"But what will become of people who reject what you call the one only plan of salvation? Will they be doomed to eternal woe? Do you believe in everlasting punishment?"
"Everlasting punishment is God's punishment. That is to say, as God is eternal and His law is eternal, there is punishment eternally ready for the transgressor. But the justice and mercy of God are also eternal. Therefore as every man is to be judged according to his works (Rev. xx: 12), those who are worthy of many stripes will receive their measure of that eternal punishment, and those who are worthy only of a few stripes will receive but their portion. Some will be forgiven in this world through repentance and obedience, others in the next world, and some will have to pay the uttermost farthing. (Luke xii: 47-48; Matt, v: 26; I. Tim. v: 24; Matt, xii: 32; I. John v: 16.) They who sin against the Holy Ghost by denying it after having received it, who wilfully sin against light and truth and become fully possessed of the evil one so that they cannot repent, are 'sons of perdition' for whom there is no redemption. They are doomed with the devil and his angels forever. All the rest will be brought forth in the due time of the Lord in the ages to come and placed in some degree of happiness and glory."
"Do you believe then that there will be different degrees of glory in heaven?"
"I certainly do. Will not justice so determine? Is not every man to be judged according to his works? Would it be right for the good, the true, the just and the pure to reap no fruit from their tree of righteousness? Is not every soul better for the doing of that which is right, and the worse for the doing of that which is wrong, and will God be less fair and equitable than man? Have you not read what Paul says: 'There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars. For one star differeth from another star in glory; so also is the resurrection of the dead?' (I. Cor. xv: 41-42.) The glory of the sun, which is the celestial glory, is for those who receive the gospel, are baptized into Christ, remain faithful to the end, overcome all things, and therefore inherit all things, come forth in the first resurrection and are made kings and priests unto God and His Christ forever (Rev. xx: 4-6). They become like the Father and the Son, dwell in their presence and partake of their glory."
"What do you mean by that? How can man be like God? Is He not a spirit without form, immaterial and incomprehensible?"
"That is a dogma of spurious Christianity, mingled with vain philosophy. Jesus Christ was the express image of the Father. Man also is made in the image of the Father and the Son. Jesus Christ, after His resurrection, when he ascended to the Father, was in the same form and shape and appearance as when in mortality. Those who are in Christ are to be like him in every respect. (Heb. i: 3; I. John iii: 1-2; Phil, iii: 21.) God is a spirit; so also is man. (Job xxxii: 8.) But the Father is a person, just as the Son is, one being like the other in all respects. Jesus is a spirit, dwelling in a spiritual body; the Father is the same, but the Holy Spirit which proceeds from the Father and the Son permeates space and by it God is omnipresent. Our Father, the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is our Elder Brother, made us all after His own image and likeness (Gen. i: 27). It is strange that professing Christians who regard Jesus Christ as God and admit His personality, form and tangible shape, are horror-stricken when the Latter Day Saints declare that God the Father is a similar being, that statement being borne out by the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, though one in purpose, design and act, are separate and distinct personalities. The Son came from the Father, prayed to the Father, obeyed the Father, went back to the Father and sat at His right hand, and sent the Holy Spirit after He left the earth to be a Comforter to His disciples. Jesus prayed that all who believed on Him should become one, as He and the Father are one (John xvii: 20-21). This shows that the unity of the Godhead is not identity of person, as many believe, and it is clear to those who understand, that Our Heavenly Father is an individual, just as Christ is, and we shall all be when brought into their presence. We worship the Father, in the name of the Son, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, and expect to fully comprehend them all in the future and perfect state. This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent' (John xvii: 3)."
"You have spoken of the atonement of Christ for the sins of mankind, and yet you insist upon baptism for the remission of sins. How do you reconcile these two doctrines?"
