was a rabid anti-Mason, and remember that Rigdon, a regular Baptist preacher, was fanatically opposed to secret societies and was a ranting anti-Mason, and that Smith was an anti-Mason, all this rant and abuse is just what is to be expected. But who is such a sodden fool as to believe that Israelites, in the wilds of America, 1400 years before the anti-Masonic excitement in the United States, uttered repeatedly all the anti-Masonic abuse of Masonry?

This one feature is enough to condemn the claim of the Book of Mormon and to expose it as a transparent fraud.




GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:—The Spaulding story upon examination has been fully shown to be a story;—a wonderfully large one, too, for its time. That thing was thoroughly answered and put to shame by Sidney Rigdon as early as January, 1836. His slaughter of that through a published article in the Messenger and Advocate, a paper printed here in Kirtland, was sufficient to put all honest men at the time upon their guard. Mr. Rigdon showed that there was not only no truth in the general statement connecting him with Joseph Smith and the publication of the Book of Mormon, but further, that each and every one of the statements and allegations said to have been made by the parties (the very same ones Braden has brought up and cited as his witnesses in this discussion) were false. This was long prior to the death of Mr. Patterson, the Presbyterian preacher, in Pittsburg, whom Mr. Rigdon, in his letter of 1839, refers to as not lending himself "to the infamous plot to blacken his [Rigdon's] character." A man of no sympathies in common with the Latter Day Saints, and whom Rigdon's enemies had held out as the one to whom Spaulding delivered his manuscript for publication in Pittsburg, and as knowing certain things connecting Rigdon with the romance manuscript. But these persons never get his (Patterson's) statement, although he lived twenty years after they had started the story, and eighteen years after it had been publicly challenged and put to shame by the Saints. However, Win. Small, of Camden, N. J., in the meantime, goes to this same Patterson in Pittsburg, and he makes affidavit to the fact that he never knew anything about such a manuscript as these parties had told about. But this don't in the least dash these story-tellers; they lie low for a time till Patterson dies; and then, like them of old who said to the soldiers, "Say that his disciples came and stole him away by night while we slept," they revive and start; other theories in order to carry out their nefarious work.

If it was so easy in the first century to get the guard to lie with reference to the resurrection of

Jesus, after they had beheld the heavenly messenger and had fallen back as dead men, would it be remarkable that in the nineteenth century men would be able to get parties to spin falsehoods, to fill up the measure of crime as to this Spaulding tale?

But these fair and full denials of this story were made when the professed "Manuscript Found," was in the hands of Howe at Painesville, only nine miles away from Kirtland, and consequently, while there was access to the first, and only sufficient evidence they ever had for such a story, if ever such a story had existed in fact; and with the challenge of the truth of the story in their very faces, and a demand made for the proof, by one of the men assailed, too, with

others, and in the very midst of the parties who claimed to know, Hulburt and Howe and these men, (said to be witnesses),




fail to put forth a single statement that can in any view of the case be looked upon as evidence, burned the manuscript they had received of Spaulding, so admitted by themselves, and began in an underhanded and insidious manner to publish their stories through the ready newspapers for such things, and in 1840, after the Saints were far away from this part of the country, in the States of Missouri, Illinois and Iowa, Howe gets out his slanderous and disreputable work of "Mormonism Unveiled," or "History of the Mormons."

This was four years after Sidney Rigdon through the Kirtland publication had shown the falsity of the story; one year after his letter in the "Boston Journal," which played such havoc among the despoilers of his good name; one year after the full and clear examination and plain contradiction of the story by Parley P. Pratt, in the New Era, a New York paper; and five years after the story had been publicly met and put to shame in various parts of the United States and Canada, by the elders of the Saints, and notwithstanding all of this, Howe and Robert Patterson, this last a little fellow now living over here at Pittsburg (who would like to do something to destroy the faith of the Saints, if he only could rake up something to do,) brazenly put out for the truth, the statement that their story was never denied till just lately. Men who will deliberately or ignorantly make such false claims as these, and ask you to believe them, cannot be relied upon in any feature of the case by honest men. Before a person publishes a thing as true, he should know it to be such, and he cannot justify himself afterwards upon the ground, or plea of ignorance.

