The Hurlbut Affidavits

[Benjamin McGuire]

On another thread, Nevo makes this comment:

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this. I am not ignorant of Hurlbut's history or his motives in canvassing the Smiths' Manchester/Palmyra neighbors. He was obviously looking for damaging information. But it does not follow that the affidavits are historically worthless because they were solicited by an unscrupulous individual.

And this:

I answered this point by noting that good historians do make use of the Hurlbut affidavits, albeit carefully and selectively, while the FAIR article you cited (apparently as an example of good historical scholarship) is actually an example of the sort of defend-the-faith-at-all-costs approach that Bushman was trying to distance himself from in his essay.

Probably, I need to update the FAIR wiki. And while these comments of mine can to some extent be found in other places, let's update them a little bit and add some relevant commentary.

The problem with any set of textual statements is that the language that gets used can tell us an awful lot about the texts and what is going on. In the case of the Hurlbut affidavits, we might expect that there could be some overlap. After all, they are all, generally, speaking to the same issue and referencing the same thing (the Spalding novel and its contents). But where I am going to start looking is at the language used to describe the stuff that isn't about the story (we will get to that in a moment). This is the stuff about Spalding himself. The following comments deal with eight of the affidavits – John Spalding, Martha Spalding, Oliver Smith, Henry Lake, John Miller, Nahum Howard, Atremus Cunningham, and Aaron Wright.

First, let's start with one text as a whole - the John Spalding account, and use it as a sort of base line text.

Solomon Spalding was born in Ashford, Conn. in 1761, and in early life contracted a taste for literary pursuits. After he left school, he entered Plainfield Academy, where he made great proficiency in study, and excelled most of his class-mates. He next commenced the study of Law, in Windham county, in which he made little progress, having in the mean time turned his attention to religious subjects. He soon after entered Dartmouth College, with the intention of qualifying himself for the ministry, where he obtained the degree of A. M. and was afterwards regularly ordained. After preaching three or four years, he gave it up, removed to Cherry Valley, N. Y, and commenced the mercantile business in company with his brother Josiah. -- In a few years he failed in business, and in the year 1809 removed to Conneaut, in Ohio. The year following, I removed to Ohio, and found him engaged in building a forge. I made him a visit in about three years after; and found that he had failed, and considerably involved in debt. He then told me he had been writing a book, which he intended to have printed, the avails of which he thought would enable him to pay all his debts. The book was entitled the "Manuscript Found," of which he read to me many passages. It was an historical romance of the first settlers of America, endeavoring to show that the American Indians are the descendants of the Jews, or the lost tribes. It gave a detailed account of their journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till they arrived in America, under the command of NEPHI and LEHI. They afterwards had quarrels and contentions, and separated into two distinct nations, one of which he denominated Nephites and the other Lamanites. Cruel and bloody wars ensued, in which great multitudes were slain. They buried their dead in large heaps, which caused the mounds so common in this country. Their arts, sciences and civilization were brought into view, in order to account for all the curious antiquities, found in various parts of North and South America. I have recently read the Book of Mormon, and to my great surprize I find nearly the same historical matter, names, &c. as they were in my brother's writings. I well remember that he wrote in the old style, and commenced about every sentence with "and it came to pass," or "now it came to pass," the same as in the Book of Mormon, and according to the best of my recollection and belief, it is the same as my brother Solomon wrote, with the exception of the religious matter. -- By what means it has fallen into the hands of Joseph Smith, Jr. I am unable to determine. JOHN SPALDING.

I am using John's account as a base line for the main reason that it is far and a way the longest of the texts. The rest are all considerably shorter. So, let’s go through the several texts in comparison.

John Spalding: The year following, I removed to Ohio, and found him engaged in building a forge.

Henry Lake: Soon after my arrival, I formed a co-partnership with Solomon Spalding, for the purpose of re-building a forge which he had commenced a year or two before.

Aaron Wright: I first became acquainted with Solomon Spalding in 1808 or 9, when he commenced building a forge on Conneaut creek.

John Miller: In the year 1811, I was in the employ of Henry Lake and Solomon Spalding, at Conneaut, engaged in rebuilding a forge.

Of the 8 accounts, half of them mention the forge – mostly as the source of the connection between them and Spalding. The next bit is about how Spalding was in debt, and Spalding’s plans to get out of it:

John Spalding: and considerably involved in debt. He then told me he had been writing a book, which he intended to have printed, the avails of which he thought would enable him to pay all his debts

Oliver Smith: He then said, that although he was in my debt, and when it is printed, it will bring me a fine sum of money, which will enable me to return and pay off all my debts

Artemus: His only hope of ever paying his debts, appeared to be upon the sale of a book, which he had been writing.

Henry Lake: alleging that a book of that kind would meet with a rapid sale.

John Miller: finish his book and have it published, which would enable him to pay his debts

Following right on this, we have the identification of the book:

John Spalding: The book was entitled the "Manuscript Found," of which he read to me many passages.