"There is nothing in them at variance with each other. The atonement of Christ was for two purposes. First, for original sin, that is, the sin committed by our first parents in the garden of Eden; and second, for actual sins, that is, those committed by mankind individually. Atonement for the first is unconditional, for the second it is conditional. The posterity of Adam had nothing to do with the atonement for that sin. Its consequence was death, not only to Adam, but to all his descendants. The atonement will bring life to every creature of Adam's race. 'For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.' (I. Cor. xv: 22.) 'The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit (verse 45). Jesus said, 'Marvel not at this, for the hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice and shall come forth. They that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation' (John v: 28-29). This shows that although every one who died through Adam's fall will be raised from the dead through Christ's atonement, 'some will be raised to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt' (Daniel xii: 2). This is because the atonement for actual sins committed by mankind was made conditionally, that is, conditioned on their reception of Jesus Christ as their Savior, manifested by obedience to His Gospel. The righteous and the wicked will all be raised from the dead, but they will then all be judged according to their works. 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned' (Mark xvi: 16). Remission of sin comes through the atonement. 'Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin' Heb. ix: 22). But this remission is given in baptism preceded by repentance and faith. The first condition is faith in Christ, the second is repentance, the third is baptism. That baptism is for the remission of sins. (See Mark i: 4; Acts ii: 37-38; I. Pet. iii: 21.) That is why baptism is essential and why Jesus told Nicodemus: 'Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God' (John iii: 5). The baptized, repentant believer receives remission of sins, is a new creature and ready for the reception of the Holy Ghost or birth of the spirit. This, as I have explained to you, is conferred by the laying on of hands by men having divine authority. Thus you see remission of sins is through the atonement, but is given in baptism. And thus there is no discrepancy between the two doctrines."
"But how do you understand this scripture, and others to the same purport, 'God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life?' (John iii: 16.) Does not that show that belief in Christ is alone sufficient for salvation?"
"No, it does not, for verse 5 of the same chapter from which you quote makes birth of water and of the spirit essential. The key to this whole question is in the meaning of belief in Christ. Jesus said: 'He that believeth on Me, the works that I do shall he do also' (John xiv: 12). He also said: 'Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.' Also he said: 'Every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man which built his house upon the sand' (Matthew vii: 21-27). 'Faith without works is dead, and it is only by works that faith is made manifest' (James ii: 17-26). Belief in Christ comprehends belief in His doctrine, manifested by obedience to His gospel. Any other kind of faith is spurious, dead and of no effect. Peter proclaimed Christ's gospel, being full of the Holy Ghost, and he taught the people first to believe in Christ, and when they showed faith and asked what they should do, he answered: 'Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost' (Acts ii: 37-38). If Peter had been a modern minister, he would have said in answer to the question, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do?'—as may be heard from almost every pulpit nowadays, 'Poor sinners, you can do nothing; Christ has done it all. Only believe and you shall be saved and heaven is yours forever.' But Peter taught Christ's gospel, which is a gospel of good works, proceeding from living faith. When Christ sent him and the other apostles to proclaim that gospel he said: 'Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you' (Matt, xxviii: 19-20).
"Paul is supposed to be the author of the doctrine of salvation by faith alone without works. But by reading his epistle to the Romans, which is quoted chiefly in that direction, it will be seen that it was the works of the law of Moses that Paul showed were insufficient, and that the first essential to salvation was faith in Christ, but not a dead faith; it was one that led to obedience, as Christ taught: 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God' (Matthew iv: 4). And that Paul believed in the efficacy of good works, Romans ii: 3-10, of which I shall quote but two verses: 'Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile. But glory, honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.' There is nothing, in my opinion, so conducive to sin as the absurd and anti-Christian doctrine that mere belief in the atonement of Christ will absolve people of the grossest sins and crimes and fit them for the presence of Him who is pure and holy. It is a soul-destroying heresy, the invention of men and contrary to ancient as well as modern revelation."
"It is generally supposed that the Mormons have lax ideas of morality and peculiar marriage customs. What is the truth of these charges?''
"There are no people in the world who have stricter ideas and rules concerning morality than the Latter Day Saints have. Sexual relations outside of marriage are considered a deadly sin. Violations of chastity are viewed as next to murder in enormity. Chastity is enjoined upon both male and female. A young man should be as pure as a young woman. One has no more license than the other as to morals under Mormon teachings. We believe that the union of the sexes in marriage is essential to perfection. 'Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord' (I. Cor. xi: 11). The celestial kingdom where God and Christ dwell is a state of perfection. Those who enter into that glory will be perfect. Therefore we believe in celestial marriage, which is eternal marriage—the marriage that was solemnized between Adam and Eve by the Almighty in the Garden of Eden. They were immortal beings. Death had not entered into the world. There was no sin, therefore there was no death. The immortal pair were made one flesh. No man could put them asunder. That was an eternal union. If they were separated by death, which was the wages of sin, they were reunited through the atonement of the Savior, and thus restored to their former condition. So, in the resurrection they will not be married or given in marriage, for they were united in celestial marriage before they became mortal. The Lord has revealed in this age of the world that order of celestial or eternal marriage, so that what is sealed by it on earth is sealed in heaven, and remains in and after the resurrection. The husband will be restored to the wife and the wife to the husband, and together as one they will enter, if worthy, into the fulness of the glory of the Lord. If a man thus married should temporarily lose his wife by death, and should marry another by the same law, they would both be his in the world to come. Previous to the enactment of laws forbidding polygamy and punishing it as a crime, the church taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and to a small extent comparatively it was practiced under the most sacred covenants and obligations of chastity and purity. But since those laws, after much litigation and much suffering on the part of many persons, were declared constitutional by the supreme court of the United States the practice of marrying more than one wife, in violation of our laws, has ceased; the President of our church issued a Manifesto to this effect. No matter what may be preached or published to the contrary, what I say to you is the truth, which you can depend upon. Polygamous or plural marriages are forbidden by the constitution of the state of Utah and a penalty of $500 fine and five years imprisonment is imposed upon those who violate this provision. One of our doctrines is that we must obey the constitutional laws of the land. We, therefore, submit and leave the result with the Lord. But what God hath joined together, no man can put asunder. Therefore, marriages solemnized by His authority and commandment will continue, if the parties are faithful, in this world and in the world to come. But the parties are under solemn obligations to preserve themselves for each other only, and sexual crimes and immoralities are viewed by the Latter Day Saints with the utmost abhorrence."