Another point do not forget. All the time, from 1834 to 1840, this same Howe had the Spaulding manuscript in his hands, and at the same time he had it in his hands, Mesdames Davidson and McKinstry, the widow and daughter of Solomon Spaulding, were claiming it was in fact, the genuine article that Spaulding wrote; the "MANUSCRIPT FOUND." And Howe writes Mrs. Davidson a letter in the meantime, saying, "It did not read as we expected, and we did not use it;" hut never the once hints that it was the wrong manuscript, or not the "Manuscript Found," as claimed by these parties, who were the only persons under the sun who could possibly tell whether it was the "Manuscript Found." or not.

He never once in his letter to them asks if they did not have another manuscript somewhere of Spaulding's, or if they had any means of telling whether he had the right one; or whether Hulburt had played off on him and given him the wrong one. No; Howe knew he had the Spaulding Manuscript in his possession, and that story in his control, with all advantage in his favor; and as the coward that strikes down his innocent victim at the time he thinks no whisper of the deed can ever fall upon mortal ear, so, brooding- in jealousy and incited through the lies and tales which had been poured into his ready mind, he puts forth his hand to consign to the past the first and only evidence of this Spaulding tale, while, with the weapons of false statements and stories hawked about by the vile and depraved, he essays to destroy an innocent and noble people.

He knew at the time of his writing that he ought to have a different class of evidence to meet these things with and make good his assertions than that which he had, and he states in his book that he will furnish depositions for this purpose, and which, he says, "will sink these people." Oh! yes; sink them; that was the object of Howe and Hulburt; but he fails, however, to publish, or give in all of his writings or works, a single deposition of any person whatever, notwithstanding this boast.

But what does he do? Answer:

1. He publishes spurious, garbled, perverted and false things under the claim he was making quotations from the works of the Saints.

2. He publishes the questionable statements of a few persons, the quoted statements of two others; all of which are positively contradicted by Mrs (Solomon Spaulding) Davidson, Solomon Spaulding's daughter, Mrs. McKinstry, Sidney Rigdon, Parley P. Pratt, and Patterson, the Presbyterian preacher at Pittsburg; besides the fact that they so clearly and unmistakably bear upon the face the stamp of inconsistency and falsehood. They hold the idea throughout that these

testifiers, who did not pretend that they had heard of or seen Spaulding's writing for more than twenty years, were so familiar with a manuscript, (which, to have been what they claim for it, must have contained from fifteen hundred to two thousand pages,) that they could, after twenty years' lapse of time, give names that were at the time strange and new to them; and never spoken by them for all of this time; and other little things which it is plain the copiers of the pretended statements must have taken from the Book of Mormon, as this was four years after its publication, and done when they have the book before them, this last fact being clearly disclosed in the statements themselves.

The absurdity, however, does not rest alone upon all of these things; but their statements were emphatically, directly and flatly contradicted by the manuscript then in Howe's possession, and which claimed tor itself to be the one Spaulding said was found in a cave, and which was truly the "MANUSCRIPT FOUND."

These statements so directly contradicted, together with a few fraudulent affidavits which Hulburt got up in New York, and which I have fully shown were fraudulent, is the entire stock in trade of Mr. Howe to form his basis of belief and cause him to so severely and viciously attack the faith of the Saints and make them appear odious, except the bare disbelief of himself in God, the Scriptures, and the fact that


there was any such thing in the universe of God, or history of man, as the Holy Spirit, in which the Saints believed and claimed to rejoice. All! The secret is unfolded in his own words:—"I could better believe that Spaulding wrote it than Joe Smith saw an angel." And so he wrote as Voltaire, Hume and Thomas Paine from the standpoint of his unbelief, without the honesty of these others. I might introduce here as cumulative evidence on this question the additional statement of Mrs. McKinstry, who had a better opportunity of knowing, and did know the manuscript of her father better, than either John or Martha Spaulding, and who as late as the year 1880, published, (so stated by the compiler, Mrs. Dickensen), an affidavit in the Scribner Monthly, still claiming and reaffirming that this Hulburt did get the "Manuscript Found." The statement of this Robert Patterson, of Pittsburgh, who is trying to find some terrible thing against the Saints, to Hulburt 4 years ago, in the presence of Mrs. Hulburt, "that his father, [Mr. Patterson, the preacher,] always claimed that he did not believe there was ever such a manuscript as the parties claimed the 'MANUSCRIPT FOUND,' to be, about their printing office in Pittsburgh." And notwithstanding this, this same Robert Patterson, in 1882, suppresses in his publication this claim of his father, and gives the purported statement as obtained from one, Rev. (?) Samuel Williams who wrote up a list of stories for publication against the Saints, when the first three lines of the statement clearly show that it is a fraud, and that Patterson never had anything to do with it whatever. It is as follows:—"R. Patterson had in his employment Silas Engles at the time, a foreman printer," etc., then, signed at the bottom, "Robert Patterson." This is certainly enough on this.

