The Spalding Enigma: The Fallacy of Repetition Continued?

"As I was going up the stairs I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today. Gee I wish he'd go away." Ogden Nash

In contravention to the unequivocal and presumptive declarations of Sidney Rigdon 1, Joseph Smith 2, and Oliver Cowdery 3  (i.e. prima fascia evidence from the principle agents in question), as corroborated by their respective families and friends 4, the Spalding theorists have asserted that Sidney Rigdon visited periodically with Joseph Smith prior to 1830. In fact, the Enigma authors suggest that Rigdon was, in actuality, the "angel" that appeared to Smith from 1823 to 1827.

This assertion is vital to the theory because it provides the foundation upon which key premises of the theory rest, such as: 1) Rigdon was the "mastermind" behind the conspiracy (with Smith and Cowdery) to commit religious fraud; 2) Rigdon was in possession of the Spalding manuscript, which he and his coconspirators plagiarized to create the Book of Mormon; and 3) during the pretended translation process, Rigdon was instrumental in making changes and adding select religious material to the manuscript in preparation for publication.

So, if it is determined that Rigdon did not visited with Smith prior to 1830, but these two men were relative strangers to each other up to that point, it would, in the words of Art Vanick (one of the Enigma authors), "at the least be very bad for the Spalding theory." In truth, without a foundation, the Spalding theory's house of cards collapses.

In silent acknowledgement of this fact, and through much labor, after five decades of unsubstantiated innuendo, hearsay, rumors, and conjectures, as well as conspicuous silence from the supposed eye-witnesses (and this amidst sometimes intense investigations), a seeming miracle began to occur in which tongues were loosed and memories long clouded and muddled were suddenly made clear. Several aged former neighbors of the Smith's were persuaded (in some cases through much persistence, and others through remunerative incentives) to make statements in which they claim to recall seeing in their half-century or more past, a "stranger" visiting Smith at various times prior to 1830, who they were supposedly told was Rigdon.

In Chapter Eleven, the Enigma authors have selectively gathered together some of these "recollections", and boldly proclaimed:

"Obviously the conclusion which must be drawn from [matching the witnesses' statements to the Rigdon time-line] is devastating to the Mormons, 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. Since the odds for such a thing happening by chance are considerable (if not astronomical), and since there is no way any of these witnesses could possibly have known where gaps in Rigdon's chronology would occur, nor is there any evidence of collusion among them, the Spalding Enigma moves ever closer to a solution. In spite of what Mormon apologists will say, a strong case has now been made for the argument that Smith, Rigdon and Cowdery were in collusion regarding the so-called Golden Bible long before any heretofore known, or at least, admitted, contact among the three." (Enigma, p. 490)

Passing graciously over the illogical assertion that gaps in time are evidence of specific events having occurred (particular given that there are numerous gaps, some of which are rather lengthy), I will test the accuracy and the honesty of the claim above, with the expressed intent of proving it seriously wanting in both regards.

To keep the information manageable, I will provide a brief description of the statements from each Enigma witness, with a link to separate pages containing a more in-depth analysis (which the reader can access by clicking on the name of each witness). If there is no brief explanation or linked name, that means that I have yet to examine that particular witness, or post the results thereof, in this critique-in-progress.

However, before examining the statements, it may be of interest to relate the following experience of Jean Piaget, a child psychologist:

"...one of my first memories would date, if it were true, from my second year. I can still see, most clearly, the following scene, in which I believed until I was about fifteen. I was sitting in my pram, which my nurse was pushing in the Champs Elysees, when a men tried to kidnap me. I was held in by the strap fastened around me while my nurse bravely tried to stand between me and the thief. She received various scratches, and I can still see vaguely those on her face. Then a crowd gathered, a policeman with a short cloak and a white baton came up, and the man took to his heels. I can still see the whole scene, and can even place it near the tube station. When I was about fifteen, my parents received a letter from my former nurse saying that she had been converted to the Salvation Army. She wanted to confess her past faults, and in particular to return the watch she had been given as a reward on occasion. She had made up the whole story, faking the scratches. I, therefore, must have heard, as a child, the account of this story, which my parents believed, and projected into the past in the form of a visual memory."("Magic of the Mind" in Witness For the Defense: The Accused, the Eyewitness, and the Expert Who Puts Memory On Trial, by Dr. Elizabeth Loftus and Katherine Ketcham, St. Martin's Press, 1991)

Drs. Loftus and Ketchum (cited above) assert: 

"Memories don't just fade, as the old saying would have us believe; they also grow. What fades is the initial perception, the actual experience of the events. But every time we recall an event, we must reconstruct the memory, and with each recollection the memory may be changed--colored by succeeding events, other people's recollections or suggestions, increased understanding, or a new context. 

"Truth and reality, when seen through the filter of our memories, are not objective facts but subjective, interpretive realities. We interpret the past, correcting ourselves, adding bits and pieces, deleting uncomplimentary or disturbing recollections, sweeping, dusting, tidying things up. Thus our representation of the past takes on a living, shifting reality; it is not fixed and immutable, not a place way back there that is preserved in stone, but a living thing that changes shape, expands, shrinks, and expands again, an amoebalike creature with powers to make us laugh, and cry, and clench our fists. Enormous powers--powers even to make us believe in something that never happened. (ibid.)

