Reply to a Pamphlet, Printed in Glasgow, Entitled "Remarks on Mormonism"

REPLY TO A PAMPHLET, PRINTED IN GLASGOW, ENTITLED
“REMARKS ON MORMONISM,”

Said to be printed with the approbation of Clergymen of different denominations.

“He that speaketh lies shall perish.”—Prov. xix, 9.

Among the numerous productions which have, for the last nineteen years been circulated against the doctrine believed and taught by the Saints, it seems that another pamphlet has been palmed upon the world by some unknown author, who was ashamed to have his name appear in connexion with his own glaring misrepre­sentations.

As this secret author, in the first page of his pamphlet, has used no arguments, therefore there are none to answer; instead of arguments he seems very much in­clined to apply to the Saints and their doctrine such phrases as the following, viz.: “absurd notions”—“a gross, a stupid, and an unphilosophical fraud”—“delusion”—”grovelling sensualism of Mormonism”—“clumsy and inartistic imposition”—“Atheism and blasphemy”—“fanatical followers”—“weak dupes, &c. Very polite terms Mr. Author! Genteel epithets! Doubtless the “clergymen of different denominations” must feel themselves highly honoured in approbating such irresistible logic!

On the second page of the “Remarks,” a violent attack is made upon the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and Book of Mormon. Tho author condemns the re­velations given through Mr. Smith, because he supposes they originated in selfish­ness. One of the extracts to which he refer reads thus:—“Therefore let no man among you (for this commandment is unto all the faithful who are called of God in the church unto the ministry), from this hour take purse or scrip, that goeth forth to proclaim this gospel of the kingdom. Behold, I send you out to reprove the world of all their unrighteous deeds, and to teach them of a judgment which is to come. And whoso receiveth you, there will I be also, for I will go before your face: I will be on your right hand and on your left, and my spirit shall be in your hearts, and my angels round about you to bear you up.”

“Whoso receiveth you receiveth me, and the same will feed you, and clothe you, and give you money. And he who feeds you, or clothes youm or gives you money, shall in no wise lose his reward; and he that doeth not these things is not my disciple; and by this you may know my disciples. He that receiveth you not, go away from him alone by yourselves, and cleanse your feet even with water pure water whether in heat or in cold, and bear testimony of it unto your father which is in heaven and return not again unto that man. And in whatsoever village or city ye enter do likewise. Nevertheless search diligently and spare not; and wo unto that house, or that village or city that rejecteth you or your words, or testi­mony concerning me.        I say again unto that house, or that village or city that rejecteth you or your words, or your testimony of me; for I, the Almighty, have laid my hands upon the nations, to scourge them for their wickedness; and plagues shall go forth, and they shall not be taken from the earth, until I have com­pleted my work which shall be cut short in righteousness.”

Now we ask the candid reader to compare the foregoing with the commands which Jesus gave to his apostles in ancient days, as recorded in the tenth chapter of Matthew, and he will find a striking analogy between them. A blessing was to attend those who administered to their necessities, while a heavy curse, greater than that which Sodom should receive in the judgment day was to befall those who would not “receive them nor hear their words.” Is it not equally certain that similar blessings or cursings will be apportioned to those who receive or reject the servants of God in any age in which they may be sent? We leave it with our readers to judge whether it is more selfish to travel from city to city without purse or scrip, trusting in god and to the charity of a cold-hearted coveteous generation, than it is to settle down in one place and hire out to preach for a good fat salary of some thousands per year like many modern clergymen.

Mr. Smith is called by this writer an “avaricious impostor," because he obtained a revelation requiring the Saints to contribute a certain portion of their property to build a house unto the Lord, and for other public purposes. But, we ask, Was Joseph, in Egypt, an “avaricious impostor,” because be gathered up all the money, cattle, horses, and property in Egypt; and afterwards made a standing law that all the people should pay one-fifth part of all their annual increase. Was Melchisedec an “avaricious impostor,” because he received tithes from Abraham? Was Moses an “avaricious impostor,” because he received a revelation requiring all Israel to pay their annual tithes for the support of the Levitical priesthood, who officiated at the temple? Were the ancient apostles “avaricious impostors,” because “as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them and drought the prices of the things that were sold and laid them down at the apostles’ feet.”—Acts iv. 34 and 35.

