Defense of the Faith and the Saints (Volume 2 of 2)Roberts, B. H. (Brigham Henry)
Religion
Defense of the Faith and the Saints (Volume 2 of 2)
Roberts, B. H. (Brigham Henry)
Latter Day Saint churches
"The argumentative style and the failure to distinguish between
personal knowledge and argumentative inferences is all readily
understood when the history of this statement is made known. It
seems that two preachers, named D. R. Austin and John Storrs,
are responsible for this letter. Mrs. Davidson never wrote it,
but afterwards stated that 'in the main' it was true. Even with
her reaffirmance of the story as published, we cannot give it
evidentiary weight except in those matters where it is plain from
the nature of things that she must have been speaking from personal
knowledge." [82]
[Footnote 82: _American Historical Magazine,_ September, 1906, pp.
393-4. _Ante_ pp. 28, 29.]
There is but one conclusion possible on the point at issue. Mrs.
Davidson never made the statement, nor signed it. It was the work of
the Reverends John Storrs and D. R. Austin--a forgery.
MUTILATION OF THE HAVEN-DAVIDSON INTERVIEW.
At this point I take note of what Mr. Schroeder says in relation to
an omission of a question and answer in the Haven-Davidson interview
in Elder George Reynolds' "Myth of the Manuscript Found;" and also of
what Mr. Schroeder characterizes as "John Taylor's lying perversion
of this alleged interview as reported in his 'Three Nights Public
Discussion.'" The question and answer referred to are held, in effect,
to re-instate the Davidson document as evidence, after denying it to
be Mrs. Davidson's statement, or that she signed it. The question and
answer are as follows: _"Ques._ Is what is written in the letter true?
_Ans_. In the main it is." This is omitted in Elder Reynolds' "Myth of
the Manuscript Found" (1883); and copying the Haven interview from his
work into my own treatise of the Book of Mormon in the "Young Men's
Manual" for 1905-6, the same omission, of course, is made; but of which
omission this writer was ignorant until Mr. Schroeder's article called
attention to it. Why the omission occurs in Mr. Reynolds' book, I do
not know; and although Mr. Reynolds is still alive, his health is so
shattered at this time it would be as useless as it is impossible to
question him upon the subject. [82]
[Footnote 82: This in November, 1908. Mr. Reynolds died in August,
1909.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account