Heman C. Smith (1850-1919) Truth Defended... (Lamoni, Iowa: RLDS, 1901) |
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 ]
"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. 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. 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: 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. 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 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:
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. 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. 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 ]
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 Bays' Claim to Superior Advantage -- Condemns Spalding Story -- Foundation -- Sam -- Spiritual Gifts -- Cases of Healing -- The Commission -- Joseph Smith Healed -- Medicine -- Questions. 38 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 Apostles -- Foundation of the Church -- The Teeter Board -- Calling of Ministers -- Ordination -- Priesthood -- Choosing Apostles -- Jesus in Solemn Assembly. 79 Book of Mormon -- Revelation -- Present Conditions -- Land Shadowing With Wings -- Languages of Plates -- Isaiah Twenty-Ninth Chapter -- Palestine Past and Present. 98 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 Doctrines -- Faith Repentance -- Baptism -- Laying on of Hands -- Resurrection and Eternal Judgment. 143 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 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 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 ]
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. 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- ,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 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 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 (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 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 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. Again, Bays says: But you may ask, How is it possible at this late day to determine this difficult question of Aaronic lineage? 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. 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: 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! 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? 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 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 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.... 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& 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. 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 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. 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. 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 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 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 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. 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. 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. |
[ 58 ]
under construction |
[ 79 ]
under construction |
[ 98 ]
Elder Bays, however, closes this chapter as usual with some high-sounding phrases in which occurs a very amusing expression. It may be a typographical error; but if so it is one of those rare mistakes that represent the situation better than the writer intended: If ministers can be called only by divine revelation, through what particular channel must such revelation come? "O," says one, "it must come through the prophet, the President of the church." Very well, but through which one of all the dozen or more presidents of as many different Mormon churches, must this revelation come? When some advocate of the Mormon heresy answers the above impertinent questions to the satisfaction of reasonable people, then, and not tiil and not till then, need they expect to mislead thinking people by such modes of reasoning. Pages 170, 171. We suppose he intended to say pertinent. In his nineteenth chapter he comes directly to the question and asks, "Is a new revelation necessary?" He proceeds to argue that apostasy does not annul existing authority. He cites the great apostasy of the Jewish nation at the time of Christ's ministry on earth, and assumes that notwithstanding this apostasy Christ recognized existing authority. His final conclusions are summed up is follows: The foregoing historical facts prove, With the first conclusion we agree with this explanation; provided all holding authority are not affected by the apostasy. To the second we suggest that if individual transgression annuls individual authority, when transgression becomes universal, then the apostasy becomes universal. With the third we agree provided that the righteous man has ever received delegated authority. To the fourth we say, Yes, provided he is directed by the Lord to confer authority; but it is not reasonable that God can be left out of the account, and man can confer the authority to act for God on whom he may choose. Elder Bays as usual is lame in philosophy here. His second and fourth conclusions indicate that authority is something that is delegated by one person to another. His third supposes that a man possesses authority by virtue of his being righteous. If he does possess it by virtue of being righteous, he does not need that another confer it upon him. If he does not possess it by virtue of being righteous, but by virtue of its being conferred by another, then it follows that unless there is a regular line of authority from the apostles down, the chain is broken, and authority does not exist