Mormon History
Sidney Rigdon's Disclaimer - 1879
The Salt Lake Daily Tribune – May 3, 1879
SIDNEY RIGDON'S REJOINDER.
________
Another Page from the Spaulding Fable --
The Dead Reviving Rapidly.
Having heretofore published the statement of Mrs. Matilda Davison (widow Spaulding) with the testimonies of others, in the matter of the conversion of Spaulding's "Manuscript Found" into the Book of Mormon, it is but fair to allow Sidney to be heard in his own defense. Following is his rejoinder to the Davison statement, minus one passage, of fifteen or twenty lines, too outrageous for print.
(1839
Rigdon statement follows)
SIDNEY RIGDON
BEARS RECORD.
________
We publish
in another column Sidney Rigdon's letter disavowing Solomon Spaulding's
"Manuscript Found" into Joseph Smith's Gold Bible. The unspeakably bitter and
revengeful animus of the production betrays the fact that the writer had been
struck home. The hit bird flutters. "Lies -- lies -- lies! about thirty times
repeated. Let us see what this arch-Jesuit really states in his disclaimer.
Rigdon first declares that he never heard of Spaulding until the appearance of
Mrs. Davison's statement, which first appeared in print
in 1839. Howe's "Mormonism Unveiled," in which Rigdon was set forth as the
originator, after Spaulding, of the Book of Mormon, was published in 1834. He
was not, then, "indebted to this production," but to Howe's "production," five
years earlier, for his knowledge of "the creature" (Spaulding). False in one
thing, false in all, is a maxim in law. Rigdon may or may not have known of
Spaulding prior to 1834 -- his affirmation either way amounts to nothing -- as
he has shown himself guilty of prevarication at the outset. He had evidently too
much at stake for mere lies, larger or smaller, to stand in his way.
Rigdon denies that Spaulding's writings were in the hands of Mr. Patterson. His
language is: "In relation to the whole story about Spaulding's writings being in
the hands of Mr. Patterson, who was in Pittsburg, and who is said to have kept a
printing office; and my saying that I was concerned in said office, etc., is the
most base of lies." How could he tell where Mr. Spaulding's manuscript was
deposited, if, as he asserts, he had no knowledge of it? Mrs. Davison says it
was in the hands of Mr. Patterson, and the latter also declares that it was in
his possession. Rigdon is emphatic -- strikingly and even suspiciously emphatic
-- in regard to the Patterson printing office not being in existence during the
time of his residence in Pittsburg. Let us see what there is in this.
In a pamphlet published by John E. Page,
in 1843, entitled, "the Spaulding Story Exposed," the writer adduces the
testimony of two witnesses, Carvil Rigdon and Peter Boyer, Rigdon's brother and
brother-in-law, in which they distinctly affirm that Sidney "returned" to
Pittsburg in 1822. Leaving out the question of his previous "residence" there,
which probably is mere quibble, if Rigdon had not been in that city and lived
there a longer or a shorter time previous to 1822, what propriety in saying, as
they do, that he "returned" to Pittsburg in the winter in 1821-2? The reader
will note how great a number of times, in one short paragraph, Rigdon rings the
charges on his "residence" there.
Parley P. Pratt published the statement that "Mr. Rigdon was never connected
with the said printing establishment, either directly or indirectly, and we defy
the world to bring proof of any such connection." Rigdon himself does not use
the word "connected." his phrase is "concerned in;" and experience in Mormon
logomachy imposes upon the candid the disagreeable necessity of taking the elect
strictly and literally at their word to get at the truth which their words are
designed to conceal. Dissimulation is no name for it. The fact is, aside from
Mrs. Davison's statement, there are no persons still living who know and have
testified to Rigdon's association, in Spaulding's lufetime, with the Patterson
printing office. Rigdon, it seems, was not a printer, nor does he appear to have
been an actual employee of that office. But to say, as so boldly and
triumphantly assetted by Parley Pratt, that "Mr. Rigdon was never connected with
the said printing establishment, either directly or indirectly," is to affirm
that which, at least, four persons still living know to be untrue.
Rigdon preached in the First Baptist Church of Pittsburg from February, 1822
until October, 1823, when he was excluded for heretical doctrines. He says Mr.
