A Few Remarks in Reply to an Anonymous Scribbler

1841

Moses, Julian Moses, Julian

❮ Home

Moses, Julian. A Few Remarks in Reply to an Anonymous Scribbler, Styling Himself “One Who Hates Imposture,” But Found to Be an Impostor Himself, and Ashamed to Tell His Name, 1–16. Philadelphia: 1841.

A FEW REMARKS IN REPLY TO AN ANONYMOUS SCRIBBLER,

STYLING HIMSELF

“ONE WHO HATES IMPOSTURE,”

BUT FOUND TO BE AN IMPOSTURE HIMSELF,

AND ASHAMED TO TELL HIS NAME.

“Wo unto them that seek deep to hide their council from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say, who seeth us? and who knoweth us?” ISAIAH xxix. 15.

TO THE READER.

As it is in the present age, so it has been in all former ages, whenever truth has made its appearance in the world, almost all classes of people have arrayed themselves in hostility against it. Doctors, priests, lawyers, and drunkards, have united their efforts to impede its progress, by raising the cry of Delusion! Knavery! Imposture! Fanaticism! &c. Indeed, every method that wickedness could devise has been resorted to. Lies have been put in circulation: anonymous letters and pamphlets have been written by persons who style themselves Haters of Imposture, Philanthropists, &c., whose very works show that they themselves are Impostors of the deepest die; that they love darkness more than light because their deeds are evil; and choose to be sneaking and hiding themselves behind the black curtains of midnight darkness, secreting their real names, rather than to appear in the broad light of day like bold, honest, and upright men.

This is evidence sufficient to convince every candid and considerate individual that they are ashamed of their wicked conduct, and also of their unjust and unhallowed cause. Therefore, we hope that those who write against the Mormons hereafter will write truth, and not be ashamed to expose their real names.

THE AUTHOR. [2]

A FEW REMARKS.

AN anonymous pamphlet has recently fallen into my hands, termed “Mormonism Dissected, or Knavery on Two Sticks Exposed,” &c. which I consider worthy of but little notice, but having been informed, that it was the laborious production of a great bragadocia, who, I understand from report, was instructed by various Religionists to issue a pamphlet, and refute if possible the arguments advanced by the Mormons, in support of the Book of Mormon, because they were unable to do it themselves. But how far he has succeeded the sequel shall determine. I will therefore take a passing notice of his most formidable arguments, and show the absurdity and incongruity of this would-be called champion’s reasoning. First, he says, “we are told (by the Mormons) that there is sufficient evidence, both circumstantial and scriptural, to establish its (the Book of Mormon) authenticity.” Then quotes Gospel Reflector, page 105, “the Book of Mormon 1 was found in the year A.D. 1827, in Ontario county, New York, was translated and published in A.D. 1830. This deposit was made about the A.D. 420, on a hill then called Cumara, now in Ontario county, New York, where it was preserved in safety until it was brought to light by no less than a ministry of angels, and translated by inspiration; and the GREAT JEHOVAH bore record of the same to chosen witnesses, who declare it to the world.” Why he has quoted this as circumstantial evidence I am at a loss to determine, as it has a more direct reference to the testimony of witnesses; but perhaps he may be ignorant of this fact, that there is a difference between positive testimony and circumstantial evidence. But further, in order that the reader may have a correct view of his first position, I shall make some quotations from his pamphlet. He says, “Now, to us, it is of no consequence what the book contains. Until its own authenticity as a revelation from God be established, we have no right to believe or take in evidence anything it may assert.” Then asks, first, “How do you know that Mormon was commanded by the Lord to make an abridgement? Does the Bible say so? No, it does not. Does history say so? No, it does not. Well, how do you know that he was commanded? Why, the book itself says so. Does it, indeed! But that is no proof; therefore, there is no proof that he was commanded at all. Again.

How do you know that Moroni was directed to deposit it in the earth? Does the Bible say so? No.

Does history say so? No. Who does say so? Why, the book itself says so. Pretty proof, truly—the thing denied brought to prove itself. But how do you know that it was found in the earth? Why, Jo Smith says so. What dependence is to be put in his word on the subject? Was he not interested?” “How do you know that God chose these men? (the witnesses.) Why, they say so”

From the above quotations we discover his position to be this: First, No internal evidence can be taken from the book itself; the testimony of every witness must be rejected, unless the Bible, or some anterior revelation or history, says in these words, Mormon abridged, Mormon deposited, and Joseph Smith found the Book of Mormon. Second, the testimony of ever witness [3] who is interested must be rejected. Now, Mr. Anonymous, I ask, Did God ever choose a witness, to bear testimony of any fact that he has ever revealed to man, who was not interested? No, NEVER.

Well, sir, what kind of a witness would you have? One, I suppose, who would say the word is true; God has revealed it; but I do not calculate to concern myself about it, or embrace it—I expect to go to destruction in order that the world may have a disinterested witness. A character of this description, I suppose, you would prefer to bear testimony of the truths of God. Now, sir reasoning upon your hypothesis, we shall be totally unable to prove a single revelation that God has ever given to man. Because, First, We must reject all the internal evidence of the revelations themselves. Second, We must reject the testimony of those who received them, because they were interested. We will suppose, for instance, Isaiah’s prophecy is presented to an individual as being a revelation from God. He asks, How do we know that it is a revelation from God? Does any anterior revelation say that Isaiah should be a prophet of God? No. Does anterior history say so? No, it does not. What evidence have we then that Isaiah received a revelation from God?