on earth until men are again directly commissioned from a divine source. Hence additional revelation is necessary, and our contention is sustained, from his own premises. After spending several pages in argument, reasoning that if apostasy abrogated all authority then if the church organized by Joseph Smith apostatized all authority was abrogated, and hence there was none left with those who reorganized the church, but if apostasy does not abrogate all existing authority, then there was no demand for a reorganization, he gracefully concedes that neither conclusion is the correct one, as follows: But the warmest advocate of the "rejection" dogma will hardly be willing to accept the inevitable conclusion to which his reasoning leads. He will probably argue that although the church became so corrupt that God would no longer acknowledge it as his, yet there were righteous individuals whose authority was not revoked, and who therefore were still authorized to officiate and confer authority upon others.In receding from the point he had sought to make he seeks to save another by applying the rule to the primitive church. Very well; if the Lord had directed some of the righteous individuals holding authority and remaining after the great apostasy to reorganize the church according to the primitive pattern it would have been a parallel case, and would have been all right; but we have no account of his doing so while any of these righteous men "whose authority was not revoked" were living. Thus in the economy of God no reorganization of the primitive church was provided for; but instead he authorized the restoration in the time he had before provided. We accept it. As a specimen of Elder Bays' logic we present the following: How is it today? Perhaps at no period of her history has the Church of Christ been characterized by such unquestionable deeds of charity and undoubted personal purity as at the present time. He here makes an unsupported assertion based upon a "perhaps," and taking this doubtful assertion as a basis forms a far-reaching conclusion, and vauntingly parades such conclusion as established. In answer to this assertion regarding the present condition, and Bays' query about the apostasy and the gates of hell, we will again ask for a careful reading of the reply of Elder Derry. He says: Mr. Bays asks, What becomes of the declaration of Christ, "Upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it?" We answer. It is evident from the teachings of Christ and his apostles that this declaration was not intended to convey the idea that the enemy would not be permitted to obtain any temporary advantage over the church, or that there could not possibly be any departure of the church from the way of truth; because the scriptures in other places teach that such departure or apostasy would take place. The church of Christ is composed of finite beings, weak and fallible, hence Christ taught his disciples to "Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation." He made every preparation and provided every necessary means to strengthen them against temptation, inasmuch as they would resist it, but he did not promise them infallibility, but he did promise strength to overcome, if they would put their trust in him. Individual moral agency is the birthright of all mankind. God has never curtailed it, and he holds every one responsible for it. Communities may fail as well as individuals. The mass of mankind is composed of individuals, and as each individual is weak the mass cannot be omnipotent; hence if there is danger of the individual falling there is corresponding danger of the whole mass falling. But if the individual is faithful to his trust, strength will be given to enable him to overcome, and so with the church as a mass. This is the condition under which Jesus said, "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it." That Christ and the apostles were correct when they predicted the terrible apostasy, the history of the world for over seventeen hundred years affords ample proof. The Roman church proclaims the apostasy of the Protestant churches, and they in return denounce her as the "Whore. of all the earth," "The mother of harlots:" forgetting their own maternity. One of her eldest daughters, the Church of England, in its "Book of Homilies on Perils of Idolatry," page 201, says: not equal." The Great Controversy, by Ashley 8. Johnson, LL. D , p. 131. In addition to the above we invite attention to the following from Alexander Campbell: If Christians were and may be the happiest people that ever lived, it is because they live under the most gracious institution ever bestowed on men. The meaning of this institution has been buried under the rubbish of human traditions for hundreds of years. It was lost in the dark ages, and has never been, till recently, disinterred. Various efforts have been made, and considerable progress attended them; but since the Grand Apostasy was completed, till the present generation, the gospel of Jesus Christ has not been laid open to mankind in its original plainness, simplicity, and majesty. A veilin reading the New Institution has been on the hearts of Christians, as Paul declares it was upon the hearts of the Jews in reading the Old Institution towards the close of that economy. The Christian System, p. 180. A. Campbell thinks the apostasy was complete, Bays thinks not. Who represents our Christian friends, Campbell or Bays? Elder Bays' twentieth chapter purports to be a statement of our position regarding the Book of Mormon. He quotes largely from Elders W. W. Blair and W. H. Kelley, and puts his own construction upon their statements. It will, we