This author next says that “Smith produces many revelations confirma­tory of his headship in the church—that God would reveal his secrets to him only, and no no one else.” This, sir, is a glaring misrepresentation: there is nothing in the Book of Covenants that limits the spirit of revelation to Mr. Smith only. The whole tenor of that book goes to show that every faithful person may receive reve­lation, in a greater or less degree. It is true, Mr. Smith, like Moses, was appoint­ed the only revelator to the church, but this did not prohibit individuals from obtaining revelations for their own personal benefit, though they had no authority to obtain revelations to govern and direct others, or to control the church in its belief: this alone was confined to Mr. Smith, and to such as should be appointed to the same office. The seventy elders of Israel could prophesy and receive reve­lations in the days of Moses, but we are not aware that they were authorized to obtain laws or commandments for the government of Israel, or to write revelations to control their faith; this appertained to Moses and to such only as were appointed to that authority. Hence the Lord said “If there be a prophet among you I, the Lord, will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house? With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold.”—Numbers, xii.

This logical author seems to think that Mr. Smith could not possibly translate the Book of Mormon by the means of the ”Urim and Thummim,” which was before prepared, (which he contemptuously styles “Moroni’s spectacles,”) and at the same time translate by a power from on high, but we ask when Aaron received the sentence of judgment through the “Urim and Thummim," will you not admit that ho received it by a power from on high? Did ever any inspired man anciently receive a revelation through this sacred instrument, that was not given by a power from on high. This ignorant author finds fault with the prophet Moroni because he had written his record, according to his knowledge, in the Egyptian characters. How would he have him write, if not according to his knowledge? Must a prophet write the revelations of God in characters or letters of which he has no knowledge? Every prophet that has ever written a revelation or vision, has written it according to his knowledge. Luke, in writing his history of the doings and sayings of Jesus, wrote according to his memory, at the same time having the Holy Ghost to bring all things to his remembrance, whatever was need­ful to write.—Luke, i, 3. Luke wrote according to his knowledge, and according to his memory, and yet he wrote by the inspiration of the Spirit; and so did the prophet Moroni; and what he wrote he professes to have written by authority, being commanded of God, though he admits the imperfections of the Egyptian hieroglyphics in which he wrote. Every person will admit that some languages have more imperfections than others. The revelations of God are perfect, though they may, like the Book of Mormon, be recorded in an imperfect language; yet, when they are translated by the inspiration of God into a more perfect language, like the English, they will be more perfectly expressed. Moroni, after acknow­ledging the imperfection of his record, (it being in the Egyptian characters,) says, “if our plates had been sufficiently large, we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.” From this we learn that the imperfection of which he speaks did not appertain to the revelations which God had given, but to the language or characters in which they were written.

This author, finding nothing in the Book of Mormon but what is consistent, is at last compelled to invent a barefaced falsehood; and then he endeavours to palm it off upon the public as though it was in that book. He says, that in the Book of Mor­mon “the Lord is made to say that they (the remnant of the tribe of Joseph, then inhabiting America) are the other sheep which are not of the fold of Israel.” Now the Book of Mormon says no such thing: it only represents the Israelites in An­cient America as inhabiting another fold, separate and distinct from the fold occu­pied by the Jews in Palestine. The word “fold,” in the Book of Mormon, has no reference whatever to the origin of the sheep, but only to the place they inhabited. That there are more folds than one, and that the word fold means place, is evident from Jeremiah, xxiii, 3, which reads thus: “And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all countries whither I have driven them, and will bring them again to their FOLDS.”

