First: The description of the manner in which John Spaulding, brother of Solomon Spaulding, learned of the identity between the Book of Mormon and his brother's "Manuscript Found." According to the "Davison statement," he was at New Salem when a public speaker read excerpts from the Book of Mormon, and immediately recognized the work of his brother. Whereupon, his amazement and grief found vent in "a flood of tears," and he rose "on the spot" and expressed his sorrow and regrets that his brother's writings should be used for a purpose so "vile and shocking." In the statement of John Spaulding, published in Howe's "Mormonism Unveiled," there is nothing of all this dramatic circumstance. In that statement [16] there is no agony of grief; no flood of tears; no denunciation on the spot; no reference to a purpose "vile and shocking;" just a plain statement that he had "recently read the Book of Mormon;" and the claim that he found nearly the same historical matter in it as in his brother's writings; some names that were alike, and that the "Manuscript Found" held to the theory that the American Indians were descendants of the "lost tribes;" and evidently supposes that the Book of Mormon held the same theory. Had any such circumstance as described in the "Davison Statement" occurred, it would undoubtedly have appeared in John Spaulding's statement published by Howe five years before this second version was put forth. Had such incidents really taken place, they would have been too rich in dramatic incident to have escaped the publishers of "Mormonism Unveiled." Second: The "Davison Statement" represents that it was through a "woman preacher" that the Book of Mormon was represented at the public meeting at New Salem, where John Spaulding denounced it on the spot. It is well known that the Church of the Latter-day Saints at that time had no "woman preacher," hence no such circumstance could have occurred. [17] Third: The "Davison Statement" represents Sidney Rigdon as being connected with the printing office of Mr. Patterson, of Pittsburg, but strangest of all it represents that gentleman as having frequently admitted that connection, whereas, as we shall see later, Sidney Rigdon every where and at all times expressly denied any such connection. These inconsistencies of the "Davison Statement" with the well known facts in the case reveal its utterly fraudulent character; and here we may pause just long enough to remark the desperate straits the opponents of the Book of Mormon were driven to in those days, when they must needs resort to such methods of opposition as are apparent in this bogus statement. Does it not cast suspicion upon the whole Spaulding theory? A suspicion which not all the supposed respectability that goes with titles of "Doctor of Divinity," "Reverend," "Ministers of the Gospel," etc., can remove?