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 : .
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
fluence of the religion taught by these people? Let
undertake to make out the list of the excep
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
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
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
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
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
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
"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."
xml | txt