The Story of Mormonism and The Philosophy of Mormonism | Page 5

death, one Hurlburt, an apostate "Mormon," announced that he
had recognized a resemblance between the "Manuscript Story" and the
Book of Mormon, and expressed a belief that the work brought forward
by Joseph Smith was nothing but the Spaulding romance revised and
amplified. The apparent credibility of the statement was increased by
various signed declarations to the effect that the two were alike, though
no extracts for comparison were presented. But the "Manuscript Story"
was lost for a time, and in the absence of proof to the contrary, reports
of the parallelism between the two works multiplied. By a fortunate
circumstance, in 1884, President James H. Fairchild, of Oberlin
College, and a literary friend of his--a Mr. Rice--while examining a
heterogeneous collection of old papers which had been purchased by
the gentleman last named, found the original manuscript of the "Story."
After a careful perusal and comparison with the Book of Mormon,
President Fairchild declared in an article published in the New York
_Observer_, February 5, 1885:
The theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon in the traditional
manuscript of Solomon Spaulding will probably have to be

relinquished. * * * Mr. Rice, myself, and others compared it [the
Spaulding manuscript] with the Book of Mormon and could detect no
resemblance between the two, in general or in detail. There seems to be
no name nor incident common to the two. The solemn style of the Book
of Mormon in imitation of the English scriptures does not appear in the
manuscript. * * * Some other explanation of the origin of the Book of
Mormon must be found if any explanation is required.
The manuscript was deposited in the library of Oberlin College where
it now reposes. Still, the theory of the "Manuscript Found," as
Spaulding's story has come to be known, is occasionally pressed into
service in the cause of anti-"Mormon" zeal, by some whom we will
charitably believe to be ignorant of the facts set forth by President
Fairchild. A letter of more recent date, written by that honorable
gentleman in reply to an inquiring correspondent, was published in the
_Millennial Star_, Liverpool, November 3, 1898, and is as follows:
OBERLIN COLLEGE, OHIO, October 17, 1895.
J. R. HINDLEY, ESQ.,
Dear Sir: We have in our college library an original manuscript of
Solomon Spaulding--unquestionably genuine.
I found it in 1884 in the hands of Hon. L. L. Rice, of Honolulu,
Hawaiian Islands. He was formerly state printer at Columbus, Ohio,
and before that, publisher of a paper in Painesville, whose preceding
publisher had visited Mrs. Spaulding and obtained the manuscript from
her. It had lain among his old papers forty years or more, and was
brought out by my asking him to look up anti-slavery documents
among his papers.
The manuscript has upon it the signatures of several men of
Conneaught, Ohio, who had heard Spaulding read it and knew it to be
his. No one can see it and question its genuineness. The manuscript has
been printed twice, at least;--once by the Mormons of Salt Lake City,
and once by the Josephite Mormons of Iowa. The Utah Mormons
obtained the copy of Mr. Rice, at Honolulu, and the Josephites got it of

me after it came into my possession.
This manuscript is not the original of the Book of Mormon.
Yours very truly, JAMES H. FAIRCHILD.
The "Manuscript Story" has been published in full, and comparisons
between the same and the Book of Mormon may be made by anyone
who has a mind to investigate the subject.[1]
[Footnote 1: For a fuller account of the Book of Mormon, see the
author's "Articles of Faith," Lectures 14 and 15; published at Salt Lake
City, Utah, 1913.]


CHAPTER II
But we have anticipated the current of events. With the publication of
the Book of Mormon, opposition grew more intense toward the people
who professed a belief in the testimony of Joseph Smith. On the 6th of
April, 1830, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was
formally organized and thus took on a legal existence. The scene of this
organization was Fayette, New York, and but six persons were directly
concerned as participants. At that time there may have been and
probably were many times that number who had professed adherence to
the newly restored faith; but as the requirements of the law governing
the formation of religious societies were satisfied by the application of
six, only the specified number formally took part. Such was the
beginning of the Church, soon to be so universally maligned. Its origin
was small--a germ, an insignificant seed, hardly to be thought of as
likely to arouse opposition. What was there to fear in the voluntary
association of six men, avowedly devoted to peaceful pursuits and
benevolent purposes? Yet a