Spalding’s Manuscript and 116 Book of Mormon Pages

By Jerald and Sandra Tanner

---

A few months ago a reporter from one of the largest newspapers in the United States asked us if it was true that the Mormon Church had bought the long-lost Solomon Spalding manuscript for $6,000,000. We replied that we had no information to support such an accusation. It is known, of course, that Spalding prepared a manuscript on the inhabitants of ancient America, and we have published it in its entirety in our book, Did Spalding Write the Book of Mormon? Many people, however, feel that Spalding wrote another manuscript (now lost) which was the true source of the Book of Mormon. Although we have tried to keep an open mind on this matter, we have never put much stock in this theory. In any case, it was this manuscript to which the reporter was referring. In other words, he was trying to find out if it was true that the Mormon Church had paid $6,000,000 to suppress the fact that Spalding was the real author of the Book of Mormon.

Some time after this, we received a phone call which seems to explain the source of the rumor. The woman on the phone told us that if we would call a Mr. D_____ in St. James, New York, within half an hour, he could give us the details concerning the rediscovery of Spalding’s manuscript. The number we were given was 516-862-6448. We believed that someone might be playing a joke on us, but since the area code (516) was for the state of New York, we decided to take a chance. At first Mr. D. seemed rather indignant about the intrusion and was reluctant to talk about the matter, but with some prompting, he finally told us that he had discovered Spalding’s lost manuscript. In this and other phone conversations he revealed that he had found the 339-page manuscript in an old piano. He not only claimed that he found the manuscript, but he maintained that he also had a sixteen-page document written by Sidney Rigdon in which he confessed the part he played in the whole deception. This was not all, however; he also found an 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon which was marked to reveal the portions which were plagiarized from the Spalding manuscript.

We must admit that at first this all sounded very impressive, and we were certainly prepared to revise our views on the Spalding controversy if Mr. D. had the documents which he spoke of. Unfortunately, however, it soon became apparent that there were serious problems in this man’s story—problems that make it almost impossible to believe.

To begin with, the claims are so sensational that they tend to make a person suspicious. If Mr. D. had claimed to have either the Spalding manuscript or the Rigdon confession, this would have been exciting enough, but for him to have stated he had both seemed just too good to be true. It is now obvious that although Mr. D. makes fantastic claims, he does not seem to be willing to back them up with any evidence. When we asked if we could examine the documents, he replied no, but said we could talk to Howard Davis and he could tell us all about the matter. We were surprised that we were referred to Mr. Davis. The reader will remember that in Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? Davis maintained that at least part of the Spalding manuscript was in the Mormon Church archives and that handwriting experts have verified this claim. To admit that Mr. D. had the original manuscript would seem to cast doubt on this idea.

In any case, we have since learned that Mr. Davis has not actually seen the documents but is merely depending on this man’s word. Mr. D. also stated that Walter Martin had been to his home in St. James, N. Y., to see the documents. When we called Martin’s office, however, his staff told us that they knew absolutely nothing about the matter. In a telephone conversation with Wesley P. Walters, Mr. D. claimed that a newspaper reporter had been out to his house to see the material. When Walters called the reporter, however, he said that he had never been to the man’s house, although he had talked to him on the phone. Mr. D. also told Wesley Walters that he had a report prepared at the F.B.I. laboratory which proved that the paper in the Spalding manuscript dated to the period between 1808 and 1811. He also said that he had sent information verifying the authenticity of the document to Dartmouth College. We felt that it was unlikely that an employee of the F.B.I. would use its laboratory to authenticate private papers which have no relationship to law enforcement, and when Mr. Walters called Dartmouth College, he was told that Mr. D. had not provided any documentation concerning the manuscript.

Mr. D. stated that he was thinking of using the manuscript to stir up the Spalding family to sue the Mormon Church, or else he might just lock it up and not let anyone see it for a hundred years. Taken as a whole, his story reminded us of some of the tales we have been told by con men who pass through the Rescue Mission. They always give tantalizing accounts of what they can provide in the future, but when they are pressed for evidence, they are unable to come up with anything tangible. Now, we certainly would not accuse Mr. D. of forgery. We have no evidence that he has forged any documents. As far as we can tell, the manuscripts either exist only in his own fertile imagination, or he is committing a deliberate hoax. One supporter of the Spalding theory has strongly urged that nothing be printed about this matter and it has been suggested that Mr. D. is so eccentric that he might burn the manuscripts if we publish a critical article. We believe, however, that the whole matter sounds suspiciously like Joseph Smith’s story of the gold plates, and we feel that Mr. D. should be pressured into either bringing forth his evidence or admitting that he has none.

