Before we can fully understand modern criticisms of the Church, whether it is the CES Letter, the Letter For My Wife, or Instagram reels, we need to understand where these criticisms actually come from. Very few of these arguments are original. They have a clear origin, and once you understand it, the credibility of these modern claims becomes very weak.
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? I remember my first meal as a married couple was salad, but was it Chinese chicken salad 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 Original Anti-Mormon
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, but 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? Sure we all make mistakes, and that is what repentance is for, but one committing adultry when they should be at a spiritual pinnacle of their life. That’s character I have to question.
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 or really repentant? 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 chose the path of sin.
Doctor Hurlbut Seeks Revenge
After being excommunicated a second time, 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 someone 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— discredit 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 destroy 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 eight 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, the affidavits gathered in Mormonism Unvailed were treated as solid evidence that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from Solomon Spaulding’s manuscript. Newspapers across Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, and Boston repeated these claims as if they were established fact. The Spaulding story spread rapidly because it appeared everywhere—local papers, religious publications, and regional journals—creating a long paper trail that critics could point to as “historical proof,” even though all of those articles ultimately traced back to the same small cluster of affidavits collected by Hurlbut.
Then, fifty years later in 1884, the actual Spaulding manuscript was discovered by researchers at 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 (the university librarian), 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 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. Later anti-mormons continued using Hurlbut’s affidavats.
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.
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? Was the history actually true?
Which Testimony Do We Trust?
When it comes to historical records, is it more credible to believe the timely testimony 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. Knowing that many of the testimonies Hurlbut collected were false, should we trust the other testimonies he collected about the character of Joseph Smith, Martin Harris and the other church leaders?
The Lasting Influence 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.
Other Hurlbut Affidavits
Other early anti-Mormon claims originate from the same small group of neighbors. According to Hugh Nibley in his work Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass, nearly all mormon critics—Tucker, Kennedy, Linn, Stenhouse, Ann Eliza Young, and Dickinson relied on this narrow set of affidavits.
The Famous “Make Money Out of It” Quote
The most circulated of the Hurlbut testimonies is the one used by Abigail Harris to supposedly prove that Joseph’s motive was money.
Abigail Harris was Martin’s sister-in-law. The only thing we know about her in the historical record is that Doctor Philastrus Hurlbut approached her and she gave this testimony:
“In the second month following, Martin Harris and his wife were at my house. In conversation about Mormonites, she observed, that she wished her husband would quit them, as she believed it was all false and delusion. To which I heard Mr. Harris reply: ‘What if it is a lie; if you will let me alone I will make money out of it!’ I was both an eye and an ear witness of what has been stated above, which is now fresh in my memory, and I give it to the world for the good of mankind. I speak the truth and lie not, God bearing me witness.”
So yes, we have a written statement where Abigail Harris claims that years earlier she heard Martin say he would “make money out of it.”
But knowing how many of Hurlbut’s affidavits turned out to be exaggerated or simply untrue, it becomes completely reasonable to ask whether Hurlbut steered Abigail toward that claim. It is possible that the statement about money was prompted, misunderstood, or never said at all.
It is also possible that Martin’s comment, if he said anything like it, had nothing to do with greed or fraud. Martin had mortgaged a large part of his farm to pay three thousand dollars to publish the Book of Mormon. He was mocked constantly for it. His wife Lucy resented him for it. Everyone around him believed he had thrown away his future. So if Martin had said something about “making money,” it may have simply meant that he believed the books would sell and that he would recover what he invested. That would make far more sense than the idea that he planned to get rich, especially considering what we know happened afterward.
What Martin Actually Lost
Martin did not make money off the Book of Mormon. He did not profit. He did not receive a return. Instead, he lost 151 acres of his farm to pay the remaining balance of the printing bill. If Martin’s motive had been money, then his experience would have produced the exact opposite outcome. If he had been deceived by Joseph, or if he believed Joseph had used him, the natural reaction in any failed investment is bitterness, anger, and revenge. I have been a part of several business deals that went bad, and the party who feels financially burned rarely stays quiet.
But Martin Harris didn’t get bitter about his sacrifice to pay for the publishing of the Book of Mormon. He never denied his witness of the gold plates. He never exposed a “fraud.” He sacrificed financially, he sacrificed his time, he sacrificed his marriage, and he testified that the Book of Mormon was true until the day he died in Clarkston, Utah.
So is this single quote from a proven unreliable collector, from a woman who sided with Lucy Harris during a time of family tension, really evidence that money was Martin’s and Joseph’s motive? Is this proof when we look at the full historical record and see Martin voluntarily sacrificing almost everything he owned to bring the Book of Mormon to light?
Modern Criticisms Still Pull From the Same Source
Anti-Mormon books and articles have simply repackaged the same early material for generations. They create the impression of a large evidentiary base, even though no new firsthand sources were ever added. The same small set of affidavits has been repeated across decades. Details were embellished, motives were invented, and dialogue was added that never existed in the originals. Over time, the repetition created a sense of authority, even though the foundation was always the same small cluster of statements gathered by Hurlbut under openly hostile motives.