With this important preface in mind, let us now examine the "evidence".

Alleged eye witness accounts:

One may tell just how flimsy the case is for the Spalding theory by how few the supposed eye witnesses (particularly in as social a community as Palmyra in which the alleged events supposedly took place over a number of years), by how untimely their statements, by how questionable the circumstances under which the statements were given, by how insignificant the events that were supposedly being recalled many years later, and by how inconsistent or contradictory the statements may be. Out of a community of hundreds of people, the Enigma authors were only able to locate, fifty years after the events in question, the dubious testimony of these five elderly witnesses:

• Lorenzo Saunders : more than 50 years after the events in question, Saunders was pressured by several Spalding theorists (Gilbert and Cobb) into making for the first time (that we know of) four separate statements over a period of eight years, in which he claims to have recalled seeing Rigdon with Smith at Palmyra on various occassions from March of 1827, to December of 1830. Saunders would have been 16 years old in 1827. As will be shown, the statements, while very untimely, and containing several noted irregularities, are also inconsistent, contradictory, and in several instances conflict with the Rigdon and Smith time-lines--contrary to what the Enigma authors suggest above. And, Saunders is proclaimed by the Enigma authors to be their "foremost witness"--which doesn't bode well for the credibility, or reliability, of their other supposed witnesses.
• Abel Chase : more than 50 years after the events in question, Chase was also solicited by Gilbert, and though with some uncertainty he made for the first time (that we know of) a brief statement in which he recalled seeing Rigdon with Smith at Palmyra presumably towards the end of 1827. Chase would have been 13 years old at that time. As will be shown, the statement, while very untimely, presumably conflicts with the Rigdon and Smith time-lines--contrary to what the Enigma authors suggest above, and it is somewhat discredited by statements he and others have also made regarding his knowledge of the Smiths at that times.
• Mrs. S. F. Anderick : more than 60 years after the events in question, and likely in response to A. B. Deming's (another Spalding theorist) newspaper ad, which offered payment in exchange for testimony, Anderick made for the first time (that we know of) a statement filled with unsubstantiated rumors in which she claims to have seen Rigdon at the Smiths at various times (the dates of which are uncertain, and thus untestible against the Rigdon or Smith time-lines--contrary to what the Enigma authors suggest above), and she was allegedly told of other visits at times when she did not see him. As will be shown, the statement, while even more untimely than those of the previous witnesses, and containing several noted irregularities, is uncorroborated, and possibly even contradicted by other people mentioned in the statement.
• Daniel Hendrix: more than 70 years after the events in question, at the age of 87, Hendrix made for the first time (that we know of) a statement which vacillates erratically between personal experiences and general impressions (some of which were clearly rumor-based). Not coincidently, Hendrix's personal experiences tend to agree with official LDS historical accounts, whereas his general impressions tend to disagree with them. As will be shown, the statement, while the most untimely of all the supposed eye witnesses, needed to be corrected on several key points by the Enigma authors and others, and seriously conflicts (particularly the generalized perceptions) with the Rigdon and Smith time-lines--contrary to what the Enigma authors suggest above.
• Emily Coburn Austin: more than 50 years after the events in question, Coburn made for the first time (that we know of) a statement which vacillates erratically between personal experiences and general impressions (some of which were clearly rumor-based). As will be shown, the statement, while not as untimely as the other supposed eye-witnesses, contains some marked irregularities, and depending upon what one assumes to be the timing of the events in question (as will be shown, the timing set forth by the Enigma authors is not consistent with credible historical and empirical sources), it conflicts with the Rigdon and Smith time-lines--contrary to what the Enigma authors suggest above. And, even were it true (which is doubtful), it only differs by several months from official historical accounts, thus lending at best little if any support to the Spalding theory, and at worst contradicting it.

The deafening silent majority:

Among the statements of the supposed eye-witnesses listed above were mentioned a number of people who also allegedly saw, and even supposedly associated with Sidney Rigdon in Palmyra or Colesville (along with Joseph Smith) prior to 1830. They were: Peter Ingersol, Samuel Lawrence, Willard Chase, George Roper, "Old Man" Rockwell, a "large part of the people of Palmyra", those allegedly attending the church meetings in Wayne and Ontario counties, Andrews, the Wilcox sons, and the people of Coleville.

Add to this the many families and friends of the Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and other hypothetical eye witnesses who would likely have seen Rigdon during one of his alleged frequent and prolonged visits--that is, were one to believe all of what has been reported.

However, even after 150 plus years of intense investigations by the Spalding theorists, there has been produced not a single supportive statement from this huge group--including from those who, in certain instances, were quite liberal in their criticism of Joseph Smith and the LDS faith. In fact, there are those of this huge group who have testified to the contrary.5

Hearsay accounts:

Given the marked lack of eye-witness statements over a considerable length of time, and given the clearly unreliable eye-witness statements collected later on, the Spalding theorists have been forced to prop up their flimsy case with innuendo, hearsay, rumors, and conjecture--falsely labeling each as evidence and testimony.

But, as will be shown, in almost comedic fashion, these intended supportive statements, highly dubious in their own way, often conflict and even seriously contradicts the eye-witness accounts. And, in those rare instances where relative consistency may be found, there is some question as to whether the alleged eye-witness accounts are actually a product of the innuendo, hearsay, rumors, and conjecture.

