EXHIBIT F: STATEMENT OF ORSAMUS TURNER

Statement:

"...the enlarging of original intentions [i.e. the transformation from a money-making scam to a religious endeavor] was at the suggestion of Sidney Rigdon of Ohio, who made his appearance, and blended himself with the poorly devised scheme of imposture about the time the book was issued from the press. He unworthily bore the title of a Baptist elder, but had by some previous freak, if the author is rightly informed, forfeited his standing with that respectable religious denomination."(36)

(Note: fatal questions are marked with an asterick *)

Investigative questions:

1. How reliable can Turner's 21-year-old hearsay or conjecture (it is uncertain which) about Rigdon be when we are given no indication as to the source upon which he based his statement, and when or how he supposedly obtained it? How does one know that it is not the product of dubious third or forth-hand rumors and baseless conjectures of the kind being spread by critics and enemies of Joseph Smith and the LDS faith prior to that time? The Enigma authors, understanding this weakness in their "evidence", suggest that Turner either learned of Rigdon's alleged visit from "professional colleagues and other old friends in town", or through a chance meeting on the road with Smith (who he knew) and Rigdon (who he didn't know, but "may" have learned the identity of later). Given that the odds against the author's later conjecture are, to use the Enigma authors own word, "astronomical" (particularly in light of the Rigdon and Smith time-lines)--not to mention that were this to have been the case Turner would likely have provided an account of the chance meeting; and, given that Turner's "professional colleagues" would have included E. B. Grandin (whom Turner had been in partnership with at the Wayne Sentinel), who, as will be discovered in Exhibit G, was one of the sources for J. G. Bennett's 1831 errant statement about Rigdon arriving in the fall of 1827, casts serious doubt on credibility of Turner's statement even if the Enigma authors' former conjecture is correct.
2. As a newspaper man, why is there no record in Turner's own paper, or in the paper of his former colleagues at the Wayne Sentinel, prior to the 1851 statement he made above, regarding the alleged first appearance of Rigdon around March of 1830? And, why is his reporting of this alleged event so unprofessional (no apparent investigation, lack of substantiation, etc.) and untimely? Could it be that he could not investigate or substantiate that which did not occur at the time he claims?
3. *How reliable can Turner's 21-year-old hearsay or conjecture be when it is inconsistent with the Rigdon time-line (Rigdon is shown to be in Mentor, Ohio in March of 1830, not Palmyra as Turner suggests). Yet the Enigma authors 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 also said, "every liar slips up somewhere" (see Enigma p. 490), and it appears that both Anderick and the Enigma authors slipped up here.
4. Is it possible that Turner, or the supposed sourse(s) for his reported 21-year-old rumor or conjecture, were off on their timing of Rigdon's arrival by 8 or 9 months (Turner's statement claims Rigdon arrived in March of 1830--which is about the time when the Book of Mormon was being "issued from the press", and the official historical records has Rigdon arriving around December of 1830)?
5. *How reliable can Turner's 21-year old hearsay statement be when, assuming the Enigma authors were correct in claiming that Turner's statement about the "enlarging of original intentions" was in reference to the alleged "transformation from money-making scam to religious endevour", Turner has the alleged "transformation" taking place after the publishing of the Book of Mormon (one of the most significant aspects of the so-called "religious endevour")? Isn't that anachronistic?
6. Even assuming that Turner is correct about the timing of Rigdon's first appearance at Palmyra in March of 1830 (which he is not), how does that support the Spalding theory which asserts that Rigdon periodically supplied Smith with portions of the Spalding manuscript from September of 1827 to the spring of 1830? The Enigma authors suggest that this is "an excellent indicator of the effectiveness of the conspirators' efforts to maintain an aura of secrecy around Rigdon's visits up until that time." Apart from this being the fallacy of circular reasoning, were this true (which it is not), it would beg the question of what need was there to keep Rigdon's visit a secret prior to that time, and why was it then safe for him to make his alleged appearance in March of 1830 (not even taking into account the fact that the Rigdon time-line, show Rigdon in mentor, Ohio), rather than late November or early December of 1830, as recorded in official history? It doesn't make sense on a number of levels.
7. The Enigma authors selectively omit the following statement by Turner in the same book: "It is believed by those who were best acquainted with the Smith family and most conversant with all the Gold Bible movement, that there is no foundation for the statement that their original manuscript was written by a Mr. Spaulding of Ohio. A supplement to the Gold Bible, "The Book of Commandments" in all probability was written by Rigdon, and he may have been aided by Spaulding's manuscripts; but the book itself is without doubt a production of the Smith family, aided by Oliver Cowdery, who was a school teacher on Stafford street, an intimate of the Smith family, and identified with the whole matter. (History of the Pioneer Settlement, by Orsamus Turner, p. 214, as quoted at Dale Broadhurst web site).

Last updated 02/14/01