Objections to the Book of Mormon Considered

OBJECTIONS TO THE BOOK OF MORMON CONSIDERED.

Often people are misled by reading the statements made by persons of apparent respectability and integrity. For evil purposes men make asser­tions and pretend to give reliable authority in proof of what they say. By so doing they sometimes deceive those who are not acquainted with the facts in the matter to which they refer. Many people are thus de­ceived respecting the history and character of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Latter-day Saints.

A few months ago a series of anti-Mormon lectures were delivered by a church rector in one of the principal cities of England. The first lecture was on the character of the Prophet Joseph Smith. The works this lec­turer referred to as proof of his vile utterances against the Prophet were books written by the opponents of Joseph Smith. The lecturer was care­ful to avoid mentioning any work that said anything in his favor. By this means many of those who listened to the lecture, who were unac­quainted with the literature on the subject, were no doubt led to believe that nothing good was to be found recorded of the Prophet. But the more thoughtful and better informed auditors could not help but discover that the man had studiously planned to deceive his hearers. Many of the accusations he brought against the Prophet Joseph were introduced some­what like the following, which is taken from one of his lectures as it appeared afterwards in print, being published by himself:

“Speaking of Mormonism, Dr. Shelton [rector of St. Paul’s Church Buffalo] mentions a person living in Buffalo who had been acquainted with Joe Smith in early life," etc.

Just consider how entirely worthless as evidence, is such a statement! It would not be considered in any court, nor would any fair-minded per­son place any reliance upon it, as there is no way by which it can be verified. Presuming that the place mentioned is Buffalo, New York, how can one find among its more than two hundred thousand inhabitants the individual described as “a person” “who had been acquainted with Joe Smith?” It is also difficult to tell who “Dr. Shelton” is as his full name is not given; and as no date is mentioned it would be impossible to know where he is to be found today

The accusations made in the rector’s first lecture, if true, were more than sufficient. To condemn what is commonly called Mormonism without any further consideration. As it was the lecturer’s sole purpose to denounce that system there was no necessity of giving more than the one lecture if he told the truth on that occasion. When he undertook to bring addi­tional charges against the Prophet, as he did in following lectures, he thereby admitted that what he had already said did not establish the claim he made. If what he said at the first lecture did not prove his claim it was because the testimony was unreliable; and if the evidence he pro­duced at the first lecture was not reliable—and his succeeding efforts prove that it was no—then it is but reasonable to believe that later state­ments were also untrustworthy.

The second lecture of the series exposed the lecturer’s true character more clearly than it did that of the man whose name he sought to defame. In it he presented what he claimed to be serious objections to the Book of Mormon. To show how groundless these objections are, one or two of them will be considered. A little reflection will convince anyone that what he calls “blemishes of the Book of Mormon” are entirely imaginary on his part.

One objection he makes to the book is given in his own language as follows:

“Another objection to the ‘Book of Mormon’ is that it has antedated and anticipated scientific discovery by something like 1800 years. The polarity of the mariner's com­pass was a thing unknown to European nations until the twelfth century of the Christian era. In the early part of the ‘Book of Mormon,’ which claims to have been written, as I am compelled to keep reminding you, 600 years B.C., we have the following highly in­structive passage:—

“And it came to pass that after they had bound me, insomuch that I could not move, the compass, which had been prepared of the Lord, did cease to work. … and it came to pass after they had loosed me, behold I took the compass, and it did work whither I desired it. And it came to pass that I prayed unto the Lord; and after I had prayed, the winds did cease, and the storm did cease, and there was a great calm.”

The instrument here called a “compass” by Nephi was previously ex­plained by him in these words:

“And it came to pass that as my father arose in the morning, and went forth to the tent door, to his great astonishment he beheld upon the ground a round ball of curious workmanship; and it was of fine brass. And within the ball were two spindles; and the one pointed the way whither we should go into the wilderness.” (I Nephi 16:10.)

It was not a mariners’ compass at all, but, as the passage states, an instrument prepared by the Lord for the guidance of the little colony during their journeyings. It is further described as working according to the faith of the people, while a mariner’s’ compass is not operated by the faith of the mariner. It may be that the lecturer failed to read the description of the instrument, and took for granted that the word translated “compass” meant an ordinary mariners’ compass. Admitting that such was the case, his objection is still unreasonable. That “the polarity of the mariners’ compass was a thing unknown to European nations until the twelfth century of the Christian era,” is a most absurd reason for a “master of arts” to urge against the statement made by Nephi. The knowledge which European nations had respecting the magnetic compass has nothing to do with the matter. It is generally believed that Euro­pean nations were unacquainted with the use of the magnetic needle until the twelfth century, but that fact does not prove that Asiatic nations were also ignorant of it. It is well known that the Chinese were acquainted with the magnetic compass long before it was used by Europeans. The Chinese annals assign its discovery to the year 2634 B.C.

But it makes no difference if no nation on earth knew anything about the mariner’s compass before the twelfth century. If it be admitted for argument that the Book of Mormon refers to the magnetic compass, such as mariners use, there is nothing inconsistent about such a statement. The peculiar character of the magnet existed before man was created upon the earth, and what was made known about it to Europeans in the twelfth century does not in any way affect the truth of the Book of Mormon. The Lord does not depend upon the discoveries of man for His knowledge of natural forces. The idea that He could not have furnished Lehi with a compass before European nations discovered the use of the magnetic needle is, to use the lecturer’s language a “monstrous absurdity.” It displays inexcusable stupidity on the part of a man who attaches to his name the college degree of “master of arts.”

Such is one of the chief objections this learned divine (?) urges against the Book of Mormon. His other objections are just as ridiculous as this one. He criticises the grammatical construction of some passages of the record, and finds fault with one or two points of doctrine, showing that he is extremely hypercritical. He denounces the book because some of the ideas contained in it are similar to those recorded in the Bible, imply­ing that it is incredible that the Lord could reveal the same truths to Nephi, 600 years before the Christian era, that are recorded by Christ’s disciples years after the birth of the Savior. His method of reasoning plainly shows that he is full of skepticism. He does not believe the Lord has any foreknowledge of future events. Throughout his criticism he conveys the idea that the Lord is dependent upon the discoveries of men for His wisdom and knowledge. He ridicules the idea that it was possible for the Lord to instruct Jared and his brother and Nephi to build vessels in which to cross the ocean. Concerning this he says:

“The last objection I will raise against the ‘Book of Mormon’ is the nsane illustration of ship building extraordinary which it contains, a passage that is enough of itself, apart from every other consideration, to brand the whole thing as an egregious fraud and im­position.”

This, he admits, is his strongest argument against the divinity and truth of the Book of Mormon, as he adds, “You will observe that I have kept ‘the good wine’ until the last.”

This lecturer’s last and greatest objection to the sacred record is cer­tainly a very poor one to present to Bible believers. It is surprising that he did not discover its utter foolishness before publishing it to the world. What Bible believer is willing to deny that the Lord was not as able to instruct Jared and his brother and Nephi in ship-building, as He was to direct Noah in the construction of the ark?

Many attempts have been made to show that the Book of Mormon is the work of an impostor, but every effort to do so has failed. Its truth will withstand every assault made upon it. E.F.P.

Note.—This article was written some time ago, but was held over under the erroneous supposition that a complete series of anti-Mormon tracts would be issued, as announced.—[Ed.]