Lehi’s Lost Book

Mormon leaders often charge that a number of books have been lost or suppressed from the Bible, but they seldom mention the fact that Joseph Smith lost 116 pages of the Book of Mormon manuscript. This portion was known as “the book of Lehi.” The first edition of the Book of Mormon, published in 1830, contains a “Preface” by “The Author.” This “Preface” has been completely removed from later editions. It was apparently embarrassing to the Mormon leaders because it told how Joseph Smith lost the “Book of Lehi”:

PREFACE.

To the Reader—

As many false reports have been circulated respecting the following work, . . . I would inform you that I translated, by the gift and power of God, and caused to be written, one hundred and sixteen pages, the which I took from the Book of Lehi, . . . which said account, some person or persons have stolen and kept from me, notwithstanding my utmost exertions to recover it again—and being commanded of the Lord that I should not translate the same over again, for Satan had put it into their hearts to tempt the Lord their God, by altering the words, that they did read contrary from that which I translated and caused to be written: and if I should bring forth the same words again, or, in other words, if I should translate the same over again, they would publish that which they had stolen, and Satan would stir up the hearts of this generation, that they might not receive this work: but behold the Lord said unto me, I will not suffer that Satan shall accomplish his evil design in this thing: therefore thou shall translate from the plates of Nephi, until ye come to that which ye have; and behold ye shall publish it as the record of Nephi; and thus I will confound those who have altered my words. . . . The Author.

Joseph Smith’s mother gave this information concerning the lost “Book of Lehi”:

Martin Harris, having written some one hundred and sixteen pages for Joseph, asked permission of my son to carry the manuscript home with him, in order to let his wife read it, . . .

Joseph . . . inquired of the Lord to know if he might do as Martin Harris had requested, but was refused. . . . Joseph inquired again, but received a second refusal. Still, Martin Harris persisted as before, and Joseph applied again, but the last answer was not like the two former ones. In this the Lord permitted Martin Harris to take the manuscript home with him, on condition that he would exhibit it to none, save five individuals . . . Mr. Harris had been absent nearly three weeks, and Joseph had received no intelligence whatever from him, . . . we saw him [Harris] walking with a slow and measured tread towards the house, . . . Harris pressed his hands upon his temples, and cried out, in a tone of deep anguish, “Oh, I have lost my soul! I have lost my soul!”

Joseph, . . . sprang from the table, exclaiming, “Martin, have you lost that manuscript?”. . .

“Yes, it is gone,” replied Martin, “and I know not where.”

“Oh, my God” said Joseph, clinching his hands. “All is lost! all is lost! What shall I do? I have sinned—it is I who tempted the wrath of God.”. . . He wept and groaned, and walked the floor continually . . . Joseph continued, pacing back and forth, meantime weeping and grieving, until about sunset, . . .

The manuscript has never been found; and there is no doubt but Mrs. Harris took it from the drawer, with the view of retaining it, until another translation should be given, then, to alter the original translation, for the purpose of showing a discrepancy between them, and thus make the whole appear to be a deception. (Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, pages 117, 118, 120-123)

We have always believed that if the lost 116 pages of the Book of Mormon could be found, it would be one of the most important developments in Mormon history. There is at least one printed report that these lost pages were not destroyed immediately. In a statement published in 1888, W. R. Hine wrote:

Soon I learned that Jo claimed to be translating the plates in Badger’s Tavern, in Colesville, three miles from my house. . . . Martin’s wife cooked for them, and one day while they were at dinner she put one hundred and sixteen pages, the first part they had translated, in her dress bosom and went out. . . .

Dr. Seymour came along and she gave them to him to read and told him not to let them go. Dr. Seymour lived one and a half miles from me. He read most of it to me when my daughter Irene was born; he read them to his patients about the country. It was a description of the mounds about the country and similar to the “Book of Mormon”. . . Martin Harris . . . has many times admitted to me that this statement about his wife and the one hundred and sixteen pages, as above stated, is true. (Naked Truths About Mormonism, Oakland, California, January 1888, page 2)

Wesley P. Walters did some original research and found that Dr. Seymour was in the area at about that time, but he was unable to find if there was any truth to the story that he had the missing pages. At any rate, Mark Hofmann, who has become famous because of his discoveries of early Mormon documents, has been diligently searching for the 116 pages. In the Sunstone Review, September 1982, page 18, we read the following:

REVIEW: Is there anything you know exists that you are looking for specifically?

HOFMANN: I’m hoping the lost 116 manuscript pages exist.

REVIEW: Do you have any evidence that they exist?

HOFMANN: I’ve heard a lot of rumors, and I’ve tracked down lots of leads. In fact, I have spent thousands of dollars in the pursuit of them, phone calls, research, and trips back and forth to the East.