think, be entirely unnecessary to follow him through his wanderings. We will simply ask the reader to read carefully the statements of Elders Blair and Kelley, allowing them to speak for themselves without considering Elder Bays' interpretation of their meaning. His twenty-first chapter is devoted mostly to the interpretation of Isaiah 18: 1, 2. He attempts to refute the position taken by some of the elders that the land "shadowing with wings" is America; and concludes as follows: If the country described in Isaiah 18:1, as "the land shadowing with wings," be America, and if the 29th chapter relates to events that were to transpire on this continent, and which, as a matter of fact, did take place as predicted, then all candid people will readily concede the fact that the Book of Mormon is probably true. This is a far-fetched conclusion. The Book of Mormon does not stand or fall upon any interpretation of these prophecies. Some of the advocates of the Book of Mormon thought they discovered in these passages predictions foretelling the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and have so interpreted and used them in presenting the Book of Mormon, not as a basis upon which the book rests, but as corroborative proof of the truth of its claims. Should he prove that this exegesis is incorrect he will of course destroy the effect of this evidence, but he has by no means proven the Book of Mormon false. The claims of the book itself remain to be disposed of, whether we are right in applying certain prophecies to it and the land of America or not. Elder Bays, however, does not state the case correctly when he says: The Book of Mormon, it must be borne in mind, professes to contain the "written history" of this new Ariel. The "Nephites" were a people "terrible from their beginning hitherto" (Isa. 18:2), but were exterminated by their more wicked brethren, the "Lamanites," about A. D. 420. Page 191. The Book of Mormon makes no such claim regarding Isaiah 18:2, nor have we ever heard any representative of the church so present it. Elder Bays states on page 192, that the "rivers of Ethiopia" referred to in the passage "are the rivers of Africa, the Nile and its tributaries." But his final conclusions are: It is thus shown to be simply impossible that America can be "the land shadowing with wings," for the very cogent reason that the land thus described lies SOUTH of Palestine, while America, as every schoolboy knows, is directly west. Both of these statements are wrong. Ethiopia is not directly south nor is America directly west. Parts of Ethiopia may have been directly south, and part of America is directly west. Starting from Palestine to cross the "rivers of Ethiopia," conceded by Bays to be the Nile and its tributaries, you would go neither directly west nor directly south. To cross the Nile you must go southwest. This would of course place you in Africa; but starting at Jerusalem and crossing at a point near Cairo and continuing in direct course you would land in South America in a direct line between Jerusalem and where the Nephites landed. If, then, both Africa and America were "beyond the rivers of Ethiopia," the question would not be settled by appeal to the "facts of geography." As this is the only point raised by Elder Bays against the theories of some on this passage, he has not only failed to make his point against this interpretation, but he is as far from the real issue as he would be from the River Nile were he to travel due south from Jerusalem. It is impossible to determine what the boundaries of Ethiopia were, as various regions at different times were known by that name as all authorities will attest; but the original signification of the word was very broad, as the following definitions will show: Ethiopia, the Biblical Kush. Originally, all the nations inhabiting the southern part of the globe, as known to the ancients; or rather all men of dark-brown or black color, were called Ethiopians. -- Chambers's Encyclopaedia. Probably in the days of Isaiah this broad meaning was attached to the word, hence "beyond the rivers of Ethiopia" would suggest a land beyond the southern parts of the known world, so America is at once suggested to the mind. There is another interpretation of which this passage is susceptible from a scriptural standpoint. In Revelation 17: 1 John speaks of a character "that sitteth upon many waters." The angel interprets this vision and in the fifteenth verse says: The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. Applying the angel's interpretation to this passage, the rivers of water would mean peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues. A land, then, beyond the "rivers of Ethiopia" would be beyond the peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues of the then known southern part of the world. Again the mind is carried across the Atlantic or Pacific to America. It makes no difference, then, whether we interpret the rivers of Ethiopia to be literal rivers, or whether in harmony with the angel's interpretation we interpret them to mean peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues, Elder Bays is wrong, and either interpretation points to America as the "land beyond the rivers of Ethiopia." His twenty-second chapter is devoted to a consideration of Isaiah twenty-ninth chapter, in connection with the claims made for the Book of Mormon by its advocates. As usual he commences by misrepresenting the case under consideration. He states: If these "plates" were written in Egyptian, Arabic, Assyrian and Aramaic, and were translated by a man wholly ignorant of these languages, it would amount to an argument absolutely