Why, he (Isaiah) says so. But his testimony cannot be received because he was interested. We say that we have internal evidence from the prophecy itself. But stop, says the individual, its own authenticity as a revelation from God must be established prior to our receiving any internal evidence from itself. The thing denied must not be brought to prove itself. It must be proven by revelation, or history written before Isaiah’s day, that he (Isaiah) should be a prophet, and have a revelation form God, before we are allowed to take any internal evidence from itself, or even Isaiah’s testimony. Then, I ask, Where is the proof? Nowhere. Because no anterior revelation or history says that he (Isaiah) should be a prophet; and because this is not the case, we are not permitted to take any evidence from itself, nor even Isaiah’s testimony. Therefore, we have not 2 the least evidence of its truth. The same will apply to all the revelations that God has given to man. Hence, we discover that, reasoning from your premises, we shall be under the necessity of rejecting every revelation that God has given; and consequently, be left to grope our way beneath the dark and gloomy shades of infidelity and Atheism. We must reject the internal evidence of the Book of Mormon; we must reject to testimony of all its witnesses. We must disbelieve all the prophetic declarations fulfilled in its coming forth, because the Bible does not say in these words—Mormon compiled, Moroni deposited, and Joseph Smith found the book. Oh what reasoning! What absurdity! What inconsistency! But it is as good as can be expected from a quack. Further, you ask, “How do you know that God chose these men as witnesses? Why, they say so.” But, according to your logic, their testimony must be rejected because they were interested. I ask, How do you know that God chose the Apostles? We only have their word for it; and we might as well say their word was not to be depended upon because they were interested.

But you try to make it appear that two of those witnesses were expelled from the church, and that we say they are liars and thieves. But ’tis false. We say no such thing. Neither does the truth of the Book of Mormon rest upon the testimony of two witnesses alone, for there are many witnesses to the book who are men of unquestionable character, and their testimony is as good as that of men who lived 1800 years ago. You next endeavor to prove, by very laborious arguments, that the antiquities of America and the traditions [4] of the natives are opposed to the book. But you have only exposed your ignorance concerning antiquities; for every person who is acquainted with the antiquities of America knows that they were wrought by a people far more enlightened in arts and sciences, than the present Indians; which is circumstantial evidence in favor of the book, and not against it. But, according to your calculation, admitting this country to have been inhabited by a people who were superior to the Indians, it does not prove that they were Israelites any more than it does that they were Egyptians, Greeks, or Romans; for this simple reason, because you claim that there has been nothing of the law of Moses or the sacerdotal vestments of the Jewish priests, discovered among those relics of antiquity. Hence, you infer from this that those people could not have been the descendants of Israel. But here, sir, you are too fast. If you will read Priest’s Antiquities of America you will discover the following:

“Joseph Merrick, Esq., a highly respectable character in the church at Pittsfield, Mass., gave the following: that, in 1805, he was levelling some ground under and near an old wood-shed standing on a place of his, situated on an Indian hill. He ploughed and conveyed away old chips and earth to some depth. After the work was done, walking over the place, he discovered, near where the earth had been dug the deepest, a black strap, as it appeared, about six inches in length, and one and a half in breadth, and about the thickness of a leather trace to a harness. He perceived it had, at each end, a loop of some hard substance, probably for the purpose of carrying it. He conveyed it to his house, and threw it into an old tool-box. After some time he thought he would examine it; but in attempting to cut it, found it as hard as bone—he succeeded, however, in getting it open, and found it was formed of two pieces of thick raw-hide, sewed and made water-tight with the sinews of some animal, and gummed over; and in the fold was contained four folded pieces of parchment. They were of a dark yellow hue, and contained some kind of writing. The neigbors coming in to see the strange discovery, tore one of the pieces to atoms, in the true Hun and Vandal style. The other three pieces Mr. Merrick saved, and sent to Cambridge, where they were examined, and discovered to have been written with a pen, in Hebrew, plain and legible. The writing, on the three remaining pieces of parchment, were quotations from the Old Testament. See Deut. vi. chap. 4th, 9th verse; Deut. xi. chap. 13th, 21st vers; Exodus xiii. 11th, 3 16th verse, to which the reader can refer, if he has the curiosity, to read this most important discovery.”

Now, sir, here is proof from the relics of antiquity, that the ancients of this country had the law of Moses, and the Jewish writings, which is conclusive evidence that they were Israelites. Therefore, after all your exertions, you have proven nothing against the Book of Mormon. Whoever becomes acquainted with the antiquities of America, the traditions of the natives, together with their religious rites and ceremonies, will discover much evidence in support of this fact, that the Indians are descendants of the Israelites. Therefore, they go far to support the Book of Mormon. The remainder of your arguments upon this point prove nothing.

Therefore, I shall take but a slight notice of them. The tradition to which I refer, bears sufficient evidence within itself, to prove that it is merely a home-made tradition, fabricated by some person who was well acquainted with Indians, Whites, and Negroes. Your lengthy communication from the Rev. Mr. Clark, is nothing but a bundle of lies, contradictions, and absurdities, too nonsensical and ridiculous to deserve [5] any notice. But, I suppose that you, and your ignorant clan, think that because it come from a long-faced sanctimonious Rev., it must be all truth. Being ignorant of this fact; that many of the sectarian Reverends are almost as much in the habit of lying as Quacks. Having taken an examination of your arguments upon the circumstantial evidence of the book, and found that you have proven nothing against it, I will next proceed to an examination of your arguments upon scriptural evidence. First—you ask “Does the Bible prove the Book of Mormon to be a revelation from God?” In reply, I ask, does the Bible prove that Jesus Christ arose from the dead abstract from the testimony of his witnesses? No, it does not. And, sir, according to your logic, it cannot be proven that Christ ever did rise from the dead, because your mode of reasoning rejects the testimony of the Apostles, on the account of their being interested. Hence the fact must rest upon this basis; if the Old Testament proves that Christ arose, then we are bound to believe it; if not, we must disbelieve it.

