-* \ I T TTm A i->Tr -nkTTTT^r) In the laying on of hands. (7) In the resurrec- tion of the dead. (8) Eternal judgment. (9) The Lord's Supper. (10) The washing of feet. These, together with . . . the endowment of the Holy Ghost as realized and enjoyed in the testimony oj Jesus, such as faith, wisdom, knowledge, dreams, prophe- cies, tongues, interpretation of tongues, visions, healings," etc. Doctrines and Dogmas, pp. 33, 34. 14 'One day, when I arose from the table, I walked di- rectly to the door and began vomiting most profusely. I raised large quantities of blood and poisonous matter, and so great were the contortions of my muscular system, that my jaw was dislocated in a few tant, with your guide in your hand, where do you find amidst them all, my friend and reader, an institution in exact accord with the pattern given of Christ's church? All, echo answers, where? Yet one established according to this plan is all that God has ever deigned to acknowledge as his. What will you do? Throw away your guide, and join a daughter of the old mother, or some institution of men? -Presidency and Priest- hood, pp. 188, 189. (1.) Faith in God. (2.) Faith in Jesus Christ. (3.) In the Holy Ghost. (4.) Belief in the doctrine of repentance. (5.) In baptism. (0.) In the laying on of hands. (7) In the res- urrection of the 'dead; and (8.) Eternal judgment. (9.) TheLord's supper. (10.) The washing of feet. These, to- gether with an .humble and godly icalk, including all the ex- cellences set out in the moral code, with the endowment of the Holy Ghost as realized and enjoyed in the testimony of Jesus, such as faith, wisdom, knowledge, dreams, prophe- cies, tongues, interpretations, visions, healings, etc. Presi- dency and Priesthood, pp. 83, 84. One day, when I arose from ihe dinner table, I walked directly to the door and commenced vomiting most profusely. I raised large quantities of blood and poison- ous matter, and so great were the contortions of my muscu- lar system, that my jaw was 16 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. moments. This I succeeded in replacing with my own hands, and I then made my way to Brother Whitney (who was on his bed) as speedily as possible. He laid his hands on me, and administered to me in the name of the Lord, and I was healed in an instant, al- though the effect o the poison had been so powerful as to cause much of the hair to become loosened from my head.' 5 (Tullidge's History, pages 141, 142.) Doctrines and Dogmas, p. (53. "In the New Testament there is a history given of the foundation of the Church of Christ in the times of the apos- tles. It sets forth the class of officers belonging thereto, and defines their duties." (Presi- dency and Priesthood, page 49). Doctrines and Dogmas, p. 77. "In the light of the above facts, can any organization, however proud and haughty in its claims or large its mem- bers, not having these God-sent and heaven-inspired officers, be theChurch of Christ?" (Ibid, page 45). Doctrines and Dog- mas, p. 78. "It is not expedient in me that the Quorum of the Presi- dency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles shall be filled, " for reasons which will be see^i 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 dislocated in a few moments. This I succeeded in replacing with my own hands, and I then made my way to brother Whitney (who was on his bed', as speedily as possible. He laid his hands on me, and ad- ministered in the name of the Lord, and I was healed in an instant, although the effect of the poison had been so power- ful as to cause much of the hair to become loosened from my head. Tullidge's History, pp. 141, 142. In the New Testament there is a history given of \.\\? forma- tion of the church of Christ, etc.- Presidency and Priest- hood, p. 49. In the light of the above facts, can any organization, however proud and haughty in its claims, or large its num- bers, etc. Presidency and Priesthood, p. 45. It is not yet expedient in me, etc.- Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 122, par. 4. 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 strangers, more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the but fellow citizens with the saints, and are built upon the saints, and of the household of foundation of the apostles and God; and are built. upon the prophets, Jesus Christ himself foundation of the apostles and being the chief corner-stone." prophets, Jesus Christ himself Doctrines and Dogmas, p. being the chief corner stone. 124. Eph. 2: 19, 20. "Some have supposed that Some have supposed that they received two ordinations; they received two ordinations; one under the hands of Peter, one under the hands of Peter, James and John, and one by James, and John, and one by each other; but . . . there is each other; but -it is scarcely no historical evidence of such supposable that they would fail to an event." (Ibid, page 64). mention so important an item. Doctrines and Dogmas, p. 134. There is no historical evi- dence of such an event. Church History, vol. 1, p. 64. 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 authorizing men to minister." priesthood as a means of 18 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. (Page 3.) Doctrines and Dog- mas, p. 145. "The Gospel is administered by the authority of the Mel- chizedek priesthood. "(PageS.) But M&. Kelley does not in- form us where he finds au- thority for this remarkable statement." Doctrines and Dogmas, p. 146. "Behold, there shall be a record kept among you, and in it thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church through the will of God the Father, and the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed to all his words, and commandments, which he shall give unto you, as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; for his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience andfaith." (Doc. and Cov., sec. 19, par. 1, ?. pasre 10:.'.) Doc- trines and Dogmas, pp. 319, 320. authorizing men to adminis- ter before him acceptably, must be taken as positive evidence of its necessity. Presidency and Priesthood, p. 3. ''The royal laic," the "perfect law of liberty," the gospel, is administered by the authority of the Melchisedec priesthood. Presidency and Priesthood, p. 5. Behold, there shall be a record kept among you, and in it thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church through the will of God the Father. and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ; being inspired of the Holy Ghost to lay the founda- tion thereof, and to build it up unto the most holy faith; ichich church was organized and estab- lished, in the year of your Lord eighteen hundred and thirty, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month, which is called April. Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words, and com- mandments, which he shall give unto you, as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; for his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith. Doctrine and Covenants 19: 1, 2. These instances will serve as examples of the kind of work Elder Bays has done in the book in which he 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 Kig-clon in point of scholastic attainments and personal polish, directly with Joseph Smith in every stage 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 according to promise, on Sep- tember 22, 1827, and sometime in the month of February following Martin Harris started with copies of the charac- ters 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 Cow- dery met for the first time; and to this "all Mormon his- tory 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 he 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 Covv- dery 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 opportuni- ties 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 lar^e stream, which /,W* -i/ifu f/tf> Red Sea. From this point they traveled in a south-southeasterly direction, till finally they came to the sea culled "I rean turn." 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 follow- ing: And it came to pass that we did agrain 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 neces- sary 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 he 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 daj 7 " to deter- mine this difficult question of Aaronic lineage? To ordinary mortals this would, I confess, prove an insur- mountable barrier; but Joseph was a man of resources, and this matter of lineal descent was a trifling 1 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 ke3 r s of this priest- hood," 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 Patriarch, as the following will show: No man has a legal right to this office, to hold 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 arid Covenants 08:2. 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 T/tiimmim. 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, 1 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 Terri- tory. Saints' Herald, vol. 25, page 141. The minutes of the Semiannual Conference for the same year contain the following: I). H. Bays was sustained in the Texas Mission, and W. T. Bozarth was 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 disclose 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 Presi- dency. Ibid., p. 333. 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 wit- nessed, it is true, what I was at the time willing to call a mira- cle, 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 con- firmed 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, sayinsr: "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 large, was in tears. Even people who had not obeyed the gospel message, received great confirmation, some of them testifying boldly that they saw a glorious and heavenly light at the v 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. m. for preaching and confirmation services, in which the Spirit was present in a remarkable degree of power, espe- cially in the confirmation ceremonies. Extract from a letter written from Stockdale, Wilson county, Texas, June 30, 1878, and published in the Saints' Herald for July 15 of the same year. It might be interesting to hear 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 life I have never known the truth to be put to a test at once so trying and fiery as the one just referred to. But I kneic the Lord would give us the victory, so we awaited patiently till the ordeal was past, when his mercy appeared. The discussion terminated favorably to the cause of truth. Extract from a letter written from Stockdale, Texas, July 10, 1878, and published in the Saints' Herald for September 1 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, how did Elder Bays know what the Lord was going to do regarding this dis- cussion? He could not have known anything 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? 34 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. Mr. Bays makes another mistake when in referring to the organization of James J. Strang he says: Although claiming to be the legal successor to Joseph Smith, as "prophet, seer, and revelator," he skillfully avoided the triumvirate known as the "First Presidency," and assumed the modest title of king. Page 75. In a periodical called the Gospel Herald, published at Voree, Wisconsin, as the official organ of James J. Strang, and in its issue for August 16, 1849, there is a notice of several conferences, from which we quote as follows: There will be a Conference held in the city of New York the 5th, Gth and 7th of October next. It is expected that a majority of both the First Presidency and the Twelve will attend these Conferences. JAMES J. STRANG, \ ^ . , GEORGE J. ADAMS, f Presidents. This notice is also inserted in the next six issues follow- ing the one referred to. Bays claims to have been for a time identified with the organization under Strang. Yet he does not seem to know what that organization was. Eeader, 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 Raints only, so far as the history 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 feel- ings 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 think 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 tne building com- mittee, 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 fol- lows: Who understood the "tongues" in which not one of the apostles is declared to have spokenf 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 remarks, and a short prayer, which was ended with loud accla- mations of Hosanna! Hosanna! Hosanna to God and the Lamb, Amen, Amen and Amen! three times. Elder H. Young, one of the Twelve, gave a short address in tongues; Elder D. \V. 