unanswerable; and this is exactly what it is claimed has been done. This assertion is without foundation in truth. No claim has been made by the advocates of the book that it was written in the languages mentioned, and so his conclusion based upon the claim is worthless. In speaking of Isaiah twenty-ninth chapter he says: The Saints believe that the "coming forth of the Book of Mormon," as they term it, completely and most perfectly fulfills this prophecy in every minute particular. If it does, then the Saints are right, and the Book of Mormon is true; but if they are wrong in their exegesis, the book cannot be a revelation from God. Page 198. This is another gross misrepresentation. The Saints do not believe that this chapter was completely and perfectly fulfilled in every minute particular in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. We see much more in it. We do think that a book read by an unlearned man is referred to, and that the Book of Mormon and the circumstances connected with it harmonize with the prediction. Bat the idea that if we are wrong in our exegesis "the book cannot be a revelation from God" is decidedly silly. The position that any book or principle depends upon the correctness of the exegesis of its supporters is not logic, it is trash. Elder Bays in this connection proceeds to give his exegesis of this chapter, and claims that "every line of this wonderful prophecy had its complete accomplishment" in the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. Shall we say that if Bays is wrong in his exegesis Nebuchadnezzar could not have destroyed Jerusalem? If Elder Bays' philosophy is right, then the moment a man takes an untenable position in defense of the Bible it proves that the Bible cannot be a revelation from God. That Elder Bays is wrong in the following conclusion will need no argument. He states: From the foregoing summary of the principal points of this prophecy, it is shown most conclusively that the prediction of every event is made of Jerusalem and her people, otherwise the "Inspired Translation" is a failure and a fraud. As lovers of truth, and as fair and unbiased students of prophecy and Biblical history, we are forced to the undeniable conclusion that every line of this wonderful prophecy had its complete accomplishment in the subsequent history of the Israelitish people in the utter destruction of their beloved city by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, some 588 years before our era, and 124 years after the prediction was made. Pages 202, 203. Isaiah twenty-ninth chapter contains the following prediction: Is it not yet a very little while, and Lebanon shall be turned into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field shall be esteemed as a forest? Verse 17. Elder Bays in summing up the events predicted in this chapter as he does on pages 199 and 200, leaves this out. He will hardly claim that Lebanon was turned into a fruitful field when Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. But in the latter times such has been the case. Though authors differ in regard to the former fertility of the land, all agree that the country was desolate for many years, whether from the lack of rain or because of want of care. The following is from Palest ina for June, 1897, a Jewish paper published in London, England, and is an extract from a sermon preached in Birmingham, England, May 29, 1897, by Rev. G. J. Emanuel: Six hundred and thirty years ago, Nachmanides, a name illustrious in Jewish literature, went to the Holy Land at the age of seventy years, and this is how he describes Palestine and Jerusalem: "Great is the solitude and great the wastes, and to characterize it in short, the more sacred the places, the greater their desolation. Jerusalem is more desolate than the rest of the country. In all the city there is but one resident inhabitant, a poor dyer, persecuted, oppressed, and despised. At his house gather great and small, when they can fret the Ten Men (Minyan). They are wretched folk without occupation and trade, pilgrims and beggars, though the fruit of the land is still magnificent and the harvests rich. It indeed is still a blessed country, flowing with milk and honey. Oh! I am the man who has seen affliction (Lamentations 8, 1). I am banished from my table, far removed from friend and kinsman, and too long is the distance to meet again. I have left my family, I have forsaken my house. There, with my sons and daughters, and with the sweet and dear grandchildren, whom I have brought up on my knees, I left also my soul. My heart and my eyes will dwell with them forever. But the loss of all these is compensated by having now the joy of being a day in thy courts, O Jerusalem! visiting the ruins of thy temple and crying over thy ruined sanctuary. There I caress thy stones, I fondle thy dust, I weep over thy ruins. May He who has permitted us to see Jerusalem in her desertion bless us to behold her again built up and restored when the glory of the Lord shall return to her." weighing machines, and to show you that civilization is making way in Palestine, bicycles too. The pupils of this school find employment all over the East. Near the city of Jaffa is an agricultural school "Mikveh Israel"(the Hope of Israel), founded by Charles Netter twenty-seven years ago. There, besides languages, mathematics, and chemistry, the lads learn agriculture, they grow oranges, vines, fruits, corn. They make their own wine, most excellent, and make their own barrels Fifty of the past pupils are officers in various colonies; fifty are proprietors of their own lands. On the colonies of Baron Rothschild and those recently established