Now, I ask, where does the Old Testament say that Christ arose from the dead? Nowhere. Then, where is the proof of this fact? There is none. Again, does revelation antecedent to Isaiah, Jeremiah, or any of the prophets, say that they should be prophets? No. Then, where is the proof?

Indeed, sir, according to your system there is none. Therefore, your reasoning proves yourself an infidel. Now, I will answer your question. “Does the Bible prove the Book of Mormon to be a revelation from God?” Yes, in connection with the testimony of witnesses and other evidence it does. And the truth of every revelation that God has given rests upon the same foundation, viz: The testimony of witnesses and circumstantial evidence. I shall now examine your arguments taken from Gen. xlviii. chap. 15th, 16th and last clause of the 19th verse. “And he (Jacob) blessed Joseph, and said God, before whom my fathers, Abraham and Isaac did walk; the God which fed me all my life long, unto this day; the angel which redeemed me from all evil; bless the lads, and let my name be named upon them, and the name of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.” And in the last clause of the 19th verse, he says, “and his (Ephraim’s) seed shall become a multitude of nations.” Now, sir, you say the Mormons claim that these predictions apply to America, because they can, with propriety apply nowhere else. And you endeavour to refute the position by the following arguments.

First—the phrase midst of the earth cannot apply to America, because that (in the midst of the earth) was the place in which Joseph’s seed was to become a multitude of nations. Second—It cannot apply to America, because the land of Canaan was the land which God gave to Jacob, and which Jacob gave to his son Joseph.

4

Well, sir, according to you first argument, the phrase, midst of the earth, will apply to that portion of the globe where, or in which, Joseph’s seed has, or did become a multitude of nations; whether it be in Asia, Africa, America, or any other place, and consequently, cannot be confined to the land of Canaan, unless that is the place, and the only place, in which Joseph’s seed did, or has become a multitude of nations. Which position you will not be able to maintain. According to your second argument—the phrase, midst of the earth, cannot be confined exclusively to the land of Canaan, unless that is the only, and all the land that God gave to Jacob, Joseph, or any of his (Joseph’s) posterity. Now, sir, we will see if you maintain these two points. First, That Joseph’s seed became a multitude of nations in the land of Canaan. Second, That [6] Canaan was the only, and all the land that God ever gave to Jacob, Joseph, or his posterity. First, You prove from Gen. xlviii. chap. 2, 3, 4 and 5th verses, that God gave to Jacob the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession; and also, that his seed should become a great multitude, which I do not pretend to deny. But because God gave that land to Jacob, it does not prove that he gave him (Jacob) or his posterity no other land—does it? O, no. And suppose that Jacob’s seed, the whole house of Israel became a great multitude in Canaan—what then? Does this prove that Joseph’s, or Ephraim’s seed became a multitude of nations there? Certainly not. Then this argument proves nothing to your purpose. Second, You refer to John’s gospel, iv. chap. 5th verse. “Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.” Now, you say, “as Jacob never gave Joseph ground on any other occasion than the one now under consideration, it follows that he never gave America. Indeed, sir, you must be wonderful wise! How do you know that Jacob never gave Joseph land on any other occasion?

Was you with him all the time to see? Why, sir, this is merely an assertion without any proof.

Again, you assert that Athe words, midst of the earth, occur but three times in the Bible.” Now, sir, you have exposed your ignorance, and shown very clearly that you know but little about the scriptures. Why, sir, I will tell you where you may find those words four times in the Bible. See Gen. lxviii. chap. 16th verse; Exodus viii. chap. 22nd verse; Psalms lxxiv. 12th verse; Isaiah v. chap. 8th verse. You attempt to prove from those texts, that the midst of the earth must be confined to prove from those texts, that the midst of the earth must be confined to Canaan, or near there. Well, let us see. Psalms lxxiv. 12th verse. “For God is my king of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth.” Now, what were the works wrought in the midst of the earth?

Salvation. Then if this text confines the midst of the earth to Canaan, it confines the works there also. Therefore, the work of salvation must be confined to Canaan—and mankind can be saved in no other place. Again, you say, “we will set the matter right beyond the power of Mormon quibbling.” To do which, you refer to Gen. xlviii. chap. 21, 22 verses. “And Israel said unto Joseph, behold I die; but God shall be with you, and bring you again unto the land of your Fathers. Not to America. Moreover, I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow.”

Now, then, you fancy that you have gained a complete victory over the Mormons; and proven, that because Jacob never took America from the Amorites, he did not give it to Joseph.

Indeed, sir, this is a very simple argument, and proves nothing. Where was Jacob when he died?

In Egypt. And God brought his posterity out of Egypt into the land of Canaan. But did they always remain there? No. They were dispersed again from that land. Then, what does this prove?

Does it prove that the phrase, midst of the earth, applies to Canaan, and to that place alone? No.

Does it prove that God gave Jacob or Joseph no other land but Canaan? No. Does it prove that Joseph’s seed became a multitude of nations in the land of Canaan? No, far from it. Then it proves nothing to your purpose. Now, sir, notwithstanding your great boasting and bragging, and 5 the vile and abusive epithets which you have lavished so profusely upon the Mormons, accusing them of imposition, and of wresting the scriptures to maintain their purpose, you have as yet failed to overthrow their first position. Therefore, their arguments [*unreadable in copy*] good and will, in spite of all that you can do. [7]

Next follows a display of your great geographical knowledge, in attempting to prove, geographically, that the midst of the earth is Canaan, and that the term will apply to no other spot on the whole globe, because it is situated somewhere between Asia and Africa. What a wonderful display of knowledge! I imagine your cranium must be of unusual size to contain so much! Why sir, every little schoolboy, who has the least knowledge of geography, knows that the earth is round, or nearly so; and that the term, “midst of the earth,” will apply to one place as well as to another—to America, as well as to Asia or Africa. Your arguments from Gen. 49th chap. 22d to 26th verse, prove nothing to your purpose, and are too puerile and absurd to be noticed.