• Polmeroy Tucker: more than 40 years after the events in question, Tucker, himself a Spalding theorist, and an associate of other Spalding theorist (those connected with the Wayne County Sentinel, such as Gilbert, Turner, Grandin, and Hendrix), claimed for the first time (the title of his book is, in part, "Personal Remembrances and Historical Collections Hitherto Unwritten") to have heard rumors about "frequent visits" from a "mysterious stranger", which he conjectures, absent any evidence, was Rigdon. As best that may be surmised from the cryptic citation, the timing of the alleged visits tends to correspond with the visits of two different unnamed strangers (arguably not Rigdon) mentioned in Lucy Smith's history of her son, written some 22 years prior to Tucker's statement. It is quite possible that Tucker's statement is merely a self-serving embellishment of Lucy's record with an added bit of errant conjecture likely derived from promptings from his former associates at the Wayne Sentinel, E. B. Grandin and Orsamus Turner.
• Polmeroy Tucker (several statements left questionably unmentioned by the Enigma authors): In the same book mentioned above, Tucker makes several statements about Rigdon's alleged visits with Smith which directly conflict on at least eight different points with credible history as well as the Enigma's own Rigdon time-line (contrary to what the Enigma authors suggest above), thus calling into serious question the reliability of what Tucker has said on the matter (both in these statements, and the statement mentioned above) and the integrity of the Enigma authors in presenting "every instance without exception where a witness or witnesses have claimed that Rigdon and Smith were together", which they clearly were aware of. These statements from Tucker also apparently ended up turning against the Spalding theorist with the assertion that the alleged conspiracy began in 1827, whereas the theorist believe it began in 1823 (which is why it is not surprising that the Enigma authors would wish not to report them).
• W. A. Lillie: more than 50 years after the events in question, and likely in response to A. B. Deming's (another Spalding theorist) newspaper ad which offered payment in exchange for testimony, Lillie made for the first time (that we know of) a statement in which he claims to have been told by an acquaintance that Rigdon was often seen with Smith in Palmyra during the summer of 1830. As will be shown, this statement, while untimely, is, in part, anachronistic and in conflict with the Rigdon and Smith time-lines (contrary to what the Enigma authors suggest above). And, even were it true (which it clearly is not), it only differs by several months from official historical accounts, thus lending at best little if any support to the Spalding theory, and at worst contradicting it.
• Orsamus Turner: more than 20 years after the events in question, Turner reports a rumor that he likely heard third-hand from several of his former associates at the Wayne Sentinel (several of whom were Spalding theorists--i.e. Grandin, Tucker, and Gilbert). The statement was highly unprofessional for a newspaper man (though not out of character for certain yellow-journalists at that time), and in conflict with the Rigdon and Smith time-lines--contrary to what the Enigma authors suggest above. And, even were this statement true (which it is not), it not only lends little if any support to the Spalding theory, but other statements that Turner makes in his book actually discredit the Spalding theory in the minds of anyone, such as himself, who actually knew the Smiths.
• J. G. Bennett: eight months after Smith and Rigdon and other principal characters in the events in question had left Fayette, New York, for Kirtland, Ohio, and they were thus no longer in a position to present their first-hand version of their history, Bennett reports one of "a number of ridiculous stories [that were] told" (to use his own words) regarding the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. In fact, it is the first record we have of the rumor about Rigdon being the alleged author of the Book of Mormon, which also had first begun circulating (not coincidentally) about the same time. Bennett's source(s) for the story were likely second and third-hand, coming from enemies and critics of Smith and the LDS faith (some of whom later became Spalding theorists--i.e. Grandin, Tucker, Gilbert, etc.), who apparently didn't shy away from self-serving ridicule, slander, rumor mongering, and fabrications. As will be shown, Bennett's statement is vague as to the timing and duration of Rigdon's alleged visits with Smith, though suggestive of a persistent association over "several years", thus making it either difficult to test against, or in repeated conflict with, the Rigdon/Smith time-lines--contrary to what the Enigma authors suggest above. While Bennett did go on to become one of the nations foremost news men, this article was highly unprofessional by today's standards, and may, upon further investigation, stand in contrast with other more favorable articles that he wrote about Joseph Smith and the LDS faith later in his career, and once he had a chance to correspond with the principal characters.
• R. W. Alderman (a statement left questionably unmentioned by the Enigma authors). Given the obvious errors of this statement, it is easy to see why the Enigma authors would wish to omit it from their list of hearsay "evidence". But, by doing so, they wantonly lied about disclosing "every instance, without exception, where a witness or witnesses have claimed that Rigdon and Smith were together". (Under construction)
• Mrs. Eaton (forthcoming)
• J. H. McCauley--see Braden/Kelley debates, and individual files (forthcoming)
• William Whitsitt (forthcoming)
• Governor Harding (forthcoming)

Circumstantial evidence:

In an even more desperate and comedic attempt to prop up their flimsy case, the Enigma authors lead-off in Chapter 11 with a series of irrelevant, highly questionable, and biased conjectures that were based fallaciously on strained circumstantial evidence .

