One of the biggest things to consider when delving into anti-Mormon material is: who were the authors, what were their motives, what was their intent, and were they being honest?
The Fallibility of Memory
One thing I’ve really noticed while compiling memories of my spiritual experiences is how hard it is to remember details over time. Was this part of my memory real or imaginary? Our first kiss—were we sitting in the car or standing by the edge of it? When Caleb had his first seizure, I remember it being in the Kia minivan, but did we have the minivan then, or was it actually the Malibu? Did you make Chinese Chicken salad our first day in Lubbock, or was it Taco Salad?
Our current life experiences, beliefs, and attitudes also impact how we remember past feelings and experiences. The reality is that details become foggy over time, and the more time that passes, the foggier they become.
Doctor Philastrus Hurlbut
The works of the early anti-Mormons became the foundation for future anti-Mormon teachings. The first was Doctor Philastrus Hurlbut.
With the name Doctor, one would assume that his works and the testimonies he gathered in the first anti-mormon book would be pretty credible, but Doctor is his given name, not a title earned through achievement or education.
In the early 1830’s Doctor Hurlbut was a member of the church in Kirtland who was excommunicated on his mission for committing adultery.
Let’s stop right there and question the integrity of someone who committed adultery, let alone as a missionary who was there to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. Is this someone with integrity? Is this someone who has the Spirit with them that we can count on to be truthful and honest?
After he returned from his mission, he pled to Joseph Smith that he was repentant and sincere. Joseph Smith, in his compassion and belief in the goodness of mankind and in the universal power of the Atonement, allowed Doctor Hurlbut to be baptized again.
After being re-fellowshipped, the not so good Doctor almost immediately was excommunicated again for attempting adultery.
Should Joseph Smith, as a prophet, have known that Hurlbut was not sincere? Should he have known that he would again break that covenant? Or was Joseph Smith also just a man—a man trying to do good, but who was not God and did not have all knowledge?
And perhaps for a time Hurlbut was sincere and repentant, but he still had agency. He still had the freedom to choose good or evil, to be faithful to his covenant or not—and instead made the choice of sin.
Doctor Hurlbut Seeks Revenge
After being excommunicated again, because of his embarrassment and shame, he became bitter against the Church and Joseph Smith and sought to “Destroy Mormonism”. He vowed to wash Joseph’s blood with his own hands.
Pause again.
Is someone desirous to murder another person the type of person we can trust with “true history”—the history “not told by the victor”? Are his motives pure? Is he seeking light and truth, or is his primary motive hatred and revenge?
Well Hurlbut was paid by another anti-Mormon, Eber Howe, to travel around and get testimonies of those who opposed Joseph Smith and could harm his reputation.
Think about that one for a second, would getting paid to get testimonies possibly present a conflict of interest for seeking true history? And if anyone did say positive things about Joseph Smith and his family, do you think that Howe/Hurlbut would publish those statements?
Among the people he interviewed for Mormonism Unvailed many had disputes with the Smiths based on land, money, personal grudges and religious biases.
The Spaulding Manuscript Theory
Doctor Hurlbut went on to do all he could to destroy the Church with these testimonies. And what better way to make Mormonism collapse than to remove the keystone— The Book of Mormon.
Somewhere along the line, Hurlbut heard of an unpublished book written by Solomon Spaulding, a former preacher (religious credibility) who, around 1810, had written a manuscript about the origin of the Native Americans. That manuscript was lost and never published—but, if published, might have been a wildly popular read and a great success!
This was Hurlbut’s ticket to bring doubt to the Saints—to make believers and those investigating the Church assume that Joseph Smith couldn’t be a true prophet, because the Book of Mormon, the keystone of our religion, was actually plagiarized material from Spaulding. A flawless plan to bring doubt and fulfill his vow to take down the Church.
So he did exactly that. He gathered affidavits from those familiar with the lost Solomon Spaulding manuscript, to testify that the Book of Mormon was a plagiarism of “Manuscript Found.” He talked to family members and business partners of Solomon Spaulding and got written testimonies from them.
Here are a few of their affidavits:
The book was entitled Manuscript Found, of which he read to me many passages. It was a historical romance of the first settlers of America, endeavoring to show that the American Indians are descendants of the Jews or the lost tribes. It gave a detailed account of their journey from Jerusalem by the land of the sea till they arrived in America under the command of Nephi and Lehi.
They afterwards separated into two separate nations the Nephites and the 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. There are scientists 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 surprise, I find nearly the same historical matter, names, etcetera, as were in my brother’s writings.