The statement of Mrs. Hulburt, made on Tuesday, February 5th, 1884, I now submit to you:—She said that,

"Mr. Hulburt never obtained but one manuscript from Mrs. Davison. That one he let E. D. Howe have. When Mrs. (Spaulding) Davison let him have it, he said he promised to return it; and when he let Howe have it Howe promised to restore it to Mrs. Spaulding, but he never did. Hulburt spent about six months time and a good deal of money looking up the Spaulding manuscript and other evidence, but he was disappointed in not finding what he wanted. This was the reason he turned the whole thing over to Howe. He never was satisfied with what he found, and while on his death-bed he would have given everything he bad in the world could he have been certain there was ever a "Manuscript Found," as claimed, similar to the Book of Mormon."

This is overwhelming proof, showing there was never any such manuscript as they claimed Spaulding wrote, and that they got the quire of paper upon which he did write. It is the confirming proof, too, of Howe's guilt. Why did he not do as he agreed, send the manuscript which he got back to Mrs. Davidson? The reason is too plain to be concealed for a moment. He is so anxious to have it destroyed that he violates his agreement to return "as soon as used." Why did he not return it when "it did not read as they expected," at the time he wrote to Mrs. Davidson?

Shame on such trickery!

I might also introduce the emphatic statement of Mrs. Emma Smith, wife of Joseph Smith the Seer. She positively states: "That no acquaintance was formed between Sidney Rigdon and the Smith family till after the church was organized in the year 1830." "That neither" her husband nor herself "ever saw Sidney Rigdon until long after the Book of Mormon was in print.'? This is the statement of one of the most honored and esteemed ladies of Illinois, and who, after the murder of her husband, continued a resident of the State, raising her family, and departing this life but a short time ago in a ripe age, loved by all who knew her. Also the positive declaration of David Whitmer, made at Richmond, Mo.. April, 1882, in answer to a question asked him in the presence of a number of persons, by President Joseph Smith of Lamoni, Ia., to which he gave this answer: "That the Rook of Mormon was published long before Sidney Rigdon was known to our (the witness), family, or the Smiths; that I know that the story told of the Spaulding romance in connection with the Rook of Mormon is false."

I will, in this connection, again call your attention to the affidavit of Mrs. Salisbury, to which Braden was so hasty to speak of last evening as being a lie, and therefore the witness could not be believed. Let us examine it and see who lied. She says, "That at the time of the publication of said book, my brother, Joseph Smith, Jr., lived in the family of my father in the town of Manchester, Ontario county, N. Y."

That, you will not certainly say, is contradicted. Now look at the next: "That he had, 111 of his life to this time, made his home with the family."

Do you say this is contradicted? Where was his home to this time? Notice, she does not say he was at home all the time, but "made it his home with the family." To the year 1827, he was a young man, and his home was with the family, although he at times worked away from home. There are thousands of poor boys who have to do this, and my observation of humanity tells me that they are just about as apt to be honorable and truthful as those who stay at home and don't have any work to do; or, if they do have, do not do it. In this year he gets married, (steals his wife, Braden says,) although he was in his 22d year, and the lady he marries was in her 23d. Well, it rather strikes my mind that she wanted to be stolen. Besides, it is a proof that their Campbellite preacher, Rigdon, did not steal everything that came into Smith's possession.

But Mr. Smith says in his history, that after the marriage he went to his father's and remained, living in the family a year and farmed with his father. Here is his home till 1828, certain, and without any contradiction of any witnesses. And it is certain from all, that all the time during the year 1827 he was here in his father's




family, and this is the time Tucker, Hulburt, et al., tried to fix, as the time when the "Mysterious Stranger," (a wicked falsehood deliberately made by them,) appeared. Mrs. Salisbury and Mrs. Emma Smith are both right upon the spot then, and know who visit there, and no such person as Sidney Rigdon or any other mysterious stranger, is about their place, or visiting with Joseph Smith. Braden is caught here and he knows it; that is the reason he charges against the positive knowledge and testimony of Mrs. Salisbury.

