Remarks on the Book of Mormon

REMARKS ON THE BOOK OF MORMON.

by Elder William Gibson.

(Concluded from our last.)

I shall now take up a few of the most popular objections urged against it by some of its greatest opponents: first, as to its origin.

Mr. Heys, Wesleyan minister, Isle of Man, gives the following account of it:— He says it was written in Harmony township, Susquehanna county, Pennsylvania, by Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery, from the mouth of Joseph Smith, as he sat with his hat on his face, and a stone in his hat, while the plates were hid away in the woods. The Rev. Richard Livesey in his book, intitled Mormonism exposed, says it was written in Conneaut, Ohio, by one Solomon Spaulding, as a religious novel, and afterwards altered by Sidney Rigdon, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Messrs. Chambers, of Edinburgh, in a tract published by them, on religious im­postors, on the authority of the Athenaeum, says, that Joseph Smith was a man scarcely capable of inventing or writing even the ravings of the Book of Mormon, but the Rev. Solomon Spaulding having left his ministry, and entered into business in Cherry Vale, New York, became bankrupt there in the year 1809; and to relieve himself from his distresses, he wrote a novel, connecting the sepulchral mounds of North America with the lost ten tribes of Israel, supposed by some to have peopled that continent, and intending to name the work the “Manuscript found,” he wrote it in the style of the old Hebrew compositions. The work was taken to a prin­ter in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; but the author dying before it could be published, the printer lent the manuscript to Sidney Rigdon, who, in connexion with Joseph Smith, palmed it on the world as a New Revelation.

Again, in a pamphlet by John Thomas, M.D., intitled “a Sketch of the Rise, Progress, and Dispersion of the Mormons,” page 1, we are told that Mr. Spaulding never intended to publish his work; that he did not send it to a printer for that purpose; that he wrote it for his own amusement, and so far from Sidney Rigdon’s having anything to do with the bringing out of the Book of Mormon, he was then in connexion with Mr. A. Campbell, and did not join the Latter-day Saints till the Book of Mormon had been in print, and the society established some considerable time, but Mr. Spaulding having lent his manuscript to a friend, it fell into the hands of a bookseller in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who either wrote a copy of it, or retained the original manuscript, and having found that Joseph Smith was a fit tool, being of a soft semi-daft or impressable nature, he was made to pretend that an angel had appeared to him, and revealed the existence and whereabouts of the plates from which the Book of Mormon was said to be translated.

Again, in a book by Mr. A. Campbell, the same gentleman Mr. Thomas speaks of, intitled “An Analysis of the internal and external Evidences of the Book of Mor­mon.” He says, page 18, “If I could swear to any man’s voice, face, or person, assuming different names, I could swear that this book was written by one man; and as Joseph Smith is a very ignorant man, and is called the author on the title page, I cannot doubt for a single moment but that he is the sole author and pro­prietor of it. Here, then, we have the testimony of two Methodist parsons, of Mr. Campbell, the leader of a religious society, of Dr. Thomas, a man of high standing in the religious world, of the Athenaeum, a publication that I believe is the organ of a religious society, and of a work from such men as the Messrs. Chambers, of Edinburgh, all giving us what they say is the origin of the Book of Mormon; and as we cannot expect that lies will come from such a source, or that such men will bear false witness against their neighbours, it is no wonder that the Latter-day Saints are despised, and the Book of Mormon considered a fable by those who do not in­vestigate for themselves, but take it for granted that it must be so, for the parson says it. But I will now compare these various statements, and then we shall see what amount of credit can be given to the testimony of even such holy and pious men when their craft is in danger.

First, then, as to where it was written. Mr. Heys says it was written in Harmony township, Susquehanna county, Pennsylvania; the Rev. Richard Livesey says it was written in Conneaut, Ohio; While Messrs. Chambers and the Athenaeum give us to understand that it was written in Cherry Vale, New York.

Next, by whom it was written.