Leaving aside the several critical corrections the Enigma authors made to some of the statements of their own circumstantial witnesses (unwittingly impeaching them); not to mentioning the fact that the opinions of certain of their witnesses changed over time (from believing that Smith supposedly authored the Book of Mormon, to later asserting Rigdon's involvement)(forthcoming); forgetting the fact that most all of the circumstantial witnesses were disgruntled members of Rigdon's former Church, and whose motives and "recollections" were very suspect; ignoring for the moment that several of the statements conflict with the statements of other supposed Enigma witnesses as well as the Rigdon/Smith time-line (contrary to what the Enigma authors suggest above); even were Rigdon to have demonstrated a pre-Book of Mormon curiosity for aboriginal forts and burial mounds, and made general predictions related thereto--not unlike what many other men of that day had done (forthcoming), and spoke of new doctrines and religions (one of which Rigdon started on his own prior to hearing about the Book of Mormon) as well as the coming forth of new scriptures; none of this demonstrates in the slightest that Rigdon had visited with Smith prior to 1830, let alone that Rigdon was involved in the alleged Book of Mormon "conspiracy".

As such, there is little or no need for me to examine this material. But, for interest sake, and to extinguish any possible burning embers that may be fanned into flames of illusionary support for the Spalding theory, I will critique the following statements proffered in Enigma as time permits: Lucy Smith; Alexander Campbell, Rev. Samuel Whitney, Rev. Darwin Atwater, Adamson Bentley, Deacon Thomas Clapp, Dr. S. Rosa (alias for Philastus Hurlbut?), Z. Rudolph, J. Rudolph, Almon B. Green, Reuben P. Harmon.

A collective look at the evidence:

In summary, the only valid evidence (if you can call it that) which the Enigma authors have produced, was the statements from five elderly former neighbors of the Smiths. Each of these statements had several aspect to them, anyone of which calls the reliability of the statements into serious question, and several of which were fatal to the credibility of the supposed witnesses--and thus fatal to the spurious assertion that Rigdon visited Smith prior to 1830. For example:

1. Contrary to what the Enigma authors assert above, each of the statements were either partially or wholly in conflict with credible historical and/or empirical evidence, and were thus proven false, or they were so vague as to be rendered untestible historically.
2. Several of the statements were internally contradictory, while other statements were in direct conflict which each other, thus begging the question of which, if any, of the contradictory statements were true.
3. The statements were very untimely (first recorded more than fifty years after the alleged events), supposedly in recollection of a relatively insignificant event (the supposed visit of a stranger in their youth), following persistent and baseless rumors over the years, and, in some cases, containing language that was strikingly similar to that of the baseless rumors, thus begging the question as to why they waited so long, and whether the "recollections" were actually influenced by, or the product of, the baseless rumors.
4. Several of the statements were riddled with rumors, and blurred the lines between rumor and experience, thus begging the question as to whether the alleged sightings of Rigdon were just rumor.
5. The statements were taken under questionable circumstances (lacking in certitude, and as a result of considerable pressure or remunerative compensation), from people less than favorable to Joseph Smith and the restored gospel of Christ, and at the hands of highly biased researchers (frustrated Spalding theorists bent on extracting any little thing, seemingly any way they could, over as long a period as needed, in order to support their theory and/or discredit the LDS faith), thus begging the question as to whether the statements were genuine or not.

Given these fatal and/or critical concerns, the statements of the supposed eye witnesses may rightly be rejected. And, one may safely assume that, in the words of Ogden Nash, these people "saw a man that wasn't there."

This then leaves the Enigma authors with dubious, conflicting, and contradictory innuendo, hearsay, rumor, conjecture, and circumstantial statements with which to argue for the proposition that Rigdon visited Smith prior to 1830. In other words, they have no case. Their foundational assertion has been laid fatally to waste, and the Spalding house of cards has once again collapsed.

However, there has been left in good standing the prima facia evidence in support of the official historical record of the LDS faith--i.e. the time-honored, presumptive, first-hand declarations of Sidney Rigdon, Joseph Smith, and others, that Sidney Rigdon learned of the Book of Mormon in November of 1830, and he met Joseph Smith for the first time the following month.