Patterson failed before his (Rigdon's) residence there. As appears from the
Pennsylvania Reports, Patterson "failed for a large amount," January 1st,
1823.
Again, instead of denying that he had any hand in manufacturing the Book of
Mormon, which, strangely enough, throughout this avalanche of Billingsgate
Rigdon nowhere does, he seeks to defame the character of worthy people -- men
and women, friend and foe, indiscriminately. The family of Hon. Orris Clapp had
been Rigdon's intimate friends, next-door neighbors and fellow Church-members
for years: Matthew S. Clapp being in Mentor, Ohio, Rigdon's first convert to
"the views advocated by the Disciples, and the first whom Rigdon baptised in
Mentor in 1812 [sic, 1828], (Vide
Hayden's History of the Disciples in the Western Reserve.) Adamson Bentley,
who is characterized by Hayden as "a princely man," was closely connected with
Rigdon by marriage, and was for years his chief friend and indulgent patron in
Warren, Ohio. Under his roof, Rigdon had lived, sharing his generous
hospitality.
Of the Howe family, against whom Rigdon says there were "scandalous
immoralities of so black a character," Mr. Howe's wife and mother [sic,
sister] were Mormons. He never joined the Church, but, on the contrary, in the
prime of life, spent his best energies in ferreting out and exposing the
abominations of the Latter-day dispensation. In penning his statements Rigdon
gives way to blind and furious rage, influenced with the dread of being caught
at last; and in his statement, or rebuttal, he does not hesitate to malign even
those of his own household of faith. "The tale in your paper," he says, "is one
hatched up by this gang before the time of their explosion." The allusion is to
Mrs. Davison's statement, which bore no reference to the Howe book, the latter
being a much more pointed arraignment of Rigdon. Undoubtedly as to the man
Hurlburt the least said the better; he appears to have been of the same stamp as
Rigdon himself.
Rigdon charges his enemies and persecutors with seeking "to destroy the
character of innocent men whom they never dare meet in argument." This is cool
effrontery. He squarely backed down from a contest, which himself had first
challanged, with Thomas Campbell (father of Alexander Campbell) in
February, 183[1], and made an almost equally significant back down from the
contest with his own cousin, John Rigdon,
in 1840. Those Campbellites were a good deal too many for the wily and
unscrupulous Latter-day champion. Of all men else they had to be avoided, simply
because they knew too much of the real origin of Mormonism.
We have remarked that throughout this whole venomous
tirade, Rigdon never once denies having had a hand in manufacturing the Book of
Mormon. And yet this was the very time and occasion for him to have done
so, if he could; and we may rest assured he would have done so if he could. But
instead of this he resorts to the Mormon's ever ready rejoinder, (which is so
unfailing a weapon in the hands of our pious Grandmother,) "it's all a
lie!"
We will close this brief review with the late Orson Hyde's two-sided testimony
as to the worth, character and true-inwardness of Joseph Smith's theological
instructor and bosom friend, written before and after Rigdon's recusancy. The
following is from Page's "Spaulding Story Exposed:"
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; and I must say, that I should
not have been more surprised if they accused the Lord Bishop of London of the
same things which they charge against Mr. Rigdon.
I now close this letter with a warning to all whom it may concern, in the name
of Jesus Christ, my Master, that whoever has published the Spaulding falsehood,
either from the press or from the pulpit that they repent of their sin, and
correct their error through the same medium which they have committed it, lest
their garments be found spotted with the blood of souls when God shall judge the
secrets of all hearts by that MAN
whom he hath ordained.
With sentiments of high esteem, I have the honor to subscribe myself, your
brother in Christ Jesus. Amen. ORSON
HYDE."
In Times and Seasons, (Dec.
15th, 1844,) the fervent apostle tells a different story. Here is the
record:
I have just learned that Mr. Rigdon's
wish and counsel to his followers, was that they should arm themselves with
deadly weapons, and go upon the meeting ground and prevent our holding a meeting
at the time he was to be tried and cut off from the church. But his principal
counsellor opposed him so strongly that the measure did not carry, but fell
through. O, Mr. Rigdon, were you not cut off from the church without trial? Poor
man, your fiendish schemes have entirely failed, the bubble has burst, and you
must be consumed by the sparks of your own kindling, and welter under the infamy
created by your own nefarious designs. Let Mr. Rigdon deny this if he will, then
my proof shall be forth coming.