Mr. Heys says it was written by Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery, from the mouth of Joseph Smith. Mr. Livesey contradicts him, and says it was written by Sidney Rigdon, from a novel by one Solomon Spaulding. Dr. Thomas declares they are both wrong, for it was written or stolen by a bookseller, in Pittsburgh, and that Sidney Rigdon had no connexion with Joseph Smith and the Latter-day Saints till some time after it was printed. The Rev. Alex. Campbell makes them all three wrong; he says it is the work of an ignorant man, of course that could not apply to a parson, and we are told that Solomon Spaulding was one, and as Joseph Smith was ignorant, he is ready to swear that he is the sole author and proprietor of it; while Chambers and the Athenaeum declare that Joseph Smith was incapable of writing even the ravings of the Book of Mormon.

Again, I ask, who are we to believe? Would such testimony be received in any court of justice as evidence upon which any man should be condemned? Certainly not. Then why is Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon condemned upon it? I suppose it will be for the same reason that Jesus Christ and the New Testa­ment were condemned by the Jews, viz., the priests and holy men would have it so.

I shall next look at the objections raised against the contents of the Book.

First, it is ungrammatical in its construction. I grant it, but does that prove it false? it only proves that those who wrote it were unlearned men. Suppose, for instance, that some one had written the words of Peter and John, just as they uttered them at the beautiful gate of the Temple, as recorded in Acts iv. 13. would they have been according to grammatical rules? Surely not; for we are told that their hearers perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men. If they had clothed their ideas in words fitly chosen, and according to grammatical rules, how could their ignorance and want of learning have been perceived or if Peter and John had written the same words to the people which were uttered by them, would the writing have been grammatical? Certainly not; and yet it would have been scripture, for they were inspired men. The Spirit of God gives the ideas, and allows men to clothe them in the language with which they are most familiar; and thus their testimony has been to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness. Is the Bible grammatical? if not, after all the labour bestowed on its translation what would it have been if the words of the ploughmen, shepherds, and fishermen that compose it, were recorded, just as they were uttered by them? and yet they would have been scripture.

I shall next look at some objections brought against the historical part of it. One portion often objected to is the account of the death of Laban by Nephi. The Book of Mormon says that Nephi was constrained by the Spirit to cut off the head of Laban, and this is looked upon by many as a strong proof against it, because (as they say) it would make God to sanction murder. If those who say so, ever read their Bibles, they surely do not believe what they read, or perhaps they have for­gotten what the Bible contains; I will therefore refresh their memories by quoting a few instances recorded in the Bible, where men have been put to death with the approbation of God. In Numbers xxv. 7, 8, we find that Phineas the priest took his javelin and thrust it through a man and woman, and killed them both, and for so doing the Lord blessed him and his seed for ever. In Judges iv. 15, we are told that the Lord raised up a deliverer for Israel, Ehud the son of Gera, a Benjamite; and how did he do it? We are informed that he made a dagger with two edges, a cubit long; he then went to the king of Moab, and told him that the Lord had sent him with a message unto him, and when the king caused his attend­ants to go out that he might hear the message in private, he thrust the dagger into his bowels and killed him. In 1 Samuel xv. 33, we read that Samuel, the Prophet of the Lord, after Saul had spared the life of Agag, king of Amalek, took Agag and hewed him in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal.

In 1 Kings xviii. 40, it is written that Elijah said take the Prophets of Baal, let not one of them escape; and they took them and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there. These are only a few instances recorded in the Bible of mens’ being killed with the approbation of God; and if one proves the Book of Mormon a fiction, what will so many prove the Bible to be? men who reason thus, to be consistent, ought to deny them both, and come boldly forward and declare their infidelity.

Another great objection to the Book of Mormon is the account It gives of a director or compass that they had to guide them on their journey. Mr. Alexander Campbell, in his book before referred to, page 17, says, “The mariner’s compass was only known in Europe about 300 years ago, but Nephi knew all about steam­boats and the compass 2400 years ago.” Now in what part of his Book of Mor­mon he finds anything said about steam-boats I know not, but one thing I do know, it is not in the one believed in by the Latter-day Saints; and if men are to be judged now by the same rule as that by which Christ judged the pious Pharisees in his day, then Mr. Campbell and others like him, may find out their relationship by reading John viii. 44.