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 Publishing House. In speaking of Jason W. Briggs, Bays says: Jason became dissatisfied with his own work; and by his actions, at least, renouncing his own "revelation" and the work built upjn it, he resigned his apostolic office and withdrew from the church at a conference held at Independence, Mo. Page 102. Elder Briggs did not withdraw from the church at Inde- pendence, Missouri, but at Lamoni, Iowa, in 1886, and then not because he was "dissatisfied with his own work," 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 dis- cussion which arose, and was attempted to be carried on throuirh the columns of the Herald; but while the other party was allowed access to the columns of the Herald, I was denied 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 page he proceeds to misrepresent another of the church's early defenders as follows: Elder Charles Derry did not long remain in the "Quorum of Twelve." He resigned his apostleship soon after his return from the English Mission, for the reason, as he told the writer shortly afterwards, that he had 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 ago, and on departing left his benediction. He baptized me into the Reorganized Church nearly thirty-six years ago. I would that all men were like him in honor and integrity, and may his soul find rest and peace in the paradise of God. Elder Derry left home on his English mission December 6, 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. Bays has him resigning soon after he returned from his English mission, which would have been before his ordination. " Accurate and reliable," bah! However, Elder Derry still lives and resides at Wood- bine, 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 hear from him on the question of fact raised by Bays. When contemplating writing this review we wrote him regarding Bays' statement and he answered as follows: WOODBINE, January 16, 1901. Elder Heman C. Smith: Your favor of yesterday is before me. culling for information respecting my purported statement to 1). H. Bays about my resignation of my membership in the Quorum of the Twelve. Soon after 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. HAYS. 27 I now copy from my reply to Bays on that question 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. Hays 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 had been from the beginning, it being the duty of the commit- tee on selection to se-ek the guidance of the Almighty, as Jesus sought it in the choosing of the Twelve in his day. In due time my name was presented in connection with that of Brother Ells, and it was duly considered by the conference, and I was chosen by the voice of the body. 1 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 knowing then that my mother had dedicated me to the service of God, in my infancy, as Hannah of old had dedicated little Samuel. On the 8th 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 office crept into my mind; it seemed to me I was not fitted for so responsible a duty, and I only wanted to occupy according to my talents. I was blessed in my ministry, but I had always been blessed in preaching the gospel of Christ, and the fear kept pressing itself into my heart that the duty of the apostleship was greater than I could faithfully and effectually perform, and while it was my life's determina- tion to continue in the gospel ministry, I determined to resign my position in the Quorum of the Twelve, and if it was God's will, I would occupy a humbler position in his c'hurch. I resigned, but not as Mr. Bays says, 'soon after his return from the English Mission.' I had not been called into that Quorum until some time after I returned from the English mission, and as above stated, I remained in that Quorum about five } T ears. It is very likely I told Mr. Bays (though I do not remember the interview) that I had no evidence that God had called me to that office. I told all my brethren so when I resigned, . but I never told Mr. Bays, nor any other being, that I knew God had not called me to it. One thing I did realize, and realize it today, that God had called me to preach his gospel, as preached by Christ, and as restored again in these last days, and I know that in all of my labors and 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 officers. God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the word of God are the only beings 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 Judire. " 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 miirht be his bland, outward appearance, but I had no hatred against the man, and why should I refrain 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 DERRY. Between Elder Bays and this* man of "honor and integ- rity" 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 only evidence, of which this case is susceptible, would be the solemn affirmation, or what would be still better, perhaps, the sworn statement of Mr. Harris. But no such statement or affirmation was ever obtained from him. Not a scrap of anything Martin Harris ever wrote if he 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 had 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. Emerson; Sir: I received j r our 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 trans- lation 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 indorsers to explain. REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 29 In the following extracts from Bays' book, page 219, he exaggerates the facts, as the evidence plainly shows: It is impossible to believe that these witnesses, and especially Oliver Cowdery, knowing that the church organized 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 the} 7 " did. If I had seen an angel; if I had heard the voice of God; if I had bowed by Joseph's Smith's side and felt the touch of angel hands in ordination,- and heard the declaration that he was a prophet of the living God, all the combined powers of earth and hell could 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 from fellowship with the church on account of disagree- ment 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 char- acter, only shows them to be the more reliable as wit- nesses. If Mr. Bays had been actuated by a sense of fairness he would have stated, what he seemingly desires to conceal; viz., that the faith of these men was never impaired in the principles they had espoused, notwith- standing this disagreement and consequent separation. At a special conference held at Council Bluffs, Iowa, in Octo- ber, 1848, Oliver Cowdery said: Not because I was better than the rest of mankind was I called; but, to fulfill the purposes of God, he called me to a high and holy calling. I wrote, with my own pen, the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages), as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph Smith, as he translated it by the gift and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or, as it is called by that book, 'holy interpreters.' .1 beheld with my ci/ex and handled with my hands the gold plates from ichich it was Iranxlated. I also saw with my eyes and. handled with my hands the 'holy interpreters.' That book is true. 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 man ever heard me in any way deny the truth of the Book of Mormon, the admin- istration 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. In a proclamation published in 1881, David Whitmer said: To the end, therefore, . . . that the world may know the truth, I wish now, standing as it were, in the very sunset of life, and in the fear of God, once for all to make this public statement: That I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof, which has so long since been published with that book, as one of the three witnesses. Those who know me best, well know that I have always adhered to that testimony. And that no man may be misfed or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do again 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 Elder 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 writing 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 I, too, visited David Whit- mer 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 During cne interview I 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 own 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 04 years old and somewhat broken. 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 remains as firm 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, 1809. On page 267 of his book Mr. Bays says when speaking of Joseph Smith and the three witnesses; viz., Oliver Cow- dery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris: These witnesses say that the plates contained "Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyrian and Arabic" characters. This is a misrepresentation, as not one of the witnesses ever claimed to know of what language the characters were. Martin Harris quotes Professor Anthon as saying that the facsimile presented to the Professor contained such characters, but he nowhere claims to know anything about it from his own knowledge of characters. When Mr. Bays wrote as he says he did to certain lin- guists the following, he misrepresented the facts: "DEAR SIR: I herewith inclose what purports to be a fac- simile of the characters found upon the gold plates from which it is claimed the Book of Mormon was translated. The advo- cates of Mormonism maintain that these characters are 'Egyp- tian, Chaldaic, Assyrian and Arabic.' " Page 2(51. "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 is only necessary to quote one pas- sage from the Book of Mormon as follows: The words of Christ, which he spake unto his disciples, the twelve whom he had chosen, as he laid his hands upon them. And he called them by name, saying, Ye shall call on the Father in my name, in miirhty prayer; and after that ye have done this, ye shall have power that on him on whom ye shall lay your hands, ye shall give the Holy Ghost: and in my name shall ye give it: for thus do mine apostles. Now Christ spake these words unto them at 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 passage 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- ing on of hands 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 1847. 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 Lyrnan Wight nor any of his associates in 1847. He 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 nine 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 neighbors 1 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. Bays says: Several of the men whose names 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, when first I knew him in 1847, but five years after his testimony was made public, and only three 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 he 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 "only 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 wit- ness who had 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 asso- ciated 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, car- rying the plain inference that if this doctrine was sup- ported 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 Book 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 he was eight years old he knew Miller, and knew that he had two wives, when it is positively known that the said boy never saw Miller until after he was nine years old? Besides, kind reader, what is your estimate of the boy as a witness, when he testifies of other things? On page 368, after speaking of the disaffection of the Laws and Higbees and others in 1844, Bays states: The reader will perhaps remember that the Laws and Hith. 1830, with eldersonly, could not have been the Church of Christ, and its members, including Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, were still "foreigners and strangers to the commonwealth of Israel." Which horn of the dilemma will our Mormon friends take? Either is fatal to their cause. Viewed from this standpoint it appears conclusive that apostles and prophets are superfluous and unnecessary. Pages 10(5-108. To destroy the church of the Saints, he strikes a blow that would affect the church of New Testament times as adversely as it. would the object of his attack. This is virtually a concession that they are so nearly alike that what hurts one hurts the other. To make this plain let us ask the same questions about the church of former times that he does regarding the modern one. If the church could exist and flourish without apostles from the date of John's ministry until the calling of the Twelve by Christ, why could it not continue to exist and flourish and grow from that time on forever without them? Why cumber the church with apostles? OD the other hand, if apostles, etc., were really necessary to its proper organi- zation, then the church as constituted in the days of the Baptist could not have been the church of Christ, and its members, including John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, Peter, REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 81 and others, were still "foreigners and strangers to the commonwealth of Israel." Which horn of the dilemma will our friends take? Either is fatal to their cause. The assumption of Elder Bays still increases. We have already seen that he assumes that he was the most reliable witness among Latter Day Saints, and that he is the most able among his Christian brethren in combatting Mormonism. Now he boldly proclaims the act of Christ in adding apostles and prophets to the official membership oi the church a nonessential act. Passing over several pages of sophistry too apparently absurd for notice we refer to his chapter twelve, regard- ing the foundation of the church. Mr. Bays occupies two chapters of his book in discussing the question of church foundation, basing his argument on Matthew 16: 18, "Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." After much ado on what Joseph Smith, T. W. Smith, and others are supposed to have said, he reaches the con- clusion that the Bible (Authorized Version), the Inspired Translation, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants all agree on this point, and that they are all right because they approve of Bays' opinion. What is he finding fault with, then, if our standard books are all on the right side? We might leave it here, and would but for the fact that there are some remarks in his argument, which, if not explained, would be misleading. Bays knows full well that the statements of Joseph Smith or those of any other man are not accepted as law to the church, and if contrary to the books we teach that they should be rejected. Hence if Joseph Smith is on one side, as Bays affirms, and the books on the other, we are committed to the side of the books, and Bays has made no point against the church. However, the assertion of Bays that Joseph Smith and 82 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. the books are in conflict should not be accepted without painstaking investigation. On page 112 he states several opinions based upon his text, and among others this: Another class of theologians the Latter Day Saints take unique ground upon this question and affirm that "revelation" is the rock. They seem to derive this view from what Christ said to Peter, namely: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not reveakd it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." (V. 18.) This revelation, they tell us, is the rock upon which Jesus