I well remember that he wrote in an old style he commenced every sentence with and it came to pass, the same as in the Book of Mormon. According to my best recollection and belief, it is the same as my brother, Solomon wrote.
By what means it fell into the hands of Joseph Smith, I am unable to determine.
John Spaulding (Brother of Solomon)
That must be a credible source—a brother of the author who read the manuscript many times. But, this testimony was gathered decades after John read his brother’s book.
Let’s check out another.
I was personally acquainted with Solomon Spaulding, I was at his house a short time before he left Cunnyotts. He was then writing a historical novel founded upon the first settlers of America. He presented them as an enlightened and warlike people. He had for many years contended that the Aborigines of America were 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 has prevented my reckoning, but few of the incidents of his writings. But the names of Nephi and Lehi are fresh in my memory. And being the principal heroes of his tale, they were officers of the company which first came from Jerusalem. He gave a particular account of their journey by land and sea, till they arrived in America, after which disputes arose among the chiefs, which caused them to separate into different lands, one of which was called Lamanites, the other called Nephites.
Between these he 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 county.
I have read the Book of Mormon, which has brought fresh to my recollection the writings of Solomon Spaulding, and I have no manner of doubt that the historical part of it is the same that I read and heard more than 20 years ago. The old obsolete style and phrases of and it came to pass are the same.
Martha Spaulding (Sister-in-law of Solomon)
Okay, when I read these back-to-back, it’s pretty clear that one of them wrote what Hurlbut “reminded them,” and then the other basically copied what the first one said—info about the two groups, Lamanites, Nephites, separated, their remains forming the mounds on this continent…
It reminds me of when I was the TA for a film art class in college and I graded an essay that was probably the worst in the entire class. Then the next paper in the stack was almost word-for-word the same bad, inaccurate writing. If you’re going to cheat, at least be smart about it, right?
Anyway, Hurlbut gathered plenty of other testimonies. How about sources from people who weren’t just in his family?
I first became acquainted with Solomon Spalding in 1808 or 1809 when he commenced building a forge on the Creek. When at his house one day, he showed and read to me a history that he was riding of lost tribes of Israel, purporting that they were the first settlers of America, and that the Indiands where there descendants.
Upon this subject we had frequent converstations. He traced their journey from Jerusalem to America as it is given in the Book of Mormon, accepting the religions matters. The historical part of the Book of Mormon I know to be the same as I read and heard from the writings of Spaulding more than 20 years ago.
The names, more especially, are the same without any alteration.
He told me his object was to account for all the fortifications to be found in this country, and said that in time it would be fully believed by all except learned men and historians.
I once anticipated reading his writings in print, but little expected to see them in a new Bible. Spaulding had many manuscripts which I expect to see when Smith translates his other plates.
In conclusion, I will observe that the names of and most of the historical part of the Book of Mormon were as familiar to me before I read it as most modern history. If it is not Spaulding’s writing, it is the same as he wrote.
Aaron Wright
The Exposure of the Fraud
These are just three of dozens of very similar testimonies used by Hurlbut to “prove” the true history of the Book of Mormon. Hurlbut used his status as a “former insider” and Elder in the church to make it a persuasive story and himself credible.
For decades these first hand testimonies found in Mormonism Unvailed were cited as proof that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized and that Solomon Spaulding was the true author.
Then, fifty years later in 1884, the actual Spaulding manuscript was discovered by researchers from Oberlin College. The fictional novel did talk about finding an ancient record that Spaulding translated into English, but instead of being descendants of Israel, they were Roman soldiers blown off course. It didn’t mention Lehi or Nephi and never used the phrase “and it came to pass” despite what all of the affidavit testimonies claimed.
The president of Oberlin College, James Fairchild, who was not a Latter-day Saint, stated:
Mr. Rice, myself and others compared it with the Book of Mormon and could detect no resemblance between the two in general or in detail.
Lessons from History
Were the testimonies that Hurlbut got from the friends and relatives of Solomon Spaulding historic? Yes. He got written affidavits from them—records showing that they believed the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from their old friend. But when the actual manuscript was found, it proved that none of their testimonies were true.
The narrative of Solomon Spaulding being the source of the Book of Mormon was never true. Yet, for Hurlbut and Eber Howe, that didn’t matter. All that mattered was having a strong argument to challenge faith and cause doubt.
The entire foundation of the anti-Mormon movement for half a century was debunked, but it didn’t stop them—they simply moved on to new ways to attack Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.