In the CES Letter and the Letter For My Wife many of the same themes, the same accusations, and in some cases the same lines of attack are 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 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.
| Topic / Argument | Mormonism Unvailed (1834) | CES Letter (2014) |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Joseph Smith as a treasure-digger / folk magic user | Affidavits describe Joseph using a seer stone, treasure digging, and “deceiving” neighbors with magical claims. He is depicted as a money-digging impostor. | Emphasizes Joseph’s treasure digging, seer stone translation, and folk magic background to argue he was not a true prophet, often quoting from the same early neighbors. |
| 2. Martin Harris portrayed as gullible and unstable money seeker | Abigail Harris and others describe Martin as superstitious and motivated by money. One key claim is that he said he would “make money out of it even if it is a lie.” | Uses these same early statements to label Harris as gullible, unstable, and unreliable as a witness, highlighting his belief in magic, second sight, and supernatural signs. |
| 3. The Anthon transcript rejection | Includes Charles Anthon’s letter stating the characters were fabricated and that he warned Harris he was being deceived by a scheme. | Repeats the same Anthon letter to argue that Joseph fabricated the “Caractors” and invented the story that Anthon had authenticated them. |
| 4. Book of Mormon plagiarism / outside authorship theory | Promotes the Spaulding theory: the Book of Mormon is said to borrow from Spaulding’s lost romance, with similar names, plots, and ancient America themes. | Promotes updated secular authorship theories: parallels to View of the Hebrews, KJV Bible language, and other 19th-century sources. Different suggested sources, same basic claim that Joseph did not honestly translate an ancient record. |
| 5. Attacks on the Witnesses’ credibility | Hurlbut’s affidavits portray the Smiths, Cowdery, Harris, and others as dishonest, delusional, or financially motivated. Neighbor statements are used to undermine their testimonies. | Uses many of the same affidavits to argue that the Witnesses were unreliable, prone to vision or “spiritual eyes” experiences, and therefore not trustworthy as witnesses. |
| 6. Book of Mormon not ancient | Argues that the Book of Mormon reflects 19th-century ideas, borrows from the Bible, and contains historical and cultural anachronisms, suggesting it is a patchwork from known sources. | Uses modern versions of this same argument: points to KJV errors, anachronisms (horses, steel, wheat, etc.), and claims the book reflects 1800s American frontier culture rather than an ancient American setting. |
| 7. Joseph’s revelations as self-serving | Portrays early revelations as crafted by Joseph to enrich himself, secure property, command loyalty, and control his followers. | Argues that Joseph produced revelations to justify polygamy, consolidate authority, obtain money and land, or excuse personal behavior. |
| 8. Miracles and gifts of the Spirit dismissed as hysteria | Describes Kirtland visions, tongues, trances, and other spiritual phenomena as fanaticism, delusion, or outright deception. | Uses the same historical episodes to claim that early Church spiritual manifestations were psychological, manipulative, or the product of group hysteria rather than genuine spiritual gifts. |
| 9. The Smith family portrayed as unreliable | Neighbors describe the Smiths as lazy, superstitious, treasure-diggers, and untrustworthy, with a poor reputation in the community. | Relies on the same neighbor narratives to argue that Joseph’s family background undermines his prophetic claims and credibility. |
| 10. The Book of Mormon characters ridiculed | Claims the characters shown to Anthon were copied from books containing various alphabets and cobbled together, mocking them as meaningless symbols. | Repeats the idea that the characters were clearly fabricated and that Joseph simply invented them from different sources, undermining any claim of authentic ancient writing. |
| 11. Testimony of witnesses contradicted by behavior | Affidavits point to quarrels, personality flaws, and instability among early figures and use these to dismiss their religious testimonies. | Argues that because some witnesses later left the Church, disagreed with Joseph, or had personal issues, their testimony about the plates and angels cannot be trusted. |
| 12. No ancient evidence for Nephites/Lamanites | Asserts there is no archaeological or historical support for Book of Mormon civilizations, using the lack of accepted evidence as proof against the book. | Uses updated language (DNA studies, archaeology, and academic consensus) to make essentially the same point: there is “no evidence” for Nephites or Lamanites in the way believers describe them. |
What Makes a Good Historical Record?
When you actually look at how real history is supposed to be told, it becomes obvious pretty fast that not all sources have the same worth. A trained historian, someone with a PhD who spends their life digging through archives, does not just grab whatever story happens to support the conclusion they already want. They follow clear standards, and those standards exist for a reason. Without those standards, you are building an argument, not telling history.
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 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.
After Hurlbut, ex-mormons like John C. Bennett, Fawn Brodie, and the Palmers also had massive impacts on the anti-mormon narrative of “Mormon History” and causing doubt among believers.