Mr. Smith receives the plates in September of this year, and a few months after he got them, he was compelled through the persecution of those who were trying to get them from him, to go elsewhere for a time, and he goes to his wife's father's place in Pennsylvania: (the same from which they say he stole his wife.) The lies of Smith's enemies are so thick about this time that a man in that country could hear an thing he wanted to. While here also, the history states:

"We had been threatened with being mobbed, from time to time, and this too, by professors of religion. And their intentions of mobbing us were only counteracted by the influence of my wife's father's family, (under divine Providence.) who had become very friendly to me, and who were opposed to mobs, and were willing that I should continue the work of translation without interruption; and therefore, offered and promised us protection from all unlawful proceedings as far as in them lay."

It will do well to think, my friends, of the "Screen and blanket" stories, the "peep stones," the story he has told of Smith being shut up in a cave," and all such ridiculous stuff set afloat by the

"high-toned" gentlemen, who gave information to Hulburt, Howe, Tucker, et al.; and then, find him down at his wife's father's, (Mr. Hale's), steadly and persistently doing his work, right in the house of those who did not believe with him and who were terribly prejudiced against his work.

Here is where Oliver Cowdery visited him and wrote for him, right in the house of Mr. Hale for weeks—from the loth of April to the 1st of June. About the 1st of June of this year by reason of the continued and increased persecution in the neighborhood of his wife's father, he was compelled to go to another place. This he found for a time at a gentleman's by the name of Whitmer, and from here he returned home to his father's at Manchester, New York. The records agree then. His home was at his father's, and he was here in 1829, when the manuscript was given to the printer, and remained till 1830, but in the spring of 1830 left Manchester and returned to Whitmer's.

What does the witness Mrs. Salisbury say:

"That she knew the friends of the family and the friends and acquaintances of Joseph Smith, her brother, who visited at her father's house. That prior to the latter part of the year 1830, there was no person who visited with, or was an acquaintance of, or called upon the said family, or any member thereof, to my knowledge, by the name of Sidney Rigdon."

Will you again Mr. Braden insult common decency by saying she lied, and is contradicted by all others? Or that she did not tell the truth and the whole truth? Bring forward some of your strong evidence, if you have so much that is contradictory and let us hear it read. This lady does not pretend that she was with her brother all of this time, every day or month. But that at her father's house was her brother's home and the place where he brought his friends; was there the greater part of the time himself, and she says, "that to the extent of her knowledge, no such person as Sidney Rigdon was known to the family or any member of the same."

Here then, is the positive and direct knowledge that there was no such person as Tucker tried by deception and innuendo to make the people believe of a "mysterious stranger," being at the residence of the old gentleman Smith or an acquaintance of Joseph Smith.

Here then, are the positive and certain declarations of Sidney Rigdon, P. P. Pratt, Catherine Salisbury, Emma Smith and David Whitmer upon the question as to whether Rigdon was ever an acquaintance of the family of Mr. Smith, and knew of the Book of Mormon, except as a rumor in the world, possibly, as many other people prior to its publication, and they all agree that he was not known to the family or the translator of the Book of Mormon in any sense.

Add to this the statement of Braden's witness, Gilbert, who said in my presence, that he had tried for fifty years or near that long to find out something that would connect Rigdon and Smith together in some way, he living at Palmyra, N. Y., all this time as shown in his testimony, and who stated at the same time, that "they could not find out that Rigdon was ever about here or in this state until sometime in the fall of 1830," and it makes a clear and positive case against his Spaulding story. Compare my testimony upon this point now, with the loose statements got up by Howe and Hulburt and peddled by Braden here, and you have the actual status of the case.

These tales and stories when summed up are truly but tersely put by a writer who has lately canvassed them as follows:

"Rev. Kirk says that Dr. Winters told him that Mr. Rigdon told him—

Dr. Winters' daughter says her father said that Rigdon got Spaulding's manuscript— Rev. Bonsall heard Dr. Winters say so and so—

And the impression of these three is that Dr. Winters wrote out his recollections—and therefore of course he did.

Mrs. Amos Dunlap saw Rigdon reading a manuscript, therefore it was the Spaulding Romance. Pomery Tucker says a mysterious stranger visits Joseph Smith, therefore Sidney Rigdon is the man. Mrs. Horace Eaton makes use of a similar statement assuming it as a matter of course."

These, with what Tucker said some one else said, and all of which Hulburt and Howe got up, is Braden's stock in trade, and the only things offered to prove this Spaulding Romance.

