It must not be supposed by the reader of Mr. Schroeder's articles that his theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon is the only anti-Mormon theory of its origin advanced. Of course Mr. Schroeder does not claim that it is, but points out quite the contrary in his first article. Why the matter is referred to in these preliminary remarks, is because I want to assure my readers that we "Mormons" get considerable amusement out of the conflicting theories advanced to account for the origin of our Book of Mormon. The necessity for a counter-theory for the origin of the book, other than that advanced by Joseph Smith, was early recognized. Christendom felt that Joseph Smith's story of the book's origin must be overthrown, else what would come of this new revelation, this new dispensation of God's work? Joseph Smith's account of the origin of the book was a direct challenge to the teachings of modern Christendom that revelation had ceased; that the awful voice of prophecy would no more be heard; that the volume of scripture was completed and forever closed, and that the Bible was the only volume of scripture. Hence Christendom must find some other origin for this book than that given by Joseph Smith. The first to respond to this immediately "felt want" of Christendom was Alexander Campbell, founder of the sect of the Disciples. He assigned the book's origin to Joseph Smith, point blank, and charged ignorance and conscious fraud upon its author. [13] [Footnote 13: Campbell's critique on the Book of Mormon, appeared in the _Millennial Harbinger,_ Vol. II, 1831, under the title "Mormonites." The criticism is exhaustive and bitter. It is, in fact, a fine example of the bitterness of religious controversialists, in defense of orthodox views.] Next came the "Spaulding Theory" of origin, which Campbell accepted in place of his own, and of which more later. Then came Miss Dougall's theory of the prophet's self-delusion, "by the automatic freaks of a vigorous but undisciplined brain, and yielding to these, he became confirmed in the hysterical temperament which always adds to delusion self-deception, and to self-deception half-conscious fraud." [14] Next came Mr. I Woodbridge Riley's theory (1902) of pure hallucination honestly mistaken for inspired visions "with partly conscious and partly unconscious hypnotic powers over others." Mr. Schroeder, however, will have none of these theories, but turns back to the theory of the Spaulding manuscript origin. To him "the conclusions" of Mr. Riley, because so many material considerations were overlooked by that author, are very unsatisfactory, though admittedly Mr. Riley's effort is the best along this line. [15] On his part, Mr. Riley, speaking of previous theories, especially including the Spaulding theory, says: [Footnote 15: See Mr. Schroeder's note, 2.]