by the Chovevi Zion Associations many hundreds, I shall not exaggerate if I say thousands, are working, growing corn and all fruits, making wine in large quantities, cultivating mulberry trees, rearing silkworms, and spinning silk, manufacturing perfumes. In addition to these large colonies actually established, tracts of land are held by Baron Rothschild which gradually will be brought under cultivation. Shall we then not hope and believe? Though this writer Nachmanides differs from other authors regarding the richness of the harvests, he agrees that desolation had come to the land, which he attributes to desertion. But how different the situation now as described by the Rev. Mr. Emanuel. The Palestina for September, 1897, in describing the "Judaeo-Pcilestinian Exhibition at Hamburg," says: The exhibition was opened with much solemnity on the 29th of June, amidst the concourse of a number of distinguished guests, including representatives of the general exhibition, the promoters of the enterprise, the leaders of the Jewish congregation, as also representatives of the local press. The visitors, who minutely inspected the exhibits, were conducted over the place by the members of the committee, Mr. Glucksmann, late a pupil of the agricultural school at Jaffa, supplying the necessary explanations. Every guest received a copy of Mr. Hambus's interesting pamphlet on "the rise and present condition of the Jewish villages in Palestine." were despatched to Hamburg by the steamer Rhodes. When they were still in Alexandria, a large concourse of people assembled at the harbor every day for the purpose of admiring them. They suffered, of course, somewhat during their transit from the colonies to the coast, the shipping at Jaffa, and the re-shipping at Alexandria, as also from sea-water. But Mr. Gluckmann's precautions and constant care triumphed over all difficulties. The pomegranate, ethrog (citron), and pineapple trees are in full bloom, the olive, jucca, orange, and palm trees show a beautiful and fresh green' foliage. The local press is profuse in their praises of this side show, by which, they say, the horticultural exhibition has gained a most interesting feature. Surely Lebanon is becoming a fruitful field. This part of the prediction is surely being fulfilled today; and yet Elder Bays without a word of proof would have us believe that every line of the prediction was fulfilled 588 years before Christ. That he is mistaken will also appear from the following words of Christ to the Jews of his time in which he quotes the language found in Isaiah twenty-ninth chapter: Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweih nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Matt. 15: 7-9. If the Master was right in applying this prophecy to the people of his time, then it was not fulfilled 588 years before, and Bays is again wrong. That a part of the prediction may apply to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar we will not deny. It seems to have a general application to the Jews and their history for a long period of time, reaching down to this latter restoration of the Jews to their home and country. Their spiritual vision is represented as being dark, and the multitude of all the nations that fight against Zion are to share in the darkness, likened unto the words of a book that is sealed, of which it is said in positive language, "is delivered to him that is not learned." In connection with the return of Israel to her promised inheritance, a great spiritual revival was to take place, graphically described by Isaiah as follows: Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink. For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: and the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, 1 am not learned. Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, even a marvelous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us? Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it. He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He iiad no understanding? Is it not yet a very little while, and Lebanon shall be turned into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field shall be esteemed as a forest? And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness. The meek also shall increase their joy in the Lord, and the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel. For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off: that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought. Therefore thus saith the Lord, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale. But when he seeth his children, the work of mine hands, in the midst of him. they shall sanctify my name, and sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and shall fear the God of Israel. They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine. Isaiah 29:9-24. In connection with this marvelous work the book was to appear, as will be seen by reference to the above. The Book of Mormon was given to the world in connection with the transpiring of these events, and hence the elders have concluded that this is the book referred to. His twenty-third chapter has nothing in it not already answered. It consists in showing some points of harmony between the predictions in Isaiah twenty-ninth chapter and the subsequent history of the Jews, and then the conclusion that the whole chapter was fulfilled. The illogical and unfair method of substituting the part for the whole will be readily seen by the reader. |
[ 143 ]
under construction |
[ 152 ]
under construction |
[ 192 ]
under construction |
[ 203 ]
under construction |
Transcriber's Comments
(under construction) |