The first justification is the fact of the high standing of the magazine in which his articles appeared. Published in a periodical of such rank, if unchallenged, they might lead many to believe undeniable the theory there advanced for the origin of the Book of Mormon, and the argument by which said theory is sustained, unanswerable. It has been from just such circumstances as these with reference to articles that appeared in standard works, in histories and encyclopedias, that Mormonism suffered so much defamation in the earlier year of its existence. It now stands recorded in the earlier editions of the American Cyclopedia and in the Encyclopedia Britannica that David Whitmer denied his testimony as one of the witnesses to the divinity of the Book of Mormon; and that his two associate witnesses, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, had denied their testimony to that book. Being misinformed from these high sources of information, doubtless tens of thousands have been impressed with those untrue statements. David Whitmer never denied his testimony. In a brochure issued by himself, in 1887, and referring directly to these false statements, he said:
"It is recorded in the American Cyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica, that I, David Whitmer, have denied my testimony as one of the three witnesses to the divinity of the Book of Mormon; and that the other two witnesses, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, denied their testimony to that Book. I will say once more to all mankind, that I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof. I also testify to the world, that neither Oliver Cowdery nor Martin Harris ever at any time denied their testimony. They both died reaffirming the truth of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon."[4]
[Footnote 4: "Address to all Believers in Christ," p. 8. The high character and reputation for truthfulness of David Whitmer is attested in this brochure by all the leading officials and citizens of Richmond, Mo., (not Mormons) where he lived for fifty years, pp. 8-10.]
People, however, can still quote the above named standard works to prove that these men denied their testimony and were false witnesses. It is to prevent as far as possible the creation of such conditions respecting Mr. Schroeder's articles in the American Historical Magazine that I think it important that they should be answered.
The second thing that justifies an answer to Mr. Schroeder, is the form in which his treatment of the subject is cast. Much in the form would lead one to believe, at first glance, that here we had a really exhaustive treatise of the origin of the Book of Mormon; that every item of obtainable information had been collected, the mass of facts sifted and net results given, instead of a specious plea made for a special theory. This is evidenced in the constant appeal to sources of information in the notes appended to the articles, of which notes there are one hundred and ninety-six. Then there is an occasional halting in the movement of the argument, as if to weigh the evidence, to balance one statement against another as if to get down to bed-rock facts, instead of a mere effort to remove some obstruction in the way of the special theory being worked out. All of which is but so much juggling with forms of treatment,—an effort to win the reader with the shows of honest argument, to betray him in deeper consequences. Shimmering under all these forms may be seen the arts of the special pleader bent on making out a case. It is the false appearance of exhaustive and fair treatment of the subject that makes it desirable to answer Mr. Schroeder.
The third justification for answering Mr. Schroeder's articles arises out of a suggestion of the gentleman himself, near the close of his article, namely, that the actors who participated in the origin of the Book of Mormon are all dead, and that "upon the precise question here discussed, no new evidence is likely to be discovered. All the evidence directly affecting either side of the question has been introduced and reviewed." One may pardon the conscious or unconscious self-complacency contained in this suggestion, and even encourage it by saying to the gentleman that we think he is right; that after him there will come no other who will so diligently search for evidence "on the precise question here discussed." For who but himself will ever dare to venture to walk by such light as that by which his foot-steps have been guided?[5] But with reference to "all the evidence directly affecting either side of the question" having been "introduced and reviewed," I must hold a different opinion. Believing, however, that Mr. Schroeder has collected, presented and, with as much art as it will be found possible to enlist in such a cause, sustained his special view of the Spaulding theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon, one can but feel that having reached the climax of evidence and argument the case should be considered by those holding an opposite belief.
[Footnote 5: Mr. Schroeder while living in Utah some years ago was proprietor, editor and publisher of Lucifer's Lantern, a ribald infidel periodical as would be inferred from the title as well as from its contents. It is this to which allusion is made in the text.]
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS.
One other preliminary word should be said before coming directly to Mr. Schroeder's theory and argument, and that in relation to the authorities on which the gentleman relies for the support of his views. Of course I am not unacquainted with the old controversy concerning the degree of credibility to be allowed to interested witnesses, and also the suspicion that attaches to witnesses for the miraculous. I have too long sustained in public debate an unpopular cause not to have heard the cry that the witnesses for the truth for which I contended were "interested witnesses;" notwithstanding those who were my opponents, at the same time accepted Christianity on the testimony of "interested witnesses," and discarded entirely the testimony of unfriendly witnesses, or "interested witnesses" on the opposite side of the case. I trust that the suggestion in this paragraph will indicate the unfairness of discrediting and discarding entirely the testimony of the witnesses for Joseph Smith's account of the origin of the Book of Mormon, on the ground that they are "interested witnesses," and taking for truth the statements of the "interested witnesses" on the other side of the controversy.
I have some acquaintance also with that school of thought which discredits witnesses of the miraculous. I am familiar with the laborious exposition of that theory by the late Professor Huxley in his article on "The Value of Witnesses to the Miraculous;"[6] and also with his controversy on the same subject with Dr. Henry Wace, prebendary of St. Paul's Cathedral, and other Church of England ministers.[7] One could scarcely live in this critical age of ours and be unaware of the existence of the school of thought which undertakes to bar from the court of public debate the testimony of those who are witnesses of things held to "transcend human experience." Such testimony, it is said, suggests "credulity on the one hand and fraud on the other."[8]