It seems to me that if there is anyone in" this audience, or any person outside, who shall hereafter be found with these fa



their possession, still trying to gossip the Spaulding story down people's throats, it will be because they are wholly given over to evil, and terribly addicted to that kind of a business.

To such, I would advise in the language of the apostle Paul: "But refuse profane and old wives' fables, [gossip of the 'old neighbors,' silly fables or falsehoods,] and exercise thyself rather unto Godliness." 1 Tim. 4:7.

Ladies and gentlemen, you have now found what there is in fact to this Spaulding tale. I have carefully examined this thing, although I need not have noticed it in order to have maintained successfully the proposition. I have done it, because I knew it to be the means by which satan sought to blind the eyes of the people by gossip, and story, and tale and falsehood, to prevent them from honestly investigating this book in the manner God wants them to investigate all things.

But what has he proven as a fact of this story?

Did be prove that Solomon Spaulding: ever wrote such a manuscript as was that of the Book of Mormon?

Has he sustained the burden of proof, showing that Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith were ever acquainted in any way till after the publication of the Book of Mormon?

Has it been shown that Rigdon was ever known to Spaulding in Pittsburg?

Did he prove that Sidney Rigdon took the manuscript in order to start a church?

Has he proved that Rigdon, in fact, ever knew anything of what the Book of Mormon was, till it was presented to him by P. P. Pratt, November, 1830?

You know all of these questions must be answered in the negative.

The only thing he has fairly proven with regard to this Spaulding story to my mind, is the fact, that he had no evidence when he began.

He refused to try to answer my arguments and struck out upon his alibi, where the burden of proof fell upon him, and his alibi has gone down and left him sitting with nothing under him. But he is still plucky, and up and attacks the Book of Mormon for what he deems objectionable in it. This is a proper way to debate; and if he can find anything bad in it, let him turn it out here. I shall not complain so he don't misquote, or mis-state the book.

He has made a few Bible objections which I shall notice in this connection.

Isaiah 16:8, he says, "Refers to the dispersion of the Moabites." But why does he say so? To whom does the prophet refer as leaving this land as being the "vine of Sibmah;"—"principal plants?" The people who were the desire of the Lord; pleasant to him? Will he say what people of the land of Moab was referred to? There were many.

Jeremiah 31, "Refers to the dispersion of Israel in the Assyrian empire," he says. But what right has he to say so? The prophecy is emphatically against such an idea. It says, "Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the coasts of the earth.11 Neither of these places refer particularly to Assyria.

Isaiah 11:11, he takes up and quotes just part of the verse, and says: "This shows it refers to the Israelites in the Assyrian empire." Had he quoted the verse it would have been sufficient to prove him wrong without a word from me. Notice, while I read: "From Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Gush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea." (12, verse). "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and stall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." Was it indeed limited to Assyria? Is this the best he can do towards a refutation of my positions?

He takes up what he considers the pet passage of Mormonism, Ezekiel 37, and thinks to make you believe that staff, rod and stick are used interchangeably in the Bible and mean power. I know we read of the rod of Aaron and scepter of Judah, but they are in no way used in the sense of a stick. We can well speak of the scepter of the king as meaning power, but not the stick of the king as meaning power. The words are not used interchangeably in the English, neither are the originals in the Hebrew so used in a single instance. But in his interpretation he overlooks entirely the writing upon the sticks which I particularly called attention to. Did this mean the kingdoms too? Give us an exposition once or confess you cannot. But read it now substituting kingdom for stick,

and you have the ridiculous position of uniting the kingdoms in the 19th verse, and uniting them again in the 21st, without any idea of the writing upon the stick or kingdom.

Now I shall answer the objection made by him, that none of Ephraim came to America. How does he know? Well, he says the Book of Mormon says they were of the tribe of Manasseh. Mr. Smith, he thinks, (or rather the equestrian Ahasuerus, Rigdon), made a great mistake here. If Mr. Smith had just sent over to Andover, or down to Hiram, or waited till the endowment of Bethany, before committing himself, it would have been all right. But he thinks he is clearly caught here. Let us examine the position: Does the Book of Mormon say all who came to this continent were of the tribe of Manassah? No, it does not. But it says Lehi was, and that is enough for Braden. He can soon make the objection. His objection is, then, that the book of Mormon did not trace Ephraim here by lineage. But had it done so an objection would, clearly have lain against it, as we shall s