But as to the compass, Mr. Campbell says that Nephi knew all about the com­pass 2400 years ago. But in this he is contradicted by Chambers and the Athenaeum; when speaking of this compass, they say, that the writer (Nephi) evidently misunderstood the use of the compass altogether; while Dr. Thomas, in his book already quoted, page 4, says, “It was a sort of wheel made to roll on before them of itself, as their guide in the way they were to go.” Now as it was the same compass they had on board the ship, it would have to run before them on the water also. Thus you have the testimony of Mr. Campbell, the Athenaeum, and Dr. Thomas, and you can take your choice. If you believe Mr. Campbell, then you will believe that Nephi knew all about the mariner’s compass 2400 years ago; if you believe the Athenaeum you will believe that he knew nothing about it, but misunderstood the use of the compass altogether; while if you believe Dr. Thomas, you will believe that the compass they had was no more like the mariner’s compass than three honest men are like three contemptible promulgators of falsehood; for he says it was a sort of wheel that ran before them, but where he got such an idea from I know not, unless it came from the same fruitful source from which he got the rest of the falsehoods with which his book is filled, and from which Mr. Camp­bell got his statement of the steam-boats. I would advise them to claim kindred, for the works of their Father they will do; for when they utter such falsehoods, they speak of their own; they are lies, and they the fathers of them.

I shall now give the account of it from the Book of Mormon, page 314. “And now my son, I have somewhat to say, concerning the thing which our fathers call a ball or director, for our fathers called it Liahona, which is, being interpreted, a compass; and the Lord prepared it: and, behold, there cannot any man work after the manner of so curious a workmanship; and, behold, it was prepared to show unto our fathers the course that they should travel in the wilderness, and it did work for them according to their faith in God: therefore, if they had faith to believe that God could cause that those spindles should point the way that they should go, behold, it was done: therefore, they bad this miracle, and also many other miracles wrought by the power of God.”

Is this any thing like the mariner’s compass? or is it like a sort of wheel that ran before them of itself? Poor creatures, you need our pity more than our anger.

But, again, it is said by objectors, if we believe this account we must believe that God made or prepared this ball or compass, and that is rather too much for us to Jo. Why, my friends, should it be too much if you can believe the Bible?

Does it not say in Gen. iii. 21, that God made or prepared coats of skin for Adam and Eve? (I wonder who skinned the animals)? and in Exodus xxxii. 16, we read of God’s hewing two tables of stone, and then engraving the law upon them; and I think the man who can believe the one statement has little cause to reject the other, because it says the compass was the work of God.

The next objection to which I will advert, is the account given in the Book of Mormon of the Barges with a hole in the top and another in the bottom. This part has always been held up to derision, and our enemies have made the most of it for this purpose.

The Book of Mormon says, they were tight like unto a dish; and from this it is declared that they were in the form of a dish; and I well remember hearing the Rev. C. J. Kennedy read this passage, and then compare them to a saucer with a hole in the bottom, and ask the audience could such a vessel swim? but how a boat the length of a tree and peaked at the ends, could be like a saucer, he forgot to say. Any unprejudiced man who reads the account of them in the Book of Mormon, will see that it was not in regard to their form that they are said to be like a dish, but in regard to their tightness; and we are told in the 526th page, that they were tight, like the Ark of Noah; and as for a hole in the top and bottom, it must be evident to every one that both would be needed for air and cleanliness on such a voyage; and in reading the account, you will find that the Lord showed them how to prevent the water from coming in upon them, although the way it was done is not recorded; yet seeing it is declared that it was done, I would ask my wise friends is there any thing impossible or even very strange in the idea? True, if the hole in the bottom had to be stopped with a plug, like a beer barrel, as some wise men would have it, it would be rather strange for them what use could be made of it, except in case of the boat overturning, and even then it would need to be somewhat larger than the bung-hole of a beer-barrel to do much good. But I would ask, do you think that a good shipbuilder would think it an impossible thing to build a boat so tight that no water could get in, and then leave a hole in the top, so constructed, that it could be opened and shut at the pleasure of those within, and have another hole in some part of the bottom, and by means of such a simple thing as a hollow cylinder or pipe, or some such thing of either wood or iron carried to a certain height, according to the depth of water the vessel drew, prevent the water from coming in, and yet make it serve for the purpose of cleanliness.

(To be Continued.)