New Witnesses for God (Volume 3 of 3)Roberts, B. H. (Brigham Henry)
Religion
New Witnesses for God (Volume 3 of 3)
Roberts, B. H. (Brigham Henry)
Book of Mormon; Smith, Joseph, Jr., 1805-1844
The foregoing accurately describes the "Manuscript Found," since
obtained of Mr. L. L. Rice and published; and by both its title and
its size is identified to be the manuscript read by Spaulding to his
neighbors.
This manuscript must have been a very great disappointment to the
conspirators against the Book of Mormon. They had staked their all on
the fact of Spaulding's "Manuscript Found" being the foundation matter
of the Book of Mormon, but when found it proved to be so dissimilar
that they could not, with any face, undertake to maintain that this
manuscript was the source whence the Book of Mormon was derived. What
must be done to meet this dilemma? That those who had gone this far in
opposing the work of God would repent of their folly, and admit their
defeat would be too much to expect. No; instead of doing that they
resorted to the following subterfuge. I quote Howe:
This manuscript has been shown to several of the foregoing
witnesses who recognize it as Spaulding's, he having told them that
he had altered his first plan of writing, by going farther back
with dates, and writing in the old scripture style, in order that
it might appear more ancient. They say that it bears no resemblance
to the "Manuscript Found." [24]
Two things, in this statement, are extremely unfortunate for the
reputation of Mr. Howe, and those who have been beguiled into accepting
the theory of his book respecting the origin of the Book of Mormon:
First: The fact that in none of the statements of the witnesses who
heard Mr. Spaulding read his manuscript is there any account of his
having made two drafts of his story, one which he found too modern
to suit the antiquities of America, and written in modern style; and
the other going farther back in time and written in the old scripture
style, in order to make it appear more ancient. All this seems to have
been an after thought, a subterfuge, when it was learned that "The
Manuscript Found" did not warrant the theory that it was the foundation
of the Book of Mormon. The things it is here claimed were said by these
Conneaut witnesses concerning a second Spaulding Manuscript on American
antiquities, are not said _by_ them, but _for_ them by Mr. Howe.
Second: That Mr. Howe himself wickedly conceals the fact that this
old Roman story of Spaulding's was labeled "Manuscript Found;" and in
addition to concealing that fact declares that the witnesses say "that
it bears no resemblance to the "Manuscript Found," when, as a matter of
fact, this Roman story itself was the "Manuscript Found." Comment is
unnecessary; a bare statement of the facts expose the villainy of these
conspirators. [25]
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