declares he will build his church. Pages 112, 113. After here stating that the revelation quoted is the one accepted by the church as the rock, he finds it convenient on page 118 to state our position syllogistically as follows: Revelation is the foundation of the church. The Book of Mormon is a revelation. Therefore the Book of Mormon is the foundation of the church. Thus representing that we accept one revelation as the rock on which Jesus Christ will build his church, and then representing that we accept another revelation as the foundation of the church. Does he in one case or the other, or in both, misrepre- sent us? Or does he admit that the foundation of the church and the rock upon which the foundation rests are two distinct and separate things? If the latter is his intention, we hope he will not forget it in the further consideration of this question. We take it for granted that Bays is consistent, in this, and that he accepts the conclusion that the rock upon which the church is built is not the foundation, but the solid substance upon which the foundation rests. This is a distinction which Bays ignores in his affirmative argument while he recognizes it in negativing our position. With this distinction clear in our minds, and conceded by Elder Bays, we are pre- REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 83 pared to examine some of his proof-texts. It must be also remembered that there is a difference in the work of Christ and that of men. Christ establishes himself firmly upon an immovable basis; and what could be more enduring and impregnable than the word of God? Christ thus established becomes the sure foundation, the chief corner stone, upon which men may build; and well might Paul say: Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 3: 11. He can thus be said to be the sure foundation upon which we build, notwithstanding there is beneath and supporting him a basis as firm as eternity the word, or revelation of God. Take this view of the matter and you are in harmony with every passage quoted by Elder Bays, and Joseph Smith was in harmony therewith in saying the rock upon which Christ was to build his church was revelation. Elder Bays is right in his contention that Christ is the sure foundation and the chief corner stone, and he can make a strong case with much scripture to support it when he confines himself to this point; but he lacks discrimina- tion when he confounds the character of Christ's work with the work of man, under Christ's direction. Christ is also sometimes called a rock figuratively, because of his firmness, solidity, and immovability; but the word rock as used in scripture does not always mean Christ. The word may properly be used to represent anything solid and firm. But Elder Bays says: While the word rock does sometimes mean Christ, it never means revelation. Elder Bays here assumes the very point at issue, and grossly violates a rule of logic in so doing. He certainly knew that some claim that in Matthew 16:18, the very passage in question, the word rock means revelation. A 84 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. party to a question can always settle an issue in that way; but he should not complain if his opponents refuse to accept of the settlement. Again Bays says: I regard it as a truth not to be questioned that nowhere in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is there an instance where the word "rock" can be substituted by the word "reve- lation" without doing violence to the obvious meaning of the passage. But the noun "Christ" may be used as synonymous with the word rock without such results, as may be seen by the following examples: "Upon this Christ I will build my church." "To whom coming as unto the living Christ." "They all drank of that spiritual Christ," etc. Page 123. In the very passages he quotes, the word revelation can be substituted for rock without destroying the obvious meaning. "Upon this revelation I will build my church" conveys the meaning exactly, as we think; for he had just been speaking of a revelation to Peter wherein God had revealed the fact that Jesus was the Christ. This is cer- tainly better and more reasonable than to assume that Christ intended to say "Upon this Christ [that is, upon this me] I will build my church." To read, "They all drank of that spiritual revelation would not destroy the obvious meaning; for though Christ may have been referred to in this passage he was a spiritual revelation to the world. Which would be the better to say, "He brought me up also out of a horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and- set my feet upon a revelation, and established my goings;" or to say, "And set my feet upon a Christ''? (Psalms 40: 2.) We might multiply these passages, but these are cer- tainly sufficient. The following answer of Elder Derry we recommend to a careful reading: He tells of the terrible struggle he claims to have had in discovering and proclaiming that which he claims to be the truth. It must have been terrible, for we never heard of the "Hornet's nest," nor of any persecution until we read of it in REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 85 his book. This is the first time in my ministry of over fifty years in the church that I ever heard that the church did not recognize Jesus Christ as the foundation of his church. We have proclaimed that doctrine all these years, and have never yet been called in question either by church authorities, ministry, or membership. We have always heard it preached by the entire ministry and strongly advocated by all as the basis of our faith and hope. It is plainly set. forth in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Holy Scriptures; and we as a church firmly believe with Paul that, "Other founda- tion can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." And with Peter, that Christ is "the chief cornerstone." But the question before us is, Did Christ refer to himself as the rock mentioned in Matthew 10:18? The word rock is used by Christ in Matthew 7: 24, 25, also in Luke ft: 48. as referring 1 to or meaning the sayings of Christ. "Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock." Here the word rock was intended to be understood as the sayings of Christ, showing their immutability and their immovability, as we are told in other scripture, "The word of the* Lord ,endureth forever." 1 Peter 1:25; Isa. 40:8. Since Christ used the word rock in the before mentioned scriptures, are we not warranted in applying it to the word and testimony revealed to Peter by the Father when he made known to him that Jesus was **the Christ, the Son of the living God"? It is evident that Jesus so applied it. Hence we are warranted in teaching that the revelation given to Peter was the rock upon which Christ said, "I will build my church." . . . The word of God is an emanation from his infinite mind. God and Christ might exist from eternity to eternity, and yet if they had never been revealed, nor their will made known, man- kind could have known nothing of their existence, character, will, or purpose, nor of their relation to creation, nor 3 T et the relationship and responsibility of man to God and Christ. (Matthew 11:27.) The terms evil and good could have no mean- ing to us so far as the one being in harmony with his will and the other in opposition to the same, and hence we should be in midnight darkness. Faith and obedience would be unmeaning terms. . . . Further, the peculiarities of Christ's birth rendered it impos- sible for any man to conceive that he was the Son of God. On this rock not only Mr. Bays was wrecked, but millions have questioned the immaculateness of Christ's birth. Even the virgin herself could not have understood by what process she had conceived Him, only as God made known the Tact unto her; nor would the revelation of the fact unto Mary be siiflicieni to convince the rest of mankind. Even her betrothed husband 8(5 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. was "minded to put her away,'* so contrary was it to all human experience for a virgin to conceive, never having 1 known man. And Paul was right when he said, "No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." But when God revealed himself to man he laid the foundation for man's faith in him, and paved the way for the coming of his Son: but after all this, if the fact that the child of the virgin was indeed "the Sou of God," the "Anointed One," "the Christ," the "Redeemer of the world," had not been revealed, salvation could not have come unto man, for that is dependent upon our faith in him as the Son of God, and without this revelation there could be no faith, and so far as our salvation was concerned Christ would have lived and died in vain. Hence this revealed truth ?> the rock, and may be truly termed the foundation of the Church of Christ; for without it there could be no church, and this revelation must come unto all men, for "This is life eter- nal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3.) It was this revealed truth in connection with every other truth that God has revealed, or shall reveal, that is the foundation of all our faith, all our hope, all our love, all our righteousness, and upon which Christ is building his church. We cannot dismiss this point without referring to the following from Mr. Bays on page 118: The founder of Mormonism declares, as we have seen, that the "rock" upon which his church is based is "REVELATION." The Book of Mormon is declared by every class and shade of the Mormon priesthood to be the greatest revelation of the ;iges. Being the greatest, from the Mormon standpoint, and so directly connected with the birth of Mormonism, it may very justly be termed the foundation of the Mormon Church. Sylloirist ically presented, the proposition would stand thus: Revelation is the foundation of the church. The Book of Mormon is a revelation. Therefore the Book of Mormon is the foundation of the church. This declaration we never heard nor read until we read it in "Doctrines and Dogmas of Mormonism/' We chal- lenge the proof that every "class and shade of the Mormon priesthood" has so declared. Now a word regarding Elder Bays' syllogism. It is lame for the reason that the first term of the syllogism is distributive, including all revelation, while the second REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 87 term indicates only a portion of the whole. A parallel to this would be: Fundamental principles are the foundation of mathe- matics. Addition is a fundamental principle. Therefore addition is the foundation of mathematics. Or: Letters are the foundation of the English language. A is a letter. Therefore A is the foundation of the English language. These examples will serve to show the contemptible weakness of this attempted syllogistic argument. While addition is a fundamental principle of mathematics, other principles are included in mathematics. While A is a letter of the alphabet, it requires the addition of other letters to compose the English language. So with the Book of Mormon. While it contains a revelation of God's will, the Church of Christ is founded upon the principle of revelation and should live u by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." That this has ever been our position Elder Bays well knew. In summing up, Elder Bays presents the following amusing illustration: It may readily be seen that our Latter Day Saint friends have the long end of the teeter-board, which may be the funny end, but it is also the dangerous one. My good brother Mormon, how do you like the long end of the plank? Does the altitude make you dizzy? Don't you have some misgivings about ever being able to set your foot on solid earth agai n ? Come down from your giddy perch, even if, catlike, you have to climb backwards down the plank. Indulge no longer in theories of speculative theology. Never stop until you feel the solid earth beneath your feet, then dig down through all the superficial rubbish of modern revelation, and build your house upon the solid Rock, CHRIST. Built upon this Rock, the winds may blow and the storm beat upon your house, but it cannot fall, "for it is founded upon a rock" the Rock of eternal ages. Page 130. 88 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. Yes, the long end is the funny end, but the short end is the serious and dangerous end. No, we are not dizzy, nor have we any misgivings about being able to set foot on solid earth. Elder Bays, has it been so long since you were on a teeter-board that you have forgotten that the long end has the advantage in coming to the ground? If you have the short end, Elder Bays, it is you who, cat- like, will have to climb backwards down the plank from your giddy perch, and cease to indulge in theories of speculative theology. Come down, Davis! Come down! Oa page 132 Elder Bays misrepresents us in the follow- ing: All ministers not, called by a direct revelation from God through a prophet "like unto Moses," are utterly and absolutely without authori!}' to minister in divine things. While we insist that ministers to be authorized to admin- ister should be called of God, we have never said that each minister should be called "through a prophet 'like unto Moses." 