"What about heaven and hell? Do you believe when people die they go either to heaven or to hell, or do you deny hell and disbelieve in a devil?"
"We believe in a personal Satan, as we believe in a personal Deity. The being who deceived Eve and tempted Jesus is a fallen spirit, the embodiment of the principle of evil as God is the embodiment of all that is good. A principle in the abstract is of no force or effect. There must be some being through which it is manifest. We do not believe in the mythological evil one with horns and hoofs, nor in a literal bottomless pit of fire and brimstone. But we believe that there are many evil spirits who, under that being called the devil and Satan, tempt human beings and lead them astray if possible, and who are enemies to Christ and to the truth. They will eventually be banished from this earth when Christ's work of salvation is made complete. Hell is a place and condition of torment, in which the suspense and remorse and anguish of soul of the wicked, waiting for judgment and not knowing what their fate will be, is as 'the worm that dieth not and the fire that is not quenched.' This they will endure as long as justice demands, and until they repent and turn to God and are perfectly willing to obey Him. When they are released, in future ages, their destiny will be as they have fixed it themselves by their own acts and according to the eternal principles of justice and mercy extended by the all-wise Judge, the eternal Father. We believe in heaven as a place and a condition. This earth, when it is redeemed and restored to its paradisaic state, will be a heaven. Sin, darkness, sorrow, pain and death will be banished from it. The righteous in their glorified, resurrected state will dwell upon it in everlasting peace and joy. After it has been purified with fire and made a new earth, righteousness will dwell in it. The thorn and the brier having departed, the fig tree and the myrtle tree will bloom and bear fruit in the place thereof. The enmity between man and brute will be no more. There will be nothing to hurt or destroy. The flowers of Eden will blossom, the tree of life will bear its glorious fruits, the river of life will flow forth from the throne of God; the globe itself will be as a sea of glass mingled with fire. Christ will dwell upon it as King; the Father will visit it and grace it with His presence. Everything that is upon it, above it, around it and beneath it will be sanctified, beautiful and glorified, and praise to God and the Lamb will ascend from every part and from every creature, Satan and his hosts will be vanquished, and Adam and his posterity will be redeemed from the curse and everything that hath breath will glorify the great Creator; every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Lord, to the glory of God the Father, and He will be all in all."
Rev. J. Whitcomb Brougher, pastor First Baptist Church, Chattanooga, Tenn., delivered two sermons from his pulpit upon "Mormonism". They were tirades of falsehoods and misrepresentations from beginning to end; they were filled with much bitterness and hatred, and during one of his sermons he came as near advocating mob violence as he dared. These wholesale attacks called out the following open letters to the minister, which appeared in the Chattanooga News. (There have been many calls for copies of these letters, and to meet these demands they are now published in pamphlet form.)
Chattanooga, Tenn., Dec. 25, 1899.
Rev. J. Whitcomb Brougher, Chattanooga, Tenn.
My Dear Sir:—Upon my return from Chicago Friday evening my attention was called to an article in the Chattanooga News of Dec. 18, 1899, purporting to be a partial report of a sermon delivered by you, in your church, the First Baptist, on the the subject of "Mormonism and Polygamy." I take it from what parties who were present have told me that the report is substantially correct. I am an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in charge of the "Mormon" Missionary work in the south, headquarters in this city, and as a representative of the people whom you have without foundation so unjustly charged with being all that is unholy, I feel it a duty, so far as possible in a short letter, to disprove your unwarranted attack. With a desire to be fair I hope, as a matter of justice, that you will deign to read and consider what follows as a reply to the very unkind things you have said about an honest, God-fearing people. There are two sides to every question, and the good book, which you claim to take for your "rule of faith and practice," says he that judgeth a matter before he heareth it is not wise.
