Heman C. Smith's 1901 book

Heman C. Smith
(1850-1919)
Truth Defended...
(Lamoni, Iowa: RLDS, 1901)

Chapters: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

D. H. Bays' Doctrines and Dogmas of Mormonism 1897

THE TRUTH DEFENDED,

OR

A Reply to Elder D. H. Bays'

Doctrines and Dogmas of Mormonism.

BY ELDER HEMAN C. SMITH.
Church Historian.

__________________

LAMONI, IOWA.
PUBLISHED BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
REORGANIZED CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST
OF LATTER DAY SAINTS.
1901

[ 3 ]

I N T R O D U C T O R Y.

"The Doctrines and Dogmas of Mormonism Examined and Refuted" is the title of a book written by one "Elder Davis H. Bays," and published by the "St. Louis Christian Publishing Company 1897."

The Publishing Company in a recent catalogue has given this work the following endorsement:

The subject is given a thorough treatment by one well versed in Mormonism. The author's knowledge of the teachings, doctrines and dogmas of the Mormon Church was obtained by a close relationship with all the prominent leaders of that faith. It is certainly a book of reference, accurate and reliable. Every important question pertaining to the peculiarities of the Mormons is discussed and answered from a Biblical and philosophical standpoint. The author does not use ridicule or burlesque to supply the place of logic and argument. He meets every question with painstaking arguments, showing great familiarity with the fundamental principles relied on" by Mormons to sustain their doctrines. A careful study of this work will convince the reader that the author has completely exaplained and refuted the Doctrines and Dogmas of Mormonism.

The indorsement given the book by a respectable publishing house, rather than the book itself, furnishes the apology, if one is needed, for the consideration given it, in this treatise.

The anxiety of the publishers to recommend everything opposed to "Mormonism" is apparent, however, for the same page of the catalogue where the above endorsement is found contains the following concerning the work of Elder Clark Braden in the Braden and Kelley debate:

A thorough expose of the real organ of the Book of Mormon and Mormonism.

4 INTRODUCTORY

It is well known that Mr. Braden's theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon is the Spalding Romance, while Elder Bays says:

The Spaulding story is a failure. Do not attempt to rely upon it -- it will let you down. The entire theory connecting Sidney Rigdon and the Spaulding Romance with Joseph Smith in originating the Book of Mormon must be abandoned. -- Doctrines and Dogmas of Mormonism, p. 25.

The inconsistency of a publishing house recommending two theories diametrically opposite is too apparent to need comment, and is only cited here to show the prejudice prompting the indorsement.

Again; the "Christian Church" in indorsing Elder Bays, and his theory, has made a humiliating concession that we here present in the language of Elder Charles Derry, as follows:

The elder strikes a deathblow at the long cherished theory of the "Christians" and other opponents of the Book of Mormon in showing that Sidney Rjgdon bad no connection whatever with the Book of Mormon until the latter had been published to the world.

As Elder Bays in the work under consideration presents himself not only as an advocate but as a witness in the case against "Mormonism," it is proper that the reader should know something of the witness.

In presenting a brief statement of the career of Elder Bays we disclaim any desire to do him an injury, our only object being to inform the public who it is that testifies

Elder Davis H. Bays was born in Colorado county, Texas, March 5, 1839; but later his parents resided in Montgomery county, Texas; where it the year 1848 they first beard the principles of the gospel as taught by the Latter Day Saints, through Elders John Hawley and Joel Miles, who were then connected with the colony in western Texas under Lyman Wight. They soon removed to the headquarters, and cast their lot with the colony, and were identified with them for some time.

INTRODUCTORY 5

Subsequently they became dissatisfied and emigrated to Beaver Island, in Lake Michigan, where James J. Strang was located, and were associated with the Strangite movement until the death of Strang in 1856.

Later the Bays family emigrated westward, and on May 27, 1861, Davis H. Bays united with the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, at Council Bluffs, Iowa, being baptized by Elder Charles Derry. On the 14th of June following be was ordained an elder at the same place by Elders W. W. Blair and Edmund C. Briggs. After this but little was heard of him for a few years, but subsequently he became quite active as a minister, and did considerable missionary work in Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, and Texas. On September 14, 1878, be was ordained a seventy by Elder J. R. Lambert and others, at Galland's Grove, Iowa. His ministerial career was not without its trials, and he was on one or more instances silenced or released from appointment subject to inquiry, but so far as we know nothing of a serious character was developed against him on investigation until about 1880.

At the election of that year he was candidate for assessor in Grove township, Shelby county, Iowa, and took quite an active part in the campaign, during which considerable feeling was engendered between him and some of his brethren in the church who were opposed to him politically, resulting in a heated political quarrel between him and Elder John B. Hunt on election day. Personal reflections were indulged in, in consequence of which Elder Bays preferred charges against Elder Hunt, setting forth that Elder Hunt had without just cause accused Elder Bays of being religiously and politically dishonest, and of accusing Elder Bays of stealing. A court of investigation was summoned, composed of five elders, before whom the case was heard. The court in presenting its findings, after summing up the evidence, said:

6 INTRODUCTORY

Therefore the charge for declaring that the defendant J. B Hunt believed plaintiff (D. H. Bays) to be religiously dishonest without just ground is not sustained.

That of political dishonesty cannot be proven or disproven by any evidence before us.

As to the charge of stealing, we cannot say more or less than has been said, that in the attempt of the defendant to rebut the charge developments were made that we consider hurtful to the reputation of the plaintiff (D. H. Bays).

Three of the court signed these findings, the other two dissenting. The findings were dated March 27, 1881.

Elder Bays appealed this case to the district conference. The conference appointed a court consisting of three elders, who on July 24, 1881, presented their findings, confirming the decision of the lower court in the first and second, counts, but declaring that

The evidence does not show that the plaintiff (D. H. Bays) did or would steal property.

Therefore deciding the charge against Hunt sustained so far as it related to accusing Bays of stealing.

About the same time of instituting proceedings in the courts of the church, Elder Bays instituted proceedings against Elder Hunt in the Shelby County Circuit Court, for slander, claiming damages in the sum of ten thousand dollars. This case was filed March 22, 1881, and after some delays was decided in favor of defendant, Elder Bays, failing to secure judgment. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa, and the Supreme Court at its September term for 1882 confirmed the decision of the lower court.

This ended litigation. Anyone curious to know more of this case and of the evidence produced therein is referred to the Supreme Court Documents in the case of Bays vs. Hunt.

After this Elder Bays resumed his ministerial labors, but his efforts were feeble, and be failed to regain the prestige that he had before enjoyed. The next ten years

INTRODUCTORY 7

he attracted but little attention, making one or two short missionary trips, but not continuing in the work long at a time. In 1892 he presented his resignation as a minister to the General Conference which convened at Independence, Missouri, April 6.

The following are extracts from said resignation which will disclose the condition of Elder Bays' mind at the time:

Kalamazoo, Mich., April 1, 1892.
To the President and Brethren in Conference Assembled:

Dear Brethren.

As circumstances over which I have no control seemingly preclude the possibility of my being present at the coming annual session of the General Conference, I take this method of reporting to your honorable body, the condition in which I find myself both respecting my faith and the performance of ministerial duties.

For several years I have found myself doubting matters and things which my colaborers and the church at large expect me to indorse.

When these difficulties first began to appear, I sought, through a more thorough examination of, and comparison between the standard works of the church to remove them. But instead of accomplishing the task imposed, I found the situation to become more grave and complicated.

I have sought light upon the vexed questions from every available source, but without avail. It was with feelings of profound regret that I discovered myself gradually, but certainly, drifting away from the church and people with whom I had spent the best days of my young, as well as my mature, manhood. And I pursue this course today, not from choice, not because it affords me pleasure to do so, but, rather, out of a deep sense of duty, not only to myself, but to you and to the church whose servants and ministers you are.

As I find myself so out of harmony with the body that I cannot indorse without mental reservation its fundamental doctrines and tenets, there remains but one course for me honorably to pursue, and that is to resign my ministerial office. In view of these facts, I hereby tender my resignation as a minister, in the First Quorum of Seventy, of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Without a doubt you will expect me to give my reasons for this rather unusual course.

My reasons are briefly as follows.

1. The Book of Doctrine and Covenants.

After years of careful investigation of the facts, as well as the

8 INTRODUCTORY

circumstances under which the book was written, I have arrived at the conclusion that there is absolutely nothing to be offered in support of its claina to divine inspiration. As a minister of the church I would be expected to defend its claim to be divinely inspired, and acknowledge its authority, neither of which can I do with a clear conscience. To act honestly both with myself and the church, I feel it my duty to resign.

2. The Book of Mormon.

As to the ethical status of this book, I think no unfavorable comment can reasonably be made. Its moral precepts are unquestionably good. They are all that its friends claim for it, and, indeed, superior in some respects to those of the Bible.

But the mere fact that its moral precepts may be regarded as faultless, cannot serve to prove it to be of divine origin.

The principal point of strength in favor of the Book of Mormon is to be found in the fact of the profound mystery surrounding its origin. No living man knows anything whatever of the facts of its true origin. To say the least, its inspiration and authority are extremely doubtful.

3. The Bible.

Ministers of the Gospel are expected to believe and teach the inspiration of the Bible. During the later years of my ministry I made this a question of special inquiry, and, quite contrary to the generally received opinion. I found nothing to sustain the belief that the Old and New Testaments, or any particular book in either, were written by divine inspiration. Hence I have been led to reject the dogma of "The Divine Inspiration of the Bible." as wholly untenable.

4. Not only do I find that the writers of the several books of the Bible, whoever they may be, do not claim to have written the books attributed to them by inspiration, but I find a marked, and irreconcilable disagreement between them, on questions of vital importance; thereby destroying the last vestige of any ground upon which to base an argument in support of the dogma of Plenary Inspiration.

The remaining part of the letter consists of argument in support of the foregoing and of objections to the Inspired Translation of the Bible.

We have given the foregoing items of history not to prejudice the case against Elder Bays, but as he assumes to be a witness against "Mormonism" to place his conclusion, and the causes leading up to the conclusion, before the reader that he may form his own estimate regarding the testimony of this willing and self-appointed witness.

INTRODUCTORY 9

Since severing his affiliation with the Saints he united with the Baptist Church with which he remained but a short time, and then transferred his allegiance to the "Christian Church" with which he now stands identified.