Therefore, I will proceed to your next argument. But I will first notice that (having proven you an Infidel from your own reasoning,) you are pursuing the same course that Thomas Payne pursued, when he undertook to prove that Jesus Christ was not the son of God, or the character spoken of by the Prophets. Whoever will read the works of Payne, will discover that he labored very assiduously to prove that Jesus Christ was not the son of God, or that character spoken of by the Prophets, by attempting to show that the predictions pointing to him were fulfilled prior to his coming; and that, consequently, Christ could not have been the person to whom they alluded.

I find that you are pursuing the same course, by trying to show that the prophetic declarations pointing to the Book of Mormon were all fulfilled prior to its coming forward; and, consequently, that the Book of Mormon could not have been what the Prophets alluded to. But you have fallen as far short in your endeavors as Payne did in his. You try to prove that America, which the Mormons claim, was given to Joseph, was not given to him; for which you refer to Gen. 49th chap. 26th verse:—“The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors, unto the utmost bounds of the everlasting hills; they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him who was separated from his brethren.” “Now we learn from this text that the blessings or benefits enjoyed or possessed by Joseph’s father, (who was Jacob himself,) had prevailed above the blessings enjoyed by his (Jacob’s) progenitors, (who were Abraham and Isaac,) unto the utmost bounds of the everlasting hills; and that these blessings or benefits, which had been enjoyed by Jacob, should be on the head of Joseph and his seed in the future.”

Here, then, according to your own explanation of the text, you have shown that Jacob’s blessing, which he conferred on Joseph and his posterity, was above (or greater) than that of his progenitors, (Abraham and Isaac.) What was the blessing of his progenitors? The land of Canaan. But Jacob’s blessing prevailed above or greater than the land of Canaan. How much? It extended to the utmost or farthest off bounds of the everlasting hills. Well, was not one hill as everlasting as another? And were there not everlasting hills in America? Certainly. Then as Jacob’s blessing extended to the utmost bounds of the farthest off hills, it must embrace the hills of America. But says Mr.—, “Was there not everlasting hills in Canaan? There certainly was.

Very well, then; it was simply the utmost bounds of those hills which were given to Joseph.”

Now, sir, you are coming in contact with yourself; for, according to your own statement, Jacob’s blessing prevailed above that of his progenitors. Then if above, it must have been greater than theirs. Hence, if the blessing of Jacob’s progenitors was Canaan, and Jacob’s blessing, which he conferred upon Joseph, was greater than Canaan, it could not have been confined to Canaan.

Therefore, it must have extended out of, or beyond, [8] Canaan. How far? To the utmost bounds 6 of the everlasting hills. Here, then, is a specimen of your reasoning. Jacob’s blessing, which he conferred upon Joseph, was greater than his progenitors, which was Canaan, and of course must extend out of or beyond Canaan; yes, it extended to the utmost bounds of the everlasting hills beyond Canaan. But, according to your reasoning, this greater land than Canaan, extending to the utmost bounds of the everlasting hills beyond Canaan, must be confined to Canaan, and to particular hills in Canaan. What logic! Indeed, it would be like putting a brick meeting-house into a tobacco-seed shell! or like the little boy’s cyphering, when he said, two goes in one once, and one and a half over. But, says Mr.—, “The Mormons say Jacob gave Joseph, in this verse, all the everlasting hills in the whole world.” Very well, so he did, (except those in Canaan, which he gave to his brethren.) But you think this proves too much; that “it would prove that the Negroes of Africa are the descendants of Joseph as much as the Indians.” Oh no, sir, this is only a slight blunder of your own. The Mormons do not claim that Joseph has yet inherited the whole of his blessing, but that he will eventually, in common with his brethren, (the other tribes,) inherit the whole of it. Further, to prove “that Jacob had no reference to any other hills than those in Canaan,” you refer to Deut. iv. 26,27: “I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over to Jordan to possess it.

And the Lord shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen whither the Lord shall lead you.” Now, then, you think you have achieved a TRIUMPHANT VICTORY over the Mormons—because the “Mormons say, the seed of Joseph were to become a multitude of nations in America, after they left Canaan. But Moses says, that they should be few in number, after they were dispersed from that land.” Hence, you infer, “that if they became a multitude of nations at all, it must have been in the land of Canaan before their dispersion.” But the Mormons are not in as great a difficulty here as you may imagine. Indeed, sir, any little boy can lead them out of this difficulty. Admitting they were scattered some thousand years ago, and became few in number—does this prove that they would not increase, and from that few became a great multitude? Or, that some of Joseph’s posterity would not come to America, and there become a multitude of nations? Certainly it does not. If it does, Moses contradicts Jeremiah; for he says, when speaking of the return of Israel in the last days, (see Jer. xxxi. chap. 8 verse,) that “A GREAT COMPANY shall return thither.” And further, admitting as the text says, that Israel was to be few in number at a certain time, among the heathen, (or gentiles,) because they rebelled against God. This does not prove that God did not lead away some of the house of Joseph, not for their wickedness, but for their righteousness, and locate them, not among the heathen, but in a country be themselves—secluded from all others, even in America.

The text says, they were to be few among, or when among the heathen. The descendants of Joseph were not among the heathen, but by themselves, where they became a great company and a multitude of nations. I shall now come to your last and most potent argument—to prove what?