It is apparent, from the newspaper report, that you are either woefully ignorant of what the world is pleased to nickname Mormonism, or else you are filled with prejudice and prompted by sinister motives. Certainly no intelligent, fair-minded person would make the statements attributed to you on that Sunday evening, in this enlightened age, if only a casual investigation of the subject in hand had been made. We admit that, like the Saints 1800 years ago, we are everywhere spoken evil against, and your sermon has the appearance of being conceived in the gall of bitterness, and contains all the earmarks of certain tracts that have been written and widely distributed by our enemies. The News stated you handled the subject without gloves, and I trust that if occasionally, in the course of this letter, I exhibit the bare knuckles, you will not be offended. I assure you that my only desire in writing this is to set you right, if you are after truth, on the question of salvation; and to correct the general impression "can any good come out of Nazareth" created against my people by the many falsehoods circulated about them.
Your first misstatement is that "Mormonism is based on a tissue of lies." Did you have the Bible in view when you said this, or where did you obtain the information? Had you, before delivering your sermon, ever conversed with a "Mormon?" Have you ever read any of our works, treating on the founding and the fundamental principles of the religion you are seeking to belittle and trample in the mire? You failed to quote any authority for this extraordinary assertion, and surely you would not go to the writings of a Methodist minister, or the writing of some enemy of Mormonism, as authority on our belief. If you wished to learn of the Catholic faith would it be fair to obtain your information from a Presbyterian clergyman? In all fairness should not the rule you apply to others apply to us? You have simply quoted from our enemies. By using that rule of reasoning we can even do away with the resurrection of the Master, for did not the Roman soldiers say that Christ was not resurrected, but that while they slept the friends of the Redeemer came and stole the body away? Only the friends of Christ said He was risen, and you build your faith on what our Savior and His friends said. In handling this question why did you not take the Bible, "the rule of your faith and practice," and expose "Mormonism" principle by principle? Perhaps you have profited by the experience of others before you and are too wise to undertake such a large contract? Our faith would be popular today if it had only a form of godliness, and we defy you or any other man to prove from the Bible, or the great book of reason, that "Mormonism is based on a tissue of lies."
You say that Joseph Smith was an idle, vicious disreputable young man, etc. Again, we ask from what source did you receive your information? Again the answer comes back, from our enemies. Joseph Smith was an honest, sober, industrious young man, and we furnish just as many reputable witnesses to this effect as you can furnish that he was the embodiment of all that was bad. Why, the enemies of our Savior said He was a winebibber, a blasphemer, etc. Did that prove Him such? In the case of Christ you would answer no, but in the case of Joseph Smith we presume you would say yes. According to a brass tablet, found in the year 1280 among a quantity of records of the Kingdom of Naples, in the city of Aquilla, Pontius Pilate sentenced Jesus to be nailed to the cross for six reasons, as follows:
"1. Jesus is a disturber of the peace.
"2. Jesus has taught the people sedition.
"3. Jesus is an enemy of the laws.
"4. Jesus calls Himself the Son of God.
"5. Jesus calls Himself the King of Israel.
"6. Jesus disturbed the worship of the temple by leading a mob of people with palms in their hands."
This sounds very much like the usual charges made against Joseph Smith and the Mormon Elders, at the present time, does it not? Joseph Smith sealed his testimony with his blood. He was dragged before the courts of the land, by his enemies, some forty-eight times, and the courts always pronounced him not guilty. Go to the court records and see. His enemies admitted they could not reach him through the law, and declared that powder and ball should.
Evidently you have heard of the Book of Mormon, for you mention it. Get one and read it, and then you will be better able to tell what the Latter-day Saints claim for that sacred book. You claim the Book of Mormon found its origin in the old Solomon Spaulding MSS. Your reference to this long since exploded theory as accounting for this book gives one who is the least bit informed a key to the ancientness of the falsehoods from which you preached your sermon. After you have read the Book of Mormon go to Oberlin college, Oberlin, O., and there examine the old Spaulding MSS., and compare the two; then, if you are wise, you will never rehash that old dried up argument again. The Book of Mormon does not conflict in points of doctrine with the Bible, and it gives a history of the people who once inhabited this continent, accounting for the origin of the American Indians.
