Another Scholar Speaks—The Rigdon-Spaulding Theory Re-Examined

ANOTHER SCHOLAR SPEAKS

THE RIGDON-SPAULDING THEORY RE-EXAMINED

By Professor George H. Bousquet

[Editor’s Note: On August 22nd, Mr. J. E. Few, M.A., a solicitor and member of the Cambridge Rotary Club, addressed the Norwich Rotary Club on a “Visit to Salt Lake City." A brief account of the address was published next day in the Eastern Daily Press. In the address Mr. Few asserted that the Mormons “as a people had reached a high standard in ideals of service, in the ethics of business relationships, and in general citizenship."

The published account of the address stirred Mr. Alfred D. Bunn to write a letter to the editor in which he asserted, among other things, that “Joseph Smith was a shiftless, idle. … fellow … who gave to the world the Book of Mormon compiled mainly from the Bible and a story written by a man named Spaulding.” That Mr. Spaulding's story had nothing whatever to do with the Book of Mormon has been shown many times. As one more article on the subject, however, we print that written by Professor George H. Bousquet, as published in the Church section of the Deseret News of August 25th, 1934.

Professor Bousquet, a professor of economics of the Faculty of Law, University of Algiers, North Africa, recently spent two months in Utah on a Rockefeller Foundation scholarship in economic research. The subject of his study was the religious and economic life of the Latter-day Saints. His article that follows is an extract from one of his writings which is to appear in the French Revue d’Histoire de Religions at an early date.]

THE author of this paper wants first of all to state very clearly that he does not belong to the Church of the Latter-day Saints, and that, although he has been received in his historical researches at the Church offices with the utmost kindness, still he disagrees with the Church on many fundamental points of Mormon theology, and reserves the right to publish with complete liberty what he may deem good to write upon such topics.

He feels, however, no hesitation in stating that at least on one point he is in full accord with the Church, namely, as to the so-called Rigdon-Spaulding story of the origin of the Book of Mormon. He believes that the Latter-day Saints justly can state that the Book of Mormon is not a literary product shaped under the influence of the writings of Solomon Spaulding.

Every one knows that as early as 1834, in a book called Mormonism Unveiled, E.D. Howe published numerous affidavits purporting to come from people who had some acquaintance with the Book of Mormon. In these affidavits they state that the original of the Book of Mormon was nothing else than a story written by Mr. Solomon Spaulding (born 1761, died 1816); that the same names, Nephi, Lehi, Lamanites, appeared in Spaulding’s story and that the style was the same with even the same peculiar stylistic forms, like, “It came to pass,” appearing in Spaulding’s Manuscript Found, as well as in the sacred book of the Mormons. The majority of the Gentile authors have followed this theory, especially Linn.

It is obvious that if those affidavits expressed the truth, the forgery would be evident. But let us now go somewhat deeper in the study of the statements of those witnesses. Two things must here be considered. On the one hand we may see in their testimony that S. Spaulding had written (and not published) a story in which some foreign people disembarked in America in past centuries—this is perfectly true. But on the other hand, is it believable that after a lapse of 20 years, one can remember all the peculiarities of a novel, the names of its heroes and the style of the narrative? If it were a printed book that one may read many and many times, this would be possible, but it is at least highly improbable in the case of a novel heard only once or twice. For myself, I have but a vague remembrance of the stories I have been told in the year 1914, and I doubt that other people are different in this respect.

Furthermore, most of Howe’s witnesses agree upon an important matter (See affidavits of Aaron Wright and Nahnm Howard), namely, that no religious matter appeared in Spaulding’s story. But as a matter of fact the Book of Mormon deals with practically nothing but religion so far, one does not understand exactly what kind of plagiarist Joseph Smith should have been.

Finally, Howe (p. 288) alludes to a manuscript of Spaulding's which, shown to the witnesses, was said by them not to be the story they had heard so many years ago. Howe concludes, therefore, that another manuscript relating another story of the same kind (strangers disembarking in America) must have been written by Spaulding. Now, half a century later the manuscript which does not expose the Mormons has been found and published. It bears no resemblance with their sacred book, but the other one, the alleged original of their sacred book, has never come to light. Then one may conclude from this that it never did exist.

Therefore it would be necessary to prove why and how the Manuscript Found did come in the hands of Joseph Smith, Jr. According to the believers of the Rigdon-Spaulding theory, Sidney Rigdon must have been the link between the dead Spaulding and the false prophet. In reality, we have no explanation of the fact, and even Linn is compelled to write (Story of the Mormons, p. 66), “How did the Spaulding manuscript become incorporated in the Mormon’s Bible. … It can only be said that definite proof is lacking.” It has never been clearly established that Rigdon had knowledge of the mannscript left by Spaulding, and on the other hand, the Mormon Church has not been able to prove that there is an absolute impossibility of Rigdon having known the Manuscript Found (See Riley, the Founder of Mormonism). In order to reach more definite conclusions, it is therefore necessary to go farther in our inquiry.