In preparing this treatise I have been placed under obligations to Elder Charles Derry, who kindly extended valuable aid by placing at my disposal his, manuscript written on the subject. Others have given suggestions and furnished documentary material which have been of great benefit, among whom are Brn. Joseph Smith, J. R. Lambert, J. W. Wight, I. N. White, M. H. Forscutt, T. W. Williams, C. E. Butterworth, D. F. Lambert, R. Etzenhouser, S. C. Clapp, F. M. Sheehy, H. O. Smith, R. S. Salyards, and John Pett.

With a prayer that this little volume may lead to a closer investigation. of the subjects treated upon, I submit it to the judgment of a discerning public,

THE AUTHOR.

[ 10 ]

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER 1.

Misquotations -- Historical Mistakes -- Oliver Cowdery -- Book of Mormon -- Lineage; how Determined -- Missions of Bays -- Miraculous Power -- Strang's Organization -- Endowment -- J. W. Briggs -- Charles Derry -- Martin Harris -- Three Witnesses -- Facsimile of Characters -- Bays Misrepresents -- Laying on of Hands -- Bays Wrong on his own History -- Wrong on Higbees -- Moral Status of Bays. 13

CHAPTER 2.

Bays' Claim to Superior Advantage -- Condemns Spalding Story -- Foundation -- Sam -- Spiritual Gifts -- Cases of Healing -- The Commission -- Joseph Smith Healed -- Medicine -- Questions. 38

CHAPTER 3.

Corruption -- Church Organization -- Patriarch -- Office of Apostle -- Bays Differs from Peter -- Apostle an Ambassador -- Apostolic Qualifications -- Rule of Succession -- First Presidency -- Patriarch -- The Church. 58

CHAPTER 4.

Apostles -- Foundation of the Church -- The Teeter Board -- Calling of Ministers -- Ordination -- Priesthood -- Choosing Apostles -- Jesus in Solemn Assembly. 79

CHAPTER 5.

Book of Mormon -- Revelation -- Present Conditions -- Land Shadowing With Wings -- Languages of Plates -- Isaiah Twenty-Ninth Chapter -- Palestine Past and Present. 98

CHAPTER 6.

Book of Mormon -- Harris' Visit to New York -- Anthon Wrong -- Bays Writes to Linguists -- Angell's Letter -- Davis' Letter -- Moldenke's Letter -- Anthon's Letter -- Testimony Compared -- Archaeology -- Moldenke's Embarrassment -- Records -- Materials Written on -- Anthon's Theory -- Testimony of Witnesses. 115

11 CONTENTS.

CHAPTER 7.

Doctrines -- Faith Repentance -- Baptism -- Laying on of Hands -- Resurrection and Eternal Judgment. 143

CHAPTER 8.

Polygamy -- Conflicting Statements -- General Assembly -- Conference Resolution -- Bays' Summary -- Marriage -- Bennett's Testimony -- Certificates -- Bennett's Perfidity -- Nauvoo Expositor -- Hiram Brown -- Richard Hewitt -- Statement of Emily D. P. Young -- Of Lovina Walker -- Of Emma Smith -- Of Southard -- Of Mrs. Thompson -- Of Joseph Smith -- Of Mr. Soby -- Of Mr. Fullmer -- Of Mr. Grover -- Of Brigham Young -- Of Mrs. Bidamon -- Of William Marks -- Factions on Polygamy -- Statement of Robinsons. 152

CHAPTER 9.

The Gathering -- Zion's Camp, Purpose of -- Committee Negotiate -- Statement of Joseph Smith -- Of Lyman Wight -- Of H. C. Kimball -- Of P. P. Pratt -- Garbling -- Statement of Gillium -- Propositions of Mormons -- More Garbling -- Mistakes Possible. 192

CHAPTER 10.

Prophecy on Rebellion -- Bays' Conclusions -- Conclusions Examoned -- Letter to N. E. Seaton -- Affidavit of N. D. Earl -- Statement of John Hyde -- Letter to Calhoon -- Nation's Woe -- Saints' Loyalty -- Missouri's Disgrace -- Quincy Argus -- Democratic Association -- Western Messenger -- General Ewing's Order -- Cause of "Injured Innocence" -- Petition to President Hayes -- Patriot -- Revelation of 1832 -- Evidence of Fulfillment -- Conclusion. 203

[ 13 ]

Reply to D. H. Bays.
_____

CHAPTER 1.

Misquotations -- Historical Mistakes -- Oliver Cowdery -- Book of Mormon -- Lineage: how Determined -- Missions of Bays -- Miraculous Power -- Strang's Organization -- Endowment -- J. W. Briggs -- Charles Derry -- Martin Harris -- Three Witnesses -- Facsimile of Characters -- Bays Misrepresents -- Laving on of Hands -- Bays Wrong on his own History -- Wrong on Higbees -- Moral Status of Bays.

In the examination of the "Doctrines and Dogmas of Mormonism" we shall not invite attention to all the errors in the book, for this would require more time and space than the subject demands. Some of them will answer our purpose in showing the utter unrealiability of the work. The writer has been surprised at some of these, as he had reason to believe that Elder Bays knew better than to make some statements that he had made. However, we must meet the statements of Elder Bays just as we find them, though we might wish for his sake that he had confined himself to the truth. One of the most painful features, as will appear as we proceed, is his garbling of quotations, while his assumed fairness leads him to claim to state the position of the Saints in their own language. We are met with one instance of this right in the outset of our task. On page 19 Elder Bays quotes from Joseph Smith as follows:

I was answered that I should join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; and that the professors were all corrupt.

The correct reading of the passage is as follows:

I was answered that I should join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; and that those professors were all corrupt.

14 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS.

It will be seen that Elder Bays has inserted the word and and substituted the word the for those. This separated from the context might seem to be a slight error, but when we consider the context we learn that Joseph went there to inquire regarding the teaching of certain men in his neighborhood, of whom he says:

A scene of bad feeling ensued; priest against priest; convert against convert; so that all of the good feeling entertained, one for another, was entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest of opinions.

The word those in the original evidently referred to those parties under consideration. regarding whom the inquiry was made, but Elder Bays has made the passage to read so as to include all professors.

And that this was his design is evident from his comment following this garbled quotation. He says:

This shows the light in which the founder of Mormonism viewed all other churches and creeds. The churches were all wrong, their creeds an abomidation, and their teachers and professors all corrupt.

This is repeated on pages 33 and 76. Men may by mistake misquote, but when they base a conclusion upon their interpolations it is impossible to excuse them from a design to misrepresent.

We here place in parallel columns quotations from Bays' book with original passages, italicizing words that are different. We do not exhaust this list, for this. would require too much space, as his quotations are in a majority of instances garbled. We do not say that this was always done through design; but whether done willfully or carelessly, the book is unreliable as a book of reference. The following specimens will illustrate the correctness of our statement:

"After havin& made diligent After having made diligent search among all the societies search among all. of the so- and organizations extant, with cieties azid organizations ex-

REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 15

,your guide [the Bible] in tan t, -,vith your guide in your hand, where do you find hand, where do you ftrd @amidst them all, my friend amidst them all, my friend and reader, an institution in and reader, an institution in ,exact accord with the pat- exactaccord with the pattern tern of Christ's Oburch? Ah, given of Christ's church? Ah, echo answers, Where? echo answers,-where? Yet 'Yet one established accord- one established according to 4ng to this plan is all that this plan is all that God has -God has ever deigned to ac- ever deigned to acknowledge knowledge as his. What will as his. What will you do? .7ou do? Throw awav your Throw away your guide, and guide, and join the daug7it6r8 join a daughter of the old .4DE the old mother, or some in- mother, or some institution of stitution of men?"-Doctrines men? -PresideDcy and Priest- and Dogmas of Mormonism, hood, pp. 188, 189. .P. 32. "(1) Faith in God. (2) Faith (I.) Faith in God. (2.) Faith in Jesus Christ. (3) In the In Jesus Christ. (3.) In the Holy Ghost. (4) Belief in the Holy Ghost. (4.) Belief in the -doctrine of repentance. (5) In doctrine of repentance. (5.) baptism. ((i) In the lavine on In baptism. (O.) In the laying ,of hands. (7) In the resurrec- on of hands. (7.) In the res- tion of the dead. (8) Eternal urrection of the dead; and _jud-ment. (9) The Lord's (S.) Et!ernal judgment. (O. Supper. (10) The washing of The Lord's supper. (10.) The feet. These, together with washing of feet. These, to- . . . the endowment of the gether with an kvmble and Holy Ghost as realized and godly walk, including all the ex- enjoyed in the testimony oj ceZIe?tcm set out in the moral rode, Jesus,-such as faith, wisdom, with the endowment of the knowledge, dreams, prophe- Holy Ghost as realized and cies, tongues, interpretatio?t of enjoyed in the testimony of to??,gue8, visions, hearings," etc. Jesus,-such as faith, wisdom, -Doctrines and-Dogmas, pp. knowledge, dreams, prophe- 33, 34. cies, tongues, inte?,pretatioits, visions, hearings, etc.-Presi- dency and Priesthood, pp. 83, 84. "'One day, when I arose One day, when I arose from from the table, I walked di- the dinner table, I walled @rea@ly to the door and began directly to the door and vomiting most profusely. I commenced vomiting most raisedlargequan@itiesof blood profusely. I raised large .and poisonous matter, and so quantities of blood and poison- .great were the contortions of ous matter, and so great were my muscular sy.5tem, that my the contortions of my muscu- jaw was dislocated in a, few lar system, that my jaw wag

16 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS.

moinents. This I succeeded dislocated in a fewmoments- in replacing with my own This I succeeded in replacing hands, and I then made my -with my owA hands, and I way to Brother Whitney (who then made my way to brother was on his bed) as speedily as Whitney (who was on his bed), possibl'e. He laid his hands as speedily as possible. He on me, and administered tome laid his hands on me, and ad- in the name of the Lord, and ministered in the name of the I was healed in an instant, al- Lord, and I was healed in an. though the effect of the poison instant, although the effect of bad been so powerful as to the poison had been so power- cause much of the hair to ful as 'to cause much of the become loosened from my hair to become loosened from bead.' " (Tullidge's History, my head.-Tullidge's History, pages 141, 142.) - Doctrines pp. 141, 142. and Dogmas, p. 63. "In the New Testament In the New 'testament there, there is a history given of the is a history given of the forma- foundation of the Church of tion of the church of Christ, Christ in the times of the apos- etc.-Presidency and Priest- tles. It sets forth the class of hood, p. 49. officers belonging thereto, and defines their duties." (Presi- dency and Priesthood, , page 49).-Doetrines and Do.-mas, p. 77. "'In the light of the above In the light of the abovl- facts, can any organization, facts, can any organization, however proud and haughty however proud and haughty in its claims or large its mem- in its claims, or large itsnum,- bers, not having these God-sent berq, etc. - Presidency and and heaven-inspiredofficers, be Priesthood, p. 45, the Church of Christ?" (Ibid, page'45).-Doctrines and Dog- mas, P. 78. "It is not expedient In me It Is not yet expedient in me, that the Quorum of the Presi- etc.-Doctrine and Covenants,. dency and the Quorum of the sec. 122, par. 4. Twelve Apostles shall be filled, for reasons which will be seen and known unto you in. due time."-Doctrines and Cove- nants, sec. 122, par. 4, page 353.