That the seed of Joseph became a multitude of nations in the land of Canaan. To prove which you quote Joshua xvii. chap. 14th to 18th verse. And what does this prove? Simply this: that the seed of Joseph became a multitude of people, or one great nation. And this you claim a literal fulfilment of Jacob’s prediction. Why, sir, Jacob said they should become [9] a multitude of nations; but you now found but one nation in the land of Canaan. Therefore, it cannot be a fulfilment of Jacob’s prediction. There is a vast difference between one and a multitude—as you may discover from the first principles of arithmetic. Or, did you expect to make people believe that the terms one and multitude were synonymous. However, I suppose you think that you can palm your incongruous nonsensical arguments upon an enlightened community for sound logical reasoning; but you will find that people of good sense will not be gulled with such gross 7 absurdities; they will only laugh at, or rather pity your ignorance and folly. Your next refer to Hosea, xi. chap. 10th verse—“They shall walk after the Lord; he shall roar like a lion; when he shall roar, then the children shall tremble from the west.” Now, then, says Mr.—, “The argument brought from this text is, that as America is west from the land of Canaan, they (the children) must be in America.”

Well, is not this a rational conclusion! The place spoken of was to be west from that where the prophets stood. And is not America west from that? Certainly it is. Then, we might as rationally conclude it to be America as any other place. And there being intervening places, does not prove the contrary. But, admitting that the Ephraimites did go to Egypt and Assyria, does not prove that those were the places where the children should tremble, at this particular time of which the prophet speaks. The prophet speaks of a time when the Lord should “roar like a lion; and then the children should tremble from the west.” Now, you have not proven that the Lord did roar while the Ephraimites were in Egypt and Assyria; or, that they trembled while they were in those countries. Therefore, you have not proven, that those were the places to which the prophetic referred. Now, if we can ascertain the particular time when the Lord is to roar, then we shall know the time when the children will tremble from the west. By referring to the following texts (see Jeremiah xxv. chap. 30th to 33d verses; Isaiah xlii. chap. 13th to 16th verses; Joel viii. chap. 15th and 16th verses,) we discover that this time will be in the last days, at or near the second coming of Christ, when he will make a destruction of the wicked, and introduce his reign of peace and righteousness upon the earth. Therefore, it has no reference to the time when the Ephraimites were in Egypt or Assyria. Further, you endeavour to prove, that the places spoken of by Zeph. iii. chap. 10th verse, and by Isaiah xviii. chap. 1st verse, were one and the same land; and that this land was Ethiopia. First, By a display of your geographical knowledge, (or rather ignorance,) there you accuse the Mormons of falsehood, for saying the Barbary States, or northen part of Africa were once called Ethiopia. If you were acquainted with ancient geography or history, you would not deny this fact, unless you determined to tell a positive falsehood. But, whether the places are one and the same or not, I will prove by incontrovertible evidence, that the place spoken of by Isaiah, was not Ethiopia. Isaiah xviii. chap. 1st verse, says, “Wo to the land shadowing with wings, which is beyond the rivers of Ethiopia.” This land is particularly described by the prophet, as being in the shadow, or having the shape or resemblance of wings.

Ethiopia would not answer this description. Therefore, it could not have been the land to which the prophet alluded. Second, You attempt to prove scripturally, that it was Ethiopia. Well, we will see how far you have succeeded. You say, “It will be observed, that the prophet Isaiah, in the words of the text, is prophecying against this land, which is beyond the rivers of Ethiopia.”