Henry Lake: He very frequently read to me from a manuscript which he was writing, which he entitled the "Manuscript Found,"

John Miller: but that which more particularly drew my attention, was one which he called the "Manuscript Found." From this he would frequently read some humorous passages to the company present.

Next we get a summary of sorts of the genre of the book.

John Spalding: an historical romance of the first settlers of America

Martha Spalding: a historical novel founded upon the first settlers of America.

Aaron Wright: a history he was writing, … of the first settlers of America,

Oliver Smith: a historical novel, founded upon the first settlers of this country.

Artemus: a fabulous or romantic history of the first settlement of this country

John Miller: the history of the first settlement of America

Nahum Howard: he was writing a history of that race of people

Then we get a description of the people in the book:

John Spalding: American Indians are the descendants of the Jews, or the lost tribes

Martha Spalding: the aborigines of America were the descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel

Aaron Wright: of the lost tribes of Israel

Henry Lake: the American Indians as the descendants of the lost tribes

Next the journey from the book:

John Spalding: It gave a detailed account of their journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till they arrived in America

Aaron Wright: He traced their journey from Jerusalem to America,

Martha Spalding: He gave a particular account of their journey by land and sea, till they arrived in America

Oliver Smith: he intended to trace their journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till their arrival in America

Henry Lake: gave an account of their leaving Jerusalem,

John Miller: He brought them off from Jerusalem, … detailing their travels by land and water

Now for the leaders of the expedition:

John Spalding: under the command of NEPHI and LEHI

Martha Spalding: but the names of Nephi and Lehi are yet fresh in my memory

Oliver Smith: Nephi and Lehi were by him represented as leading characters, when they first started for America.

Artemus Cunningham: I well remember the name of Nephi, which appeared to be the principal hero of the story.

John Miller: He brought them off from Jerusalem, under their leaders

What happens next?

John Spalding: afterwards had quarrels and contentions, and separated into two distinct nations, one of which he denominated Nephites and the other Lamanites

Martha Spalding: disputes arose between the chiefs, which caused them to separate into different lands, one of which was called Lamanites and the other Nephites.

Then we get a description connecting the book to the mounds:

John Spalding: Cruel and bloody wars ensued, in which great multitudes were slain.. They buried their dead in large heaps, which caused the mounds so common in this country

Martha Spalding: Between these were recounted tremendous battles, which frequently covered the ground with the slain; and their being buried in large heaps was the cause of the numerous mounds in the country.

Oliver Smith: In this way, he would give a satisfactory account of all of the old mounds, so common to this country

Henry Lake: their contentions and wars, which were many and great.

Then a discussion of artifacts (antiquities):

John Spalding: arts, sciences and civilization were brought into view, in order to account for all the curious antiquities, found in various parts of North and South America

Aaron Wright: He told me his object was to account for all the fortifications, &c. to be found in this country

Oliver Smith: give an account of their arts, sciences, civilization, … [to] give a satisfactory account of all of the old mounds, so common to this country.

Artemus Cunningham: He attempted to account for the numerous antiquities which are found upon this continent,

Nahum Howard: in this country, who erected the old forts, mounds, &c.

Then we get a statement of how they were reminded of these details:

John Spalding: I have recently read the Book of Mormon, and to my great surprize I find nearly the same historical matter, names, &c. as they were in my brother's writings.

Martha Spalding: I have read the Book of Mormon, which has brought fresh to my recollection the writings of Solomon Spalding;

Oliver Smith: When I heard the historical part of it related, I at once said it was the writings of old Solomon SPALDING.

Artemus Cunningham: The Mormon Bible I have partially examined, and am fully of the opinion that Solomon Spalding had written its outlines before he left Conneaut.

Henry Lake: About a week after, my wife found the book in my coat pocket, as it hung up, and commenced reading it aloud as I lay upon the bed. She had not read 20 minutes till I was astonished to find the same passages in it that Spalding had read to me

John Miller: I have recently examined the Book of Mormon, and find in it the writings of Solomon Spalding, from beginning to end,

Nahum Howard: I have lately read the Book of Mormon, and believe it to be the same as Spalding wrote,

A quick note about the repetitive biblical sounding language:

John Spalding: I well remember that he wrote in the old style, and commenced about every sentence with "and it came to pass," or "now it came to pass," the same as in the Book of Mormon

Martha Spalding: The old, obsolete style, and the phrases of "and it came to pass," &c. are the same.

Artemus Cunningham: The frequent repetition of the phrase, "I Nephi,"

Henry Lake: I well recollect telling Mr. Spalding, that the so frequent use of the words "And it came to pass," "Now it came to pass," rendered it ridiculous.

Then comes a comment about how the Book of Mormon adds some religious material:

John Spalding: with the exception of the religious matter

Oliver Smith: But no religious matter was introduced, as I now recollect.

Henry Lake: [only] the historical part of it is principally, if not wholly taken from the "Manuscript Found."

John Miller: but mixed up with scripture and other religious matter, which I did not meet with in the "Manuscript Found."

Nahum Howard: and believe it to be the same as Spalding wrote, except the religious part.