You again display your ignorance of the subject in hand when you say that we place Joseph Smith above Jesus Christ. A greater falsehood never was told, but we are pleased to inform you that we believe Joseph Smith to be a Prophet of God, and that he was the instrument in the hand of God in restoring again the Gospel to earth. Is this a crime? If we believed more in Joseph Smith than in Jesus, would we not have named the church after him, as some of our enemies have named theirs after their founders, instead of calling it the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? You know on one occasion the Saints were asking Paul about the second coming of our Savior, and Paul, in second Thes. 2: 3-4, said that He (Jesus) was not to come until or except there should be a falling away first, showing that there was to be an apostasy from the Gospel. Space will not permit me to quote the many other passages in the Bible proving that there was to be an apostasy, and that in the latter days a restoration was to take place, as per the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, interpreted by Daniel, and according to Revelations, 14th chapter, 6th verse, the restoration was to be made by an angel. Now, if that restoration has not been made, it is yet to be made, and believers in the Bible at least should be looking for that angel which was to fly through the midst of heaven. No doubt you believe that we are living in the latter days, and we ask, is there anything unreasonable, especially if we consider Holy Writ, in our claiming that the angel seen by John has flown, appeared to Joseph Smith, and thus fulfilled the prophecy that the Gospel was to be restored? We can give you an abundance of Scripture to prove our point, and if you would read our literature you would have a much more intelligent conception of "Mormonism and Polygamy." To truth seekers, those who are willing to lay aside hatred, prejudice, and investigate, we say we are prepared to give reason and Scripture to prove every doctrine we advocate. Robert Ingersoll says, in his "Best Argument Against Christianity," that there is more proof for the miracles of Joseph Smith than there is for those performed by Christ.
Another proposition laid down by you is "Its doctrines are likewise
Then you quote from the Journal of Discourses and dilate upon our belief in the materiality of God, etc. We are very sorry to know that you deny the existence of a God that is to some extent comprehensible, and you again make yourself ridiculous in the eyes of those who know something of both sides of the question. You put it down as blasphemy to believe it possible that we, the children (remember children) of God, can become like unto our Father. Did you ever analyze "Our Father which art in heaven?" Your "rule of faith and practice" says man was created in the image of God. It further says that Jesus, our elder brother, was in the image of God, so much so that He said "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father." Why did He say this? Because Jesus was in the "express image" of the Father, and in seeing one, we would virtually see the other. Jesus had flesh and bones, a body like ours, and the Bible informs us that He ascended into heaven after His resurrection, having the same body that He had at the time of His crucifixion. Jesus was so much like other men that He was called the carpenter's son, and for daring to say He was the Son of God His enemies hanged Him on the cross. Now, as Jesus was like we are, and is like we are, having a body of flesh and bones, and is in the express image of the Father, must not God have a body of flesh and bones? How will you twist the Scripture to make Him out otherwise? What do you think of Jesus becoming so corrupt as to eat fish after His resurrection? Are you prepared to say He did not? Do you remember that the angel said (Acts 1: 11), "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven?" Jesus went away into heaven with a body of flesh and bones. Do you think He will return, as promised, with a body of flesh and bones, or do you think He will be just a shadow? Now, is it blasphemy, according to Scripture, to believe God to be a tangible being, with body, parts and passions? Are we criminals, and to be ostracized from society, for believing in the Bible? We refer to a living, practical belief. In your researches of the Bible perhaps you have relied too much on "Commentaries" (private interpretations of the Scripture), and if you will call at our office we will be pleased to point out to you many essential truths which apparently have escaped your notice, and which space will not permit giving in this short communication.