When it is noted that Elder Bays in connection with the last quotation is striving to show that the Reorganized

REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 17

Church has practically abandoned the form of organization formerly adopted, the leaving out of the word yet raises a suspicion of design to misrepresent.

"Now therefore are ye no Now therefore ye are no more foreigners and 8tranger8, more 8t?,a?tge?-,,? and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the but fellow citizens with the saints, and are built upon the saints, and of the, 7tou867wld of foundation of the apostles and God; and %re built upon the prophets, Jesus Christ hiuiself foundation of the, apostles and bein,@ the chief corner-stone." prophet,.;, Jesus Christ himself -Doctrines and Dogmas, p. bein& the chief corner stone. 124. -Eph. 2:19, 20. "Some have supposed that Some have supposed that they received two ordinations; they received two ordiii-ations; one under the hands of Peter, one under the hands of Peter, Jg.Tnes and John, and one by James, and John, and one b each other; but . . . there is each other; but it is seare6l@y no historical evidence of such supposabm tltat t7tey toovldfail to an event." (lbid, page 64).- Mention so important an item. Doctrines and Dogmas, p. 134. There is no historical evi- deti(fe of such an event.- Church History, vol. 1, p. (i4.

Though Elder Bays here indicates the ellipsis, he uses the conjunction but to connect what in the original is a separate sentence, thus making it to appear in different connection from that in which it appears in the original.This abuse of the ellipsis is quite frequent in "Doctrines and Dogmas of Mormonism," and we here caution the reader that where he finds the ellipsis indicated in said work it would be well to look up the original before using the quotation, or he may find himself in an embarrassing position. As instances we cite the reader to pages 33, 272, 273, 394, 398, 399, 401, 402, 411. Again, you will find places frequently where an actual ellipsis occurs that is not indicated. See pages 155, 319, 402.

Resuming quotations, we record the following:

"God has committed the The admission that God has priesthood as a means of at any time committed the authoriziti.- men to minister." priesthood -as a means of

18 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS.

(Page 3.)-Doctrines and Dog- authorizing men to adminis- m as, P. ter before him acceptably, must be taken as positive evidence of its necessity.@ Presidency e6nd Priesthood, P. 3. "Tbe Gospel is administered "Theroyal Zaw," the "perfect by the authority of the Mel- law of liberty," the gospel, is cbizedekpriesthood."(Page5.) administered by the authority But Mr. Kelley does not in- of the.Tylelchisedec priesthood. form us where he flnds au- -Presidency and Priesthood, thority for this remarkable p. 5. statement."-Doctrines and Doginas. p. 146. - "Behold, there shall be a Behold, there shall be a record kept among you, and record kept among you, and in it thou shalt be called a in it thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Je,,@us Christ, an an apostle of Jesus Christ, an ,elder of the church through elder of the church through the will of God the Father, the will of God the Father, and the grace of our Lord and the grace of your Lord Jesus Chi,ist. Wherefore, Jesus Christ; be?,ng inspired of meaning he church, thou the Holy Ghost to lai/ tA6 founda- ,e -ds, shalt giV6 7@e d to all his ivo? tion thereof, and to build it up and commandments, which unto the most holy faith,- which he shall give unto you, as he church qoas oi@qa7tized and eqtab- i-eceiveth them, walking in liv7ted, in the year of your Lord all holiness before me; for his eig7iteen 7tkndi,ed and tltirty, in word ?le shall receive, as if from the fourth month, and on the mine oien nzo?zt7t, in all patience qe,.vt7i day of the month, which is andjait7t.." (Doc.andCoy.,sec. called Api,ft. 19, pit-. 1. page 102.) T)oc- Wherefore, meaning the trities and Dogmas, pp. 319, church, thou shalt give heed 320. unto all his words, and com- maiidments, which he shall give unto you, as be receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me: for his word ye shall receive, as if from mine OWD mouth, in all patience and fajtb. - Doctrine and Covenar;ts 19: 1, 2.

These instances will serve as examples of the kind of work Elder Bays has done in the book in which be claims "the writer has endeavored to fairly state each proposition

REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 19

discussed, and treat them with that degree of candor due to the sincerity of thousands who honestly believe them divine." Nor are the above instances exceptions to the general rule. Elder Bays has either through design or intent garbled a majority of the quotations made, and the above are given to direct the reader's attention to the matter that he may examine for himself.

HISTORY.

When we consider the opportunities of Elder Bays to know, the following mistakes in history are not easily excused.

On page 25 Bays says-

All Mormon history and biography agree in connecting Oliver Cowdery, a man the equal of Sidney Rigdon in point of scholastic attainments and personal polish, directly with Joseph Smith in every state of the development of Mormonism.

Now "Mormon history and biography agree" to no such thing. The history is as follows:

It was early in the spring of 1820 that Joseph Smith saw his first vision that led to the final movement to organize the church.

In September, 1823, he saw the second vision, when he was informed of the existence of the plates and promised the possession of the same on condition of faithfulness.

The plates were obtained accordi5g to promise, on September 22, 1827, and sometime in the month of February following Martin Harris started with copies of the characters to New York, where he showed them to Dr. Mitchill and Prof. Anthon.

April 12, 1828, Joseph Smith began the translation of the plates with Martin Harris as scribe.

A year later (April, 1829) Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery met for the first time; and to this "all Mormon history and biography agree."

Not for nine years after its inception did Cowdery know

20 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS.

anything about this work, and during these nine years Joseph Smith received his visions and revelations directing him to do the work be afterwards did do, received the plates, sent copies of the characters to linguists, and began the translation, and yet Elder Bays says that all Mormon history and biography agree in connecting Cowdery with Joseph Smith in every stage of the development of Mormonism. It might be added that Cowdery was not directly connected with Joseph Smith after 1838, though Joseph Smith lived six years longer. If Bays does not know these facts he has not improved upon his opportunities to know, and is not a competent historian.

In speaking of the Book of Mormon Elder Bays says:

It describes the wanderings of the little band through the wilderness on foot till they reached the borders of the Red Sea, and their sojourn upon the banks of a large stream, which flowes into the Red Sea. From this point they traveled in a south-southeasterly direction, till finally they came to the sea, called "Ireantum." -- Page 27.

He thus represents the Book of Mormon as saying that the course of the colony was not changed until it reached the sea of Irreantum.

On page 42 of the Book of Mormon (I use the Palmyra edition, as that is the one used by Bays) we find the following:

And it came to pass that we did again take our journey in the wilderness; and we did travel nearly eastward, from that time forth.

It may be that Bays overlooked this, and we do not refer to it as an evidence of dishonesty, but it becomes necessary to refer to some things of this nature because Bays claims to be, and is recognized by many to be, thoroughly acquainted with the subject be writes upon. We only wish that it were possible to admit, what we admit in this case, regarding all his blunders, namely, that through ignorance he did it.

REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 21

Again, Bays says:

But you may ask, How is it possible at this late day to determine this difficult question of Aaronic lineage?

To ordinary mortals this would, I confess, prove an insurmountable barrier; but Joseph was a man of resources, and this matter of lineal descent was a trifling affair. You must bear in mind the fact that Joseph was in possession of that magical "Urim and Thummim," by means of which he had access to the fountains of all knowledge. Appealing to this, the question was soon settled. A Patriarch must be appointed whose duty and privilege it shall be to determine the lineage, not only of the man whose privilege it is to "hold the keys of this priesthood," but of any and every man who may be curious to know from just which of the twelve patriarchs of old he might be descended. -- Page 30.

The law of the church places this duty upon the First Presidency and not upon the Patriareh, as the following will show:

No man basalegal right to this office, to bold the keys of this priesthood, except he be a literal descendant and the firstborn of Aaron; but as a high priest of the Melchisedec priesthood has authority to officiate in all the lesser offices, he may officiate in the office of bishop when no literal descendant of Aaron can be found; provided, he is called and set apart, and ordained unto this power under the hands of the first presidency of the Melchisedec priesthood. And a literal descendant of Aaron, also, must be designated by this presidency, and found worthy, etc. -- Doctrine and Covenants 68:2.

Nor, is this the only mistake in the above passage. There never has been a claim made by the church or by Joseph Smith that the above question was settled by an appeal to the Urim and Thummim. We would like to excuse Mr. Bays in this case, but there is no excuse for such glaring misrepresentations.

Bays testifies as follows:

While in charge of the Southwestern Mission, including Texas. western Louisiana, Arizona and New Mexico, I kept a record of all administrations to the sick, noting time, place, the name of patient, the nature of the malady, by whom assisted, and the results. At the close of the year I found myself unable to report a single instance of healing in the entire mission. This was in 1878-9. -- Page 66.

22 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS.

An examination of the record shows that Elder Bays was not at the time mentioned in charge of all the territory claimed, nor have we found any record that he was at any other time in charge of, or ever labored in, Arizona or New Mexico.