Now, these are just the elements in John Spalding’s account that are found in the other accounts. If we repeat that first quote of John’s text, and bold the elements that are found in the other accounts, it looks a bit like this:

Solomon Spalding was born in Ashford, Conn. in 1761, and in early life contracted a taste for literary pursuits. After he left school, he entered Plainfield Academy, where he made great proficiency in study, and excelled most of his class-mates. He next commenced the study of Law, in Windham county, in which he made little progress, having in the mean time turned his attention to religious subjects. He soon after entered Dartmouth College, with the intention of qualifying himself for the ministry, where he obtained the degree of A. M. and was afterwards regularly ordained. After preaching three or four years, he gave it up, removed to Cherry Valley, N. Y, and commenced the mercantile business in company with his brother Josiah. -- In a few years he failed in business, and in the year 1809 removed to Conneaut, in Ohio. The year following, I removed to Ohio, and found him engaged in building a forge. I made him a visit in about three years after; and found that he had failed, and considerably involved in debt. He then told me he had been writing a book, which he intended to have printed, the avails of which he thought would enable him to pay all his debts. The book was entitled the "Manuscript Found," of which he read to me many passages. It was an historical romance of the first settlers of America, endeavoring to show that the American Indians are the descendants of the Jews, or the lost tribes. It gave a detailed account of their journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till they arrived in America, under the command of NEPHI and LEHI. They afterwards had quarrels and contentions, and separated into two distinct nations, one of which he denominated Nephites and the other Lamanites. Cruel and bloody wars ensued, in which great multitudes were slain. They buried their dead in large heaps, which caused the mounds so common in this country. Their arts, sciences and civilization were brought into view, in order to account for all the curious antiquities, found in various parts of North and South America. I have recently read the Book of Mormon, and to my great surprize I find nearly the same historical matter, names, &c. as they were in my brother's writings. I well remember that he wrote in the old style, and commenced about every sentence with "and it came to pass," or "now it came to pass," the same as in the Book of Mormon, and according to the best of my recollection and belief, it is the same as my brother Solomon wrote, with the exception of the religious matter. -- By what means it has fallen into the hands of Joseph Smith, Jr. I am unable to determine. JOHN SPALDING.

Now, if we move on a moment and touch on parallels that are shared among some of the other seven accounts (but not in John’s) we can add at least one more:

Martha Spalding: The lapse of time which has intervened, prevents my recollecting but few of the leading incidents of his writings; … is the same that I read and heard read, more than 20 years ago.

Aaron Wright: I know to be the same as I read and heard read from the writings of Spalding, more than twenty years ago;

Oliver Smith: found much of it the same as Spalding had written, more than twenty years before.

Atremus Cunningham: although the general features of the story have passed from my memory, through the lapse of 22 years.

Henry Lake: that Spalding had read to me more, than twenty years before, from his "Manuscript Found."

What we end up with are several accounts that are very closely linked in their language. This close connection isn’t likely to be coincidental. It isn’t so much that they deal with the same issues – that would be potentially possible if they were describing real historical events. The problem is that they often use identical language. Take for example, this phrase found in three separate accounts:

by land and sea, till they arrived in America

by land and sea, till they arrived in America

by land and sea, till their arrival in America

If we do a google books search on this phrase, for all of the 19^th century, we get only references to Howe. (In fact, we can drop off the America from the end and get the same results). This isn’t a sort of common phrase (“by land and sea” is), and yet we have it repeated three times in an identical context all coming from Hurlbut’s affidavits. The texts of the affidavits are all different. No two of them are terribly alike. And yet, they are all very similar. Instead of using the longest, let’s move to a different text. This is Martha’s complete affidavit. I have bolded text that is duplicated in the other accounts in three word chunks (or larger). This is identical text – not just similar text (if we bolded similar text much more would be included). So in the bit above, I wouldn’t bold the “their arrival” since it is different from the other examples.

I was personally acquainted with Solomon Spalding, about twenty years ago. I was at his house a short time before he left Conneaut; he was then writing a historical novel founded upon the first settlers of America. He represented them as an enlightened and warlike people. He had for many years contended that the aborigines of America were the descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel, and this idea he carried out in the book in question. – The lapse of time which has intervened, prevents my recollecting but few of the leading incidents of his writings; but the names of Nephi and Lehi are yet fresh in my memory, as being the principal heroes of his tale. They were officers of the company which first came off from Jerusalem. He gave a particular account of their journey by land and sea, till they arrived in America, after which, disputes arose between the chiefs, which caused them to separate into different lands, one of which was called Lamanites and the other Nephites. Between these were recounted tremendous battles, which frequently covered the ground with the slain; and their being buried in large heaps was the cause of the numerous mounds in the country. -- Some of these people he represented as being very large. I have read the Book of Mormon, which has brought fresh to my recollection the writings of Solomon Spalding; and I have no manner of doubt that the historical part of it, is the same that I read and heard read, more than 20 years ago. The old, obsolete style, and the phrases of "and it came to pass," &c. are the same.

