The Book of Mormon Needed

THE BOOK OF MORMON NEEDED.

An anti-“Mormon” Ministerial Association, with headquarters at Salt Lake City, Utah, assembled some time ago for the purpose, presumably, of devising ways and means for the more rapid spread of truth among mankind; but also assumed judicial robes, and announced to the world that the Book of Mormon is not needed because, forsooth, it, in the view of the gentlemen who com­posed the said association, does not reveal a single new moral pre­cept or principle. This objection to the manifestly troublesome existence of that book would be quite serious, if the people of this world had worn out all the ancient precepts and principles that the Lord has been trying for some time past to get us to practice in a passable manner. The opinion which the reverend gentlemen thus expressed spread rapidly, and found a ready endorsement among sectarian Christians in general; and so it seems that if the Lord wants any more revelations received by a large portion of the religious world, He can “save the situation” by making them conform to what multitudes of the alleged disciples of His Son expect them to contain. However, we have now substantially an authoritative (!!) endorsement of the Book of Mormon as being perfectly in agreement with the teachings that are accepted as sacred by the sectarian world at the present time.

This is a complimentary approval of its contents, morally and religiously, that one could scarcely expect to find entertained in the high quarters that gave it expression. Nevertheless, since the moral and religious principles contained in it, are the identical ones by which the “Mormon” people are endeavoring, with some measure of success, to regulate their lives, and further, since those teachings are declared by the aforesaid authorities to be in full harmony with Biblical doctrines, it is a mystery which some of us are too obtuse to understand, just why the Book of Mormon and the “Mormon” people should meet with any opposition from alleged Christians who have an identical code of laws and system of principles with ours, and who, like the “Mormons” in general, are, as a broad charity constrains us to say, largely making com­mendable efforts to live up to them.

It does seem as if, under the circumstances, the “Mormons” ought to be recognized as “brethren” by the sectarian world, and invited to a seat at all family re-unions; yet this courtesy need not be pressed to the point of a disagreeable rupture. But instead of finding in this case what “should be.” only what “is” occurs with much frequency, and passing events as they roll their course along, make it appear as if it is a kind of damnable offense for “Mormons ” to teach certain precepts and principles according to the Book of Mormon, which other people get, without any material change, according to their own allegations, out of the Bible, and also teach. Why it should so transpire is none too clear; for the Almighty has never laid any injunction upon ministers of the gospel, or upon any follower of Jesus Christ, to teach the truths of His salvation from the writings of one man, or set of men, rather than from those of another. It is fair to conclude that a truth in Deuter­onomy, for instance, is just as good in His sight as the same truth is in St. John’s gospel. Why should He care whether the ten commandments are taught from a correct Jewish version of the originals, which were written with His own finger on the two tables of stone, or from a faithful translation in English? He doubtless prefers substance to shadow, and until he discredits truth because it is written in a book that goes by a certain name, and recommends as a better truth the very same one found in an­other book that goes by a different name, the Salt Lake Ministerial Association would do well to follow the Divine example to which its attention is requested. And further, who would not look with feelings akin to horror upon the “Mormon” who would dare claim that the Bible is no longer needed, because its leading precepts and principles are contained in the Book of Mormon? If profane creatures of that class were found within this Church, they would be subject to its discipline for blaspheming the word of God. His truth is held sacred wherever found by the membership of this Church.

If these gentlemen who denounce the Book of Mormon as useless, because it agrees so fully with the Biblical scriptures, would here state their reasons for accepting the different books of the Bible as the word of God, one of them would be found to consist in the harmony of its revealed truths with one another. There are no con­tradictions found in any essential religious matter or principle, and so since these books agree together as a unit, it is strong evi­dence that they are inspired, and consequently they are received as the word of God. On the other hand, the very agreement of the Book of Mormon with the Bible principles condemns it, and renders it a useless work, according to these ministerial philoso­phers. When the time comes to plead that kind of logic at the bar of God, it will doubtless lose much of its present attractive­ness for some people.

Turning attention now to a different aspect of the case, the fact is recalled that the Bible was not brought forth originally as a complete volume in its present form; but the various writings of which it is composed, were produced by a number of inspired authors who lived at different periods from the days of Moses to those of St. John—in all about eighteen hundred years. When, therefore, the writer of the book of Ruth, for example, proposed that it should be accepted as a portion of the inspired word of God, its certain rejection, according to the logic (I!) of these reverend gentlemen would have followed, since it con­tains not a single new moral precept or principle not previously written scripturally in terms of one kind or another. These re­marks apply, likewise to the books of Jonah, Obadiah and Joel, respectively. No new precepts or principles are taught in them, and perhaps other books of the Bible belong to this same class of recognized sacred writings, whose standing as the word of God must be denied, when tried by the novel criterion set up by the sectarian Ministerial Association once assembled in Salt Lake City.

With what feelings of commiseration the able men and divines who sat in council centuries ago to determine which books that were proposed as canonical should really be accepted as such, would have received the proposition, from some unfortunate, that a number of them were useless, uncanonical, and should be cast out because they contained no new precepts or principles. But men holding such peculiar notions of what writings should be in order to pass or not to pass the crucial test of being the inspired word of God, were not called to sit in councils that were engaged in one of the most delicate and particular undertakings ever entered into by wise and learned men; and where prejudice might have caused the ruin of many souls in the ultimate reckoning; nor are they better qualified now than then to sit in judgment on what features God Almighty should observe when communicating His word to mankind.

