MUTILATION OF THE HAVEN-DAVIDSON INTERVIEW.
At this point I take note of what Mr. Schroeder says in relation to an omission of a question and answer in the Haven-Davidson interview in Elder George Reynolds' "Myth of the Manuscript Found;" and also of what Mr. Schroeder characterizes as "John Taylor's lying perversion of this alleged interview as reported in his 'Three Nights Public Discussion.'" The question and answer referred to are held, in effect, to re-instate the Davidson document as evidence, after denying it to be Mrs. Davidson's statement, or that she signed it. The question and answer are as follows: "Ques. Is what is written in the letter true? Ans. In the main it is." This is omitted in Elder Reynolds' "Myth of the Manuscript Found" (1883); and copying the Haven interview from his work into my own treatise of the Book of Mormon in the "Young Men's Manual" for 1905-6, the same omission, of course, is made; but of which omission this writer was ignorant until Mr. Schroeder's article called attention to it. Why the omission occurs in Mr. Reynolds' book, I do not know; and although Mr. Reynolds is still alive, his health is so shattered at this time it would be as useless as it is impossible to question him upon the subject.[82]
[Footnote 82: This in November, 1908. Mr. Reynolds died in August, 1909.]
Certainly there was no occasion for purposely making the omission since the Book of Mormon is equally defensible with the Davidson statement in the record as evidence, or excluded. And as evidence that the omission was not intentional, on the part of Mormon writers, attention is called to the fact that in the Times and Seasons copy of the article from the Quincy Whig, (1840) both the above question and answer are published, (Vol. I, 47). It is also published accurately in "Thompson's Evidence of the Book of Mormon," (1841); also in "The Origin of the Spaulding Story," by B. Winchester (1840) p. 17. In Mr. Taylor's work—so severely criticised by Mr. Schroeder, the question and answer stand as follows: "Ques. Is what that letter contains true? Ans. There are some things that I told him." Mr. Schroeder calls this a "lying perversion."
If this were the only variation in the document, as quoted by Elder Taylor, there might be justifiable suspicion that the change was purposely made and was intended to lessen the force of the answer; but, as throughout the version of the Whig article published in the "Three Nights' Discussion"—held in France—there are quite a number of variations—and none of them contribute advantage to the pro-Mormon side of the controversy—there can be no other conclusion, than either that some inaccurate version of the Quincy, Whig article had fallen into the hands of President Taylor while in France, and he printed from that imperfect version; or, it may be, that the Quincy Whig article had been published in French, and Elder Taylor's published account of it in his "discussion" was a translation of the French version back into the English. While I am aware that this view is based on conjecture merely, yet if the Whig article as published in the Times and Seasons be compared with Elder Taylor's version in the "Three Night's Discussion," the difference that exists between the two versions would not be greater than in two versions so produced. And the character of the variations warrant the conjecture. For example, take these passages:
Quincy Whig.
Ques. Have you read the Book of Mormon? Ans. I have read some of it.
Taylor's version.
Ques. Have you read the Book of Mormon? Ans. I have read a little of it.
Quincy Whig.
Ques. Is what is written in the letter true? Ans. In the main it is.
Taylor's version.
Ques. Is what that letter contains true? Ans. There are some things that I told him.
Quincy Whig.
Ques. Does the manuscript and the Book of Mormon agree? Ans. I think some of the names agree. Ques. Are you certain that some of the names agree? Ans. I am not.
Taylor's version.
Ques. Is there any similarity between Mr. Spaulding's manuscript and the Book of Mormon? Ans. Not any, with the exception of some names, something similar the one to the other.
And so the variations run from beginning to end. They are just such variations, too, as would exist if the Taylor version was produced as conjectured. I trust I may be pardoned for being insistent at this point. I was personally acquainted with the late President John Taylor, and am also his biographer. His letters, official and personal, as also his journals, passed through my hands; his most private life was laid open to me, and I know him to have been a highly honorable gentleman, far above such low subterfuge as that charged against him in the coarse vulgarisms employed by Mr. Schroeder, and which, from no standpoint whatever, are justifiable.[83]
[Footnote 83: See "The Life of John Taylor," by B.H. Roberts, (1892). Lest in some rejoinder to this reply Mr. Schroeder should return to this subject of the Taylor variations, in the Haven-Davidson interview, and should seek further to establish his point of view by referring to what is sometimes alleged to be Elder Taylor's denial of the existence of the plural marriage system of the Church when he was in France, (1850) I wish to say that in the above "Life of John Taylor" the alleged denial is dealt with at length, pp. 222-5.]