At that time there were two General Conferences held, each year, called the Annual and Semiannual. At the Annual Conference of 1878 the appointment read as follows:

D. H. Bays and Ralph Jenkins, to Texas and Indian Territory. -- Saints Herald, vol. 25, page 141.

The minutes of the Semiannual Conference for the same year contain the following:

D. H. Bays was sustained in the Texas Mission, and W. T. Bozarth wits associated with him; also Ralph Jenkins and J. W. Bryan continued in the same.-Ibid., p. 295.

The minutes of the annual conference for 1879 disclosed the following:

D. H. Bays, Texas Mission. -- Ibid., vol. 26, p. 141.

The minutes of the Semiannual Conference for 1879 have this entry:

Davis H. Bays, released, subject to inquiry by First Presidency. -- Ibid., p. 233.

Is this a lapse of memory or a willful misrepresentation? In either case it makes him an unreliable witness.

While still on the subject of miraculous power, Elder Bays says:

With forty years of acquaintance with Mormonism in its various phases, common honesty impels me to say I have never known a single instance of miraculous power. I have witnessed, it is true, what I was at the time willing to call a miracle, because, like all others who believe in such thinms, I wished to have it so; but never have I witnessed anything which would bear the test of intelligent scrutiny, or be confirmed by candid, sober second thought. -- Page 74.

In this connection it might be well to refresh Elder Bays' memory with the following testimonies from his own pen:

REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 23

We then repaired to the water. A deep feeling of solemnity pervaded the assembly while nine precious souls were buried with our precious Lord in baptism. The invitation was extended to others, when Bro. Thompson.stepped forward and addressed the audience in a solemn and impressive manner, sayine: "The systems of men generally teach a 'form of godli- ness' but deny the 'power thereof,' and I have been preaching the 'Power' without the 'form.' But now, thank God, we have presented to us both the form and the power; and I feel it to be my duty to walk in the light as I now behold it, and to put on the whole armor of God." Then he came forth and was baptized. Almost the entire audience, which was larce, was in tears. Even people who had not obeyed the -ospel message, received great confirmation, some of them testifvfii- boldly that they saw a glorious and heavenly light at the close of the baptismal service. It was certainly a remarkable display of God's power: praise his great and holy name!

Next day, Tuesday 25th, we met under the arbor again at 11 o'clock a. in. for Dreaching and confirmation services, in which the Spirit was present in a remarkable de-ree of po%ver, espe- cially in the confirmation ceremonies.--Extract from a. letter written from Stocl@dale, Wilson county, Texas, June 80, 1878, and published in the Saint8' H6?,al(I for July 15 of the same year.

It might be interesting, to bear Elder Bays put this to "intelligent scrutiny" "confirmed by candid, sober second thought."

When he has disposed of that let him try the following:

In all my l@fe I have never known the truth to be put to a test at (@nce so tryiii,- and fiery as the one just referred to. But I kneio the Lord would give us the victa)ry, so we awaited patiently till the oi-deal was past, when his mercy appeared. The discussion terminated favorably to t-he cause of truth.- Extract rroni a letter written from Stocl@dale. Te.YLs, Tuly 10, 18'78, and published in the Sai?it8' Kerald for September I of the same year.

This was written concerning a discussion Mr. Bays had just closed with a Mr. Washburn, of the Baptist Church. In the absence of revelation from God, bow did Elder Days kdow what the Lord was going to do regarding this dis- cussion? He could not have known anythij3g about it. If we are to believe his testimony now, will Mr. Bays please arise and explain why he testified falsely on July 10, 1878?

24 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS.

Mr. Bays makes another mistake when in referring to the organization of James J. Strang he says:

Although claimants to be the legal successor to Jdseph Smith, as "prophet, seer, and reveltror," he skillfully avoided the triumvirate l@nown as the "First Presidency," and assumed the modest title of king.-Page 75.

In a periodical called the Gospel He2-ald, published at V6ree, Wisconsin, as the official organ of James J. Strang, and in its issue for August 16, 1849, there is a notice of several confereiaces, from which we quote as follows: There Nvill be a Conference held in the city of New York the bth, 6th and 7tb of October next. It is expected that a majority of both the First Presidency and the Twelve will attend'these Conferences. JAMFS J. STRANG.. Presidents. GEORGF, J. AIDAMS , (

This notice is also inserted in the next six issues follow- ing the one referred to.

Bays claims to have been for a time identifled with the organization under Strang. Yet he does not seem to know what that organization was.

Reader, no matter what your opinion is regarding "Mormonism," be careful how you depend on Bays for information - he will surely get you into trouble.

On page 160 Bays says:

Who were. present at the Kirtland endowment? Latter Day Saints 01113-, so far as tl)e iiisi,ory informs us.

The following shows plainly that there were others beside the members present:

We further add that we should do violence to our own feelings and injustice to the real merit of our brethren and friends who attended the meeting, were we here to withhold a meed of praise, which we thinlz is their just due, not only for their quiet demeanor during the whole exercise, which lasted more than eight hours, but for their great liberality in contributing of their earthly substance for the relief of the building committee, who were yet somewhat involved. - Church History, vol. 2, p. 45.

In the very next sentence after the one quoted above he

REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 25

makes another historical mistake and emphasizes it as follows:

Who understood the "tongues" in which not one of the apoitles fq declared to haveve spoken? Not a soul, for they were all English-speaking people.

The following will show his error:

President S. Rigdon then made a few appropriate closing remarl@s, and a sbort prayer, which was ended with loud accia- mations of Hosanna! Hosanna! Hosanna to Gcd and the Lamb, Amen, Amen and Amen! three times. Elder B. Young, one of the Twelve, gave a short address in tongues: Elder D. W. Pat- ten interpreted and gave a short exhortation in tongues him- self; etc.-Ibid., p. 45.

It is only necessary here to say that Patten, as well as Young, was a member of the. Quorum of the Twelve. We insist that whether Elder Bays makes these false historical statements ignorantly, or with design to deceive, his book is not one of "reference, accurate and reliable," as asserted by the Christian Publishino, House.

In speaking of Jason W. Briggs, Bays says:

Jason became dissatisfled with his own worl<; and by his actions, at least, renouiicin.- his own 'revelation and the work built upon it, he resigned his apostolic office and withdrew from the church ataconference held at Indepei)deirce, Mo.-Pa-e 162.

Elder Briggs did not withdraw from the church at Inde-' pendence, Missouri, but at Lamoni, Iowa, in 1886, and then fiot because he was "dissatisfied with his own work, if or because he "renounced his own revelation." Let Elder Briggs speak for himself. When on the witness stand in the famous Temple Lot suit he was questioned regarding his reasons for withdrawing from the church- he said:

It was simply a matter of discussion through the columns of the Herald that caused my withdrawal. It was through a discussion which arose, and was attempted to be carried on through the columns of the He?,ald; but while the other party was allowed access to the columns of the Jlei-ald, I was deified that privilege.-Plaintiff's Abstract, p. 400.

Not one word can be produced from the pen of Elder Briggs to show that he "became dissatisfied with his own

26 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS.

work" in connection with the Reorganization, or that he '.renounced his own revelation." Mr. Bays therefore stands convicted of willful misrepresentation. On the very next pace he proceeds to misrepresent another of the church's early defenders as follows:

Elder Charles Derry did not ]on- remain in the "QLiorum of Twelve." He resil@ned his apostleship soon after his return from the Et)-lish Mission, for the rpason, as he told the writer shortly afterwards, that he bad no evidence that God had ever called him to be an apostle. He was too honest to retain a, place of honor to which he felt assured God had never called him. He called on me a few days a.-o, and on dep-,trtin- left his benediction. He baptized me into the Reoraanized Church nearly thirty-six years a-o. I would that all men were like him in honor and inte.-rity, and may his soul find rest and peace in the paradise o.f God.

Elder Derry left home on his English mission December 63 1862, and landed in Liverpool, England, February 4, 1863. Returning, he reached home September 6, 1861. In April, 1865, he was ordained an apostle, which office he held until April, 1870. Mr. Days has him resioning soon after he returned from his English mission, which would have been before his ordination. "Accurate and reliable," bahl

However, Elder Derry still lives and resides at Woodbine, Iowa. From a long and intimate acquaintance with Elder Derry we can heartily agree with Elder Bays in the wish "that all. men were like him in honor and integrity." Bearing in mind the character of the witness, let us bear from him on the question of fact raised by Days. When contemplating writing this review we wrote him regarding Days' statement and he answered as follows-

WOODBINE, January 16, 1901, Elder Heman C. Smith: - Your Favor of yesterday is before me. c;tllitit'r for information respecting my purported statement to D. H. Bays about my resi(rl]!LtiOn Of My membership in the Quoruni of the Twelve. Soon arter Bays published his book I borrowed a copy, and after a close examination of it, I wrote several hundred pages in reply....

REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 27

I now copy from my reply to Bavs on that qu es tion as follows,. which you are at liberty to use.

"While dwelling on the question of apostleship I will crave pardon of the reader for referring to a personal matter, and especially as that person is the writer of this review. Mr. Bays mentions the fact of my being called to the apostleship. I will here remark that the same order was carried out in this case as bad been from the beginning, it being the duty of the commit- tee on selection to seek the guidance of the Almi-ht3,, as Jesu& sought it in the choosing of the Twelve in his day. In due time my name was presented in connection with thatof Brother Ells, and it was duly considered by the conference, and I was chosen by the voice of the body. I can only say for myself that my heart was set to do the will of God, and I had given myself up to God's ministry many years before, and that, too, without knowin- then that my mother had dedicated me to the service of God, in my infancy, as Haiinah of old had dedicated little Samuel. On the@8tli of April, 1865, I accepted the call to the. apostleship, believing that the call was from God. I served in that capacity about five years, but doubts of the divinity of my calling to that particular otflce crept into my mirid; it seemed .to me I was not htted for so responsible a duty. and I only wanted to occupy according to my talei)ts. I was blessed in my ministry, but 1 had always-beeti blessed in preaching the gospel of Christ, and the fear kept pressin- itself into my heart that the duty of the apostleship was great@er than I cotifd faithfully and effectually perform, and while it was my lifc's determitia- tion to continue in the gospel ministry, I determined to resimn my position in the Quorum of the Twelve, and if it was God@'s 'will, I @voul@d occupy a humbler position in his church. I resigned, but not as Mr. Bays says, 'soon after his i-ett@rn from the'English Nlissiori.' I had riot been called into ti)at Quorum until some time after I returned from the English mission, and as above stated, I remained in that Quorum about five years. I6 is very likely I told Mr. ]@ays (thou.-h I do not remember the- interview) that I had no evidence that God had called me t& that office. I told all my brethren so when I resigned, but .1 -neve?- told Afq,. BaNg, no?@ aay ot7te7- bei?@g, that I 7cnew God had -not called me, to it. Oiie thinm I did realize, and realize it today, that God had called me to preach his -ospel, as preached by Christ, and as restored aoaiii in these last da s, and I know that in all of my labors %iid travels by land and sea. God has been with me, and used me as an instrument, in his hands, in blessing my fellow man; and with that my soul is satisfied. I .have always been satisfied that the church as a body and the brethren individually, acted in good faith. The church has. never claimed infallibility for itself or any of its offlcers. God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the word of God are the only being&

28 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS.

for whom, as a church, we claim infallibility. If I erred in resigning my place in the Quorum of the Twelve, it was done in the integrity of my heart, and I am in the hands of a just Judge."