This shows that 42% (nearly half) of Martha’s account is duplicated amongst the other seven affidavits. This isn’t a sort of coincidence. By any modern standard, this would be evidence of plagiarism. Are we supposed to believe that eight individuals, their recollections fogged as they note, by more than 20 years ago not only remember the same details, but that they describe them using identical language?

By far though, the most interesting comments (for me) are a bit at the end of John Miller’s account (and unique to him among the affidavits):

When Spalding divested his history of its fabulous names, by a verbal explanation, he landed his people near the Straits of Darien, which I am very confident he called Zarahemla, they were marched about that country for a length of time, in which wars and great blood shed ensued, he brought them across North America in a north east direction.

What is so fascinating about this account is that it comes after the publication of some remarks by Orson Pratt about the Book of Mormon, recorded in contemporary newspaper accounts:

The last battle that was fought among these parties was on the very ground where the plates were found, but it had been a running battle, for they commenced at the Isthmus of Darien and ended at Manchester.

There is at least one other account of Pratt's explanation prior to Miller's affidavit. Pratt’s geography gained some popularity and can be found in LDS publications at least as early as 1840 (and again in 1842 - although similar comments start appearing without mentioning Darien in 1836 in LDS publications). This poses an interesting problem. You see, John Miller claims that the association of Zarahemla with the Straits of Darien was made to him privately by Spalding and was not a part of the text of Spalding’s manuscript. And yet a year before John Miller makes this claim, Orson Pratt has already begun publicly teaching this as an interpretation of the Book of Mormon.

When we get right down to it, there isn’t anything about Spalding’s alleged manuscript in any of these affidavits about the Book of Mormon that couldn’t be taken from the Book of Mormon or from published accounts about it. Their value, even to historians is very, very limited, and extends to information about Spalding himself, and not to his writing. What the evidence shows it that not only were the affidavits solicited, they were produced on a shared template (there is minimal original material in any of the affidavits), and the language of the affidavits does not represent the personal language of the individuals who signed them. And it is because they were not independently produced that they become effectively worthless except in a few narrow areas where we don't have polemical interests by Hurlbut.

[Bill Hamblin]

You mean to say the witnesses were coached and Hurlbut wrote or rewrote many of the statements?! I'm shocked!

[Glenn101]

Your analysis will make sense to most LDS and even non-LDS unless they are heavily invested in the Spalding/Rigdon theory. I was engaged in a rather lengthy thread on another board about this some months ago with a couple of die hard Spalding advocates. I prevailed, in a manner. They were not convinced but gave up because of my sheer cussed stubbornness.

Glenn

[Helen47]

Have you read Roger Anderson's analysis and response to Richard L Andeson's papers, Ther Mythmakers and the Kelly brothers (COC)?

[CASteinman]

I really like this type of analysis. It appeals to my quantitative brain.

The Spaulding Manuscript theory is one area I am not very well versed in ... because it bores me. I looked into it briefly and found it to be so shallow a perspective I could not bring myself to get involved -- and so I am essentially as shallow as the subject.

[Jeff Walsh]

But yet Ex BYU professors and so called unbiased historians and others quote E. D. Howe's book Mormonism Unveiled which contains Hurlbut's and Exra Booth's "evidence", as if it were true. E D Howe had a huge axe to grind, although he never joined the Church, his wife and family did, much to his anger. Because of this he hated Joseph Smith and began a tirade not only against Joseph but the whole Smith Family.

The books which a well known SL printer publishes contain much of the bile coming from these authors pretending to give us the so called "hidden early history" which is being withheld by the "heirarchy" of the Church. But when you look into the background to the publisher, many of these authors have directorships in the firm, so they have a vested interest in the sale of these books, and even more damning when you find that the author of at least one of these books, "resigned" from BYU and is a disgraced and excommunicated member of the Church and others have axes to grind. When all of this is taken into consideration we should be very wary of accepting any of these publications as worthy of consideration. Jeff

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well... that was enlightening.

[Kevin Christensen]

Have you read Roger Anderson's analysis and response to Richard L Andeson's papers, Ther Mythmakers and the Kelly brothers (COC)?

There is also Richard L, Anderson's Response to Roger Anderson.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=3&num=1&id=56

And this, on the reliability of the affidavits on the charge of laziness compared to the evidence of tax records and such:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=98&chapid=1098

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[wenglund]

Nice work, Ben!

Additional evidence in support of your point can be found in this spreadsheet I created back at the turn of the century, which dissects and compares the various accounts--including those solicited by other anti-Mormons:

http://www.scn.org/~bp760/compared.htm

I also addressed other concerns about the affidavits:

http://www.scn.org/~bp760/conneaut.htm#3

One of the best ways to see the flaws in Hurlbut's affidavits is to contrast them with the statement given by Josiah Spalding, Solomon's brother, which wasn't solicited by Hurlbut:

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/SCIOTA/SRPpap12.htm#Sim04

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Nevo]

The problem with any set of textual statements is that the language that gets used can tell us an awful lot about the texts and what is going on. In the case of the Hurlbut affidavits, we might expect that there could be some overlap. After all, they are all, generally, speaking to the same issue and referencing the same thing (the Spalding novel and its contents).