1. Sidney Rigdon: In the fall of 1830, "The first house at which they [Pratt and Cowdery] called, was Elder Rigdon's; and after the usual salutations, presented him with the Book of Mormon -- stating it was a revelation from God. This being the first time he had ever heard of or seen the Book of Mormon, he felt very much prejudiced at the assertion; and he replied that, "he had one Bible which he believed was a revelation from God, and with which he pretended to have some acquaintance; but with respect to the book they had presented him, he must say that he had considerable doubt." Upon which they expressed a desire to investigate the subject, and argue the matter; but he replied, "No, young gentlemen, you must not argue with me on the subject; but I will read your book, and see what claim it has upon my faith, and will endeavor to ascertain whether it be a revelation from God or not."(1843 Biography of Sidney Rigdon Nauvoo, IL, early 1843 Attributed to Joseph Smith, jr., but probably largely written by Rigdon himself, "History of Joseph Smith," in: Times & Seasons, Nauvoo, IL, Apr.-Sept., 1843). "In the spring of 1833 or 1834 at the house of Samuel Baker, near New Portage, Medina County, Ohio, we whose signatures are affixed, did hear Elder Sidney Rigdon, in the presence of a large congregation, say he had been informed that some in the neighborhood had accused him of being the instigator of the Book of Mormon. Standing in the door way, there being many standing in the door yard, he, holding up the Book of Mormon, said, "I testify in the presence of this congregation, and before God and all the Holy Angels up yonder, (pointing towards Heaven), before whom I expect to give account at the judgment day, that I never saw a sentence of the Book of Mormon, I never penend a sentence of the Book, I never knew there was such a book in existence as the Book of Mormon, until it was presented to me by Parley P. Pratt, in the form that it is now in."(A letter to Joseph Smith III, from Phineas Bronson, Hiel Bronson, and Mary Bronson, Princeville, Ill., March 14, 1872, as quoted by Dale Broadhurst)
2. Joesph Smith: the History of the Church by Joseph Smith Jr. directly counters in nearly every particular the many assertions of the Spalding theory (particularly with the account of Sidney Rigdon's conversion in November of 1830--see the History of the Church, Vol.1, Ch.11, pp. 120-125).
3. Oliver Cowdery: in 1834 and 1835, Oliver Cowdery sent a series of letters to W.W. Phelps in which he briefly described the events leading up to the restoration of Christ's Church (deriving the majority of the information, no doubt, from Joseph Smith). These letters were published in several volumes of the Messanger and Advocate. They confirm the authorized version of history, and contradict the revisionist history of the Spalding theorists, particularly with these statements: "Near this time of the setting of the sun, Sabbath evening, April 5th, 1829, my natural eyes for the first time beheld this brother: he then resided in Harmony, Susquehanna county, Penn. On Monday, the 6th, I assisted him in arranging some business of a temporal nature, and on Tuesday, the 7th, commenced to write the Book of Mormon. These were days never to be forgotten; to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! 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." (Letter I from Oliver Cowdery to W.W. Phelps, LDS Messenger and Advocate, Vol 1, October, 1834, p.13), "It is sufficient for my present purpose, to know, that such is the fact: that in 1823, yes, 1823, a man with whom I have had the most intimate and personal acquaintance, for almost seven years, actually discovered by the vision of God., the plates from which the book of Mormon, as much as it is disbelieved, was translated! Such is the case, though men rack their very brains to invent falsehoods, and then waft them upon every breeze, to the contrary notwithstanding."(ibid. Vol 2, p.196)
4. Family and Friends
   • Emma Smith (wife of Joseph): "I was residing at Father Whitmer's when I first saw Sidney Rigdon [this would have been around December of 1830]. I think he came there. Parley P. Pratt had united with the church before I saw Sidney Rigdon, or heard of him." (Tullidge, Life of Joseph, p. 791, as quoted in William H. Whitsitt, "Sidney Rigdon, The Real Founder of Mormonism," Book III, Section V, p. 362)
   • Katherin Smith Salisbury (sister of Joseph Smith): "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 sixty-eight years of age, July 28th, 1881. That I am the daughter of Joseph Smith, Senior, and 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. mily, 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 brother'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 befor stated herein. That I made 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."(Affidavit sworn before J.H. Jenks, Notary Public, on April 15th, 1881, as cited by Francis W. Kirkham, A New Witness for Christ in America, Vol.1, p.316)
   • Lucy Mack Smith (Joseph's mother): "In December of the same year [1830], Joseph appointed a meeting at our house. While he was preaching, Sidney Rigdon and Edward Partridge came in and seated themselves in the congregation. When Joseph had finished his discourse, he gave all who had any remarks to make, the privilege of speaking. Upon this, Mr. Partridge arose, and stated that he had been to Manchester, with the view of obtaining further information respecting the doctrine which we preached; but, not finding us, he had made some inquiry of our neighbors concerning our characters, which they stated had been unimpeachable, until Joseph deceived us [them] relative to the Book of Mormon. He also said that he had walked over our farm, and observed the good order and industry which it exhibited; and, having seen what we had sacrificed for the sake of our faith, and having heard that our veracity was not questioned upon any other point than that of our religion, he believed our testimony, and was ready to be baptized, "if," said he, "Brother Joseph will baptize me. It was but a short time till Joseph and Emma were on their way,1 accompanied by Sidney Rigdon, Edward Partridge, Ezra Thayre, and Newel Knight. When they were about starting, they preached at our house on Seneca River; and, on their way, they preached at the house of Calvin Stoddard, and likewise at the house of Preserved Harris.(Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith, pp.192-193)
