EXHIBIT ?: STATEMENT AND TESTIMONY OF POMEROY TUCKER

Statements:

"In October following (1829), the printing was considerably advanced, and the ultimate issue of the Book of Mormon had become a fixed fact. The printing was done upon a hand-press, and the type of one form had to be distributed before another could be set up; and of course this will account for the tardiness of the work. But the first and second books of "Nephi," and some other portions of the forthcoming revelation, were printed in sheets; -- and armed with a copy of these, Smith commenced other preparations for a mission to Pennsylvania, where he had some relatives residing, and where the before-mentioned "Rev. Sidney Rigdon" was then residing or temporarily sojourning . . . in November, Smith went to Northern Pennsylvania, as previously appointed, where he married the daughter of Isaac Hale, and was baptized after the Mormon ritual -- Rigdon being the "matchmaker" and the officiating "clergyman" in these celebrations."(PERSONAL REMEMBRANCES AND HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS HITHERTO UNWRITTEN. By POMEROY TUCKER, PALMYRA, N. Y. NEW YORK: D. APPLETON AND COMPANY, 443 & 445 BROADWAY. 1867, pp. 55 -56)

"[Smith's] want of cultivation in respect to 'the world's wisdom,' precluded in their [his followers'] minds the idea of the exercise of any natural or acquired faculties in producing his wonderful revelations and translations. Their reasoning was: 'He is unlearned of men, therefore how could he acquire the ancient learning displayed, if it were not supernaturally communicated to him?' And they argued, that he could not have made the translations without the plates. Convincing logic for Mormon fanatics! Here comes in for application and reflection the coincidence of Sidney Rigdon's long-continued incognito sojournments at the money-digger's residence during the Mormon incubation. Who can doubt that he and Smith had become confederates in a grand scheme of cupidity and imposture? They had surreptitiously possessed themselves of a fabulous composition peculiarly adapted to their design. Secrecy and falsehood were necessary to the success of such a scheme, and to these, it is self-evident, they were mutually sworn . . . "(ibid. p.121)

"The palpable design was to persist in the after-thought invention that the "hidden records" had been revealed to Smith in 1823, before Rigdon's mysterious appearance at the scene [according to Tucker's previous statement, this would be 1827], though they were not permitted to be taken until 1827. No such pretension was made until after Rigdon's connection with the imposture had become publicly known. . . "(ibid. p.197)

Investigative questions:

1. In addition to the questions that were already asked regarding the other statement Tucker made in his same book (see Tucker questions), how reliable can he be as a 'witness" when, according to credible historical record (both LDS and non-LDS), Joseph Smith had been residing at Harmony, Pennsylvania at the time that Tucker claims that Joseph was preparing to go on a mission to Pennsylvania (October of 1829)? In fact, Joseph had been residing most of the time in Pennsylvania since December of 1827, more than two years previous to what Tucker asserts.
2. How reliable can he be as a 'witness" when, according to credible historical record (both LDS and non-LDS), Joseph Smith had married Emma Hale (the daughter of Isaac Hale) some two years previous to what Tucker claims (January 18th, 1827)?
3. How reliable can he be as a 'witness" when, according to credible historical record (both LDS and non-LDS), Joseph's wife, Emma, was not baptised until June 28th, 1830, not November of 1829 as Tucker asserts, and it was performed at Coleville, NY, and not Pennsylvania?
4. How reliable can he be as a 'witness" when, according to credible historical record (both LDS and non-LDS), Joseph was married by Esquire Tarbill, not Sidney Rigdon as Tucker asserts, and more than two years later, she was baptised by Oliver Cowdery, not Rigdon.
5. How reliable can he be as a 'witness" when, according to the Enigma authors' own time-line, Rigdon was a resident of Mentor, Ohio in November of 1829, having moved there in the spring of 1826 (see time-line), and not Pennsylvania as Tucker suggests?
6. How reliable can he be as a 'witness" when, according to the Enigma authors' own time-line, Rigdon was in New Lisbon, Ohio in November of 1829, and not Pennsylvania as Tucker suggests (see time-line)?
7. How reliable can he be as a 'witness" when, according to the Enigma authors' own time-line, as well as the Smith time-line, there is considerable evidence against Tucker's assertion (in the second statement quoted above) of Rigdon's alleged "long-continued incognito sojournments" at Palmyra. As stated above, Smith lived most of the time, from December of 1827, to November of 1829, at Harmony, Pennsylvania, and not Palmyra. So, even were there to have been a conspiracy as the Spalding theorist claim (which there was not), it would have been in Pennsylvania and not new York.
8. How useful can he be to the Spalding theorist as a 'witness" when he claims that Rigdon first appeared at Palmyra in 1827 (see the first Tucker statement on the previous page, and the third statement quoted above), whereas the Enigma authors and other Spalding theorist believe the supposed conspiracy began as early as 1823, with the first "angelic" visit to Joseph Smith? Haven't the Enigma author's unwittingly supplied a "witness" against themselves?
9. Given the many conflicts between Tucker's statements and credible historical sources, as well as with the Spalding Enigma's own time-line, was it any wonder why the Enigma authors wished to conveniently omit these statements from their lineup of "evidence"? But, wasn't it also dishonest and fallacious (the fallacy of card stacking) for them to do so? Since they were familiar with the first Tucker statement, it is likely that they were familiar with these other statements made by him in the same book, yet they went on to knowingly and falsely claim that "for in every instance without exception, where a witness or witnesses have claimed that Rigdon and Smith were together, a gap in Rigdon's chronology occurs which allows sufficient time for him to have visited New York. " As the author's have said, "every liar slips up somewhere (see Enigma p. 490), and it appears that both Tucker and the Enigma authors slipped up here. Obviously they were less interested in discovering who was correct in this matter, and more interested in proping up their theory regardless of how highly selective, though still dubious, the "evidence"?

Last updated 01/28/01