1 We have not presumed to prescribe through whom God should speak, but when satisfied that the call is from God we feel authorized to proceed. Elder Bays thinks "the manner in which 'the priest- hood' was 'conferred' upon Joseph and Oliver is enough to condemn the entire system, and brand it as a fraud." But he gives no reason for this remarkable conclusion, hence we will content ourselves by saying: We do not think so. After making some general observations upon the ordi- nations in question, Elder Bays states: As John the Baptist ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaron ic priesthood, so Peter, James and John ordained them to the Melchi/edek priesthood. For the first time in the history of the denomination this is now called in question by President Ji.seph Smith of the Reorganized Church. President Smith enters into a somewhat elaborate argument to show that said ordination should be regarded in the light of an "appoint- ment," and the actual and only ordination ever performed by the laying on of hands was when Joseph and Oliver ordained each other, at the time the church was organized. Page 134. REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 89 In this Elder Bays misunderstands the language he attributes to President Smith. There is no elaborate argument presented in the history from which Mr. Bays quotes to show that the only ordination performed in the cases of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery was by each other. No opinion is expressed ?,s to whether the literal hands of Peter, James, and John were laid on these men's heads in ordination or not. The explanation was made as a reason why the writers as historians could not take a positive position, whatever their individual opinions might be. Historians may have opinions as to what was done but not recorded, but are not justified in stating some- thing as a positive fact for which they find no record. Elder Bays says: In Mormon parlance and practice,, how is priesthood con- ferred? By tlie laying on of hands, and NEVER in any other way. This is correct, and the history makes no effort to con- ceal that fact. The only question was: Did Peter, James, and John lay their own hands upon the heads of these men, or did they ordain by directing that other hands should be laid upon them. Elder Bays first assumes that President Smith denies the actual and personal ordination by Peter, James, and John; second he makes a protracted effort to prove that President Smith's position is wrong; third, having suc- ceeded to his own satisfaction he forms his own con- clusion; and fourth, assails his own conclusion with a ruthless hand as follows: And it is thus rendered reasonably clear that both Joseph and Oliver were not only favored with numerous visits by hea.venly messengers, but that they were actually ordained to the Gospel ministry by the incomparable touch of angelic hands. O. for the depravity of fallen human nature and the depravity of the human heart! What presumption! What an unmitigated and heaven-daring fraud! What an unholy farce! How dan? these men make such preposterous and unprecedented claims? Pages 138, 139. 90 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. Why did not Elder Bays meet the question as he under- * stood President Smich to state it, instead of instructing President Smith as to what our position is and then hold- ing up his hands in holy horror at the man of straw that he has himself created. What wonderful ''children of Providence 1 ' this man and his production are. For stupidity in logic this surpasses any production we have examined anywhere. After thus stating our position for us, Elder Bays flauntingly demands: Let the advocates of this heretical dogma step to the front and defend their position if they are intelligently honest in what they profess to believe: and we shall not limit them to the Bible for proof, as we might very properly do, but they may have access to the Book of Mormon, also, which, as the Saints claim, contains the "fullness of the gospel." Pages 139, 140. Bosh! Mr. Bays thinks there was no Melchisedec priest after Melchisedec himself until Christ, and there has been none since Christ. He thinks to become a priest a man must first be a king. He bases this upon the fact that Melchise- dec and Christ were kings, and concludes therefore that to be eligible to the priest's office one must possess this qualification or prerequisite. He puts this proposition as follows: Two things are especially necessary in order to constitute a Melchizeckk priest: First. The individual must be a king. Second. Being 1 a king, he rimij become a priest. Hence, a priest of the Melchizedek order is at once a king and a priest a king-priest. Page 141. As well may we say that as Matthew was a publican (tax-gatherer) before he was an apostle, a man cannot become an apostle unless he has first been a publican. The proposition would then stand: Two things are especially necessary in order to consti- tute an apostle: First, the individual must be a tax-gatherer. REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 91 Second, being a tax-gatherer he may become an apostle. Hence, an apostle is at once a tax-gatherer and an apostle, a publican-apostle. On the subject of high priests, we wish to invite atten- tion to the reasoning of Elder Derry: Brother Bays not only objects to an earthly head the presi- dency; but he objects to a patriarch, high priests, and priests. Paul speaks of helps and governments. Can he show from the New Testament that the presidency and patriarch are not meant by the name "governments/' and that high priests and priests were not included in the "helps" there mentioned, acting as pastors and watchmen over different portions of the flock? We have shown that the New Testament is silent upon many things pertaining to church government, and the divided state of "Christendom" on this matter proves the necessity for more revelation from God, that it may be known how and by what means the church militant may be governed, that there may be no confusion in the church. . . . Paul says, "Consider the Apostle and High Priest of our pro- fession, Christ Jesus." Heb. 3:1. Again, he is called the "great high priest." Heb. 4: 14. This word great would have no meaning if not used in a comparative sense; hence it implies the existence of lesser high priests. Paul further says, "Every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sac- rifices for sins." . . . There will be "priests unto God" when Christ shall reign upon the earth. (Revelation 5:9, 10.) The Levites are to offer an offering in righteousness when Christ comes. (Malachi 3.) It is a settled fact that Jesus was a high priest when in the flesh, made so of his Father, and he says in his ever memorable prayer for his apostles, "as thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world." "And the glorj' which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one." John 17:18, 22. If this does not mean the same power and authority, then words have no meaning; hence there were high priests in the Christian church, and will be wherever it is found in a perfect form, because God changes not. Mr. Bays' fifteenth chapter is on priesthood, but it is chiefly composed of assertion, in which misrepresentation and sophistry are the chief elements. There is but one point in the chapter that requires attention. On page 149, after quoting extracts from a 92 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. revelation on priesthood regarding the transmission of the priesthood from one to another, he presents the fol- lowing table: 1. While it is possible that Jethro mi^ht have been ordained under Ihe hand of Caleb both beinjr contemporary with Moses it is simply impossible that the latter could have been ordained by Elihu, as may be seen by a glance at the following table; and the same is true of all the persons named: NAME. WHEN LIVING, DIFF RENCE IN SCRIPTUHAL B C. TIME. REFERE CE. 1. ( Caleb. 1453, Num 26:65. ( Elihu. 1171. 281. 1 Sam. 1:1. 2. ( Elihu. 1171. ( Jeremy. fc9. 442. . Jer. 31 : 15; Matt. 2 : 17. 3. j Jeremy. 629. 1120. ( Gad. 1749. Gen. 30 : 11. 4. ( Gad. 1749. ( E^aias. 700. 989. Isa. 1:1: Acts 8 : 28. This as will be seen is based upon the supposition that the party mentioned in each of the passages referred to is the only man who ever bore the name; a very absurd sup- position, even though no other one had been mentioned. It is very improbable that the name of every man living at Ihe time is given in the Bible. The names he has used in this table are, with the possi ole exception of one, used several times in the Bible as applying to different men. There are at least three Calebs spoken of; the son of Jephunneh (Num. 13:6), the son of Hezron (1 Chron. 2:18), the son of Hur (1 Chron. 2:50). We also find at least five Elihus mentioned: There was the great-grandfather of the Prophet Samuel (1 Sam. 1: 1), a Manassehite who joined David at Ziklag (1 Chron. 12: 20), another party by that name is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 26:7, the brother of David (1 Chron. 27: 18), and one of the friends of Job, often mentioned in the book of Job. Jeremy REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 9? is but another form of the name Jeremiah, as can be seen by comparison of Jeremiah 31:15 and Matthew 2:17. There are at least eight persons by that name mentioned in the Bible. See 2 Kings 23:31, 1 Chronicles 5:24, 1 Chronicles 12:4, 1 Chronicles 12:10, 1 Chronicles 12:13, Nehemiah 10:2, Jeremiah 35:3. Then there is the Prophet Jeremiah. There were at least two Gads. Gad the son of Jacob (Gen. 30: 11), and Gad the prophet (1 Sam. 22:5 ) It would be absurd, too, to say that all the men bearing these names are mentioned in the Bible. Being common names it is quite probable that men bearing these names could have been found in Israel at any time in its history. It will also be seen that Elder Bays' mathematics is at fault. In computing the difference in the time of Elihu and Jeremy he makes an error of one hundred years. He might as well have had the benefit of that one hundred years, as in doing so he would have scored a point in favor of his indorsers, the Christian Publishing House, that he was "accurate and reliable." In the light of these consid- erations Elder Bays' effort on this point seems childish and silly. Elder Bays' sixteenth and seventeenth chapters are regarding the calling and qualifying of apostles. He seeks to show a contrast between the manner of calling in Bible times and the choosing of apostles in 1835 and subse- quently. He claims that while the call of former apostles was personal and direct the later ones were chosen by committees. In a sense this is true. Christ once minis- tered in person, but when his earth life closed his work did not close with it, but by accredited ministers Christ was represented on earth, the gospel preached, and ordinances administered by those holding delegated authority from him. When the first vacancy after his death occurred in the quorum of twelve apostles, his accredited ministers 94 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. selected the successor. In doing so they followed his example. He had sought divine guidance as the following indicates: And it came to pass in those clays, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God. And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles. Luke 6: 12, 13. So when it became the duty of his disciples to choose, they prayed: Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen. Acts 1: 24. In 1835 when men had been designated by revelation to choose the Twelve, they also sought the Lord in prayer as the following will show: President Joseph Smith, Jr., after makiner many remarks on the subject of choosing: the Twelve, wanted an expression from the brethren, if they would be satisfied to have the Spirit of the Lord dictate in the choice of the elders to be apostles; whereupon all the elders present expressed their anxious desire to have it so. A hymn was then sunsr, "Hark, listen to the trumpeters," etc. President Hyrum Smith prayed, and meeting was dis- missed for one hour. Assembled pursuant to adjournment, and commenced with prayer. President Joseph Smith, Jr., said that the first business of the meetinsr was, for the three witnesses of the Book of Mormon, to pray, each one, and then proceed to choose twelve men from the church, as apostles, to go to all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people. The three witnesses; viz., Oliver Cowdery, David AVhitmer, and Martin Harris, united in prayer. Church History, vol. 1, p. 541. Oliver Cowdery in delivering his charge to the Twelve said: The Lord gave us a revelation that in process of time, there should be twelve men chosen to preach his gospel to Jew and Gentile Our minds have been on a constant stretch, to find who these twelve were: when the lime should come we could not tell; but we sought the Lord by fasting and prayer, to have our lives prolonged to see this day, to see you, and to take a REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 95 retrospect of the difficulties through which we have passed; but, having seen the day, it becomes my duty to deliver to you a charge; and first, a few remarks respecting your ministry. Church History, vol. 1, pp. 542, 548. This seeking divine guidance has been the rule of prac- tice ever since, when selections have been made. We have already called attention to some of the his- torical mistakes made by Elder Bays in these chapters. We will now point out some more of his blunders. He denies that Jesus ever ordained his apostles by laying on of hands, but as this is simply his unsup- ported opinion we need not notice it further. In seeking to contrast the two methods, Elder Bays asks: Reader, do you observe one single mark of similarity between the methods employed in calling the apostles of Jesus Christ, and those adopted by Joseph Smith in calling his twelve? Page 150. We answer, Yes, in the most important mark of all. Divine guidance was sought in each case. Bays states: In the former case the disciples were not even knoicn per- sonally to the Saviour, much less to be his followers. (See John 1:46.) Not so with Joseph Smith. His twelve were chosen from his tried followers. Page 150. That this is a mistake will be seen by reference to Luke 6: 13, where it is affirmed that the Savior ''called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve." Elder Bays continues: To his twelve Jesus simply said, "Follow me." But Joseph said: "The first business of 'the meeting was for the three wit- nesses to choose the twelve apostles," and they chose them. Page 156. He here confounds the invitation to follow Christ with the call to the apostleship, which were distinct and sepa- rate events. 