This last article was first published in book form in 1842, thirty-four years before Rigdon's death, but never publicly denied or explained by him. Whether this particular letter was published in the _Christian Observer_ and _Episcopal Recorder_ I cannot say, but other portions of the same book evidently were, and received comment in a Mormon church organ. [82] This but emphasizes Rigdon's silence upon Dr. Rosa's letter. [Footnote 82: _Gospel Reflector_, 19.] In Howe's "Mormonism Unveiled," [83] it is said that Rigdon, during the incubation period of Mormonism between 1827 and 1830, preached new matters of doctrine which were afterwards found to be inculcated in the Mormon Bible. The evident purpose of all this was to prepare his congregation for the acceptance of Mormonism, and the end was most successfully achieved. Evidently this and the other circumstances showing Rigdon's foreknowledge of the forthcoming Book of Mormon, all combined with a guilty conscience, irresistibly impelled the making of an explanation tending to allay the suspicion that there was a conscious purpose in all such conduct. This defense is found in a revelation to Sidney Rigdon, dated December 7, 1830, at the alleged first meeting between Rigdon and Smith, and within one month after the former's conversion. The revelation, in part, says: [Footnote 83: Page 289. "Braden-Kelly Debate," 45.] "Behold thou was sent forth, even as John, _To prepare the way_ before me, and before Elijah which should come, _and thou knewest it not_." [84] [Footnote 84: Section 35, "Doctrine and Covenants." Supplement 14, _Millennial Star,_ 50. The exact date of this revelation is December 7th. 1830, according to Howe's "Mormonism Unveiled," 107.] That Rigdon did prepare the way we knew before the revelation informed us of it. That it was done unconsciously we cannot even now believe. Especially in the light of the foregoing evidence, this revelation must be construed as much more convincing proof of Rigdon's advance knowledge of the forthcoming Book of Mormon and its contents than even a tacit admission. It is practically an admission of guilty knowledge, coupled with a transparent effort at warding off the inference of complicity in fraud by veiling the acts constituting the evidence in an assumed mysticism, which really deceives few aside from the mystic degenerate and the willing victim who enters the fold for opportunities to "fleece the flock of Christ." III. FROM RIGDON TO SMITH _via_ P. P. PRATT.