Newspaper Page Text
The Philistine Discussed.
The following article by Rev. R. P. Boyd was pre pared for the Paris Post, but it was refused by that paper and Mr. Boyd has submitted it to The Scimitar for publication. For convenience it is divided into two parts : . PART TWO. Editor of The Post, Paris, Idaho : It may be said here, also, as Brigham Young had something to do with its organization, that the Mormon church is one of the most poorly organized churches in the civil ized world, New Testament teachings on the sub ject being the criterion. It claims, for example, to have Aaronic and Melchisedec priests, although Paul tells us that the law regarding priests was changed, and that the new law only provides for the priesthood of Christ in person (Hebrews 7: 13-28). This interpretation is confirmed by the fact that priests are not mentioned in the lists of New Testa ment officers in the Christian church (1 Corinthians 12:28; and Ephesians 4:11-14). Those who are re garded as apostles in the Mormon church do not have the New Testament qualifications of such officers, therefore their claims are not valid (Acts 1:21-22; and 2 Corinthians 12:12—Mormon "apostles" evi dently in the open, do not grapple with miracles). Paul taught, both by precept and example, that bish ops (and deacons) were to set the example of not having more than one wife (I Timothy 3:2 and 12 Compare I Cor. 7:8); but Mormonism teaches that bishops "must have at least one wife" (no account evidently being taken of deacons in this respect). Formerly Mormon missionaries were required (theo retically) to go on missions without purse or scrip. But the New Testament law in that respect was re pealed by Christ (Luke 22:35-36) and Paul made definite provision for the support of preachers of the true gospel of Christ (I Corinthians 9:13-14). It is unnecessary to say more upon this subject at present. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were striking fail ures as organizers of a church according to New Testament patterns, and there is no authority for other kind of a church (Matthew 24:14). It is no credit to Brigham Young that he helped to organize a cunningly planned scheme for accom plishing his corrupt purposes (one of which was the practice of polygamy which, as Mr. Hubbard admits, discountenanced by "nature in her present condition"). Organizations which made no preten ses to religion have done as much as that. But those "churchly" people to whom Mr. Hubbard refers (if he limits his censure to Protestant Chris tians) have been enabled of God to ihake a vastly bet ter record. Where are people enjoying great bless which God has not conferred through the in any is even mgs fluence of the religion taught by these people? Let undertake to make out the list of the excep any one tions to this rule (if there are any) and he is certain to be ashamed of the result. Christendom gave the world the public school system, as well as all of the highest institutions of learning. Christendom fostered and developed the science of medicine and surgery until they reached their present high stages of achievements. The best forms of civil govern ment, the greatest statesman, the most in number and the most richly endowed benevolent institutions (such as homes for the poor, asylums for the blind, hospitals for the sick, industrial institutions where young people who have more ambition than money, education at trifling expense), the can acquire an standard works of literature, the most and the best example of inventive genius, the best promo ters of the science of proper agriculture, (to which Mr. Hubbard pays such a high compliment), the greatest manufactories, and in a few comprehensive words, the noblest history. These statements are in capable of successful denial. They confront people wherever they turn in the enlightened part of the Even people who sit in their comfortable Philistines'' world. homes must close their eyes if they are and do not wish to see the achievements of Christen dom. The respect of the other nations of the world is practically all given to the Christian nations. THE IDAHO SCIMITAR. Chief Justice Brewer, of the United States Supreme Court, is quoted as having said of the preachers of the Christian religion : "The man who brings this Bible home to the people of a nation is a patriot. Too often the soldier is regarded as the only patriot. He is a patriot, but the man who carries the Bible to the people is also one, and he is doing more for his country than the victors on all the battlefields." It is said that once when a person who was more noted for his self-esteem than for his learning, was speaking against the Christian religion in terms of severest scorn and derision, a man asked him if he had found a religion that was better. The scoffer was obliged to acknowledge that thus far he had not. "Well," responded the questioner, "when you have, let me know, and I will join you in adopting it." Who is there who can make a success of deriding the the achievements of Christianity? The facts make the accomplishments of such a task impossible, and the Bible teaches that these plain facts will always be in evidence (Isaiah 55:10-13 and Matthew 7:15 20 ). Comparisons have to be made in religious, as well as in other matters—especially when we are chal lenged to do so, as in this instance. The result of comparing Mormonism with Christianity (whether briefly or extensively) is necessarily disparaging to the former. This shows that, as the two systems are opposites, Mormons are going away from God instead of towards him, and that the experiment is certain to have a fatal termination. They are being Beware of the flatterer! "A living tongue hateth those that are afflicted with it, and a flattering (Proverbs 26-28). It is told that "they are the most moral people in the world. mouth worketh ruin. unnecessary to investigate the moral conditions of Mormons except in a general way, in order to learn the facts in the case. Are the people more moral than their church leaders? Have not Joseph Smith and Francis M. Lyman (the