In the next paragraph of your pamphlet you have falsely accused the author of the “Divine Authority” of ranking Joseph Smith with former impostors, and you pretend to quote my words to that effect; but you yourself, and all other persons who have read my tract on “Divine Authority,” know that you have grossly misre­presented the same—that your pretended quotation is no where to be found in my tract, but is wholly a production of your own corrupt heart to deceive the public.

The next subject touched upon by this Dunfermline author, is the working of miracles. He seems to think that every person among the Saints, must, imme­diately upon entering the Church, possess all the promised miraculous gifts, or else, in his estimation, “Joseph Smith is demonstratively proved to be an impostor.” But we know of no revelation, either ancient or modern, which says that these miraculous gifts promised, shall be received and exercised the moment one enters the Church. Christ did not say that these signs shall follow the believer the first day nor the first year after they believe in him. If these signs follow the believer at any subsequent period of his life, either at or near the time of his first entering the Church, or years afterwards, it would prove the promises true, and the mes­sage to be of God. Therefore if all the Dumfermline Saints (who are yet in their infancy in the Church) have not attained a full measure of all the gifts of the gospel, they need not be discouraged by their enemies, there is time enough yet to receive many blessings, and for all the promises of Jesus to be fulfilled. Thou­sands, since the rise of this Church, have been healed, both in the Church and out of it, insomuch that our enemies have been astonished, and have sought to impute these miracles to some other power than that of God. Therefore if miracles be a proof that this Church is of God, we have an abundance of evidence—in the blind seeing; the deaf hearing; the dumb speaking; the lame walking; the sick re­covering, and in the copious manifestations of the power of God. As the Saints increase in faith, in knowledge, and in holiness, these miraculous gifts will increase in their midst, and all the believers in Christ will realise all the blessings promised, and shall eventually be armed with righteousness, and with the power of God in great glory; while all liars, and wicked, corrupt, and adulterous sign-seekers shall perish off the earth, and be thrust down to hell.

On the fourth page of this Dumfermline tract, the author charges one of the Saints in that vicinity of preaching contrary to the doctrines contained in our books, but when the candid reader reflects upon his numerous misrepresentations in many other instances, he will know how far to put confidence in this charge.

On the same page, this sage philosopher says that, “it is one of the established laws of optics, that no mortal eye can, by any possibility, see a spirit.” Will this very wise author be so kind as to inform the public by whom this “law of optics” was discovered, and by what process of reason and demonstration it became an “established law?” Have any of our great modern opticians analyzed a spirit and ascertained its incapabilities of reflecting light, so as to effect the optic nerve of the eye? We are bold to assert that such a law of optics never was discovered; and no work on optics, either of ancient or modern times, demonstrates or estab­lishes such a law. Were those three personages spirits who took dinner with Abraham, and afterwards walked with him quite a distance towards Sodom? or did Abraham sea them with his mortal eyes? If he did not see them with his mortal eyes, wo have good reason to suppose that he saw them through his mortal eyes as instruments; (all parts of the mortal body are only instruments by which the spirit of man sees, hears, feels, &c.) Abraham does not appear to have been in a vision or a sleep at the time, but apparently enjoyed the exercise of all bis senses as at other times, yet one of these personages with whom he conversed the most, was the Lord, whom we all acknowledge to be a spirit. Although we disagree with this author in regard to the spiritual man not being capable of seeing a spirit through his natural eyes, or the eyes of his body, yet we believe in the testimony of Jesus, that “No man (that is natural man) hath seen God at any time.” The spiritual man may see God even through the natural eyes, or the eyes of his body, like Abraham—like Jacob—like Moses. While the natural man, or the man who is not born of God, has not this privilege, not that it is impossible and contrary to the “laws of optics,” but that it is contrary to the mind of God that such a man should see him and live. This deceptive writer says, the book of Nephi (chapter xiii.) speaks of nine persons being caught up into heaven, but if he will read the chapter again, he will find that it speaks of but three instead of nine, who were so caught up.

(To be continued.)