   • Parley P. Pratt: "But that ridiculous story, (concerning Solomon Spalding's Manuscript Found, being converted, by Sidney Rigdon, into the 'Book of Mormon,') published at first as a probability... has at last been published... as an established fact, beyond the possibility of a doubt. Yes, S. Spalding is like to be set down as the author of the 'Book of Mormon,' and S. Rigdon as the impostor who palmed S. Spalding's Novel upon the world as a 'Religious Work.' ... But for the sake of the honest in heart, who love the truth, I here offer my testimony on this subject; as I was a personal actor in the scenes which brought S. Rigdon into an acquaintance with the 'Book of Mormon,' and into connection with the Church of Latter Day Saints. ... I returned to... Ontario Co., where for the first time I saw Mr. Joseph Smith, Jr.... About the 15th of October, 1830, I took my journey, in company with Elder O. Cowdery, and Peter Whitmer, to Ohio. We called on Elder S. Ringdon, and then for the first time, his eyes beheld the 'Book of Mormon;' I, myself, had the happiness to present it to him in person.... himself and wife, were baptised by elder O. Cowdery... Early in 1831, Mr. Rigdon having been ordained, under our hands, visited elder J. Smith, Jr., in the state of New-York, for the first time; and from that time forth, rumor began to circulate, that he (Rigdon) was the author of the Book of Mormon. The Spaulding story never was dreamed of until several years afterwards...Now, I testify that the forgers of the Spaulding lie (concerning Sidney Rigdon and others) are of the same description as those who forged the lie against the disciples of old, accusing them of stealing the body of Jesus, &c. And those who love this lie are no better. I mean the editors of the New York Evangelist, the Zion's Watchman, and all others who are equally guilty, including all who read and believe such a thing. And except they repent they will have their part with drunkards, whoremongers, sorcerers, thieves, murderers, etc." (P.P. Pratt, Mormonism Unveiled: Zion's Watchman Unmasked, 1838, as quoted at Dale Broadhurst's web site. See also: Francis W. Kirkham, A New Witness for Christ in America, Vol.1, p.330.)
   • John Whitmer: "I shall proceed to continue this record, being commanded of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, to write the things that transpire in this Church (inasmuch as they come to my knowledge,) in these last days. It is now June the twelfth, one thousand eight hundred and thirty one years, since the coming of our Lord and Savior in the flesh. Not many days after my brethren, Oliver Cowdery, Peter Whitmer, Jr., Parley P. Pratt, and Ziba Peterson: received a commandment of the Lord, through Joseph Smith, Jr., to take their journey to the Lamanites and preach the Gospel of our Lord and Savior. . . . And now it came to pass, that before they proceeded, on their journey from this place, there was a man whose name was Sidney Rigdon, he having been an instrument in the hand of the Lord of doing much good. He was in search of truth, consequently he received the fullness of the gospel with gladness of heart, even the Book of Mormon, it being what he was in search after, notwithstanding it was some days before he obtained a witness from the Lord, of the truth of his work. After several days the Lord heard his cries, and answered his prayers, and by vision showed to him that this emanated from Him and must remain, it being the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, first unto the Gentiles and then unto the Jews. Now it came to pass, after Sidney Rigdon, was received into this Church, that he was ordained an elder, under the hands of Oliver Cowdery. He having much anxiety to see Joseph Smith, Jr., the Seer whom the Lord had raised up in these last days. Therefore he took his journey to the state of New York, where Joseph resided. "(John Whitmer, Book of John Whitmer, typescript, BYU-A, p.1)
   • Carvil Rigdon (Sidney's brother): "And he, and they that joined with him got the liberty of the Court House, there they held their meetings, and he and his brother-in-law, Mr. Brooks, followed the tanning business till the winter of 1827-'28, when he (S. Rigdon) moved somewhere into the Western Reserve, in Ohio, and there continued to preach till the Latter Day Saints came to that part of the country, and he joined them, and continues to be an elder in that church (of Latter Day Saints, called Mormons)."(Affidavit witnessed by Robert Patterson, April 2, 1842)
   • John W. Rigdon (Sidney's son): "In the fall of 1830 Parley P. Pratt, Ziba Peterson, Oliver Cowdery, and Peter Whitmer called at the home of Sidney Rigdon in the town of Mentor, Ohio, and Parley P. Pratt presented to him a bound volume of the Book of Mormon in the presence of his wife and his oldest child, Athalia Rigdon, now Athalia Robinson, who was then a girl ten years old and now (1900) living in the town of Friendship Allegheny county state of New York; and who remembers the transaction as well as any incident of her life. Parley P. Pratt, at the time he handed the book to Sidney Rigdon, said it was a "Revelation from God. . . .he [Sidney Rigdon] had never told but one story about it, and that was that Parley P. Pratt and Oliver Cowdery presented him with a bound volume of that book in the year 1830 while he (Sidney Rigdon) was preaching Campbellism at Mentor, Ohio. . . .I concluded I would make an investigation for my own satisfaction and find out if I could if he had all these years been deceiving his family and the world, by telling that which was not true, and I was in earnest. If Sidney Rigdon, my father, had thrown his life away by telling a falsehood and bringing sorrow and disgrace upon his family, I wanted to know it and was determined to find out the facts, no matter what the consequences might be. I reached home in the fall of 1865, found my father in good health and (he was very much pleased to see me. As he had not heard anything from me for some time, he was afraid that I had been killed by the Indians. Shortly after I had arrived home, I went to my father's room: he was there and alone, now was the time for me to commence my inquiries in regard to the origin of the Book of Mormon, and as to the truth of the "Mormon" religion. I told him what I had seen at Salt Lake City, and I said to him that what I had seen at Salt Lake had not impressed me very favorably toward the "Mormon Church, and as to the