Again, you say, “Now, in the 20th chapter of his prophecy, God tells us what lands Isaiah was sent to prophecy against.” [10] Very well—in this chapter, he tells us he was sent to prophecy against Egypt and Ethiopia, and says nothing about the land shadowing with wings beyond the rivers of Ethiopia. Read the 18th chapter of Isaiah, and you will find a prediction pronounced upon that land, altogether different from the one pronounced upon Egypt and Ethiopia, which is conclusive evidence, that they were not one and the same, but distinct and separate places. And, further, in the preceding and following chapters, Isaiah prophecied upon several places. In the 18th chapter upon Moab; in the 17th chapter upon Damascus; in the 18th chapter upon the land shadowing with wings beyond the rivers of Ethiopia; in the 19th and 20th chapters upon Egypt and Ethiopia. Each a distinct and separate place, as any one may discover by reading the several chapters. Again, says Mr.—, “We learn from these passages that the ‘wo’ pronounced upon the land which is beyond the rivers of Ethiopia, was to consist in the king of Assyria leading away 8 the Ethiopians captive, young and old.” This blunder is too ridiculous to be imputed to your ignorance. I must believe you intend to give the lie to the scriptures. This was what was pronounced upon Ethiopia and not on the land beyond the rivers of Ethiopia. Your next argument is from Ezekiel xxx. chap. 4th verse. “And the sword shall come upon Egypt, and great pain shall be in Ethiopia, when the slain shall fall in Egypt, and they shall take away her multitude, and her foundations shall be broken down.” 9th verse, “In that day shall messengers go forth from me in ships, to make the careless Ethiopian afraid; and great pain shall come upon them as upon Egypt; for, lo! it cometh.” Now, says Mr.—, “Compare this verse with the 2d verse of the 18th chapter of Isaiah, and the conclusion is inevitable, that the lands beyond the rivers of Ethiopia, was not America, but Ethiopia itself.” Well, we will compare them and see what we will make of it. Notice Ezekiel xxx. chap. 9th verse, says, “in that day shall messengers go forth from me in ships to make the careless Ethiopians afraid,”—then, of course, they were to go to Ethiopia. Isaiah xviii. chap. 1st and 2d verses, says, “Wo to the land shadowing with wings, which is beyond the rivers of Ethiopia. That sendeth ambassadors by the sea, saying, go, ye swift messengers to a nation scattered and parted.” Now, we learn from this, that messengers were to be sent to Ethiopia, according to your first text. According to your second text, messengers were to be sent FROM the land beyond the rivers of Ethiopia, and not to it. Therefore, messengers were to be sent from one land, to the other. Then, if those events were to transpire at the same time, instead of proving that the land beyond the rivers of Ethiopia itself, as you pretend—it proves the reverse. Now, we have compared the texts—and what have we proven? Why, sir, we have proven positively and definitely, that the land beyond the rivers of Ethiopia, was not Ethiopia, but a different place. Come, now, dear sir, you must be careful about making such stupid blunders as these, or your good old sectarian friends will become ashamed of you, and not employ you as a tool to fight against Mormonism any more. Again, you refer to Zephaniah thus, “We will turn again to the passage of Zeph. iii. chap. 10th verse—we will quote the 9th and 10th verses. For then I will turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord to serve him with one consent. From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia, my suppliants, even the daughters of my dispersed, shall bring mine offering.” “Now, we learn from these two passages that, at a particular time, God was to turn to the people a pure language; and that then his dispersed from be- [11] yond the rivers of Ethiopia should bring his offering.” This time referred to, you claim to be the same spoken of by Joel ii. chap. 32d verse. “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call.” Now, you claim that those predictions were fulfiled on the day of pentecost, when the Holy Ghost was poured out on the disciples. To prove which, you quote Acts ii. chap. 16th verse. Let us examine and see if there was a literal fulfilment of these predictions on that day, or in the days of the apostles. Zeph. says, the Lord was to turn to the people a pure language, (not languages.) On the day of pentecost, the apostles spoke in many languages which were then extant, and spoken by the surrounding nations. Therefore, they could not have been the one pure or perfect language spoken of by the prophet. Further, to prove that Joel’s prophecy, as quoted Peter, (Acts ii. chap. 16th to 21st verses inclusive) was all fulfilled on the day of pentecost, you will be under the necessity of proving that those disciples who received the Holy Ghost, on that day constituted all flesh. For the text says, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, that I will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh and your sons and your daughters shall prophecy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams,” &c. If this prediction was all fulfilled at that time, then those disciples must have constituted all flesh. And this we know was 9 not the case. Therefore, the prediction was not all fulfilled. It is evident that Peter had a reference to the spirit which they (the disciples) had received; and designed to show that it was the same spirit, that would in the last days be poured out upon all flesh, which ultimately will be the case, in fulfilment of Isaiah xi. chap. 1st to 12th verses; Joel ii. chap. 28th to the end. Therefore, but a small part of this prediction was fulfilled on the day of pentecost. Whoever will take a careful perusal of this prediction of Joel, ii. chap. 32d verse, in connection with the preceding part of the subject, and compare it with Zeph. iii. chap. 8th verse to the end of the chapter, will discover clearly, that those predictions have not yet been fulfilled—nor will not be until the house of Israel are gathered in the last days, and built up in righteousness. The spirit of God poured out upon all flesh. The wicked destroyed. Now, until the knowledge of the Lord covers the earth as the waters cover the sea. I shall now come to your conclusive argument, to prove those predictions fulfilled in the days of the apostles. The text Zeph. iii. chap. 10th verse, reads thus, “From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia, my suppliants, even the daughters of my dispersed, shall bring mine offering.” Recollect it was the daughters of his dispersed, who were to bring an offering from that land. The following is your argument. Acts viii. chap. 27th verse. “And he arose and went; and behold a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candoce, Queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come up to Jerusalem for to worship. This man was evidently one of the dispersed of the Jews—and he had come up to Jerusalem for to worship. This is conclusive, and needs no farther comment. Here we have a literal fulfilment of the prediction, that from beyond the rivers of Ethiopia, his dispersed (or the daughters of his dispersed) should bring his offering.” WHAT A WONDERFUL ARGUMENT!! Here, then, you have one man coming up to Jerusalem to worship, fulfil the prediction. “From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia, my suppliants, even the daughters of my dispersed, shall bring mine offer- [12] ing.” This does cap the climax of absurdity! What! Transubstantiate a man into the daughters of Israel to make him fulfil a prophecy! Why, sir, you accuse the Mormons of twisting the scriptures to accomplish their purpose. But you have outdone the Mormons! —for you have twisted a man (or tried to) into the daughters of Israel, to accomplish your purpose. Now, reader, says, Mr.—, “We have disposed of the Mormon’s text, proving that America was the land given to Joseph, upon which rests their whole fabric.” Indeed, you have disposed of them, and such a heterogenous mass of conflicting arguments, as you have advanced, I have seldom witnessed.

Your stupid and ridiculous blunders, not only betray your consummate ignorance of the scriptures, but, also, the weakness of the cause which you are trying to maintain.

Next, you accuse the Mormons of being a “set of swindlers, who, under the holy name of Religion, would lead to HELL the widow and orphan, in order to fleece them of their hard-earned pittance.” Now, you appear to be exposing you true disposition. And, having failed to maintain your cause by scripture and argument, you have descended to the low, vile, and degraded means first made use of by the lying priests and filthy drunkards of Missouri, (who, I presume, may with propriety be called your brethren, as you seem to be leagued heart and hand in the same inglorious cause; that of trying to impede the progress of eternal truths,) viz. those of slander, misrepresentation, and false accusations, without proof; which you well know are calculated to excite the prejudices of the ignorant, and fan the flame of persecution. The church of Latterday Saints has already suffered sufficient from the unhallowed scandal of her opposers. Her members, even delicate females, have been driven from their homes and forced to wander without any shelter but the broad canopy of heaven to protect them from the rude blasts of wintry storms. The blooming prairies of the west have been stained with the crimson blood of innocent men, women, and children. The tears of lonely widows and helpless orphans have freely flowed, 10 and their heart-felt cries have penetrated the open ear of Omnipotence. And who were the cause of all this suffering and wo? SLANDERERS. Indeed the abusive epithets which you are hurling with such fury upon the Mormons are best applicable to yourself. And I would advise you to reform from your ignominious conduct before you attempt to slander and vilify others.