96 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. Compare Matthew 4 : 18-22; 9 : 9; Mark 1 : 16-20; 2 : 14: Luke 5: 10, 27, 28, and John 1:35-49, with Matthew 10:1; Mark 3: 13, 14; and Luke 6: 13. After an examination of these passages the stupidity of Elder Bays in confounding these two separate events will be painfully apparent. But Elder Bays continues: The apostles of Christ were chosen before the establishment of the church, while the apostles of Joseph were an after- thought, and were called five years after the establishment of his church. Pages 150, 157. When Elder Bays penned this he probably had forgotten that he had previously written the following: "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth unto it." (Luke 10:10). Here we have it plainly stated that the "kingdom of God" had its inception with John. If the terms "Kingdom of God" and "Church of Christ" are synonymous, then the Church of Christ had existed from the beginning of John's ministry to the calling of the twelve, without, either apostles or prophets. Since the church existed from the beginning of John's ministry to the calling of the twelve without either apostles or prophets, it follows as a necessary sequence that neither was an essential part of its official membership. Page 100. He makes still another mistake in saying, "The apostles of Joseph were an after-thought." The revelation pro- viding for apostles was given June, 1829, nearly a year before the organization of the church, April 6, 1830, but like the former apostles they were not chosen until after the organization had commenced. To witness such stupid blunders in a man whom we have heard declare the gospel of Christ in power is painful in the extreme. Elder Bays on page 158 invites attention to a statement by Joseph Smith to the effect that the Lord would be seen in the solemn assembly. He then gives extracts from the account of the dedication of Kirtland Temple and con- cludes by saying: Jesus did not appear at the endowment as Joseph said he would do - nothing but angels. REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 97 It will be observed that Joseph did not say that he would appear at the endowment, but in the solemn assem- bly. At a meeting held in the Temple, April 3, 183(5, this was fulfilled, according to the testimony of Joseph Smith. He states: The vail was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understandinjr were opened. We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit before us. and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold in color like amber. Church His- tory, vol. 2, p. 46. CHAPTER 5. Book of Mormon Revelation Present Conditions Land Shadowing With Wings Languages of Plates Isaiah Twenty-Ninth Chapter Palestine Past and Present. ELDER BAYS entitles his eighteenth chapter, "The Book of Mormon What is it?" but devotes his attention princi- pally to the question of continued revelation. There is nothing in the chapter that requires special notice, as his points are already covered, incidentally or directly, in our answer. Elder Bays, however, closes this chapter as usual with some high-sounding phrases in which occurs a very amus- ing 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? 4i 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 then, need the} 7 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 not- withstanding this apostasy Christ recognized existing 98 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 99 authority. His final conclusions are summed up is follows: The foregoing historical facts prove, 1. That the apostasy of the masses does not, cannot, abrogate existing authority. 2. That authority once delegated can only be annulled by individual transgression. 3. That so long as there remains a righteous man on the earth, just so long does the authority remain to minister in divine things; and 4. That an}' man holding authority to minister before God, may confer that authority upon others. Page 174. 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 trans- gression 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 addi- tional revelation is necessary, and our contention is sus- tained, from his own premises. 100 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 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 rror^anization, he gracefully concedes that neither conclu- sion 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 probabl} 7 argue that although the church became so corrupt that God would no longer acknowl- edge it as his, yet there were righteous individuals whose authority was not revoked, and who therefore were still author- ized to officiate and confer authority upon others. Yi*ry well, if this view be accepted as the correct one and to which we shall not object the rule, when applied to the case of the first Christians, will prove beyond question or doubt that the authority to administer the ordinances of the Gospel remained icith the church, and remaining, its ordinances could be administered and the church perpetuated. Pages 179, 180. 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 author- ized 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 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 101 Church of Christ been characterized by such unquestionable deeds of charity and undoubted personal purity as at the present time. The claim, then, that all authority conferred by Christ and the apostles was lost, and that no man possessed it until Joseph Smith received it back from heaven, is too absurd to be seri- ous^ 7 considered for a single moment. The idea that Christ built his church upon a "sure founda- tion" and promised that "the prates of hell should not prevail aga'inst it," and yet leave it without the means of self'-perpei na- tion and self-purification is altogether unbecoming 1 the char- acter and dignity and wisdom of the great Architect and Master-builder. Page 180. 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 con- dition, 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 beinirs, 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 birth mankind. God has never curtailed it, and he ho responsible for it. Communities may fail as viduals. The mass of mankind is not more in fa 11 individual; the mass is composed of the imlivic each individual is weak the mass cannot be omni; ight of all Is every one as inili- ble than the ii a Is, and as >tenl; hence if there is danger of the individual falling there is correspond- 102 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. ing 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 con- dition 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: "Both laity and clergy, learned and unlearned, all ages, sects, and degrees of men, women, and children of whole Christen- dom . . . have been at once drowned in abominable idolatry, of all other vices most detested of God and damnable to man, and that by the space of eight hundred years arid more." Spurgeon, the late great Baptist preacher of London, says: "The Church of England seems to be eaten through and through with sacramentarianism; but non-conformity appears to be as badly riddled with philosophical infidelity. Those of whom we thought better things are turning aside one by one from the fundamentals of the faith. Through and through I believe the very heart of England is honeycombed with a damnable infidelity which dares to go into the pulpit and call itself Christian." Great Controversy, by E. G. White. The Christian Leader, a Disciple paper, speaking of the mother of harlots, asks, "Who are the daughters?" It answers: "The Protestant sects." Is Bays capable of suc- cessfully "repelling the unholy charge"? In the language of Brother Bays we ask, "If it be true that 4 a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit,' or that 'a bitter fountain cannot send forth sweet water/ then, what must be said of the tree that has yielded such an abundant harvest of corrupt fruit, or of the fountain from which has flowed the bitter waters of vice and corruption," as those coming from the mother of harlots and her daughters? "Dost thou like the picture?" But Bays in his burning desire to curry favor with the daughters of Babylon says: "Perhaps at no period of her history has the Church of Christ been characteri/ed by such unquestionable deeds of charity and undoubted personal purity as at the present time." Pas p e 180. While a noted author of the Campbellite sect says, "There are more sects now than in any other acre of the world. Still there is more unbelief, more sin, more rebellion against God. Surely the legs of the lame are REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 103 not equal." The Great Controversy, by Ashley 8. Johnson, LL. D , p. 131. Verily, if "the legs of the lame" had been "equal," these two noted authors would have agreed, but they are far apart. It is far from pleasant to point out the follies of men; but when their many contradictions are so glaring, while they claim to be teaching the same truths, it is necessary that their eyes should be opened to their many inconsistencies. Is all this mass of corruption, as the above writers confess, accepta- ble to God? And yet Mr. Rays affects holy horror at the state- ment of Christ to Joseph Smith. We will present one more testimony from his own sect in addition to what we gave from its founder in our first chapter. On page 133 of "The Great Controversy," published by the press of Ogden Brothers & Co.. Knoxvil'le, Tennessee, Ashley S. Johnson, LL. D., declares "Methodism is not the gospel;" "Baptist doctrine is not the gospel;" "Presbyterianism is not the gospel;" "Universalism is not the gospel;" "The same argument may be applied to many of the religious orders in Christendom with the same results in every particular." 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 institu- tion ever bestowed on men. The meaning of this institution has been buried under the rubbish of human traditions for hun- dreds 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 Chris- tian System, p. 180. A. Campbell thinks the apostasy was complete, Bays thinks not. Who represents our Christian friends, Camp- bell or Bays? Elder Bays' twentieth chapter purports to be a state- ment 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 104 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. his wanderings. We will simply ask the reader to read carefully the statements of Elders Blair and Kelley, allow- ing 1 them to speak for themselves without considering Elder Bays' interpretation of their meaning. His twenty-first chapter is devoted mostly to the inter- pretation 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 shadow- ing with winrs," 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 peo- ple will readily concede the fact that the Book of Mormon is probably true. But If the "land shadowing 1 with winds'' is shown to be not the land of America, but some other land, and if it shall tran- spire that the events described in the 29th chapter of Isaiah relate not to the people of ancient America, but to the people of Israel, then the Book of Mormon cannot be true, and Latter Day Saints should frankly admit the fact, confess their error, and openly renounce the heres3 r . Pages 191, 192. 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 Mor- mon 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 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 105 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 con- clusions are: It is thus shown to be simply impossible that America can be "the land shadowing- with wings," for the very cogent reason tha.t the land thus described lies SOUTH of Palestine, while America, as every schoolboy knows, is directly west. No amount of sophistry or special pleading can change the facts of geography involved in this question, and so all this fine- spun theory, together with the fabric reared upon it, falls to the ground a hopeless mass of ruin, never again to be recon- structed. Page 193. 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 continu- ing 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 106 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 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. Ethiopia, ... a name given by ancient geographers to the regions situated S. of Egypt and Libya. The name Ethiopians was originally applied by the Greeks to all the peoples who lived in the soul hern parts of the known world, including the dark-colored natives of India. Johnson's Universal Cyclopaedia. 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, multi- REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 107 tudes, 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. Upon the truthfulness of this claim depend the veracity of the Book of Mormon and the prophetic character of Joseph Smith, its pretended translator. Page 195. 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 revela- tion 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. 108 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 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 accomplish- ment" in the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. Shall we say that if Bays is wrong in his exegesis Nebu- chadnezzar 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 foresroing 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, \ve are forced to the undeniable conclusion that ev*ery 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 Nebu- chadnezzar, 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 pre- diction: 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 fruit- ful 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 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 109 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 inhabit- ant, 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, piljrrims and begjrars, 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 bv having now the joy of being a day in thy courts, O .Jerusalem".' visiting the ruins of thy temple and cr\ T ing 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." So spake Nachmanides in the year 5027. We are now in the year 5057. How different is the sight which now greets the eye in Jerusalem! Nachmanides found but one of 'our race per- manently residing there. There are this day many thousands. In the house of that one man public prayers were said when the Ten could be got together. Now synagogues great and small abound. Shall we then not believe that Zion will be rebuilt in the sense that the land of our fathers shall be our land again. . . . If we want our faith stimulated, if we would see actual steps taken towards the restoration of our people to their old home, we must go away from the holy cities Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed, Tiberias. We must leave the cities and go to the land. There is vitality there, and work and hope. There can be seen schools, industries, colonies. A mile outside the Jaffa gate at Jerusalem is the school presided over by Nissim Behar. The boys learn languages, but also carpentering, cabinet-making, metal work, coach-making. There they make or repair all manner of machines, pumps, coffee and flour mills, sewing and 110 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 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 agricul- ture, 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 perf;imes. 