origin of the Book of Mormon I had some doubts. You have been charged with writing that book and giving it to Joseph Smith to introduce to the world. You have always told me one story that you never saw the book until it was presented to you by Parley P. Pratt and Oliver Cowdery, and all you ever knew of the origin of that book was what they told you and what Joseph Smith and the witnesses who claimed to have seen the plates had told you. Is this true? If so all right, if it is not you owe it to me and your family to tell it You are an old man and you will soon pass away and I wish to know if Joseph Smith, in your intimacy with him for fourteen years, has not said something to you that led you to believe he obtained that book in some other way than what he had told you. Give me all you know about it, that I may know the truth. My father, after I had finished saying what I have repeated above, looked at me a moment, raised his hand above his head and slowly said with tears glistening in his eyes: "My son, I can swear before high heaven that what I have told you about the origin of that book is true. Your mother and sister Mrs. Athalia Robinson, were present when that book was handed to me in Mentor Ohio, and all I ever knew about the origin of that book was what Parley P. Pratt, Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith and the witnesses who claimed they saw the plates have told me, and in all my intimacy with Joseph Smith he never told me but the one story, and that was that he found it engraved upon gold plates in a hill near Palmyra, New York, and that an angel had appeared to him and directed him where to find it: and I have never, to you or to anyone else, told but the one story, and that I now repeat to you. . . .After my father's death, my mother, who survived him several years, was in the enjoyment of good health up to the time of her last sickness, she being eighty-six years old. A short time before her death I had a conversation with her about the origin of the Book of Mormon, and wanted to know what she remembered about its being presented to my father. She said to me in that conversation that what my father had told me about the book being presented to him was true, for she was present at the time and knew that was the first time he ever saw it, and that the stories told about my father writing the Book of Mormon were not true. This she said to me in her old age and when the shadows of the grave were gathering around her and I believe her."(Life of Sidney Rigdon, by his son John W. Rigdon, Ms pp. 188-195, as cited in History of the Church, Vol.1, p.122, Footnotes)
   • Rev. John Rigdon (Sidney's cousin): "I hereby certify that I heard Rev. John Rigdon, a member of the Church of the Disciples, known by the name of Campbellites, sometime in March, 1840, at his own residence in Fulton Co., Illinois, say in answer to a question propounded to him by Elder John E. Page, as follows, to wit: Question by Mr. Page. -- 'Sir, what are your views in relation to Sidney Rigdon having any connection with the origin of the Book of Mormon, as it is reported, that he, Rigdon, had access to the Spaulding manuscript, from which he transcribed or originated the Book of Mormon?' Answer by Mr. John Rigdon. -- 'I do not believe from my acquaintance with him, (S. Rigdon) having known him from his infancy till after the publication of said Book of Mormon, as well as one can know another, being on the greatest terms of intimacy at the time said book was printed, and from all the circumstances connected with his life, character and conduct, that Sidney Rigdon had anything whatever to do with it.' The above is what he, (J. Rigdon) said in substance, if not verbatim."(Sworn Affidavit of Sidney A. Knowlton before Mayor Alex Hay, Pittsburg, PA, January 24, 1843)
   • Orson Hyde: ""At the time our enemies say that Mr. Rigdon was engaged in fabricating the Book of Mormon, I was a student under him. He was then a minister in the Christian Baptist Church in America, and I was calculating to engage in the same calling, being a member of the same church. I was intimately acquainted with him, and his family, for a number of years; and a good part of that time I was a boarder in his family, particularly in 1829. If Mr. Rigdon had been engaged in a work of that kind, I am certain that he would have, either directly or indirectly, given me a hint of it. But such an intimation he never gave me in any shape or manner. I am confident that Mr. Rigdon never had access to the manuscript of Mr. Spaulding: but even allowing that he might (which my own thoughts will not allow for a moment) have seen the manuscript, he lacked the disposition to make the use of it which his enemies accuse him of; for all people know, who know anything about Mr. Rigdon, and are willing to confess the truth, that he would conscientiously stand as far from such a base forgery, 'as Lot stood from Sodom in its evil day.' Mr. Rigdon never writes a romance upon any subject; but if he had been in possession of the same conscience-seared, heaven-daring hardihood that the very pious Mr. Spaulding was, he might possibly have reduced sacred and eternal things to a romance to get gain, as Mr. Spaulding did, his own friends being witnesses. Forgery, deception, and romance formed no part of the principles which Mr. Rigdon taught me during the time that I was under his tuition. . ."(Letter from Orson Hyde published by Benjamin Winchester in the Plain Fact, 1841, as cited by Francis W. Kirkham, A New Witness for Christ in America, Vol.1, p.332-334)
   • Truman Coe: "When they first came to Kirtland, Mr. Rigdon joined them, and a few families followed in his train; but otherwise of the former inhabitants, scarce a single conversion has happened since."(Truman Coe "Mormonism," The Ohio Observer (Hudson), 11 August 1836 Reprinted in The Cincinnati Journal and Western Luminary, 25 August 1835, p. 4)