With respect to my visit to Bays in Persia, At his request I visited him. We had a friendly talk, as old-time friends. Doc- trine was not mentioned by either of us. An outsider would have thought from his friendly reference to the brethren of the ,church that he was still with us. I, however, knew he was not, in spirit, whatever might be his bland, outward appearance, but I had no hatred against the man, and why should I retrain from wishing him well. I still wish him well, and that he may live long enough to repent of his errors, and come out as a true - man for Christ and the true gospel. CHARLEs DEnRy.

Between Elder Bays and this man of "honor and integrity" we leave the reader to judge.

On page 234, while examining. the testimony concerning the visit of Martin Harris to Professor Anthon, Mr. Bays says.-

The best evidence, and, in fact, the o-nly evidence, of which this case is susceptible, would be' the solemn aflirniatioii, or what would be still better, perhaps, the sworn statement of Mr. Harris. But no such statement oraffirmation was ever obtained from him. Not a scrap of anything Martin Harris ever wrute - if be ever wrote anything on the subject - can be adduced in support of this claim concerning his interview with Prof. Anthon.

In the Church History, volume 1, pages 50 and 51, which Elder Bays doubtless bad before him when he wrote, as he quotes from it frequently, the following quotation from a letter written by Martin Harris appears:

SMITHFIELD, Utah, Nov. 23, 1870. Mr. E?nerRon; Sir- I received your favor. In reply I will say concerning the plates: I do say that the angel did show to me the plates containing the Book of Mormon. Further, the translation that I carried to Prof. Anthon was copied from these same plates; also, that the Professor did testify to it being a correct translation...

How Mr. Bays could make the statement he did above with this before him we will leave him and his endorsers to explain.

REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 29

In the following extracts from Bays' book, page 249, he exaggerates the facts, as the evidence plainly shows:

It is impossible to believe that these witnesses, and especially Oliver Cowdery. knowiri@r that the church or,-anized by Joseph and Oliver, if their testimony is true. must be the only Church of Christ on earth, would deliberately withdraw from it, and live and die without its protecting fold? And yet this is exactly what they did.

If I had seen an an-,el; if I bad heard the voice of God; if I had bowed by Joseph's Smith's side and felt the touch of anvel bai)ds in ordination, and heard tl)e declaration that lie was a prophet of tlko living God, all the combined powers of earth atid hell cotild never have induced me to forsake him. And yet this is exactly what Oliver Cowdery did.

It is true that some of these witnesses did withdraw frorn fellowship with the church on account of disagreement with others on church policy, but this only shows that they were men who acted upon their convictions and were not under the dictation of Joseph Smith or anyone else.

This act, in the absence of any proof against their character, only shows them to be the more reliable as witnesses. If Mr. Bays had been actuated by a sense of fairness he would have stated, what he seemingly desires to conceal; vi7., that the faith of these men was never .impaired iii the principles they had espoused, notwithstanding this disagreement and consequent separation. At a spefitl conference held at Council Bluffs, Iowa, in October, 1848, Oliver Cowdery said:

Not because I was better ... the rest of mankind was I c;i.)Ied: but, to fiiinil the ptit-lios(@s or God, be called me to a hi-li zLii(I Viov I wrol.t,, with my own .... the entire Bool@ of inloi-moi) '(.,@.tve a fenv p:t(,,es), as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph Smith, as lie ti-ii,ii,,,Ial,ed it by the gift and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or, as it is c4LIled by t littt book. 'holy interpreters.' I beheld with my e.7jeR a?@.(i 7ia7idlpd with my hands the gold plates from 2oltic7i. it qoa8 trrL?i,altited. I also saw with my eyes and 11,Liidled with my hands the holy interpretors.' That book is ... Sidney Rigdon did not write it. Mr. Spalding did not write it. I wrote it myself

30 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS.

as it fell from the lips of the Prophet. - Church History, Vol. 1, p. 50.

In a communication written by Martin Harris from 'Smithfield, Utah, January, 1871, to H. Emerson in answer to the question, "Did you go to England to lecture against Mormonism?" he said:

I answer emphatically, No, I did not;- no mar) ever heard me in any way deny tfie truth of the Book of Mormon, the administration of the angel that showed me the plates; nor the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, under the administration of Joseph Smith, Jr., the prophet whom the Lord raised up for that purpose, in these the latter days, that he may show forth his power and glory. Church History, Vol. 1, p. 51.

lia 9, proclamation published in 1881, David Whitraer said:

To the end, therefore. . . . that the world mav know the -truth, I wish nom,, standing as it were, in the very sunset of life, and in the fear of God, once for all to make this publio -statement:

That I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof, which has so lon@- since been published with that book, as one of the three witnesses. Those who know me best, well )ctiow that I have always adhered to that testimoi)y.' And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the s-.tme,'I do ilgain affirm the truth of all of my statements, as then made and published.-Church History, Vol. 1, P. 55.

Comment is unnecessary. The reader will readily see that the statements of Rider Bays as quoted above are misleading, regarding the attitude of these men. Though his statements are partially true, he states only a part of the truth and gives to it a false coloring, which is one of -the most deceptive ways of writino- that has ever been resorted to,

This is certainly inexcusable in one who has had the opportunities to know the truth that Elder Bays has had.

But Mr. Bays continues:

I am glad to be able to state that 1, too, visited David Whitmer and talked with him on the same subject many years before either of the above named gentlemen had seen him.

REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 31

Durinff the interview T made special inquiry concerning Oliver Cowdery, as I had been informed that he died an infidel, This he informed me. was incorrect. - Page 249.

Elder Bays published at the time an account of the visit above referred to, which we give in his owri words, with- out comment:

Monday, 13th. I visited Richmond, the county seat of Ray, where, to my surprise, I found Bro. David Whitmer, one of the "three witnesses." He is now 64 years old and somewhat brol@en. He entertains some ideas of minor importance, which could not be considered orthodox; but so far as his faith in the Latter Day Work is concerned, he remaii)s as flrul as the ever- lasting hills. - From a letter written to Elder M. H. Forscutt from Lafayette, Kansas, September 17, 1869, and published in the Saints' Herald for November 1, 1869.

On page 267 of his book Mr. Bavs says when speaking of Joseph Smith and the three witnesses; viz., Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris:

These witnesses say that the plates contained "Egyptian 40haldnic, Assyrian and Arabic" characters.

This is a misrepresentation, as not one of the witnesses ever claimed to know of what language the characters were. Mart in Harris quotes Professor Anthon as saying that the facsimile presented to the Professor contained such characters, but be iaowhere claims to know anything about it from his own knowledge of characters.

When Mr. Bays wrote as he says be did to certain linguists the following he misrepresented the facts:

"DEAR SIR: I herewith inclose what purports to be a fa:c- ,simile of the characters found upon the aold plates from wliich it is claimed the Book of iylormoti was translated. The advocates of Mormonism m%int-ain that these characters are 'Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyrian and Arabic."'-Page 261.

"The advocates of Mormonism" have maintained nothing of the kind.

All there is to it is that Martin Harris has been quoted as saying that Professor Anthon so determined and informed him.

32 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS.

On page 310, when discussing the ordinance of the laying on of hands for the reception of the Holy Spirit, Mr. Bays denies that the Book of Mormon teaches this doctrine, and adds:

Perhaps some of their wise men may explain why a book which contains "the fullness of the everlasting Gospel" is as silent as the grave upon a subject of such grave importance. Why did neither Jesus nor his disciples teach it? and why was it never performed as an ordinance of the Gospel to follow bap- tism? Echo answers, Why?

In answer to this it 4is only necessary to quote one pas- sage from the Book of Mormon as follows:

The words of Christ, which be spaice unto his disciples, the twelve whom he had chosen, as he laid his hands upon them. And he called them by nam(-, silying, 'Ye shall call on the Father in my name, in mighty prayer; and after that ye have done this, ve shall have power tli,,tton him on whom ye shall lay your hand;, ye shall give the Holy Ghost; and in my name shl]l ye give it: for thus do mine apostles. Now Christ spake tiiese words unto them ,tt the time of his first appearing; and the multitude heard it not, but, the disciples heard it; and on as many as they laid their hands, fell the Holy Ghost.-Book of Moroni, chapter 2.

Is this not surprising for a man who has the opportunity to be informed that Mr. Bays has had? Mr. Bays through- out his whole treatise cries, Fraud, fraud! and yet is guilty of such flagrant misrepresentations as this.. And the Christian Publishing House says he is '-accurate and reliable."

Strange to say, however, that after Mr. Bays makes the above statement he quotes the above pas@.alue from the Book of Mormon, and states that it "is the only passage in the Book of Mormon that in any way relates to the lay- ling on of bands for the gift of the Holy Spirit." If this is true (which it is not), then his statement that the book "is as silent as the grave" on the subject is false.

When it is convenient for Mr. Bays to turn witness he does not hesitate to do so, and where other testimony is

REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 33

lacking he comes to the rescue and supplies the want.

Here is a specimen:

The writer has had ample opportunity to observe the prac- tical workings of the system under the auspices of two different and widely separated Mormon churches, namely, Lyman Wight, in Texas, in 1847, and James J. Strang, of Beaver Island, Mich., in 1854.-Page 318.