[snip]

When we get right down to it, there isn’t anything about Spalding’s alleged manuscript in any of these affidavits about the Book of Mormon that couldn’t be taken from the Book of Mormon or from published accounts about it. Their value, even to historians is very, very limited, and extends to information about Spalding himself, and not to his writing. What the evidence shows it that not only were the affidavits solicited, they were produced on a shared template (there is minimal original material in any of the affidavits), and the language of the affidavits does not represent the personal language of the individuals who signed them. And it is because they were not independently produced that they become effectively worthless except in a few narrow areas where we don't have polemical interests by Hurlbut.

Hi Ben,

I completely agree with your analysis of the Conneaut witness testimony. But I am puzzled as to why you've tacked two statements I made on another thread to the top of your post. As you well know, the "Hurlbut affidavits" that I was referring to are not the "Hurlbut affidavits" that you are referring to in your post. Why the sleight of hand?

I claimed that the Manchester/Palmyra affidavits collected by Hurlbut have some modest historical value if used carefully and selectively. You "respond" to this claim by making the point—that every serious historian of early Mormonism (including Fawn Brodie and Dan Vogel) readily admits—that the Ohio affidavits collected by Hurlbut are "effectively worthless" as historical sources.

What am I missing?

[Benjamin McGuire]

I just haven't done detailed analysis on the others. But you do recognize, right, that the Manchester/Palmyra affidavits show marked similarities in the same way?

Yes, there is always a need to use them selectively. Yest you have to be careful. But these are still statements that are intended to reflect poorly on the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith, taken at Hurlbut's request. Would you disagree with the statement that Hurlbut also tampered with the Manchester/Palmyra testimonies?

When you suggest that they have some modest value, what is it exactly that is the valuable part? Can you distinguish between what might be historically accurate and honest testimony, and what might be influenced in some way by Hurlbut, and what ends up being absolute distortion?

From my vantage point, the work that Mark Ashurst-McGee has done is proving out - particularly when we have a new account from 1829 recently discovered, that speaks of an angel, arrayed in glorious light, ascending to heaven, right?

Ben M.

[wenglund]

Hi Ben,

I completely agree with your analysis of the Conneaut witness testimony. But I am puzzled as to why you've tacked two statements I made on another thread to the top of your post. As you well know, the "Hurlbut affidavits" that I was referring to are not the "Hurlbut affidavits" that you are referring to in your post. Why the sleight of hand?

I claimed that the Manchester/Palmyra affidavits collected by Hurlbut have some modest historical value if used carefully and selectively. You "respond" to this claim by making the point—that every serious historian of early Mormonism (including Fawn Brodie and Dan Vogel) readily admits—that the Ohio affidavits collected by Hurlbut are "effectively worthless" as historical sources.

What am I missing?

If I recall correctly, the NY affidavits were collected by Hurlbut during the same 3-month, anti-Mormon-commissioned, digging-up-dirt road trip as the Ohio affidavits. I am not sure what would make the NY affidavits any less "effectively worthless" than the Ohio affidavits--particularly given Richard L. Anderson's analysis (which focused mostly on the NY affidavits)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Nevo]

When you suggest that they have some modest value, what is it exactly that is the valuable part? Can you distinguish between what might be historically accurate and honest testimony, and what might be influenced in some way by Hurlbut, and what ends up being absolute distortion?

If I recall correctly, the NY affidavits were collected by Hurlbut during the same 3-month, anti-Mormon-commissioned, digging-up-dirt road trip as the Ohio affidavits. I am not sure what would make the NY affidavits any less "effectively worthless" than the Ohio affidavits--particularly given Richard L. Anderson's analysis (which focused mostly on the NY affidavits)?

Hi Ben/Wade,

My suggestion that some of the affidavits have some modest historical value is based on seeing them used profitably by reputable scholars such as Bushman and Ashurst-McGee. Some examples of what I am talking about are listed here.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Nevo

[Bob Crockett]

And it is because they were not independently produced that they become effectively worthless except in a few narrow areas where we don't have polemical interests by Hurlbut.

From a legal perspective, they are not "effectively worthless." Affidavits are commonly drawn up by lawyers and signed by witnesses, and if there were multiple witnesses to the same event, you'll find common turns of phrases all the time if the same lawyer drew it up AND you're dealing with lay or illiterate witnesses. Witnesses all the time subscribe to affidavits they didn't draft, using language they would't use.

Nor is it plagiarism, for a variety of legal reasons too much to explain here.

Nonetheless, such phraseology and common word patterns do, indeed, call them into doubt, especially where the original affiants are not around to call up and ask, "did you sign this?" I have routinely dragged witnesses through the coals for signing an affidavit they didn't draft, using somebody else's words. And. often, I can get them to recant. But, certainly, they are not "effectively worthless." That's a pipe dream.

By analogy, one could argue that three or eight witnesses signing a common statement makes the statement less effective because it might be said that someone else drafted it up for them.