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? When solitary pilgrims traveled there, to kiss the stones, to embrace the dust and to die, our people living then, if living it could be called, in hourly danger of death, believed that Pales- tine would again be peopled by the race of Israel! Shall we then doubt, we who live in freedom, respected, prosperous, able at our ease to go, as pleasure-seekers, and see for ourselves, and to behold with rejoicing the work of restoration well begun, and waiting only our united help to increase it and make it more successful. O brethren! the thoughtful and the religious of all nations believe that the land of Israel is destined to be Israel's again. Are we only to doubt, and question, and deny? We all spend so much on ourselves, we all waste so much, shall we not spare something for this good work? If the tens of thousands of our race, all the world over, who enjoy every luxury, if the hundreds of thousands who are self-support ing and have something to spare would combine, it would not be long before the land of Israel would be giving sustenance to thousands of Jewish agriculturalists, living as in times of yore, each man under his own vine and his own fig-tree. Understand me. With the united help of Israelites, Palestine will in time be filled with flourishing communities of our people, no longer massed in cities, no longer recipients of charitable gifts, but spread over the land, a brave, sturdy body of peasant agricul- turalists, feeding their flocks, cultivating their fields, tending their vineyards, gathering in their fruits, and prosperous, contented, happy. This will be. God has said it. "The land is not sold in perpetuity. The land is mine, and I have given it to the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." Though this writer Nachmanides differs from other REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. Ill 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 congre- gation, 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 neces- sary explanations. Every guest received a copy of Mr. Ham- bus's interesting pamphlet on "the rise and present condition of the Jewish villages in Palestine." The exhibition was opened to the public at one o'clock, and the whole afternoon and evening streams of visitors poured in. The exhibition presents a splendid view. The entrance to the building forms the representation of a colonist's cottage. On passing, the visitor is surprised by the view of a diorama, show- ing in the foreground a street of one of the colonies, in the background a portion of Jerusalem; palm trees, olive trees, orange trees, almond trees, and pomegranates appear in full bloom. The space to the right is occupied by an exhibition of cotton textures, manufactured by the pupils of the agricultural school at Jaffa; by silkworm-cocoons, silks, carpets, and a splendid array of carvings in olive and cedarwood. The left is reserved for the exhibition of all sorts of field produce, as wheat, barley, sesame, durrah, lupines, peas, beans, lentils, and several varieties of excellent potatoes Lower down, there are samples of oranges, honey, olive oil, eau-de-cologne, various sorts of wine, grapes, liquors, jams, etc. It was impossible to exhibit young vines, for reason, that there exists, as yet, no convention with Turkey in regard to precautionary measures against phyloxera. The growth of asparagus was, in the Jew- ish colonies, only commenced four years ago; yet, the samples prove a careful treatment, and promise good results for the future. Most interesting are the above-mentioned large trees. Mr. Gluckmann, on leaving Jaffa on the 16th of May, took with him twenty-four trees from the Jewish villages of Rishon L'Zion ind Ekron. On being shipped, a splendid olive tree unfortu- nately fell into the sea. The trees were first transported to Alexandria, where they had to remain for some time, till they 112 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 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 surel? 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 mouih. and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the command- ments 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 restora- tion 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." REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 113 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 ot deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and 3 r our rulers, the seers hath he covered. And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, w,hich 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 under- standing 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 dark- ness. 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. Hut 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 114 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 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. CHAPTER 6. Book of Mormon -Harris' Visit to New York Anthon Wrong Bays Writes to Linguists Angell's Letter -Davis' Letter Moldenke's Letter Ambon's Letter Testimony Compared Archaeology Moldenke's Embarrassment Records Materials Written on Anthon's Theory Testimony of Witnesses. THE twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth, twenty-sixth, twenty- seventh, and twenty-eighth chapters of Elder Bays' book we prefer to examine collectively, as they practically relate to the same subject, partaking of the nature of negative argument, and evidence in rebuttal against the claims made for the Book of Mormon. Elder Bays first tries to throw discredit upon Joseph Smith's account of Martin Harris' visit to New York, which is as follows: The persecution however became so intolerable that I was under the necessity of leaving Manchester, and going: with my wife to Susquehannah county in the state of Pennsylvania: while preparing to start (being very poor and the persecution so heavy upon us that there was no probability that we would ever be otherwise), in the midst of our afflictions we found a friend in a gentleman by the name of Martin Harris, who came to us and gave me fifty dollars to assist us in our afflictions. Mr. Harris was a resident of Palmyra township Wayne county, in the state of New York, and a farmer of respectability; by this timely aid was I enabled to reach the place of my destina- tion in Pennsylvania, and immediately after my arrival there I commenced copying the characters of the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them, which I did between the time I arrived at the house of my wife's father in the month of December, and the February following. Sometime in this month of February the aforementioned, Mr. Martin Harris came to our place," got the characters which I had drawn otf the plates and started with them to the city of New York. For what took place relative to him and the characters, I refer to his own account of the circumstances as he related them to me after his return which was as follows: "I went to the city 115 116 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. of New York and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof to Professor Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his litera^ attainments; - Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. 1 then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic, and he said that they were the true characters. He gave me a cer- tificate certifying to the people of Palmyra that they were true characters, and that the translation of such of them as had been translated was also correct. I took the certificate and put it into my pocket, and was just leaving the house, when Mr. Anthon called me back, and asked me how the young man found out that there were gold plates in the place where he found them. I answered that an angel of God had revealed it unto him. "He then said to me, let me see that certificate, I accordingly took it out of my pocket and gave it to him, when he took it and tore it to pieces, saying that there was no such thing now as ministering of angels, and that if I would bring the plates to him, he would translate them. I informed him that part of the plates were sealed, and that I was forbidden to bring them, he replied *I cannot read a sealed book.' I left him and went to Dr. Mitchill who sanctioned what Professor Anthon had said respecting both the characters and the translation." Times and Seasons, vol. 3, pp. 772, 773. It will be seen by the above that Martin Harris took "a considerable number" of the characters with him, and "some of them" were translated. He first presented to Professor Anthon those which were translated, and the Professor declared them to be Egyptian and the transla- tion more correct than any he had seen. He next pre- sented those not translated, and these were pronounced by the Professor to be "Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic," and to be true characters. It was after this that the Professor proposed to trans- late the plates if they were brought to him, and was told that a part of the plates was sealed, and Mr. Harris was forbidden to bring them; and in this connection the Professor said, "I cannot read a sealed book." We are thus particular in presenting this matter clearly REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 117 because of the bungling, confused, and misleading manner in which Elder Bays presents the narrative. In this connection Elder Bays grossly misrepresents the defenders of the claims of the Book of Mormon; and to do so he puts into the mouth of Elder W. H. Kelley words he did not use, as the following quotations will show: Every writer who has made any attempt to defend the claims of the Book of Mormon on this ground has urged as an argu- ment full of potency, that the learned professor could not decipher the characters submitted to him. Upon this point Elder Wm. H. Kelley says: "Both he [Prof. Anthon] and Dr. Mitchell were waited upon by Mr. Harris with a cop} 7 of the characters, and they examined them, just as affirmed by Mr. Harris, and as predicted in the twenty-ninth chapter of Isaiah, and eleventh verse, would be done, which is the main point in the investigation, and that neither of them was able to decipher them." (Presidency and Priesthood, p. 205.) Here we have the affirmation of Mr. Kelley, (and he is con- sidered good authority,) that the "characters" were presented to the Professor, and that neither he nor Dr. Mitchell was able to decipher them, and that their failure to do so is "the main point in the investigation." In this declaration Mr. Kelley but repeats the position, and reflects the sentiment of all the lead- ing minds of the denomination from its rise to the present day. With this view of the case firmly fixed in the mind, let us recall the witness, Martin Harris, for re-direct examination. Page 224. Compare this with what Elder Kelley really did say: The reader will bear in mind that Professor Anthon made his statement a number of years after he was visited by Mr. Harris. He endeavors to treat lightly and cast discredit upon the claims made concerning the revealment and translation of the book by Mr. Smith (having taken sides with the popular current, not believing in the visitation of angels), but he con- fesses, nevertheless, that both he and Dr. Mitchell were waited upon by Mr. Harris with a copy of the characters, and that they examined them, just as is affirmed by Mr. Harris, and as is predicted in the twenty-ninth chapter of Isaiah, and the eleventh verse, would be done, which is the main point in this investigation, and that neither of them were able to decipher them. Indeed, there is nothing in the prediction of Isaiah to indicate that the learned to whom the "words of the book" would be submitted would believe anything in the transaction, but rather the reverse. Presidency and Priesthood, p. 205. 