WHAT, for me, makes the whole theory so highly improbable that it mnst appear to every unbiased scholar as false, is the fact that, in the case of such a wicked plot the early history of the Church becomes psychologically absurd and contradictory. But if we assume that Joseph Smith did really dictate his own sacred text to those who believed in him, all becomes clear and evident.

One thing, however, has never been pointed out, so far as I know, and could raise some doubts: I can not well understand how so long a text as the Book of Mormon (plus 116 pages of the manuscript) could have been written down in but a few months. On the other hand, I am fully aware that what makes me suspicious would be according to the Church, the best proof of the divine authenticity of the text.

With some scorn Linn speaks (page 85) of “Smith’s original partners in the Bible business.” It seems to me that their whole attitude shows that the Rigdon-Spaulding theory is false.

(a) In the Doctrine and Covenants (Sections 8 and 9) two revelations are directed to Oliver Cowdery, granting him the gift of translation and then withdrawing from him this gift. Whatever opinion one may have as to the Prophet’s divine inspiration, we must consider those texts as entirely historical. Their authenticity has never been attacked and they prove abundantly that Cowdery knew how the Prophet did translate the Book of Mormon. Had the Prophet been an imposter, there would have been no need for him to forge a revelation directed to his accomplice. Furthermore, he could have been easily exposed by this accomplice after his departure from the Church.

(b) On the contrary, Cowdery with David Whitmer and Martin Harris are known as the “Three Witnesses” of the Book of Mormon. The other two men also must have known somewhat about the Book’s real origin, being “original partners in the Bible business.” Here again, whatever may be the theological value of their testimony, it is for me, beyond every possible doubt, that they were of absolute good faith and that their testimony is true. The fact that later all three of them apostatized and did not withdraw their testimony is for the Church a triumphant proof that none of them has ever been the author or the accomplice, or the witness of a forgery.

(c) We have now the testimony of the eight witnesses. On this point I made myself a special inquiry for the following reason. A German agnostic author, Ed. Meyer, who accepts the three witnesses, expresses doubts as to the veracity of the eight. According to him, their testimony must have been written for the book at the moment of its being published, and therefore, when the plates had already been given back to the angel, and he states that a scientific inquiry of the fact is lacking. According to me, nothing here seems suspicious. It is true, first, that in the Sacred Books themselves we find allusions some time to three witnesses only (Ether 5:3-4, and especially Doctrine and Covenants, Section 5:14), and some time to more of them (II Nephi 10:3, and 27:13), which is not so easy to be explained. Secondly, it is true also that we have two different accounts concerning those testimonies (but they agree together against Ed. Meyer). Joseph Smith himself writes, (History of Church, Vol. 1, p. 57): “Soon after these things (the testimony of the three) the following additional testimony was obtained. … Meantime we continued to translate at intervals.” Writes Mother Smith (Joseph Smith the Prophet, chapter 31, page 13): “As soon as the Book of Mormon was translated Joseph dispatched a messager to Mrs. Smith bearing intelligence of the completion of the work.” Two days later (page 139) the testimony of the three is obtained. A few days later (page 140) occurs the testimony of the eight, and the same evening (page 141) Joseph delivers the plates to the angel.

WHETHER the second testimony was obtained after the completion of the Book or not, is difficult to state, for it bears no date, and we do not know when exactly the book was finished. But the discrepancy between Joseph’s statement and that of his mother does not indicate any fraud. It can easily be explained by the fact that the latter wrote many years after those events, when an aged woman. The only positive result of my personal inquiry has been that among the eight, Jacob and John Whitmer and also Hiram Page … apostatized, but nevertheless did not withdraw their testimony. One must say that here again no better witnesses can be dreamed of.

As to Rigdon, we find in the Doctrine and Covenants many revelations where he appears as the servant, and Joseph Smith as the prophet of the Lord. (Sections 35, 36, 37.) According to the Rigdon-Spaulding theory, Smith should have been only an instrument in the hands of Rigdon. Nothing of the kind is true. And once more: Rigdon, like so many others we have spoken of, did apostatize. He undoubtedly should have known all about the alleged plot, and therefore could easily have exposed the Prophet, but he did nothing of the kind.

Last but not least, if such a plot had existed, some reason must explain it. It could have been that of acquiring power and wealth.

As to Rigdon, he could later have made money by revealing the plot, and he did not. Now as to the Prophet, what has been his earthly reward? He was persecuted, thrashed, put into prison, and finally died a martyr. How can one explain this if he had been a wilful impostor? No one who studies with impartiality the life of Joseph Smith ean fail to recognize that he himself had never any doubt as to his prophetic mission. His life and his death show this beyond reasonable doubt.

For all these reasons, if I were a member of a jury, before which the Prophet were indicted for fraud, I should eertainly vote “not guilty,” and I firmly believe that this verdict must also be that of scientific history.