By a more remote analogy, one could question the affidavits the Church collected from Joseph Smith's ex-wives to assist in eastern litigation. They don't necessarily appear all to be in their words, and the envelope was pushed as far is could be pushed to suggest intimate relations.

So, a neutral historian would see the affidavits for what they are with all their weaknesses, noting them for their weaknesses.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[wenglund]

Hi Ben/Wade,

My suggestion that some of the affidavits have some modest historical value is based seeing them used profitably by reputable scholars such as Bushman and Ashurst-McGee. Some examples of what I am talking about are listed here.

I don't think they are entirely worthless. In fact I view them as wonderful evidence of religious prejudice in that day.

They may even have minor collaborative value when used in conjunction with more credible sources in telling us a few things about Joseph and his family, though I wouldn't trust them on their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Benjamin McGuire]

Bob Crockett writes:

From a legal perspective, they are not "effectively worthless." Affidavits are commonly drawn up by lawyers and signed by witnesses, and if there were multiple witnesses to the same event, you'll find common turns of phrases all the time if the same lawyer drew it up AND you're dealing with lay or illiterate witnesses. Witnesses all the time subscribe to affidavits they didn't draft, using language they would't use.

Of course Bob. And perhaps you will recognize at this point that any such affidavit becomes far less useful for a historian than any sort of original statement from the parties involved that is untouched by the intentioned and interpretive manipulations of the lawyer. Further, such affidavits cannot be claimed then to represent substantially the recollections and interpretations of the individuals who signed them. Finally, like a lawyer, Hurlbut was trying to win a case in the court of public opinion, unlike a lawyer though, Hurlbut apparently had no qualms or requirements to stick with some kind of set of facts.

Finally, and this is the good piece - particularly with respect to Spalding and the Book of Mormon, there isn't anything unique to the Hurlbut affidavits that couldn't be drawn from publicly available sources about the Book of Mormon. There is no need to imagine some missing manuscript from Spalding to provide a single detail in those accounts. And this is of interest because (to use an example) of the statement located by Mark Ashurst-McGee that suggested that Spalding's manuscript was nothing at all like the Book of Mormon and then proceeded in some detail to describe that manuscript in terms that clearly point to the so-called Roman story that was later found and published that had been authored by Spalding.

In other words, we have very good reasons to believe that Hurlbut was not particularly worried about being truthful, or accurate - and so for historical purposes, these affidavits are considered to be relatively worthless (except, of course, by the proponents of the Spalding theory of authorship, where they continue to be viewed as one of the most valuable contributions).

Oh, and these aren't really witnesses to the same event, are they ... they are all similar descriptions of apparently similar but unrelated events.

Ben M.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Nevo,

This is kind of an interesting problem. I assume you have read those sources, right? This was what Bushman wrote in your referenced material:

In 1833, an excommunicated Mormon named Doctor Philastus Hurlbut collected affidavitrs in Palmyra and Manchester from people who remembered the Smith family. ... The aim of the affidavits was to discredit the Smiths, but the reports revealed more than the witnesses intended.

I also note with some interest that you missed everything on the topic that Mark Ashurst-McGee has published since his dissertation. For example this -

Mark Ashurst-McGee, "Moroni: Angel or Treasure Guardian?" Mormon Historical Studies 2/2 (2001): 39—75.

Or the expanded version:

Mark Ashurst-McGee, "Moroni as Angel and as Treasure Guardian," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 34–100.

Where he makes this statement:

There are, however, two basic reasons for doubting the veracity of the Chase statement. First, as a representation of the early Moroni visions, the statement is a thirdhand account. Chase recounts Joseph Smith Sr.'s secondhand account of Joseph Smith Jr.'s firsthand account. In fact, one might classify the Chase statement as a fourthhand account since it was collected by Philastus Hurlbut and only appears as published in Howe's anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed. Although Chase informed the text of the statement and apparently signed it, the statement was made at the prompting of Hurlbut, who was digging for dirt on the Smiths and is known to have prompted his witnesses. Moreover, the statement was probably inscribed by Hurlbut as a reconstruction of his conversation with Chase based on notes taken at the time. Vogel himself dismisses the many statements collected by Hurlbut that fabricate evidence for the Spalding theory he championed.

Now, the FAIR website article is clearly an apologetic argument. But I am curious, what aspect of the affidavits did you think specifically should have been introduced there, that wasn't? Bushman tells us that the useful historical information from the affidavits was the stuff that wasn't intended - the bits included as narrative filler perhaps. But implicit in that statement is the fact that the intended information - the attacks on the Smith family are not a good source for information. Mark Ashurst-McGee seems to agree with that assessment. Perhaps you could point to some very specific issues that justify your comment about the FAIR article.

Because, it seems to me, that your assessment isn't very accurate here. You suggested in the other thread that "The fact is, responsible historians can and do make use of the Hurlbut affidavits, ..." Which is absolutely true. And, responsible historians (like Bushman) also note that with regard to the Hurlbut affidavits, their use is very problematic, and that the use to which Howe put them was to present a fabricated history and not some real history. It seems to me that in you desire to make this distinction between apologetics and the responsible historian you picked a very, very bad example.