The Book of Mormon and all the good that it has brought to thousands upon thousands of our race, all the joy that it has poured into the hearts of multitudes, all the light that it has caused to shine into the understanding of hosts—all this, and more, must count for useless experience and material trash, because, forsooth, some people, who hate the book without cause, find no new precepts or principles in it. NEVER, NEVER, till the eternities grow hoary with age, and new ones follow to the same state, can it be truthfully said that the Book of Mormon is useless to, or not needed by. a portion of our race at least. If those gentlemen of the cloth had been modest enough to say that they themselves never had any use for the book in question, and that multitudes of other people were like-minded with them, the general aspect of the case would not appear so egotistical and dictatorial. Before these remarks are concluded, however, their attention shall be directed, with the assisting grace of God, to one use at least which they can profitably make of the Book of Mormon, and all those who echo their cry can do likewise. Before disclosing this open secret, our attention will be occupied with other matters for some time.

It does not appear that religious practices among sectarian Christians sustain the statement that no new doctrines or prin­ciples are found in the Book of Mormon, nor are some of their theories of any more consequence to uphold their contention. We find that there are three modes of baptism authorized by Christ­endom at large, namely: sprinkling, pouring and immersion. On the contrary, the Book of Mormon teaches that but one mode of baptism, that is by immersion, is authorized by Jesus Christ. Now, the Bible holds this same doctrine, or it does not. If it does not, what ground is there upon which to rest the claim that the Book of Mormon contains no new doctrine? If it does teach baptism by immersion alone, in conformity with the Book of Mormon position, how can those who baptise by sprinkling or pouring righteously claim fellowship with the children of God, since they must be wilfully changing an ordinance that the Lord has laid down as one of the fundamental observances in His Church? Again, in the matter of baptising infants, a similar aspect of the case is manifest. The Book of Mormon plainly states that they should not be baptised, being all wholly redeemed by Christ without this ordinance. If the Bible teaches that infants should be baptised, then the doctrine of the Book of Mormon that they should not be, is certainly a new one. A large proportion of sectarian Christians hold, further, that baptism in any form is a non-essential in the plan of salvation. The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, makes very apparent the fact that it is an essential ordinance which must be observed by every person, except little children, who wishes to secure the benefits of Christ’s redemptive work. If the Bible contains an identical doctrine, why do not sectarian ministers insist on its universal observance? What is the reason that some people who fail to observe an essential ordin­ance enjoined by the word of God are received into sectarian fellowship, while the “Mormons” who do observe it are cast out? If the essentialness of baptism is not taught in the Bible, we must score another new doctrine for the Book of Mormon.

If different contending denominations have any authority in the Bible for their existence, the Book of Mormon must be accredited with an additional new doctrine, for it claims there can be but one fold of Christ on earth—its membership necessarily united under one visible head. If the Bible contains the doctrine of the damnation of a single infant, the Book of Mormon has a wholly different, and very merciful one, conformable to God’s known attributes. If the doctrine of the predestination of some souls to eternal life and salvation, and of multitudes of others to everlasting reprobation and misery, is a Bible doctrine, the Book of Mormon occupies an entirely different position. If the Bible teaches that the revela­tions of God to man ceased with the Apocalypse of St. John, we must add another new doctrine to those that are taught in the Book of Mormon, for it holds the opposite view. Additional doc­trines might be cited to manifest how groundless is the charge that the Book of Mormon contains no new precepts or principles, or if the two books in question do really harmonize in their principles, to show that the members of the Ministerial Association at Salt Lake City, do not understand what the Bible does teach, or under­standing it, fail to teach its doctrines to the people.

If there is any virtue in the argument of the gentlemen afore­said by which they condemn the “written” word in the Book of Mormon, what good reason can be proposed why the same argu­ment has not just as much virtue if we apply it to the “spoken” word of God which sectarian ministers claim to preach to their hearers every Sabbath? According, therefore, to the logic of the Ministerial Association of Salt Lake City, there is a vast amount of Sunday preaching that may be classed as useless eloquence, since it deals with no new moral precepts or principles—it simply traverses the same old grounds or doctrines that have been made the subjects of pulpit oratory for a millennium or two. If they should claim that their regular Sabbath preaching does bring forth new doctrines, etc., it is very manifest that the earlier Church must have been very deficient in principles; and a few hundred years more of the same kind of evolutionary work in the Gospel plan will show an astonishing imperfection in sectarian Christen­dom as it exists at present. If the sectarian ministry do not proclaim new principles every Sabbath to their hearers, what is the reason that the Book of Mormom should be condemned simply because, as they say, it does by “written” word what others are doing all the time by word of mouth? The same line of remarks apply to the various denominations that exist in the so-called Christian world to-day. If, as called successively into being, each one of them had some new Gospel organization principle incorpo­rated in its foundation, what shall we say of the defects of the first one away back in the history of sectarianism? If it did not have any new ones, on what ground is their existence justified at all, according to the logic of the reverend gentlemen mentioned? How many more of them must be instituted before the Apostolic Church model is attained? Are they getting nearer to it, or farther away from it?

(To be continued.)