This testimony was given with reference to the system of polygamy. Davis H. Bays was born on the 5th day of March, 1839, and hence was eight years old in 1817. It is not necessary to comment on the "ample opportunity" of a lad of eight years to observe the system of polygamy. Elder Bays, however, is mistaken. He could have given himself the advantage of one more year, and at the same time have saved his credit as a witness, for he never saw Lyman Wight nor any of his associates in 1847. ITe arrived, with his father's family, at a place called Zodiac, near Fredericksburg, Texas, where the Lyman Wight colony was located, May 9, 1848.. So Elder Bays was ?tine years old, and of course a boy nine years old would have ample opportunities thrown in his way, and would be amply competent to investigate a system clandestinely practiced by -neighborsl

Smart boy, that!

On page 335, in an attempt to set aside a statement made by Bishop George Miller and others to the effect that polygamy was not known in Nauvoo in 1842, Mr. Days says:

Several of the men whose na@mes appear in the list of wit- nesses became noted advocates of polygamy. - George Miller, also a general in the Nauvoo Legion, and the second man on the list, was a polygamist with two wives, wlien first I knew him in 1847, but five years after his testimony was made public, and only t7@?,ee, years after the death of the prophet.

Bishop George Miller arrived at Zodiac on the 2d of February, 1848, and Henry Bays and his precocious son Davis arrived at the same place on May 9 following. This

34 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS.

is the first time be ever saw Bishop Miller. So Bays did not know Bishop Miller "first in 1847"; it was not "but five years after his testimony was made public"; and it was not..... 4 conly three years after the death of the prophet." Now, in all candor, is such a witness reliable? Bays was a smart boy, that is conceded, but would any boy nine years old be likely to know about the two wives, and yet forget the date of the events? If this is thought possible, there is another question which is pertinent here. Would a witness who bad forgotten the date positively testify to a date?

Further, as against the testimony that George Miller had two wives in 1847, or 1848, we submit a letter now in our possession, written by George Miller and Richard Hewett from. Bastrop, Texas, June 14, 1849, to J. J. Strang, in which occurs'the following in the handwriting of Hewett:

I want to know what your Mind is about men having the priesthood having more wives than one. 'The principle is taught amongst all that I have been with. Some have from two to ten, or twenty, and some have none. If it is consistent I want you to let me know when you write to me, and I want you to write as soon as you get this, so Bro. Miller and myself may know what to do. You must excuse me for asking so much, but you must bear with me, as I confess I am ignorant. Bro. Miller says their whoring will send them all to hell.

Bishop Miller writes a letter on the same sheet of paper and they both speak of those with whom they had associated after the death of Joseph Smith, and after relating their practices as in the above extract they want to know about this principle, that they may know what to do, carrying the plain inference that if this doctrine was supported by Strang they would not go there. As seen above Bishop Miller condemns it in language more forcible than elegant, and Mr. Hewett continues by saying:

I don't find such things in the Booli of Covenants, nor in the Book of Mormon, nor in the writings of the apostles.

Mr. Strang at this time was not advocating polygamy

REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 35

and probably wrote these men to that effect, and this will explain why Bishop Miller went to Strang. Now we do not know whether Bishop Miller had more than one wife at this or any other time, but shall we condemn him upon the testimony of a man who says that when be was eight years old he knew Miller, and knew that be had two wives, when it is positively known that the said boy never saw Miller until after be was nine years old? Besides, kind reader, what is your estimate of the boy as a witness, when be testifies of other things?

On page 368, after speaking of the disaffection of the Laws and Higbees and others in 184-4, Bays states:

The reader will perhaps remember that the Laws and Higbees figured in the certificate concerning Dr. Bennett's "secret' wife system," published some two years previously.

In this tb6 ignorance of Bays is very apparent to those who are acquainted with church history. Elias Higbee, the only man of the Higbees who signed the certificate of 1842, referred to, died June 8, 1843, and consequently was not connected with the disaffection of 1844. The Higbees who figured in 1844 were Francis M. and Chauncey M., neither of whom signed the certificate of 1842. Sometimes Bays talks learnedly onslaw, but'when be tries to impeach the testimony of one man by quoting the statements of another, we are inclined to doubt the reliability of his legal learning, notwithstanding the Christian Publishing House says his book,is "accurate and reliable."

In conclusion upon this point it becomes our painful duty to call attention to the moral status of this man as a witness as revealed through himself. On page 343, in Bays' attempt to make Joseph Smith responsible for the doctrine and practice of polygamy, he says:

A "thus saith the Lord" from the prophet would have put an eternal quietus on the question of polygamy. But it never came; and so Joseph Smith, and Joseph Smith only, must be held responsible for the prevalence of the most abominable system that ever cursed and degraded a free people.

36 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS.

This means, if it means anything, that Joseph Smith should have used a "thus saith the Lord" when he wished to accomplish a desired end, and that, too, without reference to whether the Lord instructed him thus to speak or not, and in case he did not he is to be held personally responsible for it.

If this is or was Bays'idea of the duty, prerogatives, and privileges of a prophet he is not nor has he ever been in harmony with the church, for the church has always held that the propbet.was only authorized to speak as he was instructed by the Lord to speak when he uses the name of the Lord, and if he is presumptuous enough to speak in the name of the Lord when the Lord has not commanded him, he does so at his peril, as the Lord will not tolerate such an imposition upon his people. (Deut. 18: 20.)

Recent developments however disclose the fact that Bays years ago Ignorantly or viciously pursued that policy, as the following affidavit will show --

Territory or Oklahoma,

Kingfisher County,

AFFIDAVIT.

In the spring of 1870 or "71 I was associated with Elder D. H. Bays in the ministry for about three months in Eastern Kansas and Western Missouri. While attending a prayer meeting where now exists the Fanning, Kansas, branch, Elder Bays arose to speak and delivered a prophecy which was intended to adjust difficulties then existing there. It so worked upon the mind of one Br. Davis who was involved in the trouble that he did not sleep any that night, so it was said. Elder D. H. Bays said to me the next morning, You see, Bro. Butler, that I came out with the word of the Lord on that matter last night.

(Signed) STEPHEN BUTLER.

Subscribed and sworn to before me October 25, 1898.

WILLIAM S. WHIRCLOW,

Notary Pablic.

If this was Bays' standard of honor and right it will be no surprise to Latter Day Saints and those that know our views,on such matters that he found the Spirit of the latter-day work incompatible to his proclivities.

REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 37

This exhibition of shocking moral'paralysis betrayed here is supplemented by the inconsistency of, Elder Bays in his accusing Joseph Smith of manufacturing revelations to suit his convenience at times and then finding fault with him because he did not, and holding him responsible for the existence of crime because he did not manufacture a revelation expressly forbidding it. This is made worse when we consider that the allegation is false, for there were revelations coming throuch Joseph Smith expressly forbidding polygamy. This Bays well knows, and hence willfully misrepresents. The Book of Mormon translated by Joseph Smith says:

Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: for there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none: For I, the Lord God, delighteth in the chastity of women. -- Jacob 2; 6.

A revelation given through Joseph Smith in February, 1831, says:

Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shall cleave unto her and none else; and he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her, shall deny the faith, and shall not have the Spirit; and if he repents not, he shall be cast out. -- Doctrine and Covenants 42:7.

We have shown these misquotations and historical errors to present the utter unreliability of the book and its author in as brief a manner as possible. To thus expose, and to be driven to the conviction ourself, that a former associate has resorted to such contemptible work has been a painful duty to us, but the interest of truth has demanded it and we have responded. We will now go back and examine such portions of this book consecutively as may be demanded.

[ 38 ]

CHAPTER 2.

Bays' Claim to Superior Advantage -- Condemns Spalding Story -- Foundation -- Sam -- Spiritual Gifts -- Cases of Healing -- The Commission -- Joseph Smith Healed -- Medicine -- Questions.

It may be well to note right here that Elder Bays claims superior advantage over others who have essayed to write against what he is pleased to call "Mormonism," because of his experience on the inside. He says:

Reared in the faith of the Saints from early childhood, and having been, for twetity-seven years, a zealous advocate and defender of its I)eculiariLies, the writer has had rare opportunities for studying Mormonism from the inside.

The line of argument usually emplo ed by writers and speakers to rerute the Mormon dogma is of such a character as to render success almost impossible. -- Preface.

It will be pertinent to inquire, What possible advantage can this be to him? If it were a secret system, unknown to any but those on the inside, then there might be some force in the claim that be had the advantage over his less fortunate competitors in this field, but this Mr. Bays has not claimed, but,assunaes throughout to meet public questions as publicly taught by the representatives of "Mormonism." Then) if he can succeed where others who had access to the same information failed, it is a reflection upon their intelligence, and a concession that all the efforts heretofore made by his brethren and others against "Mormonism" are failures. So there is but one thing in the field against us, and that is the "Doctrines and Dogmas of Mormonism." By the unqualified endorsement of this book the Christian Publishing Rouse concedes that former efforts against us have been failures. For this concession we thank them.

REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 39

No wonder that after their repeated failures they received this would-be champion with open arms, and in the language of Elder A. M. Haggard, of Iowa, said: "I believe the man and his book are children of Providence."

Again when Elder Bays and his illustrious endorsers concede that Providence provided for them in the hour of their defeat and peril, and that in that provision a man was sent who utilized only such information as was at their disposal, they concede that a man schooled in "Mormonism," possesses superior qualifications to those who have not had such schooling.

But in all this, one of the vital points at issue between us is conceded; viz., that men are sometimes specially called of God for the accomplishment of certain purposes.

Again we thank you.

Bays says:

The usual debater undertakes to trace the Book of Mormon to the Spaulding romance through Sidney Riadon.

Nothing can be more erroneous, and it will lead to almost certain defeat. The well-informed advocate of Mormonism wants no better amusement than to vanquish an opponent in discussion who takes this ground. The facts are all opposed to, this view, and the defenders of the Mormon dogma have the facts well in hand. I speak from experience. -- Page 22.

Now will our friends of the Christian Church hear these "children of Providence," and thereby concede that for the last half century and more they have been wrong and that their whole theory of the Book of Mormon is a mistake. Surely there is hope for the Christian Church, and we feel like singing:

While the lamp holds out to burn,
The vilest siniier may return.
Bays' theory that it was Oliver Cowdery and not Sidney Rigdon that helped Joseph Smith in concocting "Mormonism," we have already exploded by showing that the work was already in progress before Cowdery appeared.