FAIR's concern isn't to present a nuanced and detailed history of the Smith's neighbors and their activities (this was Bushman's interest). FAIR's concern is to address the history presented by Howe (a history, I might add, that Bushman has nothing good to comment on). FAIR does not hide the treasure hunting in the Smith family history. So, I am still wondering what exactly is the point you were trying to make - because I don't see it.

Do you believe that the Hurlbut affidavits are reliable? Do you believe that they are only partly reliable? What is it in the Willard Chase affidavit (to use one that you reference in the other thread), that is reliable, and what is unreliable? Perhaps you could enlighten us. What part is of some value to historians, and what part isn't. I don't want a set of references dealing with how others used it, I want to know your opinion.

Ben M.

[wenglund]

Bob Crockett writes:

Of course Bob. And perhaps you will recognize at this point that any such affidavit becomes far less useful for a historian than any sort of original statement from the parties involved that is untouched by the intentioned and interpretive manipulations of the lawyer. Further, such affidavits cannot be claimed then to represent substantially the recollections and interpretations of the individuals who signed them. Finally, like a lawyer, Hurlbut was trying to win a case in the court of public opinion, unlike a lawyer though, Hurlbut apparently had no qualms or requirements to stick with some kind of set of facts.

Finally, and this is the good piece - particularly with respect to Spalding and the Book of Mormon, there isn't anything unique to the Hurlbut affidavits that couldn't be drawn from publicly available sources about the Book of Mormon. There is no need to imagine some missing manuscript from Spalding to provide a single detail in those accounts. And this is of interest because (to use an example) of the statement located by Mark Ashurst-McGee that suggested that Spalding's manuscript was nothing at all like the Book of Mormon and then proceeded in some detail to describe that manuscript in terms that clearly point to the so-called Roman story that was later found and published that had been authored by Spalding.

In other words, we have very good reasons to believe that Hurlbut was not particularly worried about being truthful, or accurate - and so for historical purposes, these affidavits are considered to be relatively worthless (except, of course, by the proponents of the Spalding theory of authorship, where they continue to be viewed as one of the most valuable contributions).

Oh, and these aren't really witnesses to the same event, are they ... they are all similar descriptions of apparently similar but unrelated events. Ben M.

Also, as pointed out in the Wikipedia article on Affidavits:

"In American jurisprudence, under the rules for hearsay, admission of an unsupported affidavit as evidence is unusual (especially if the affiant is not available for cross-examination) with regard to material facts which may be dispositive of the matter at bar. Affidavits from persons who are dead or otherwise incapacitated, or who cannot be located or made to appear may be accepted by the court, but usually only in the presence of corroborating evidence. An affidavit which reflected a better grasp of the facts close in time to the actual events may be used to refresh a witness's recollection. Materials used to refresh recollection are admissible as evidence. If the affiant is a party in the case, the affiant's opponent may be successful in having the affidavit admitted as evidence, as statements by a party-opponent are admissible through an exception to the hearsay rule."

Besides, we are talking about affidavits taken at the time of the wild west, when the rules of evidence in jurisprudence weren't as formalized and strongly enforced as they are today, and where the fear of consequences for perjury weren't that pronounced--particularly in the minds of unscrupulous men, and sadly where the courts were often abused as a means of legal harassment and pretentious credulity.

Historians are, understandably, a bit more lax when it comes to utilizing hearsay evidence, though at the cost of some measure of trust and credibility, and rightly open themselves up to greater skepticism than the legal profession--not that this is necessarily a bad thing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Nevo]

This is kind of an interesting problem. I assume you have read those sources, right?

I'm not sure why I've dropped so low in your regard, Ben, that you feel the need to insult me like this. But to answer your question, yes, I have read the sources that I cited—I don't, as a rule, cite material from books and articles that I've never read. If you think I've misread or misrepresented a source, then by all means say so. If you believe me to be a poseur and a fraud, then expose my incompetence for all to see rather than simply insinuate it.

I also note with some interest that you missed everything on the topic that Mark Ashurst-McGee has published since his dissertation.

Again, Ben, this sort of discourse is beneath you. How have I "missed everything on the topic that Mark Ashurst-McGee has published since his dissertation"? I've read both of the articles you cited and I agree with his points. They don't contradict anything I've said (nor do they contradict anything Ashurst-McGee wrote in his M.A. thesis).

You note that "Bushman tells us that the useful historical information from the affidavits was the stuff that wasn't intended - the bits included as narrative filler perhaps. But implicit in that statement is the fact that the intended information - the attacks on the Smith family are not a good source for information. Mark Ashurst-McGee seems to agree with that assessment." And so do I. I have never claimed that the affidavits' attacks on the Smith family are "a good source for information" (!) so I don't know why you are citing Bushman as though he and I are in disagreement. We aren't.

FAIR's concern isn't to present a nuanced and detailed history of the Smith's neighbors and their activities (this was Bushman's interest). FAIR's concern is to address the history presented by Howe (a history, I might add, that Bushman has nothing good to comment on). FAIR does not hide the treasure hunting in the Smith family history. So, I am still wondering what exactly is the point you were trying to make - because I don't see it.