You will remember that the "wise men" took issue with Jesus, and that He chose the illiterate fisherman to be His chief Apostle. Is it not possible that the "wise men" of today might learn wisdom pertaining to salvation from the humble "Mormon" Elder? Pardon the digression. I said that you denied
and if the above is not sufficient I will now prove it to you. You are in a worse condition than the infidel, because the infidel says "I don't know," while a definition of your God implies a pure and simple "nothing," an "immaterial" being. You charge us with believing in a material God—"gross materiality" you call it, a God with body parts and passions, etc., which from what you have read above, you will see we are pleased to acknowledge. From your charge we can take it in no other way, and arrive at no other conclusion than that you believe in a God without body, parts and passions, and as the definition goes, nowhere present yet everywhere present, etc. The definition of your God
At a circus one clown asked a brother clown if he had ever seen "nothing." The answer was in the negative. Well, says the first, I will show it to you; shut your eyes. The second shut his eyes and the first said: "What do you see?" The answer came "nothing." "Just as I expected," said the first; "you have seen it, open your eyes." Now, Brother Brougher, shut your eyes and what do you see? "Nothing," of course; well, that's him. The mysterious Santa Claus is "not in it" with such a being. Let me ask now seriously, can you conceive of anything "immaterial?" Pray how are we to know a being without a body, parts or passions? John says it is life eternal to know God, but it is a puzzler to figure out how we can know a being that is everywhere present and yet nowhere present. Are you not mistaken? Of course the things of God are understood by the Spirit of God, but it surely would take a very strong pair of spiritual spectacles to see a being that is nowhere present, without parts or body to see. Perhaps you will turn away from this in disgust, and impatiently say that I don't understand the beauty of your God, but how can I understand the beauty if it has none? Can you figure anything but zero out of it? Come, be honest (if you can't be decent), and forsake your idol.
There are many passages in the Bible to prove that
flesh and bones, just as have His children. For instance, Adam heard the voice of the Lord, Gen. 3: 9-10. He must have a voice. God talked with Noah, Gen. 8: 13-21, and remembered, Noah, 8-1. So He must have a mouth, tongue and a memory. Abraham ate and talked with the Lord, Gen. 18. Jacob saw God face to face. Moses talked to Him as one speaks with a friend, Ex. 33-11. Moses saw His back parts, Ex. 23; the heavens are the works of Thine hands, Heb. 1: 10; and John says in Revelation, first chapter, that God has a head, and that He has hair like wool. From these passages we learn that God has a face, back parts, head, hair, hands, etc., and it ought to be conclusive evidence of God being a reasonable being. Then the Bible is full of passages telling us of the love, mercy, hatred, etc., of our Father in heaven, which are all passions, are they not? We have only referred to a few quotations on this point, but before closing the subject I cannot refrain from quoting Deut. 4: 28, which says "that the time should come when the children of Israel should so far degrade themselves as to worship gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see nor hear, nor eat nor smell." Can you get any inference from this Scripture other than that God is possessed of all these faculties? Are you certain you are not an Israelite, come to fulfill the above prophecy? Can you show one passage of Scripture to prove that God has neither body, parts, nor passions? No, you cannot.
You make the terrible charge that
We solemnly plead guilty to believing in many Gods. If this is a crime it is time for a new translation of the Holy Scriptures. Does not the good book say "and God said, let us make man in our own image?" What are you going to do with the words "us" and "our" in this Scripture? Does this not prove a plurality of Gods? Ex. 15-11 says "who is like unto Thee, O Lord, among the gods?" Deut. 10-17: "Lord, your God is God of gods and Lord of lords." Paul also refers to the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords, 1 Tim. 6-15, also see 2 Chron. 2-5, Psalms 86-8, Dan. 2-47, Dan. 4-8, Dan. 11-36. If you desire any more Scripture on this subject we will be pleased to give you chapter and verse. Notwithstanding we believe that there are many Gods, we worship only one God, the Father of Jesus Christ. Our enemies do not put it in this light, do they? The Devil is anxious to have you believe a lie and be damned.
You next prate about "Mormonism" being
and that "social purity" is almost an unknown quantity in Utah, and sing the old familiar song about polygamy. Don't you think you could do better by looking closer to home? If the truth were known you would probably find more polygamy (on the European plan) than ever was known among the Mormons (on the Patriarchal plan). In fact, you say adultery and fornication are destroying the nation. We agree with you that these evils exist to an alarming extent, but most emphatically deny that there is any more cause, at least, to make the Mormons a special object of purity work than there is to purify other communities. If Mormonism is indeed a monster, as you claim, and if social purity, as you assert, is almost unknown among us, then what a horrible condition the Mormon people must be in. But stay; the Master says "By their fruits ye shall know them." Mormonism goes into the entire civilized world, and in this age, as in the days of Christ, it is the poor, and you will claim the ignorant, who embrace it. Very well, Mormonism takes them to a place where you claim social purity is almost unknown; what a horrible condition these poor, ignorant, deluded creatures must be in in a few years.