You assert, “There is not the smallest proof from the Scriptures that there was any book to come forward, either like the Book of Mormon or any other book.” This assertion I cannot impute to your want of knowledge, but must believe that you purposely determined to tell a downright falsehood. You cannot be ignorant of the plain prediction of Isaiah, xxix. chap. 11th and 12th verses, where he speaks of a book which was to come forward in precisely the same manner that the Book of Mormon came forward. Here, then, you have it positive, definite, and certain, that a book should come forward; and that the deaf should hear the words of the book, (see 18th verse) which they could not do if there was no book. Next you quote Hosea viii. chap. 12th verse, “I have written to him the great things of my law; but they were counted as a strange thing.” “The Book of Mormon, say these Latterday Saints, is counted a strange thing unto this day; therefore, he meant the Book of Mormon. The same argument would prove that the prophet referred to the Alcoran of Mahomet or the revelations of Swedenborg, which are both counted strange things.” Why, sir, any clown would know better than to apply this saying of the prophet to the Alcoran or to Swedenborg, because neither of them makes any pretensions to having been the word of God [13] written to the tribe of Ephraim. But your arguments are so puerile that I am tired of noticing them.

“There is no doubt but the phrase ‘I have written’ refers to the tables of stone, which were written by God’s own finger, and positively forbids idolatry.” The text says, “I have written to him (Ephraim) the great things of my law.” The commandments on the tables were written to the twelve tribes, the whole house of Israel, and not to the particular tribe of Ephraim. Therefore, they could not have been what the prophet alluded to.

Now Mr. what shall I call you? Quack, I suppose, I have successfully controverted your arguments. Will ye give it up? eh! Your next is this, “The next passage which the Mormon brings in support of his position you will find in Ezekiel, xxxvii. chap. 16th to 19th verses:

“Moreover, thou son of man, take the one stick and write upon it, for Judah, and for the children of Israel, his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it for Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel, his companions. And join them one to another, into one stick, and they shall become one in thine hand. And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not show us what thou meanest by these? Say unto them thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel, his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.” You assert, “There is no such phrase used in the Bible as stick of the law, stick of Isaiah’s prophecy.” Why, you silly clown, the Mormons never pretended that these expressions, stick of the law, stick of Isaiah’s prophecy, were in the Bible. This is another of your whimsical blunders. The Mormons only claim this to have been one of the Jewish customs of keeping records, to write them on parchment and roll them upon sticks, which you will find to be the case when you become a little acquainted with history.

Again, you say, “The word stick does not occur from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelations, to represent a writing of any kind.” But here you come in contact with the above-mentioned text, which says, take thee one stick and write upon it. Now if a writing was to be made upon the stick, it is obvious that the term is used to represent a writing or record. You consider the idea of the Mormons in considering those sticks to represent writings or records, as 11 being very erroneous, and attempt to refute the same by a lengthy grammatical explanation. But instead of refuting their ideas you have only put yourself in a very awkward position, and turned the subject into nonsense. We will examine the subject according to your explanation and see what we will make of it.

Admit the stick to represent the head of a tribe, as you say it does, and read it in your own style. Thus, “Behold, I will take the head of the tribe of Joseph which is Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel, his fellows, and will put them with him even with the head of the tribe of Judah, and make them one tribe, (or head of a tribe) and they shall become one in mine hand.” Here, then, you have got the individual heads of Judah’s and Joseph’s tribes, two persons, Judah and Ephraim, and put them with the rest of the tribes, and made them the heads, and the tribes into one head of a tribe, and left the two tribes without any heads. This would be nonsense in the extreme. But here is a slight difficulty in the way of your explanation. The text does not read thus, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is Ephraim, but which is in the hand of Ephraim. Then your explanation should read thus—Behold I will take the head of the [14] tribe of Joseph which is in the hand of Ephraim; which would be more ridiculous still. After all your fuss; in order to render the text grammatical you have made a considerable alteration in the reading, and completely destroyed the sense. We will examine it according to the Mormon’s exposition; and, by making less alteration in the reading, will have it grammatical and complete sense. Thus, Behold I will take the record of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and of the tribes of Israel, his fellows, and will put it (with him) even with the record of Judah, and make them one record, and they shall be one in mine hand. Now, then this is grammatical and agrees in sense with the antecedent part of the subject, and is without doubt the legitimate meaning of the prophet. You will notice that in the 15th verse of this chapter Ezekiel puts forth a figure, and in the 19th verse the figure is explained. Compare the explanation with the figure and the conclusion is inevitable, that those terms were made use [*copy unreadable*] no other conclusion can rationally be drawn. But in your pretended explanation, you have not said a word about the Lord’s own interpretation of the figure; but with your awkward hands have greedily grasped the text, taking the figure and interpretation together for the figure, and have fixed out an interpretation of your own, and one that positively contradicts the true interpretation given by the Lord through the prophet. Your arguments from the 85th Psalm are too puerile and insipid to deserve any other notice than to be treated with disgust and contempt. Although you repeatedly assert that the Book of Mormon is false, or a tissue of falsehood, you have not as yet shown the first falsehood that it contains, NOR YOU CANNOT. Neither have you supported a single position which you have taken against it. But the horrid manner in which you have mangled the Scriptures to support your cause is absolutely disgusting to every perceptive child. You and your accomplices may unite heart and hand with the lying lawyer, and the lazy degraded drunkards and banditti of Missouri, and concentrate your whole influence to retard the progress of Mormonism, but all your efforts will prove abortive. The Book of Mormon and the doctrine of the Mormons are TRUE, and those ever-glorious, and heaven-taught principles of eternal truth will ultimately triumph, whilst error and its adherents will hide their deformed heads and sink into shame and insignificance. One of your concluding remarks is this, “We have now examined each text that has anything like a bearing upon the subject.” This assertion is too barefaced to be considered a blunder. You have not examined one-half the texts that have a bearing upon the subject, which you very well know.