My point was the same one that you just made: that the FAIR article is an apologetic treatment concerned with discrediting the affidavits. Historians like Bushman, on the other hand, concerned as they are with nuance and detail, take a different approach, reading the affidavits for any insights they might offer about the personalities and events of the period while still acknowledging their problematic nature.

Do you believe that the Hurlbut affidavits are reliable? Do you believe that they are only partly reliable? What is it in the Willard Chase affidavit (to use one that you reference in the other thread), that is reliable, and what is unreliable? Perhaps you could enlighten us. What part is of some value to historians, and what part isn't. I don't want a set of references dealing with how others used it, I want to know your opinion.

I am not a historian and my take on Willard Chase's affidavit is frankly irrelevant to the issue of how historians use the Hurlbut affidavits. So your sneering "perhaps you could enlighten us" invitation will have to go unanswered I'm afraid. My claim was simply that some "responsible historians" have made modest use of the Hurlbut affidavits. Since you have already conceded this point, I don't see that there is really anything more to say.

[Benjamin McGuire]

It isn't sneering at all Nevo. I am absolutely puzzled still by your comments about the FAIR article. What was their point?

What would have rather seen on the FAIR site with regard to the affidavits?

[Calm]

It isn't sneering at all Nevo. I am absolutely puzzled still by your comments about the FAIR article. What was their point?

What would have rather seen on the FAIR site with regard to the affidavits?

I suspect Ben is referring to this comment:

while the FAIR article you cited (apparently as an example of good historical scholarship) is actually an example of the sort of defend-the-faith-at-all-costs approach that Bushman was trying to distance himself from in his essay.

There seems to me to be a dismissing of the accuracy of the FAIR article implied in your comments due to the use of "at all costs" where the cost is "good historical scholarship" among other things.

[Nevo]

It isn't sneering at all Nevo. I am absolutely puzzled still by your comments about the FAIR article. What was their point?

What would have rather seen on the FAIR site with regard to the affidavits?

Ben, I have no beef with the FAIR article. I think it is thorough, accurate, and effective at what it sets out to do.

When Scott noted that the article provided "the sort of context a good history ought to include," I took him to mean that the article showed the sort of balance and objectivity Bushman was trying for with his "dialogic" approach. I probably read way too much into Scott's remark, but that is what prompted my comment that the FAIR piece was actually "defensive" and "one-sided." This wasn't meant as a slam: apologetic pieces are normally "defensive" and "one-sided" by their very nature. And when I said it wasn't a "sober scholarly analysis" I didn't mean that it was inaccurate or showed poor judgment, but that it wasn't concerned with extracting usable historical data from the affidavits the way a historian like Bushman might.

The FAIR article does seem to have a "take-no-prisoners" approach and (understandably) doesn't grant the affidavits any legitimacy whatsoever. I don't know that I would have it otherwise. But I do wonder if such an approach might not have the unintended effect of prejudicing the faithful against histories by reputable scholars (such as Bushman) simply because those histories occasionally make use of the Hurlbut affidavits.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Ahh. Ok. I see what you are saying. It is a bit like the problem that Dan Vogel runs into (perhaps in a different direction), where he has to on the one hand explain why he is discounting the Hurlbut affidavits of one type (Spalding related) but is still very interested in using them from the other group.

I still think that there are probably better examples than the Hurlbut affidavits (where we have some real and obvious contamination of what might be considered the historical information) - although admittedly you didn't bring them up. And I think Bushman's rather nuanced use in RSR wouldn't be all that problematic for those who believe that they are for the most part worthless in the purpose for which they were produced.

Ben M.

[Nevo]

There seems to me to be a dismissing of the accuracy of the FAIR article implied in your comments due to the use of "at all costs" where the cost is "good historical scholarship" among other things.

Probably I should have been more careful in my wording. The "defend-the-faith-at-all-costs" line was meant as a comment on the partisan nature of the FAIR article, not on its accuracy. The intent of the article is to defend the Church against its critics, not to "invite them to lunch" (as Bushman has elsewhere described the historian's approach). It would be surprising indeed if the FAIR article said, "well, the Hurlbut affidavits are mostly worthless regarding the Smiths' character, but they may get some things right about the Smiths' folk magic practices and Joseph's relationship with his in-laws."

[noel00]

Is Richard L Andersons style really that of a professional historian?

"Next in his reappraisal of Joseph Smith’s New York reputation, Richard Anderson describes the depositions collected by Arthur B. Deming in the mid-1880s as “biased” and “one-sided.” Anderson accuses Deming of “Hurlbut-like prompting or editing” and dismisses Deming’s firsthand reports of Joseph Smith’s drinking and fighting because their language is “standard enough to have come from a common compiler.” He alleges that the reports contain no actual observation of Smith’s money digging. Deming himself Anderson characterizes as “neurotically resentful” and “a pathetic reincarnation of the disgruntled Hurlbut.”1