118 REPLY TO D. H. HAYS. It will be seen by the above that what Elder Kelley said Mr. Anthon had confessed, Elder Bays presents as an affirmation of Elder Kelley. It will also be readily seen by examination of the connection in which the words are use'd that Elder Kelley did not affirm that the failure of these learned men to decipher the characters was the main point in the investigation, but that the presentation and exami- nation was the main point in the investigation. Words are too weak to express the contempt we feel for such a course as the above discloses upon the part of Elder Bays. On pages 226 and 227 Elder Bays continues as follows: Did it ever occur to you that this document, so much relied upon to support this claim for the Book of Mormon, is actually self-contradictory? And yet such is the case. That part of the statement just quoted, says, in substance, that Prof. Anthon could, and in fact did, "read" the words or characters submitted to him by Martin Harris, while the latter part of tne statement represents Mr. Anthon as saying, "I can- not n>ad a sealed book." If Prof. Anthon really examined the characters and declared them to have been "correctly translated," then it is clear to the most casual observer that he must have been able to decipher the characters in which the "sealed book" was said to have been written. If by his great learning this distinguished professor of lan- guages could translate the characters in which it is claimed the Book of Mormon was written, then it is absurd in the extreme to urge that Joseph Smith, or any other man, should be divinely inspired in order to their translation. If Mr. Anthon did not decipher the characters presented to him. then his alleged statement or certificate, that said charac- ters had been correctly translated, is absolutely worthless, and amounts to nothing by way of proving what is claimed for th : Book of Mormon. If he did decipher them - which he must have done in order to render the alleged certificate of any value then it does not come within the range of Isaiah's prophecy, for he declares that, when the "words" were presented, the "learned man" should say, "I cannot read them." The sophistry of this is so apparent that but little com- ment is needed. Reading the characters and reading the sealed book were two separate and distinct things, and REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 119 the words were used in different connections, and under different circumstances. Mr. Bays in order to make his case misquotes Isaiah. The passage does not read: "I cannot read them," but "I cannot; for it is sealed." Concerning the testimony of Professor Anthon and Mr. Harris, Elder Bays truthfully observes: "It will doubt- less be observed that these statements differ materially as to what occurred on that occasion." Then he asks, "Which of these statements are we to believe?" We certainly cannot believe Professor Anthon's. He says: This paper was in fact a singular scrawl. It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns, and had evident!}' been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, and evidently copied after the Mexican Calendar given by Humboldt. History of Mormonism by E. D. Howe, pp. 271, 272. An examination of the accompanying photographic cut of the original paper, will show Professor Anthon to be wrong. These characters are not arranged in perpen- dicular columns, nor do they end "in a rude delineation of a circle divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks." Mr. Bays cannot deny the genuineness of this cut, as he has himself presented it to several scholars for examina- tion, and, as will be seen, bases his rebuttal largely on their opinions regarding it. Professor Anthon's state- ment is therefore proven untrue. Elder Bays here questions whether Martin Harris ever made this statement, and expresses the suspicion that Joseph Smith manufactured the testimony. This has already been refuted. See pages 28, 30 of this book. On pages 232 and 233 Eider Bays says: 120 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. I wish again to call attention to the fact that the statement attributed to Martin Harris concerning his interview with Prof. Anthem never saw the light of day, so far as the public is concerned, till May 2, 1842. fourteen years after the event is said to have taken place: and it was then made public, not by Martin Harris, but by Joseph Smith, the very man, above all others on earth, the most directly interested. In answer to this we quote from a letter written by W. W. Phelps (before he was a member of the church) to E. D. Howe, of Painesville, Ohio, from Canandaigua, New York, January 15, 1831, and published in 1840, in "History of Mormonism," by E. D. Howe, page 273: When the plates were said to have been found, a copy of one or two lines of the characters, were taken by Mr. Harris to Utica, Albany and New York; at New York, they were shown to Dr Mitchell, and he referred to Professor Anthon who translated and declared them to be the ancient shorthand Egyptian. So much is true. The family of Smiths is poor, and generally ignorant in common learning. This shows that the purported interview was made public as early as January, 1831. Mr. Anthon in his letter of February 17, 1834, and published in the same work, also refers to the claim made by Harris concerning the visit of Harris in New York. After a protracted effort to show that the witnesses to the Book of Mormon might have testified falsely, which we will not occupy space to follow, Elder Bays proceeds to the direct evidence. He represents himself as follows: Unwilling to trust to the accuracy of a transcript made in the ordinary way, I cut the plate out of a copy of Mr. Kelley's book, and submitted it to a few of the best Eirytologists of the present time, with a request for each to pass his professional opinion upon the unique document. Each of the gentlemen addressed returned a prompt answer, neither of them knowing what the other had said; or, to be more accurate, neither knew that any bod} 7 else was to answer the questions, and hence there could be no possibility that the statement of one could be influ- enced by that of another. In this manner each depended entirely upon his own knowl- edge of the question to be considered, and was, therefore, entirely free from any bias that might arise from having REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 121 previously read the opinions of another, thus securing the independent opinion of some of the finest scholars in the Oriental languages that our country affords. The accompanying plate, an exact reproduction of Mr. Kelley's photographic copy, will give the reader an opportu- nity to make a more extended examination should he desire to do so. To each of the gentlemen whose testimony is submitted herewith, was addressed a letter of explanation and inquiry, substantially as follows: "DEAR SIR: I herewith inclose what purports to be a fac- simile of the characters found upon the gold plates from which it is claimed the Book of Mormon was translated. The advocates of Mormonism maintain that these characters are 'Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyrian and Arabic.' "So far as I am informed, these characters have never been submitted to scholars of eminence for examination; and as the languages named fall within your province, including Egyp- tology and Archeology, your professional opinion as to their genuineness will be of great value to the general reader, in determining the exact truth with respect to this remarkable claim. I would also like your opinion upon the following ques- tions, namely: "1. Did Hebrew scholars at any time, either before or since Christ, keep their records on tablets, or plates of brass? "2. If so, did they ever write in the Egyptian language? *'3. Is there any evidence to show that the Pentateuch was ever written upon such plates of brass? "4. Is there any proof that the law of Moses, or even the Decaloirue, was ever written in the Egyptian language?" Pages 2GO-203. In the first place Mr. Bays misrepresents "the advocates of Mormonism" and misleads the learned gentlemen to whom he writes when he says: "The advocates of Mor- monism maintain that these characters are 'Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyrian and Arabic.' " We have before shown that no such claim had been made by us. In making this statf ment Elder Bays also contradicts his own statements as follows: There can be no question, then, that the language of the plates was Egyptian. Not the slightest intimation that any other lanffiiaire was ever employed in keeping these records, and hence no other letters, signs or characters could possibly have been used. Page 257. 122 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. Again: All Mormon authority unites in declaring that the plates of the Book of Mormon were written in Egyptian. Page 269. For the sake of the comparison we will here quote the several answers to the a'oove communication as received by Elder Bays and published in his book, and also the communication of Professor Anthon as published by Howe in 1810: "REV. I). H. BAYS, Dear Sir: I have submitted your letter and inclosure to our Professor of Oriental languages, who is more familiar with the subjects raised by your questions than I am. He is a man of large learning in Semitic languages and archeology. The substance of what he has to say is: "'1. The document which you enclose raises a moral rather than a Unfi'.iifttic problem. A i'e\v letters or signs are noticeable which correspond more or less closely to the Aramaic, some- times called Chaldee language; for example, s, h, g, t, 1, b, n. There are no Assyrian characters in it, and the impression made is that the document in fraudulent. " "2. There is no evidence that the Hebrews kept their records upon plates or tablets of brass; but the Assyrians, in the eighth century before Christ, did. " *3. There is no evidence whatever to show that the Penta- teuch was ever written on such plates of brass.' ''Yours Truly, ".TAMES B. ANGELL.* Ann Arbor, Mick. (Italics are mine). Pages 263, 204. "REV. D. H. BAYS, Dear Sir: I am familiar with Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyrian and Arabic, and have considerable acquaint- ance with all of the Oriental languages, and 1 can positively assert that there is not a letter to be found in the fac-simile submitted that can be found in the alphabet of any Oriental language, particularly of those you refer to namely, Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyrian and Arabic. "A careful study of the fac-simile shows that they are characters put down at random by an ignorant person with no resemblance to anything, not even shorthand. "No record has ever shown that the Hebrews, or any other Eastern nation, kept their records upon plates or tablets of brass, but thousands upon thousands of tablets of baked clay have been brought to light, antedating two or three thousands years, before the time of Moses, while libraries of these baked clay tablets have been found, like those at Tell el Amara. At the time the Old Testament was written paper made from REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 123 pap3 7 rus was in use, and as documents have been found in Egypt of the times of Moses, written on papyri, it is not unreasonable to suppose that we may find yet portions of the Old Testament. "The treasures of Egypt and Palestine are only just being brought to light. Remarkable discoveries are yet to be made. "Respectfully, CHAS. H. S. DAVIS." Pages 264, 265. "JERUSALEM [Palestine], DEC. 27, 1896. "Rsv. D. H. BAYS, Dear Sir and Brother: Your letter dated Nov. 23rd I have just received. I will try to answer your ques- tions as far as I am able. I believe the plates of the Book of Mormon to be a fraud' "In the first place it is impossible to find in any old inscrip- tion. 'Egyptian, Arabic, Chaldaic and Assyrian,' characters mixed together. The simple idea of finding Egyptian and Arabic side by side is ridiculous and impossible. "In the second place, though some signs remind one of those on the Mesa Inscription, yet none bear a resemblance to Egyptian or Assyrian. "As far as I know there is no evidence that the Hebrews kept records on plates of brass, or ever wrote on such plates. About the prophecy contained in Isa. 29: 1-14, I can venture nc opinion, as I am not a Biblical scholar, and only concerr myself about Eg\ r ptology. Very truly yours, "CHARLES E. MOLDENKE." Page 266. The letter of Professor Anthon is as follows: New York, Feb. 17, 1834. Dear Sir I received this morning your favor of the 9th instant, and lose no time in making a reply. The whole story about my having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be "reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics" is perfectly false. Some years ago, a plain, and apparently simple-hearted farmer, called upon me with a note from Dr. Mitchell of our city, now deceased, requesting me to decypher, if possible, a paper, which the farmer would hand me, and which Dr. M. confessed he had been .unable to understand. Upon examining the paper in question, I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a trick, perhaps a hoax. When I asked the person, who brought it, how he obtained the writing, he gave me, as far as I can now recollect, the following account: A "gold book," consisting of a number of plates of gold, fastened together in the shape of a book by wires of the same metal, had been dug up in the north- ern part of the state of New York, and along with the book an enormous pair of "gold spectacles"! These spectacles were so large, that, if a person attempted to look through them, his two 124 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. eyes would have to be turned towards one of the glasses merely, the spectacles in question being altogether too large for the breadth of the human face. Whoever examined the plates through the spectacles, was enabled not only to read them, but fully to understand their meaning. All this knowledge, how- ever, was confined at that time to a young man, who had the trunk containing the book and spectacles in his sole possession. This young man was placed behind a curtain, in the garret of a farm house, and, being thus concealed from view, put on the spectacles occasionally, or rather, looked through one of the glasses, decyphered the characters in the book, and, having committed some of them to paper, handed copies from behind the curtain, to those who stood on the outside. Not a word, however, was said about the plates having been decyphered "by the gift of God." Every thing, in this way, was effected by the large pair of spectacles. The farmer added, that he had been requested to contribute a sum of money towards the publica- tion of the "golden book," the contents of which would, as he had been assured, produce an entire change in the world and save it from ruin. So urgent had been these solicitations, that he intended selling his farm and handing over the amount received to those who wished to publish the plates. As a last precautionary step, however, he had resolved to come to New York, and obtain the opinion of the learned about the meaning of the paper which he brought with him, and which had been given him as a part of the contents of the book, although no translation had been furnished at the time by the young man with the spectacles. On hearing this odd story, I changed my opinion about the paper, and, instead of viewing it any longer as a hoax upon the learned, I began to regard it as part of a scheme to cheat the farmer of his money, and I communicated my suspicions to him, warning him to beware of rogues. He requested an opinion from me in writing, which of course I declined giving, and he then took his leave carrying the paper with him. This paper was in fact a singular scrawl. It con- sisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, and evidently copied after the Mexican Calen- dar given by H urn bold t, but copied in such a way as not to betray the source whence it was derived. I am thus particular as to the contents of the paper, inasmuch as I have frequently conversed with my friends on the subject, since the Mormonite excitement began, and well remember that the paper contained REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 125 any thing- else but "Egyptian Hieroglyphics.' 