Now, listen, Brother Brougher: 90 per cent, of the Mormon people
and upon their own farms. Utah stands equal to Massachusetts in education—the rate of illiteracy is about 3 per cent. She stands head and shoulders above 90 per cent, of the states in the union when it comes to educational facilities, and until the advent of what you call civilization came to Christianize us poor heathens, there were no brothels or saloons in Utah. And yet, social purity, you say, is almost unknown among us. I leave the public to judge the tree by its fruits, and in passing your wholesale libel upon men, women and children, will drop you by saying "from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." To your heart let me say "thou shalt not lie," and "thou shalt not bear false witness," while to your mouth let me prescribe soap and water. I do not care to
with you, because there is a law in Tennessee against teaching it, and punishing those who do teach it; we should obey the law, and right here let me inform you that the twelfth article of our faith reads: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law." This part of our religion is taught and as carefully kept as any other part of our religion. However, Roberts will be cast out of the House of Representatives, and you ministers who are to receive congratulations for accomplishing this mighty victory over B. H. Roberts should keep your sleeves rolled up until you succeed in also banishing the polygamous Bible from the national headquarters. The Bible teaches polygamy, and, looking through your eyeglasses, is therefore antagonistic to the "purity of the American home," and a law breaker, in the state of Tennessee. I enter this complaint against the Divine record, and will now proceed to convict the prisoner at the bar. In accusing the Bible of being antagonistic to purity in the American home, by charging that it teaches polygamy, I ask that, in addition to the evidence which I shall produce, all the evidence introduced against Roberts be accepted and made a part of the case. Now, if I can establish that the Bible is a teacher of polygamy, I contend I have made my case, and ask that the law be enforced and the offending parts of the Bible cast out.
Abraham was a polygamist and the friend of God. God knew he was a polygamist when He made him His friend. Jacob had four wives, and their polygamous sons, we are informed, are to be honored by having their names inscribed over the pearly gates of the beautiful city. Suppose you were to fool Saint Peter and get into heaven, how would you feel clasped to the bosom of the polygamous Abraham? Do you suppose that you can sufficiently humble yourself to go in at one of those polygamous gates and mingle with the polygamous sons of Jacob? Moses had more than one wife, and yet he was a Prophet of God. Just think of a polygamist leading the chosen people of the Lord. All the Judges of Israel and all her chosen kings which were appointed by God, including Saul, David and Solomon, were polygamists, and the descendants of these polygamists were highly honored of the Lord. The Prophet Samuel, and even Jesus, our Saviour, came through polygamous lineage. The Bible also says that polygamous relations shall exist in the last days when men would become decimated, that their scarcity would cause seven women to take hold of one man and desire to be called by his name to take away their reproach, Isa. 4-1. Are we not informed that David did not sin except in the case of Uriah, the Hittite? Did not the Lord say through Nathan the prophet that He, the Lord, had given David Saul's wives? If all these parties could find favor with God, although they were polygamists and God knew it, would it be unscriptural to believe that polygamists might find favor with our Heavenly Father in these days? The Bible does not say that we shall have no more than one wife, and can we get anything else out of these instances than that the Bible sanctions polygamy? Of course you will say that Paul says a Bishop is to be the husband of one wife, but we ask does he say a Bishop cannot have more than one wife? Now, from these passages of Scripture, I ask that the prisoner, the Bible, be convicted and be punished under the laws of Tennessee.
We are charged with being
To substantiate this statement would you bring forth the record of the famous Utah batteries in the Philippines? Or would you point to the Mormon battalion in the war with Mexico, or to the raising of the Stars and Stripes on Ensign Peak, when the Mormon Pioneers entered Salt Lake valley? Kindly furnish proof. Your rule of faith and practice says "by their fruits ye shall know them," and we are perfectly willing to be judged by that rule, in loyalty as in all other things.
To create a greater impression upon your hearers, I am also informed that you said we would be willing to pay the railroad fare of any of the fair mothers and daughters of this land to Utah, if they could but be induced to identify themselves with the "monstrous and destroying system." Did you believe that when you said it? We again ask for proof. Remember that the burden of proof falls on the accuser. This is only another of the falsehoods circulated about the Latter-day Saints, and you cannot point to a single instance. We do not coax, or persuade, or inveigle people into our church. We lay before them the principles of the Gospel, and if they want to accept them, all well and good, we rejoice over it; but if they do not choose to accept it, we do not send them to the bottom of a bottomless pit, there to fall into a lake of fire and brimstone and burn, and sizzle and fry forever and forever. Your hell is as big a monstrosity as your God. Incomprehensible, unfathomable, beyond the bounds of time and space, reason and everything else.