Now that the Spalding Romance Story is abandoned,

40 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS.

and Bays' theory is weighed in the balances. and found wanting, we suggest that it is time for the birth of more "children of Providence."

On page 26 Elder Bays misstates the case under the head of "The Foundation," as follows:

That the whole Mormon superstructure is founded upon the Book of Mormon, no one will perhaps attempt to deny.

When Elder Bays penned that he well knew that we did and do deny that proposition. He knew and does know that we claim that the superstructure which he vulgarly calls "Mormonism" is founded upon the eternal truth of Heaven, and that the Book of Mormon, like the Bible, is but confirmatory testimony of that truth.

That truth would have been the same had the Bible nor the Book of Mormon never beeLL written. It existed before them and can exist without them. On page 27 Mr. Bays again shows his ignorance when under the head of "The Purport of the Book of Mormon," he says:

Dissension flnaily arises. and Nephi, with his two younger brothers, Jacob and Joseph, separated from their elder brethren, Laman, Lemuel and Sam. Henceforth they were two separate peoples, known as "Nephites" and "Lamanites."

No possible advantage c6uld accrue to Mr. Bays in making this false statement. We therefore conclude that he must have done it through ignorance. The Book of Mormon in speaking of this division places Sam with Nephi.

It reads as follows:

Wherefore, it came to pass that I, Nephi, did take my family, and also Zoram and his family, and Sam, mine elder brother, and his family, and Jacob and Joseph, My younger brethren, tlnd also my sisters, and all they which would go with me. -- Page 71.

In chapter 3, after several pages of high sounding platitudes regarding the spiritual house erected by the Saints and the deceptive character of the same without a word of proof, he asserts on paoes 38, 39:

REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 41

It is the boast of Latter Day Saints that no man living can possibly disppove or in any way invalidate their claim upon this point. In the first place the burden of proof lies with them. They affirm the perpetuity of these miraculous powers, while we simply deny. The man who affirms must prove what he affirms. It is entirely sufficient to meet an affirmative proposition with a bare denial. When affirmative evidence has been introduced, the negative may offer such evidence in rebuttal as uiay be deemed necessary. Thus it will be seen that we are under no obligation to disprove any affirmative proposition.

In this issue Mormonism has affirmed something, and has offered testimony to prove it is in fact the plaintiff in an action before the civilized world, and asks for judgment on the ground that the testimony of its witnesses sustans the allegation. Their petition sets up a claim that certain jewels -- spiritual gifts -- at one time in the possession of a woman of great distinction -- the Church of Christ -- rightfully belong to said plaintiff.

All right, we introduce as sufficient evidence in this case the testimony of Jesus Christ as follows:

Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils, they shall speak with new tongues; they shall talce up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay bands on the sick, and they shall recover. -- Mark 16; 15-18.

According to rules of law we have now presented prima facie evidence sufficient to establish our case unless rebutted. A mere denial will no longer answer the purpose of our opponents.

They must impeach the witness or raise a demurrer, in which case they must sustain that demurrer by showing that the testimony is incompetent, irrelevant, or immaterial, By this it will be seen that Mr. Bays, with all his legal acumen, misunderstands the case. If he contents himself with a simple denial he will fail to defeat us. If he raises a demurrer he is not required to prove a negative, but to introduce evidence to sustain his contention. The moment he takes advantage of this privilege the burden of proof rests on him, and if he fails to sustain his demurrer,

42 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS.

judgment will be rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and we will be awarded possession of the gifts claimed. When Bays attempts a rebuttal under the supposition that he is proving a negative he betrays his ignorance as a lawyer.

We make no claim to the, understanding of law, but we know just enough to smile when we hear a man like Bays suppose a case at issue before a court of justice or equity.

It might be well, however, to state here that Mr. Days' client -- the Christian Church -- has no case in court, as they make no claim to the property in question. Mr. Bays misstates the case again when he says that we are the "plaintiff in an action before the civilized world, and ask for judgment there. We have pled the jurisdiction of the court, and asked for a @earino, before the Supreme Court of heaven; the case has been entertained, and the jewels awarded, as the following evidence will show.

On pages 72 and 73 of his book Elder Bays himself quotes one of many recorded cases of healing, as follows:

"HEALING OF ONE BORN BLIND.

"So the mother took another of her daughters and put her upon his knee [that of an unbeliever], and said, 'Sir, is that child blind?' And after he had examined her eyes, he said, 'She is.' 'Well,' said the mother, 'she was born blind: and she is now four years old, and I am going to take her to the elders of our church for them to anoint bereves with oil and lay their hands upon her; and you can call again when Von have time, and see her with her eyes open [opened. -- A. C. S.].' 'Well,' said he, 'if she does ever see, it will be a great proof.'

"Accordingly, the mother brouzht the child to the elders, and Elder John Hackwell anointed her eyes, and laid his hands upon her, only once: and the Lord heard his prayer, so that the child can now see with both of her eyes as well as any other person. For which we [all -- H. C. S.] feel thankful to our heavenly Father, and are willing to bear testimony of it to all the world. Yours in the Kingdom of God

Gpoii@F HALLIDAY.

"P. S. -- We, the. father and mother of the child, do here sign our names to the above, as being true.

"WILLIAM BOUNSELL.

"ELIZABETH BOUNSELL.

"No. 12 Bread Street, Bristol, England, Nov. 25, 1849."

REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 43

The above. with over a score of other similar cases, covering variety of ailments, including leprosy, are recorded in the work from which this is taken. (See O. Pratt's works, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon. No. 5, page 71.)

Mr. Pratt was at the time an apostle of the Utah Church and in charge of the English mission, and the parties to the alleged healing were members of the same church.

Who can believe that a people who did not hesitate for a moment to violate every commandment of the Decalogue could possibly be blessed with such marvelous power, while at the same to me they are denied to the peace-loving and virtuous? The very claim is a burlesque on Christianisy, and is alike repulsive to man and dishonoring to God. It cannot be true.

The force of this testimony is by Mr. Bays set aside by gross misrepresentation of the truth. No claim has been made except by Mr. Bays and others of like views that the peace-loving and virtuous are denied. It is and has ever been our contention that the peace-loving and virtuous are not denied. The above argument we can call by no softer name than contemptible pettifoggery.

As to the charge that the people testifying "did not hesitate for a moment to violate every commandment of the Decalogue," we will quote from the manuscript of Elder Charles Derry, who was a minister among them, and to whose good. character Mr. Bays has testified. (See page 26.)

Addressing Bays he says:

Your reference to the work of the church in Salt Lake, manifests your want of candor. You know the miracles you mention were not wrought in Utah, but in Englad; nor were the elders that administered in those cases men who had ever been in Utah, nor had the abomination of polygamy been accepted by or even taught to them. That abomination was not published until 1852, and the above manifestations of the healing power, according to your own showing, which is for once in accord with the facts, was in November, 1849. These people had heard and obeyed the gospel, had sought unto God for the blessing and obtained it. And while the work in England was then under the Brighamite rule, these people had accepted the truth in its purity, as taught by Joseph Smith, and knew nothing of the apostasy that had taken place.

44 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS.

Elder Bays continues:

If to be found anywhere within the domain of Mormonism, these "spiritual gifts" might, with a greater show of reason. be expected among the people of the Reorganived Church, whose membership, I am glad to say, are as a rule honest and law-abiding people, and the purity of whose lives no man may truthfully question. I speak of this as the merest matter of justice to the membership of that church. But do they possess supernatural powers?

With forty years of acquaintance with Mormonism in its various phases,@common honesty impels me to say I hmye never known a single instance of miraculous power. I have witnessed, it is true, what I was at the time willina to call a miracle, because, like all others who believe in such things, I wished to have it so; but never have I witnessed anything which would bear the test of intelligent scrutiny, or be confirmed by candid, sober second thought. -- Pages 73, 74.

We agree with Elder Bays that the spiritual gifts might with reason be expected among the people of the Reorganized Church, and we thank him for his tribute to the character of the members. We here present the evidence of a remarkable case of healing in the Reorganization.

A CASE OF HEALING.

Dear Hearld: -- I forward you the facts of a most remarkable case of healing. On Saturday morning, October 13, 1877, while Bro. D. Chambers, Jun., who lives on Spring Creek, Harrison county, Iowa, was caring for one of his colts he received a severe I

REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 45

In the meantime she applied oil and prayed for her, to all human appearance, dying husband, as best she could under the distressing and exciting circumstances.

On the arrival of Bro. W. Chambers a terrible sight met his gave, his brother lying with a yawning gash over his eye rendering the situll bone visible, his head resting upon his chin and but little or no signs of consciousness. Wishing to get him into an adjoining room that peradventure they might lay him on a sofa, he suggested it to Mr. Draper. An attempt was made to raise him from the chair by placing their hands under his arms, but his cries forced them to desist, but raising the chair they conveyed him to another room, propping him up as best they could and proceeded to anoint him with oil. By this time his breast was much swollen and turning blacii, yet, though swollen, there was quite an unnatural hollow or sunken place therein, and the slightest touch of the shoulders, arms, head, face, or breast, would cause the most acute pain, while the least move of the head or arms would produce sounds like the grating of broken bones. His chin still resting upon hi& breast, and signs of blood accumulated in his throat, causing apprehension of his choking. Bro. W. Chambers called upon his father to assist in laying on hands. But little beneflt was received by the sufferer, except a partial restoration to con-sciotisness. They administered a second time with but little better result. The injured man then spoke, and asked them if they had not faith to rebuke the pain. Whereupon Bro. W. Chambers administered the third time, rebuking the pain and commanding him to arise, which he did and walked into,the room from which he had been so recently carried as one almost dead, and sat down and ate a hearty breakfast.

Mr. Draper, who had assisted in carrying him to the house, while the brethren were praying, went out; but mark his surprise on returning, with three or four other non-members of the church, at seeing him whom they supposed was, or soon would be dead, seated at the table eating and drinking. They stood and gazed with astonishment, yet glad to see the change, as evidenced by the fact of each one of them shaking hands with him as if he was an intimate friend who had just returned from a long journey. This being done Bro. D. Chambers bore testimony of God's power by which he had been saved from death and made whole.