Some time after this was written, we heard that the missing pages had been located and read by different individuals and that the contents were “dynamite.” We now believe that a document purporting to be the missing portion of the Book of Mormon has been located. Unfortunately, however, there seems to be concern that it is a forgery. It is apparently not the original document, only a handwritten copy. Furthermore, it is supposed to bear some evidence of being written after the Book of Mormon was printed. It is reported that it resembles (at least to some extent) the Book of Mormon story as we have it today but also contains information on money-digging—a practice Joseph Smith was involved in just before he wrote the Book of Mormon (see Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? pages 32-49D).

We cannot, of course, make any real judgment as to the authenticity of the manuscript until we have a chance to examine it. At the present time we are trying to track down the exact location of the document. If any of our readers have any information about the matter we would certainly appreciate it if they would contact us. We hope to print more on this matter in the future.

A Tight Spot

The theft of the 116 pages placed Joseph Smith in a very embarrassing position. Arthur Budvarson observed:

This “Preface” of the 1830 Edition (omitted in later editions) explains how, “one hundred and sixteen pages” of the original translation were stolen by “designing persons.”

This afforded a remarkable opportunity for Joseph Smith to have proven to the world that the work was true. All he needed to do was to reproduce an exact copy of the stolen pages, then perhaps even the thieves would have been converted! (The stolen pages were written in longhand and any alterations could have been easily detected.)

But Joseph had failed to make a copy of his writings, so it was not possible for him to make an exact duplicate. In order to get around this, he says that God commanded him that he “should not translate the same over again . . .”

This one incident alone (the above “Preface” by the “Author”) furnishes positive proof that the Book of Mormon is not a God-given, angel-protected book! (The Book of Mormon Examined, La Mesa, California, 1959, pages 13-14)

The Mormon writer Sidney B. Sperry attempted to reply to Mr. Budvarson’s charges:

Now, there might be some logic to Mr. Budvarson’s allegations if Joseph Smith had translated the Book of Mormon in the mechanical fashion suggested by David Whitmer and dealt with in our previous chapter. But Joseph Smith did not simply read off a word-for-word translation dictated by a divine source. If the translation had been effected in that manner, he doubtless could have reproduced an “exact copy of the stolen pages” for the thieves who had purloined the manuscript. Since he did not make a mechanical translation, he was in the position of any translator who would find it impossible to reproduce exactly his original translation, amounting to one hundred and sixteen pages in longhand. Another translation could reproduce the sense of the original but would not duplicate it word for word. The Lord knew this, and therefore instructed the prophet to translate other plates that gave a somewhat parallel but more spiritual account than that contained in the hundred and sixteen pages of stolen material. Thus we see again how Mr. Budvarson’s case breaks down . . . he is making woefully extravagant claims. He is whistling in the dark in the dark cemetery of his alleged “proofs.” (The Problems of the Book of Mormon, page 196)

From Dr. Sperry’s statement it would appear that he missed the whole point of Joseph Smith’s “Preface” to the first edition of the Book of Mormon. The “Preface” indicates that Joseph Smith could “bring forth the same words again,” but that if he did his enemies would alter the words in the stolen manuscript so that they would “read contrary from that which I translated . . .”

Although the “Preface” concerning the lost “Book of Lehi” has been deleted, the Doctrine and Covenants still contains a revelation which plainly shows that Dr. Sperry was wrong concerning this matter:

Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings . . . into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them.

And you also lost your gift at the same time, and your mind became darkened. . . .

And, behold, Satan hath put it into their hearts to alter the words which you have caused to be written, or which you have translated, which have gone out of your hands. . . .

Behold, I say unto you, that you shall not translate again those words which have gone forth out of your hands;

For, behold, they shall not accomplish their evil designs in lying against those words. For, behold, if you should bring forth the same words they will say that you have lied and that you have pretended to translate, but that you have contradicted yourself.

And, behold, they will publish this, and Satan will harden the hearts of the people to stir them up to anger against you, that they will not believe my words. (Doctrine and Covenants 10:1, 2, 10, 30-32)

The revelation published in the Doctrine and Covenants and the “Preface” found in the first edition of the Book of Mormon both seem to teach exactly the opposite of what Dr. Sperry would have us believe.

M. T. Lamb devotes a great deal of space to this matter in The Golden Bible, pages 118-126. We do not have room to quote all of this material, but on page 119 this interesting comment appears:

The general belief was that she [Mrs. Harris] burned it. But the prophet Joseph evidently was afraid she had not, but had secretly hid it, for the purpose of entrapping him, should he ever attempt to reproduce the pages. If the work was really of God, the manuscript could be reproduced word for word without a mistake. If, however, Joseph inspired it himself, his memory would hardly be adequate to such a task, without numberless changes or verbal differences—and thus “give himself away,” since he loudly professed to be all the time aided “by the gift and power of God.”

---

---