Now, Mr. Anonymous, before you attempt another exposition of Mormonism, we would recommend you to put yourself under the tuition of some little country girl, and take a few 12 lessons on Theology in order to acquire a little knowledge of the Scriptures, instead of ransacking vocabularies of billingsgate for bombastical and abusive epithets to hurl upon the Mormons, because you are unable to overthrow their doctrine by Scripture and sound logical arguments.

Finally, Mr. Anonymous, Hater of Imposture, no Sectarian nor Theologian, or whoever you may be, when you write another pamphlet we wish that you will be a little more particular about it than you were about the one which you have written, so that you will not be ashamed to set your name to it, and let us know who you are, what you are, &c., for we mistrust that you are a QUACK at some kind of business—probably at PILL-peddling. If we have come to a wrong conclusion please inform us in your next pamphlet. [15]

APPENDIX.

Thinking that it will be interesting to our readers, we will introduce some circumstantial evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon, taken from the American Antiquities, written by Josiah Priest, and show that it corroborates the history of those works written in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon was published in A. D. 1830; and the American Antiquities, by J. Priest, was not published until A. D. 1833. Antiquities, pages 158 and 159: “Near Newark, in the county of Licking, Ohio, is situated one of the immense works or fortifications of the ancient natives of America. It embraces, in the whole, a circumference of about six hundred rods, or nearly two miles; a wall of earth, for about four hundred rods, is raised on the sides of the fort next to the small creek, which comes down along its sides from the west and east. It would seem that the people who made this settlement, undertook to encompass with a wall as much land as would support its inhabitants, and also sufficient to build their dwellings on, with several fortifications arranged in a proper manner for its defence. There are within its ranges four of these forts, of different dimensions; one contains forty acres, with a wall [*copy unreadable*] feet high; another containing twenty-two acres, also walled, but [*copy unreadable*] observatory, of sufficient height to overlook the whole country [*copy unreadable*] twenty-six acres, having a wall around it, thrown out of a deep ditch on the inside of the wall; this wall is now from twenty-five to thirty feet in height. A fourth fortification encloses twenty acres, with a wall about ten feet high.” Book of Mormon, page 378, 2d ed.: “Now it came to pass that Amalickiah had thus been obtaining power by fraud and deceit, Moroni, on the other hand, had been preparing the minds of the people to be faithful unto the Lord their God, yea, he had been strengthening the armies of the Nephites, and erecting small forts or places of resort, throwing up banks of earth round about to enclose his armies, and also building walls of stone to encircle them round about their cities and the borders of their lands.” Antiquities, page 160: “A second fort, situated south-westerly from the great works on the Licking, enclosing about forty acres, its walls are entirely of stone.” Antiquities, page 163: “At Circleville, Ohio, there is a circular fort surrounded by two walls, with a deep ditch between them; also a square fort about eighteen rods in circumference, enclosed by a wall without a ditch.” Book of Mormon, page 382, 2d ed.: “Now behold, the Lamanites could not get into their forts of security by any other way save by the entrance, because of the highness of the bank which had been thrown up, and the depth of the ditch which had been dug round about, save it was by the entrance.” Antiquities, page 160:

“Near the round fort, at Circleville, is another fort, ninety feet high, and was doubtless erected to overlook the whole works of that enormous military establishment. That it was a military establishment is the decided opinion of the president of the Western Antiquarian Society, Mr.

13

Atwater. He says the round fort was picketed in, if we are to judge from the appearance of the ground on and about the walls. Half way up the outside of the inner wall, is a place distinctly to be seen, where a row of pickets once stood, and where it was placed when this work of defence was originally erected. These works have been examined by the first military men now living in the United States, and they have uniformly declared their opinion to be, that they were military works of defence.” Book of Mormon, page 383, 2d ed.: “And now it came to pass that Moroni did not stop making preparations for war, or to defend his people against the Lamanites, for he caused that his armies should commence in the commencement of the twentieth year of the reign of the Judges, that they should commence in digging up heaps of earth round about all the cities throughout all the land which was possessed by the Nephites; and upon the top of the ridges of earth he caused that there should be timbers, yea, works of timbers built up to the height of a man, round about the cities; and he caused that upon those works of timbers there should be a frame of pickets built upon the timbers, round about, and they were strong and high. And he caused towers to be erected that overlooked those works of pickets. And he caused places of security to be built upon those towers, that the stones and arrows of the Lamanites could not hurt them, and they were prepared that they could cast stones from the top thereof, according to their pleasure and their strength, and slay him who should attempt to approach near the walls of the city. Thus Moroni did prepare strong holds against the coming of their enemies, round about every city in all the land.”

The foregoing are but a few of the corresponding accounts of fortifications and works of defence, which are to be found in the Book of Mormon and American Antiquities, but these are sufficient to show that the people, whose history is contained in the Book of Mormon, were the authors of those works.

Were we to introduce all the evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon, it would swell this work above its intended limits, therefore we shall leave what we have written for the candid perusal of every lover of truth.

THE AUTHOR.

14

❮ Back