ORSON HYDE.
The candid reader will see from the analysis we have above given, that Rigdon's
rejoinder, instead of helping his case any, furnishes very strong corroborative
evidence on the other side. Let the ever vigilant Church organ read, mark, learn
and inwardly digest, and then further illuminate the world with its rejoinder.
Note 1: As with several other articles printed by the Tribune in its 1879
series on Rigdon and Spalding, this piece carries the marks of James T. Cobb's
craftsmanship. The Tribune writer anticipates the later reporting of
William H. Whitsitt in saying, "throughout this... tirade, Rigdon never once
denies having had a hand in manufacturing the Book of Mormon... this was the
very time and occasion for him to have done so, if he could; and we may rest
assured he would have done so if he could." Speaking of this same 1839 Rigdon
rebuttal to the claims of Spalding's widow,
Whitsitt says: "these damaging revelations appeared under his [Rigdon's]
very nose... followed by complete silence on the part of Rigdon until the year
1839; he was only enabled at that time to break the force of them by reason of
the blundering paper of Mrs. Spaulding, But even in his reply to her he
sedulously avoids the main points at issue..." Perhaps the Davison-Storrs
statement of April 1, 1839 was not quite so "blundering" as Whitsitt liked to
think, but it did put into the public press several misstatements which Sidney
Rigdon was able to vent his anger upon, without necessarily ever exposing
exactly what the true facts of the case may have been. Rigdon's constantly
resorting to calling people "liars" shows that he had no better verbal
ammunition with which to defend himself, once he had exhausted his response to
the several "blunders" of the 1839 Davison-Storrs statement. Rigdon's "lawyerese"
and calculated ambiguity is perhaps best evidenced in his admission: "If I were
to say that I ever heard of the Rev. Solomon Spalding, and his hopeful wife,
until Dr. P. Hurlburt wrote his lie about me, I should be a liar like unto
themselves." Does Rigdon here carefully conceal a double-message, so as to be
technically truthful behind the scenes and totally misleading up front? For, if
he were to admit that he had heard of Solomon Spalding, Spalding's wife,
or Spaldings writings before D. P. Hurlbut wrote something to that
effect, the Rigdon would be acknowledging that he had told lies
about the Spalding authorship of the Book of Mormon in the past. The Spalding
claims were well aired in the Kirtland area nearly a year before E. D. Howe's
Mormonism Unvailed appeared at the end of November 1834. Even assuming that
D. P. Hurlbut (rather than Ezak Rosa and E. D. Howe) "wrote" much of that book,
such writing would have still postdated Hurlbut's verbal spreading of the
Spalding claims in Ohio at the end of 1833. It would be preposterous to assert
that Sidney Rigdon never heard of Solomon Spalding before the appearance of the
widow's 1839 statement and it would be almost as absurd to believe that Rigdon
had not heard of these menacing charges against him and the Mormon Church before
1834.
Note 2: Rigdon's 1839 statement was harshly criticized ere the ink in the
columns of the Quincy Whig had even dried.
A man who claims to have "a personal knowledge" of the matter says: "I saw
in your last number an article signed S. Rigdon... [by] his writing, it seems
that all who are opposed to Mormonism are "liars," and their sayings "lies."...
With all of his precaution to keep back the date of his residence at
Pittsburgh... he betrays himself and tells a palpable falsehood... He says "for
if her [the Widow's] testimony is to be credited, her pious husband in his life
time, wrote a bundle of lies for the righteous purpose of getting money." Now
hear "her testimony" his "sole object in writing this historical romance was
to amuse himself and his neighbors." Gentlemen, what does such a perversion of
the truth show? Does it show him to be dishonest?"
Note 3: It is an extraordinary fact that neither of the Mormon Church's original
top two leaders (Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon) ever said anywhere in
print that they had not met prior to 1830 or that they had not
conspired to create the Book of Mormon text. In fact, other than a few slight
allusions to Howe and Hurlbut, both of these leaders managed to go down to their
graves without ever denying the major points of the Spalding authorship claims
-- save for this one strange 1839 attempt by Rigdon to seemingly deny a select
few of those points.