   • John Corrill: "Sometime in the fall of 1830, Oliver Cowdery, Parley P. Pratt, Peter Whitmer and Tiba [Ziba] Peterson, came through the county of Ashtabula, Ohio, where I then resided, on their way westward. They professed to be special messengers of the Living God, sent to preach the Gospel in its purity, as it was anciently preached by the Apostles. They had with them a new revelation, which they said had been translated from certain golden plates that had been deposited in a hill, (anciently called Cumorah,) in the township of Manchester, Ontario County, New York. They were deposited about 1400 years since by one Moroni, under the direction of Heaven, with a promise that in the Lord's own due time, they should be brought forth, for the special benefit of the remnant of his people, the house of Israel, through Joseph, of Egypt, as well as for the salvation of the Gentiles upon this continent. This soon became the topic of conversation in that section of the country, and excited the curiosity of the people,-- at first, more to inquiry than otherwise, as these messengers stopped in the place only one night. In the course of two or three days, the book of Mormon, (the Golden Bible, as the people then termed it, on account of its having been translated from the Golden plates,) was presented to me for perusal. I looked at it, examined the testimony of the witnesses at the last end of it, read promiscuously a few pages, and made up my mind that it was published for speculation. In my feelings and remarks I branded the "messengers" with the title of impostors, and thought I would not trouble myself any more about them. But I shortly heard that these messengers had stopped in Kirtland, about thirty miles distant, among a society of people called Campbellites, at whose head stood elder Sidney Rigden [Rigdon], a noted preacher of that order. With this news I was at first much pleased; for, from my former acquaintance with that society, I knew that they were well versed in the Scriptures, and I supposed that, without fail, they would confound the impostors, convince them of their folly, and send them home again. But, to my astonishment, in a short time I heard that they had converted the majority of the society, together with Elder Rigden, [Rigdon] to their faith. What does this mean, thought I? Are Elder Rigden [Rigdon] and these men such fools as to be so duped by those impostors? I became much excited in my feelings; for in that society were several men for whom I had formed the most favorable opinion, and for whom I felt the greatest veneration and respect. By the advice of a neighbor whose feelings were similar to mine I concluded to pay them a visit, with a determination if I could, to persuade Elder Rigden [Rigdon] to go home with me, on a preaching visit; for I thought, if I could get him away from them until his mind became settled, he might be saved from their imposition. But before I arrived at his residence, I heard that he had embraced their faith, and had been baptized by them. On receiving this news, my feelings became much embittered, and I felt more and more determined in my opposition. But when within a short distance of their residence, I was met by a respectable gentleman, (whose name I forget,) who tried to check my violence, and cautioned me not to go there with prejudiced feelings, but to weigh the matter carefully. I said very little to him in reply, but resumed my journey. On arriving at the place, I found the society under a high state of religious excitement, well pleased with their new religion, enjoying as they supposed, the gift and power of the Holy Ghost. I felt indignant, and sought an argument with Oliver Cowdery, who refused. Tiba [Ziba] Peterson then took the ground, and we contended a short time. After supper I was invited to see Elder Rigden [Rigdon]. I requested to converse with him on the subject of his new religion. He observed that he was now beyond the land of contention, and had got into the land of peace. I proceeded to ask him if the scriptures were not sufficient for our salvation, and what we wanted with another revelation. He answered that the scriptures informed us of perilous and distressing times, great judgments that should come in the last days, and destructions upon the wicked; and now God had sent along his servants to inform us of the time, that we might repent and be prepared against it, and if we rejected them, it would be with us as it was with the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, who rejected the words of Lot. With this he refused to talk any more upon the subject. I then tried others, and found them of the same spirit. I could make no impression on them. The next day, I started home with my heart full of serious reflections. I thought of Solomon's words,--"that he is a fool who judges a matter before he hears it;" that perhaps it might be well enough to investigate the matter; investigation could certainly do me no harm. The ancients rejected the prophets and apostles through a hasty spirit, and the people of Borea were said to be more noble than the people of Thesalonica [Thessalonica], because they "searched the scriptures daily, whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed."--Acts, xvii. Now, it is not impossible, thought I, but that ere I am aware of it, I may be found fighting against God; perhaps I had better stop and reflect on the subject a little; weigh the matter more closely, and compare this new doctrine with the Scriptures; and if it does not agree with the Scriptures, I shall certainly know that it is not of God. Two or three weeks were spent in reading the Book of Mormon, comparing it with the scriptures, and in reflecting and conversing with others upon the subject. Scarcely a day passed but I heard of some evil report against the new sect. These reports I need not relate. Suffice it to say, that every thing bad was reported against them, as I thought, that could be invented by man."(John Corrill, A Brief History of the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, Including an Account of their Doctrine and Discipline, with the Reasons of the Author for Leaving the Church, St. Louis, n.p., 1839)

For additional collaboration, please see:

• Francis W. Kirkham, A New Witness for Christ in America, Vol.1, "LIFE OF SIDNEY RIGDON", pp. 317-328.
• Times and Seasons, Vol. 4. No. 11-14, 19. City of Nauvoo, Illinois, April 15, 1843, "The Truth Will Prevail" (likely written, in large part, by Sidney Rigdon).
• "Newel Knight's Journal," Classic Experiences and Adventures (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1969), pp. 46-104, a reprint of the public domain Scraps of Biography. Tenth Book of the Faith-Promoting Series. (Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1883)
• Sidney Rigdon's letter to the Editor, Quincy Whig, Saturday, June 8th, 1839 (as quoted by Dale Broadhurst)
• Josiah Jones, "The History of the Mormonites," The Evangel, Carthage, Ohio, June 1, 1841, No.6 MORMON BIBLE -- No. V.

Last updated 2/8/01