The Importance of Motive and Light
Even though actual historical documents disproved the Spaulding theory, anti-Mormons still cite “historic testimonies” from Mormonism Unvailed. On my mission, a former member once told me he knew the true origin of the Book of Mormon, referencing Solomon Spaulding. When I first heard that, my faith was shaken a little, until I learned the facts.
Should we trust the “history” of sources like these—people who lost the light, are filled with hatred and revenge, and whose intent is to destroy and bring others down?
When it comes to what is reported as history, motive matters. In things of God, light matters, truth matters. Were the motives to do good, or not?
Which Testimony Do We Trust?
When it comes to historical records, is it more credible to believe the timely journal of Oliver Cowdery—who penned most of the Book of Mormon, witnessed the angel Moroni, later left but returned because he knew the Book of Mormon was true and translated by the power of God?
Or should we trust Doctor Philastrus Hurlbut—who claimed to know the “real origins” of the Book of Mormon because he was an “Elder” and “insider” in the Church—and the testimonies of Solomon Spaulding’s friends and family, persuaded by Hurlbut to share their recollections decades later?
The Long Shadow of Mormonism Unvailed
Despite the fact that so many of the claims in Mormonism Unvailed were later shown to be exaggerated, unreliable, or outright fabricated, that book—and the affidavits Hurlbut collected—still sit at the foundation of modern Anti-Mormon arguments.
You can see it clearly in the CES Letter and the Letter For My Wife. The same themes, the same accusations, and in some cases the same lines of attack are simply repeated with new packaging. The character assaults on Joseph, the recycled neighbor affidavits, the Anthon transcript claim, and the early attempts to explain away the Book of Mormon through outside authorship theories all trace straight back to Mormonism Unvailed. Strip away the updated formatting and the modern vocabulary, and it’s the same material being reused almost 200 years later.
What Makes a Good Historical Record?
When you actually look at how real history is supposed to be done, it becomes obvious pretty fast that not all “sources” are worth the same. A trained historian—someone with a PhD who spends their life digging through archives—doesn’t just grab whatever story happens to support the conclusion they already want. They follow clear standards, and those standards exist for a reason. Without them, you’re not doing history… you’re just building an argument.
Firsthand vs. Secondhand Sources
The strongest form of evidence is a firsthand source—somebody who was actually present when the event happened. They saw it, heard it, or directly participated in it. Historians start with these because there’s no middleman distorting the story.
A secondhand source is someone repeating what they heard someone else say. And then you get thirdhand, fourthhand, and so on. Every step you move away from the actual event makes the story weaker and less reliable. This is basic historical methodology, but it’s exactly where the Hurlbut affidavits collapse. So many of them are nothing more than neighborhood gossip written down years after the fact by people who weren’t even there.
Timeliness Matters
Another thing historians look at is when the record was created. Was it written right after the event, or ten years later after stories have shifted and people have added their own interpretations? Human memory is not a perfect recording—it’s closer to a rough sketch that fades and reshapes over time.
Hurlbut didn’t care about any of that. He gathered testimonies long after Joseph’s youth, from people who already disliked the Smiths. That isn’t historical preservation. That’s people retelling old frustrations and community stories that had been circulating for years.
Motive and Intent
This is probably the biggest factor of all. A good historian always asks: Why is this person saying this? What is their motive? What are they trying to achieve?
If someone approaches an investigation with the stated goal of destroying a religion, smearing its founder, and proving fraud at all costs, then what they are producing is not history. It’s confirmation bias. They’re not exploring—they’re hunting. They gather anything that fits the narrative they already decided on, and they conveniently ignore anything that doesn’t.
That’s exactly what Hurlbut did. He went from house to house telling people he was collecting evidence to bring Mormonism down. Surprise, surprise—he walked away with affidavits that perfectly matched the agenda he advertised.
Can You Trust a Record Built on Harmful Intent?
This is where the spiritual layer comes in. A historian will already tell you these sources are compromised. But spiritually, it goes deeper. When someone is acting out of anger, revenge, or a desire to destroy, they are not operating with truth in mind. They don’t have the Spirit guiding them. Their motive already shapes the outcome.
And really, can a person who openly wants to destroy the Church, ruin reputations, and stir up hostility be trusted as a reliable recorder of anything? That’s not how truth works. That’s how campaigns work.
This is why it’s almost ironic that the CES Letter, the Letter For My Wife, and other modern criticisms still rely on the same stories, the same affidavits, and the same claims Hurlbut collected under those conditions. They treat those affidavits as if they were neutral “historical records,” when the reality is that they were never history in the first place—they were ammunition.
Continue reading at the original source →