19 Some time after, the same farmer paid me a second visit. He brought with him the golden book in print, and offered it to me for sale. I declined purchasing. He then asked permission to leave the book with me for examination. I declined receiving it, although his manner was strangely urgent. I adverted once more to the roguery which had been in my opinion practiced upon him, and asked him what had become of the gold plates. He informed me that they were in a trunk with the large pair of spectacles. .1 advised him to go to a magistrate and have the trunk examined. He said the "curse of God" would come upon him should he do this. On my pressing him, however, to pursue the course which 1 had recommended, he told me that he would open the trunk, if I would take the "curse of God" upon myself. I replied that I would do so with the greatest willingness, and would incur every risk of that nature, pro- vided I could only extricate him from the grasp of rogues. He then left me. I have thus given you a full statement of all that I know respecting the origin of Mormonism, and must beg you, as a personal favor, to publish this letter immediately, should you find my name mentioned again by these wretched fanatics. Yours respectfully, CHAS. ANTHON. E. D. Howe, Esq. Painesmlle, Ohio. History of Mormonism, by E. D. Howe, pp. 270-272. It may be thought presumptuous to criticise these learned men, but of all productions of mortal man, the productions of scholars ought to stand criticism, and if they will not, no excuse can. be made. Compare the following: (Some of the following italics are mine.) A few letters or signs are noticeable which correspond more or less closely to the Aramaic, sometimes called Chaldee language; for example, s, h, g, t, 1, b, n. Angell. I can positively assert that there is not a letter to be found in the fac-si mile submitted that can be found in the alphabet of any Oriental language, particularly of those you refer to namely. Egyptian, Ghaldatc, Assyrian and Arabic. A careful study of the fac-si mile shows that they are characters put down at random by an ignorant person with no resemblance to anything, not even shorthand. Davis. In the second place, though some signs remind one of those on the Mesa Inscription, yet none bear a resemblance to Egyptian or Assvrian. Moldenke. 126 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns, etc. Anlhon. There is no evidence that the Hebrews kept their records upon plates or tablets of brass; but the Assyrians, in the eighth century before Christ, did. Angell. No record has ever shown that the Hebrews, or any other Eastern nation, kept their records upon plates or tablets of brass. Davis. This is the contradictory mass that Mr. Bays relies on as evidence in rebuttal. Mr. Angell finds signs on the facsimile more or less closely resembling Chaldee; Mr. Moldenke finds signs that remind one of those on the Mesa Inscription; and Mr. Anthon finds Greek, Hebrew, and Roman letters; while Mr, Davis finds no resemblance to anything. Again, Mr. Angell thinks that the Assyrians kept their records on brass; but Mr. Davis says "no record has ever shown that the Hebrews, or any other eastern nation," did. However, Messrs. Anthon, Davis, and Moldenke all agree that there are no Egyptian characters on the facsimile, while Mr. Angell says nothing on this point. We would not expect linguists to recognize Egyptian characters on the plates readily, as the Book of Mormon declares: And now behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge in the characters, which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech. And if our plates had been sufficiently large, we should have written in the Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in the Hebrew, behold, ye would have had none imperfection in our record. But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof. Page 5y8, Palmyra edition. By this it will be seen that the failure of these scholars to read, and the confusion of their statements, but confirm the statement of the book that, "None other people know- REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 127 eth our language." Yet there are some characters on the plates closely resembling the Egyptian, as anyone can determine by comparing Egyptian characters with the facsimile. There is competent evidence that the prehistoric Ameri- cans were influenced by Egyptian civilization. When we consider the account given in the Book of Mormon; viz., that though this country was peopled by Jews, yet they were a people acquainted with the customs of Egypt, the following is quite significant: No claim has been advanced, we believe, which advocates an actual Egyptian colonization of the new world, but strong arguments have been used to show that the architecture and sculpture of Central America and Mexico have been influenced from Esrypt, if not attributable directly to Egyptian artisans. These arguments are based on the resemblance between the gigantic pyramids, the sculptured obelisks, and the numerous fdols of these prehistoric countries and those of Egypt. It requires no practiced eye to trace a resemblance in general features, though it must be said that the details of American architecture and sculpture, are peculiarly original in design. The principal advocate of the theory, Delafield, has furnished many comparisons, but we think no argument has been pre- sented sufficiently supported by facts to prove that American architecture and sculpture had any other than an indigenous origin. Short, The North Americans of Antiquity, p. 147. Just what might be expected from the Book of Mormon theory. Their architecture and sculpture were not of Egyptian origin but bearing Egyptian resemblance. That the language of ancient Americans also bore a resemblance to the Egyptian is well established. The following is evidence in point: It is scarcely necessary for us to remark that the seem ing analogies between the Maya (Central American) sculpture and that of Egypt have often been noted. Juarros, in speaking of Palenque'art, says: "The hieroglyphics, symbols and emblems which have been discovered in the- temples, bear so strong a resemblance to those of the Egyptians, as to encourage the sup- position that a colony of that nation may have founded the city of Palenque or Culhuacan." Giordan found, as he thought, the most striking analogies between the Central 128 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. American remains, as well as those of Mexico, and those of the Egyptians. The idols and monuments he considers of the same form in both countries, while the hieroglyphics of Palenque do not differ from those of ancient Thebes. Senor Melgar, in a communication to the Mexican Geographical Society, has called attention to the frequent occurrence of the (~|~) t au a-t Palenque, and has more studiously advocated the early rela- tionship of the Palenqueans to Egypt than any other reliable writer. He cites Dupaix's Third Expedition, page 77 and plates 26 and 27, where in the first figure is a goddess with a necklace supporting a tau like medallion to which the explorer adds the remark that such is "the symbol in Egypt of reproduction or abundance." In the second plate he finds an aliar dedicated expressly to the tau. He considers that the cultus of this, the symbol of the active principle in nature, prevailed in Mexico in many places. Senor Melgar also refers to two idols found south of the city of Mexico, "in one of which two symbols were united, namely, the Cosmogonic egg, symbolical of creation, and two faces, symbols of the generative principle. The other s\ T mbolized creation in the bursting forth of an egg. These symbols are not found in the Aztec mythology, but belong: to the Indian, Egyptian, Greek, Persian, Japanese and other cosmogonies." This, the Senor considers proof that these peo- ples were the primitive colonists of that region, and seeks to sustain his views by references to the Dharma Sastra of Manou and the Zend Avesta. The reader has no doubt been surprised at the frequent occurrence of the T"' sna P e cl niches in the Palenque palace, and has observed the same symbol employed on some of the hieroglyphics of the Tablet of the Cross. The Egyptian tau, one of the members of the Crux ansata, is cer- tainly present at Palenque, but whether it was derived from any one of the Mediterranean peoples who employed it, cannot be ascertained. Among the Egyptians it signified "life," as is shown by the best Egyptologists. The North Americans of Antiquity, pp. 415-417. Resemblances have been found between the calendar systems of Egypt and America, based chiefly upon the length and division of the year, and the number of intercalary and com- plementary days. Bancroft, Native Races of the -Pacific States, vol. 5, p. 62. But at Lexington [Kentucky], the traits are too notorious to allow them to be other than pure Egyptian, in full possession of the strongest complexion of their national character, that of embalming, which was connected with their religion. Priest's American Antiquities, p. 119. One of the most interesting sources of comparison between Mexico, Peru, and Egypt, is to be found in an investigation of their hieroglyphic system. Each of these countries had a REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 129 peculiar method of recording events by means of hierosrh'phic signs, sculpturing them on monuments and buildings, and porirayhiir t hem on papyrus and maguey. Delatield's Ameri- can Antiquities, p. 42. It is the opinion of the author that farther investigations and discoveries in deciphering Mexican hieroglyphic paintings will exhibit, a close analogy to I he Egyptian in the use of two scriptural systems: the one for monumental inscription, the other for the ordinary purposes of record and transmission of information. We find the three species at hieroglyphics com- mon to Mexico and Egypt. Ibid., p. 40. The ancient Maya hieratic alphabet, discovered by me, is as near alike to the ancient hieratic alphabet of the Egyptians as two alphabets can possibly be, forcing upon us the conclusion that the Mayas and the Egyptians either learned the art of writing from the same masters, or that the Egyptians learned it from the Mayas. Le Plongeon, Sacred Mysteries, p. 113. In tracing, then, the ancestry of the Mexicans and Peruvians, by analogy in their hieroglyphic system, where shall we take them but to Egypt and to southern Asia? Delafield's American Antiquities, p. 47. Of a comparison of the "days of the Mexican calendar" with the "lunar houses of the Hindoos"; also with refer- ence to "the analogy between the zodiac of the Mexicans and that of fhe Mantchou Tartars," Delafield says: These quotations we consider very positive evidence of an early identity between the aboriginal race of America and the southern Asiatic and Egyptian family. American Antiquities, p. 51. As to the Mexicans, it would be superfluous to examine how the} 7 attained this knowledge. Such a problem would not be soon solved; but the fact of the intercalation of thirteen days every cycle, that is, the use of a year of three hundred and sixty-five days and a quarter, fs a proof that it was either borrowed from the Egyptians, or that they had a com- mon origin. Delafield's American Antiquities, p. 53. Much more might be adduced upon these points but space prevents. The question as to whether the prehistoric Americans were of Jewish origin has been discussed extensively, and authorities differ upon it. On this Mr. Bancroft says: The theory that the Americans are of Jewish descent has been discussed more minutely and at greater length than any 130 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. other. Its advocates, or at least those of them who have made original -researches, are comparatively few; but the extent of their investigations and the multitude of parallelisms they adduce in support of their hypothesis, exceed by far anything we have yet encountered. Native Races, vol. 5, pp. 77, 78. Mr. A. A. Bancroft, father of the historian, describes a slab found in Ohio as follows: About eight miles southeast of Newark there was formerly a large mound composed of masses of free-stone, which had been brought from some distance and thrown into a heap without much placing or care. In early days, stone being scarce in that region, the settlers carried away the mound piece by piece to use for building purposes, so that in a few years there was little more than a large flattened heap of rubbish remaining*. Some fifteen years ago, the county surveyor (I have forgotten his name), who had for some time been searching ancient works, turned his attention to this particular pile. He employed a number of men and at once proceeded, to open it. Before long he was rewarded by finding in the center and near the surface a bed of the tough clay generally known as pipe-clay, which must have been brought from a distance of some twelve miles. Imbedded in the clay was a coffin, dug out of a burr-oak log, and in a pretty good state of preservation. In the coffin was a skeleton, with quite a number of stone ornaments and emblems, and some open brass *in