I shall not attempt to describe the joy of his wife, his brother and wife. and father all of whom were present, at seeing one so dear to them so marvelously saved from the jaws of death; all can imagine it.

The following being Sunday, be was in the house of prayer, telling the Saints or the Spring Creek branch how wondrously the Lord had wrought with him, which moved others to prayer

46 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS.

and praise, by which they enjoyed a, time long to be remembered.

About two hours passed from the time of the terrible accident to his being seated at the table. The gash over his eyes was drawn together and some stickina plaster applied, and it be,,tled without the least mrltteration; and, at this date, the scar is only visible by close inspection. He experienced weakness but for a few days, arter which he turned his attention to his labor, and has been as healthy and robust as ever.

JAMES CAFFALL.

Witnesses.
Wm. Chambers,
Louist M. Chambers,
Mary N. Chambers,
John Chambers,
David Chambers, Sen.,
Jonathan McKee,

UNIONBURG. IAWfi. Dec 11, let?.

With some if not all of these witnesses Elder Bays was well acquainted, and he will not put himself on record as against their reputation for veracity. He may try to explain it away, but he can make no explanation that will not apply with equal force against the record concerning the jewels when "in the possession of a woman of great distinction the Church of Christ."

I submit that the testimony of such witnesses cannot be set aside by the testimony of Bays that he never saw anything of the kind.

The presumption of the man is astounding. No miracles were wrought among the Latter Day Saints while he was with them because he never witnessed them. Now he goes over to the Christian Church and coolly informs its members that their efforts at fighting Mormons were futile until he came on the scene.

In regard to the existence of other manifestations of power, though we might fill a volume with the evidence of such cases, we content ourselves with referring for the present to the testimony Of Elder Bays, as found on page 23 of this work, where be testifies to a wonderful manifestation of God's power, and to his having known results before their happening.

REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 47

Mr. Bays then attempts to analyze the commission recorded in Mark sixteenth chapter, and reasons that the promise made in connection therewith was limited to the lifetime of the apostles, because it was not possible for the disciples spoken to, to go into all the world, and hence the promise would only apply to those to whom they preached. He concludes his argument as follows:

Here is a promise; but to whom does it extend? Are there no limitations! Let us see. "And these signs shall follow them that believe." Follow them that believe wliat? Why, the Gospel, to be sure. "And these signs shall follow them that believe the Gospel?" Preached by whom? Why, by the disciples, of course, for none others were authorized. Analyzed, the proposition stands thus: "And these signs shall follow them that believe the Gospel preached by the disciples." Just that, and nothing more, is affirmed.

This analysis shows most conclusively that the promise of miraculous powers was limited to t-he.lifetime of tile first disciples-@he eleven, and those upon whom they had laid their bands. -- Page 40.

It will be seen that in order to limit the promise he limits the commission, claiming that no others were authorized by the commission except the disciples addressed. On the previous page this is even more plainly brought out when he says:

"Go ye into all the world." Who go into all the world? The disciples, the eleven. No one else is addressed, and hence, no one else is included. This seems conclusive.

Mr. Bays is consistent in this, for it is impossible to limit the promise without limiting the commission. But imagine our surprise when on the very next page he states an opposite conclusion. Hear him:

While the Great Commission topreach the Gospel and administer its ordinances was general, extending, under proper conditions, to every. age and every natioii under the --- "signs," or miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, were cot)fiiited, as we have already to the limes of the apostles. While these miraculous powers were limited to the apostolic age, the obligation to "preach the gospel to every creature," along with

48 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS.

the "conditions UPOD which SiDners are accepted under the Gospel," as provided in the commission, was made perpetual.

How he can come to a conclusion that the commission was general, extending to every age and every nation and yet that none but the eleven were authorized by it, is a, problem that perhaps none but these "children of Providence" can explain. . It is not necessary to occupy space in discussing the point. Everyone who reads the words of the Master: "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but be that believeth not, shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe;" knows that the promise of the signs is just as general in its application as is this conditional promise of salvation, and to preach the one while you deny the other is a travesty on common sense. No rule of labguage will permit the making of one general in its application while the other is limited.

While it was not practicable for the apostles to visit every spot on the globe, their commission was not limited by geographical lines. They had the authOTity to go any- where on the earth, and more, their authority was in force whether present or not. A message from theu2, whether by tongue or pen, was and is in force wberever heard. Would Bays have us to understand that authority is something that floats around a man as he moves? If so will he please give us the cubic dimensions of the space. it occupies? We think that it is coextensive with the power behind it. Are we right? Whether the commission was to the eleven aloiae matters not, wherever it was in force it carried with it the promises connected with it. Should God call others who were not directly included in the com- mission the same conditions would apply or his ways are not unchangeable. ' If Bays is right and the signs were only to follow those who heard the eleven and received the gospel through their ministrations, then those who received it under the preaching of Matthias or Paul were

REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 49

excluded. Read Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, twelfth, and following chapters, and your minds will be freed from this bungling fallacy.

Mr. Bays enters upon a long dissertation on the gifts, in which he depends almost entirely upon what he does not know. Bays did not see-Bays did not bear, hence there was nothing to see or heart To reply to such sophistry would be an insult to our readers.

Elder Bays assume&, without proof, that the prime object for which the gift of speaking in unknown tongues was given, was to preach the gospel to men of different languages, and hence confines its necessity to the days of ignorance when the ambassadors of Christ were not acquainted with the language and dialects of those to whom it was necessary to preach. This argument is quite plausible, but are the premises correct?

Elder Bays quotes as evidence Acts 2:8: "And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?" It is true that on this occasion representatives of different nations beard the gospel, each in his own tou'uue; but this does not prove that the prime purpose was the preaching of the gospel in different languages. We have no evidence that when this gift was first exercised at the time referred to there was anyone present but the disciples, who were all Galileans. The record says:

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sit.tii)g. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak With other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them spealc in his own language.

It will be seen that they began speaking in tongues

50 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS.

before the! multitude gathered, and the report of this is what caused the multitude to come together. They were then speaking to each other, but when thetinultitude came they did not cease. It was not then exercised for the purpose of preaching to the public, but the people came during the service and incidentally heard in their own tongue.

In connection with this please to read Paul's instruction to the Corinthians as follows: Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. -- I Cor. 14: 13.

Why should he interpret if he was speaking to men in their own tongue?

If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speal, with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? -- I Cor. 14: 23.

Why say that they were mad if they wore talking to them in their own tongue? Again,

If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let hiul speak to himself, and to God. -- I Cor. 14: 27, 28.

Where is the demand for an interpreter if you speak to a man in his own language?

It would seem from this that Bays is again wrong, but even if he were right and the preaching of the gospel in other tongues was the prime object, it does not follow that there were not other purposes for which this wonderful gift was given. Nor does it appear that the time has passed that it could be used to advantage in the preaching of the word. Instances are on record where men have spoken in the tongue of others who were present, but whether the Latter Day Saints have enjoyed these gifts or not, is not the question. The question is, Has God provided that the faithful shall enjoy them? If so, those who

REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 51

do not avail themselves of this privilege are lacking, whether they be Saints or Christians.

It has always seemed strange to us that oaei3 will call on the Latter Day Saints to demonstrate practically that Christ's promise is true. Our idea is that God is true if every Latter Day Saint on earth should fdil to occupy upon his privilege. The challenge of Bays and others of like views that a sign be shown is virtually a challenge to God that if he will demonstrate through these Latter Day Saints that be told the truth they will believe him. He may accommodate you sometime, but we do not know, as we are not sufficiently acquainted with his purposes to tell; But one thing is certain, it will depend upon him to deter@ mine. whether your challenge will be met or not. While you are awaiting on him we respectfully suggest the consideration of the statement of Christ to Thomas:

Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed. blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

On paoe 56 and following pages Mr. Bays attempts an exegesis of 1 Corinthians, 12th chapter. He admits that the "gifts of the Holy Spirit were intended to continue with the church at Corinth till they had reached mature manhood in Christ." He then bases an argument on the words: "But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way" to show that this more excellent way was to entirely supersede the gifts unto their abandonment. This places Paul in the attitude of exhorting the saints at Corinth to covet earnestly the least excellent way and that, too, after they were shown the "more excellent way." This is neither good philosophy nor good theology, nor is it the work of a wise master builder such as we have. esteemed Paul to be. We cannot therefore accept of this conclusion without further inquiry. We ask, Would the exercise of the spiritual gifts hinder the exercise of charity? If not, why do away with them

52 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS.

in the getting of charity? It seems to us that the idea of Paul is that gifts without charity would be least excellent, and therefore he urges that they should not covet the spiritual gifts alone, but should seek charity in addition to, the gifts. He says:

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

There is no intimation here that these things could not exist with charity. The contrast is drawn here between the gifts without charity and the gifts with charity. The Corinthians are exhorted to covet the best gifts because they are good, bu 't told that to have charity is more excellent than to have the gifts without it, Bays, however, hits the right idea when he says in his summing up, "In charity, or love, we have the sum of them all." '

Would the sum of them all remain if we subtract the parts?

But Elder Bays quotes what he calls positive evidence that the spiritual gifts were to cease as follows:

Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whither there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. -- I Cor. 13:8,

This is evidently to be understood in the same light as that going before, where the contrast is made between a part and the whole, and this is naad'e clear by the context, for Paul includes knowledge with the things which were to vanish'away, and yet in speaking of the consummation of this transformation says, "Then small I know even as also I am 7enown." If knowledge in the absolute sense shall have passed away it will be impossible for the consummation spoken of by Paul to obtain. Nor can you make the doing away of tongues and prophecy absolute without applying the same rule to knowledge.

REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 53

On page 58 Mr. Bays makes this astounding statement,

Of the nine spiritual gifts named in the twelfth chapter, but one was permanents. All others were to vanish -- pass away.

It is only necessary to invite attention to these nine to show the reader the foolishness of this position, as knowledge and wisdom are of the nine. We submit that with- out knowledge or wisdom intelligent faith would be impossible.

Bays continues:

All men are required to become godly; that is, becozne like God.

Permit us to ask how a man can become like God with- out wisdom or knowledge?

In Mr. Bays' chapter 5, commencing on pave 62, in speaking of deadly things he criticises a statement of Joseph Smith'sthat at a certain time and plac