President and a prom inent "apostle" respectively in the Mormon church) both admitted in their late testimonies at Washing ton, D. C. (proceedings in the Smoot investiga tion, Volume I, pages 22, 197, and 428 to 430), that they had broken what they regarded as the law of God (the manifesto of 1890) and the law of the land? Did not one of these men openly admit also that he expected to continue in this course of ac knowledged wickedness, although he belonged to a church which had promised Congress that it would do the opposite of this? Did not the other of these two men (Joseph F. Smith) afterwards show, by the record of a birth in one of his families, that it was also his evident intention to disregard all laws which were intended to prevent to him and others of his class from living in the same manner as pre vious to the giving of those pledges to Congress? Did not "apostle" John Henry Smith also inform Prof. Walter M. Wolfe that there had been no real intention of keeping the manifesto's promises to abandon polygamy in every sense of the word? Is there any danger of misinterpreting John Henry's language on this occasion? "Brother Wolfe, don't you know that the manifesto is only a trick to beat the devil at his own game?" testimony in the Smoot proceedings.) Is not "the devil's own game" lying? Was not this lying, and are we not told that "All liars shall have their part in the lake which burnetii with fire and brimstone" (John 8:44 and Revelation 21:8)? Is any one so hardened in sin as to say that such men as these are moral? Are those who call these men "our leaders" any more moral than they are? Impossible. (See Prof. Wolfe's disinterested acts of general benevolence, but in all my associations with Mormons, I do not remember ever to have heard even one mentioned by his most Let the case be given to the jury of public opinion, and may the Holy Spirit convince of the truth. It may be that Brigham Young performed a few devoted friends. On the other hand, as quoted from The Journal of Discourses, Vol I, page 83 (and it would be grounds for successful prosecution, as you know, if this is a misrepresentation in any essential 5 particular), he said: "I say rather than apostates should flourish here I will unsheath my bowie-knife and conquer or die." If a person was not a Mor mon, Brigham's policy was at least to drive him away—"I want you to hear, bishops, what I am about to tell you ; Kick these men out of your wards" (J. of D., pp. 83 & 84). He must must have been a "Philistine" also. The things which Brigham is especially known to have done for others, were indirectly for himself evidently. The more prosperous his people were, the larger the returns in un-Christian tithing (3 Cor. 9:7). The most selfish man on earth would do as much as that. Brigham Young is particularly known as an ex ponent of polygamy, as the suggestor of that ill fated hand-cart expedition across the plains, and as a teacher, in unmistakable terms, of the Mormon doctrine of "Blood-atonement." He said in regard to this doctrine (J. of D. pp. 83-84, Vol. I.) : "The wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this principle," blood-atonement, "being in full force, but the time will come when the will of God will be in full force. This is loving our neighbor as ourselves ; if he needs help, help him; if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth, in oredr that he may be saved, spill it. That is the way to love mankind." This speaks for itself. If "the wickedness and ignorance of the nations" had not interfered, the inference is that still more per sons would have been blood-atoned. I know of one person who told me that he had heard the doctrine preached—and always with the significant gesture of drawing the hand across the throat. Only a few months ago, I spoke to a representative Mormon about this doctrine, and he replied by asking, if I would not rather be put to death than lose my soul? Of course I would, but if a man should say that he would rather be shot than hung, his preference would not establish the necessity of doing either. William Budge also defends the doctrine in a tract. Thus it is very evident that some of us are deeply indebted to the so-called "wickedness and ignornace of the nations" for preventing the practice of this princi ple. Otherwise we might long ago have been trans ferred to the eternal world. Yes, Brigham Young "made his mark," but it was a very black mark. No amount of labor in applying moral whitewash can ever make him anything but infamous when all of the facts are fairly considered. It is therefore the greatest possible kindness to try and persuade Mormons to abandon a system of relig ion, which produces such characters and those who endorse their wicked practices. — R. P. Boyd. Abolit to RgSUITIC. Of a visit to Washington by a business man of Salt Lake City, Philip N. Nelson, the Washington Herald says : Speaking of the Mormons, Mr. Nelson said that the first presidency of the Mormon church had recently, through a communication of a semi-secret nature, promised the members of the church that certain revelations and principles that had been laid aside for a time would shortly be resumed. "This," added Mr. Nelson, "is construed to mean a revival of polygamy. The letter, intimating the promise of the reestablishment of polygamy and the threat to drive from the church the non-tithe payers, bears the signatures of Joseph F. Smith, president of the Mormon church, and Anthony H. Lund and John R. Winder, his counselors. "Many Mormons declare it is the most significant statement ever issued by the president of their church. "Rumors have been rife in Salt Lake City for •three months that orders have been issued by the presidency of the church that the younger element among the Mormons who are drawing away be whip ped into line. The promise made, however, that 'those principles of the faith of the church which the church has been forced to lay aside for a time are to be resumed in a very short time,' has non plused the great majority of Mormons who have received the news."