I must not forget the preface of your remarks to the effect that there were some things about the "Mormon" church that
before it could be looked upon as a Christian church. What constitutes a Christian? Is it not one who lives up to the Gospel of Christ? We are very anxious to be set right; if we are wrong, we would like you to take your "rule of faith and practice" and point out to us wherein we differ with the Bible. I have made somewhat of a study of the teachings of our Savior and would be pleased to have you answer the following questions, keeping in view the injunction of Isaiah, "to the law and to the testimony, and if they speak not according to these words it is because there is no light in them;" also the word of Paul to the Galatian Saints to the effect that if any man preach any other Gospel than that which he preached, let him be accursed. First, where does the Bible give you authority to call your church "The First Baptist?" In Ephesians 5: 23-24 it is recorded as wives take husbands' names, so the church takes the Savior's name (Jesus Christ); how do you harmonize that passage with the name of your church? Can you find any other name given God's people than "Saints" of the Most High?
Paul says, Heb. 5-4, "and no man taketh this honor unto himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron." Remember Paul says "no man," and you know Aaron was called by revelation through a Prophet of God. Were you called by a Prophet of God? If you say the Bible gives you authority to preach, then "any man" can get a Bible and thereby have authority to preach, baptize and minister in the ordinances of the Gospel.
On the same principle, and with as much propriety, I could purchase a law book and set myself up to be a justice of the peace, or Governor of Tennessee. Is this not so? "Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the Saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth into an holy temple in the Lord." (Eph. 2: 1.8-21.) No one will dispute that the foundation of Apostles and Prophets is revelation. Christ said to Peter: "Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Is your church founded on revelation—living, modern, and not dead? "And He gave some, Apostles; and some, Prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, etc. (Eph. 4.) Have you Prophets and Apostles in your church? These officers were to remain in the church until "we all" come into a unity of the faith.
Surely you and I are not in a unity of the faith, and what about the hundreds of other denominations claiming to be the true followers of Christ? Do we need perfecting and edifying? If so, we must need Prophets, and Apostles, and all the other officers mentioned by Paul, to perfect us, and to keep us from being driven and tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. Can you find any Scripture changing this order of things? You cannot.
Do you believe that signs shall follow the believers, as recorded in Mark, 16th chapter? We have no record of this promise to the believers being repealed, and Paul says (I Cor., 13th chapter), that spiritual gifts were to remain in the church until that which is perfect is come. Has perfection come? Peter says (Acts 2: 38) that baptism is for the remission of sins. Do you believe it?
You teach that
to salvation, and that it is only an outward sign of an inward grace. Jesus says, Mark 16: 16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not (and consequently is not baptized) shall be damned."
Peter commanded the people on the day of Pentecost to be baptized. Peter was the chief Apostle and had the power to bind on earth and it should be bound in heaven. Does this not make baptism a command of God? If it is a command of God is it not essential to salvation? If this is not essential, why not do away with that part of the commission which commands His disciples to go and preach? Are you sure the teachings of your church are in strict accord with the Divine record?
James says, 5: 14-16: "Is any sick among you, let him call for the Elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him." Do you call for the Elders? You took for
"If Christ should come to Chattanooga, where would He go?" Now, Brother Brougher, stand up. If He should come, where would He go? He commanded that His Gospel should be made free and His ministers should travel without purse or scrip. If He were hunting for His friends, would He call upon those who declare that His promises have fallen to the ground unfulfilled, and that the blessings do not follow the believers? He has placed Apostles and Prophets in the church, with a decree that they should remain until we all come to a unity of the faith. Would He call those His friends who declare "they are no longer needed and are not to remain until we all come to a unity of the faith?" He told the generation to whom He came (1800 years ago) that their great sin consisted in worshiping dead Prophets, while they persecuted those who believed in living oracles. Would He call on those who engage in the same business today? He never resorted to abuse for an argument. If He came would He love those who do? He was not a character assassin. Would He love those who are? But stay, we do not know where He would go, or whom He would call upon, because when He was here before, He said: "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance," and He might say that His mission was not entirely finished, and we cannot tell where He would go, but you might possibly see him.
Now, Brother Brougher, just a word. Did you ever listen to an argument against "Mormons" from the standpoint of Scripture and reason? No, you never have and you never will. Did it ever occur to you that it was a most cowardly ambition which induces you to attack a party in a place and at a time when retaliation would have been anything but decent? If so, will you grant us the privilege of defending ourselves from the pulpit and before that congregation which were so disgraced by your tirade on Sunday evening?
Now, in conclusion, let me say that we are not here to stir up strife, but we propose to defend ourselves whenever attacked; so I close, wishing you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.
BEN. E. RICH.