TWO LETTERS TO A BAPTIST MINISTER.

Rev. J. Whitcomb Brougher, pastor First Baptist Church, Chattanooga, Tenn., delivered two sermons from his pulpit upon "Mormonism". They were tirades of falsehoods and misrepresentations from beginning to end; they were filled with much bitterness and hatred, and during one of his sermons he came as near advocating mob violence as he dared. These wholesale attacks called out the following open letters to the minister, which appeared in the Chattanooga News. (There have been many calls for copies of these letters, and to meet these demands they are now published in pamphlet form.)

Chattanooga, Tenn., Dec. 25, 1899.

Rev. J. Whitcomb Brougher, Chattanooga, Tenn.

My Dear Sir:—Upon my return from Chicago Friday evening my attention was called to an article in the Chattanooga News of Dec. 18, 1899, purporting to be a partial report of a sermon delivered by you, in your church, the First Baptist, on the the subject of "Mormonism and Polygamy." I take it from what parties who were present have told me that the report is substantially correct. I am an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in charge of the "Mormon" Missionary work in the south, headquarters in this city, and as a representative of the people whom you have without foundation so unjustly charged with being all that is unholy, I feel it a duty, so far as possible in a short letter, to disprove your unwarranted attack. With a desire to be fair I hope, as a matter of justice, that you will deign to read and consider what follows as a reply to the very unkind things you have said about an honest, God-fearing people. There are two sides to every question, and the good book, which you claim to take for your "rule of faith and practice," says he that judgeth a matter before he heareth it is not wise.

It is apparent, from the newspaper report, that you are either woefully ignorant of what the world is pleased to nickname Mormonism, or else you are filled with prejudice and prompted by sinister motives. Certainly no intelligent, fair-minded person would make the statements attributed to you on that Sunday evening, in this enlightened age, if only a casual investigation of the subject in hand had been made. We admit that, like the Saints 1800 years ago, we are everywhere spoken evil against, and your sermon has the appearance of being conceived in the gall of bitterness, and contains all the earmarks of certain tracts that have been written and widely distributed by our enemies. The News stated you handled the subject without gloves, and I trust that if occasionally, in the course of this letter, I exhibit the bare knuckles, you will not be offended. I assure you that my only desire in writing this is to set you right, if you are after truth, on the question of salvation; and to correct the general impression "can any good come out of Nazareth" created against my people by the many falsehoods circulated about them.

Your first misstatement is that "Mormonism is based on a tissue of lies." Did you have the Bible in view when you said this, or where did you obtain the information? Had you, before delivering your sermon, ever conversed with a "Mormon?" Have you ever read any of our works, treating on the founding and the fundamental principles of the religion you are seeking to belittle and trample in the mire? You failed to quote any authority for this extraordinary assertion, and surely you would not go to the writings of a Methodist minister, or the writing of some enemy of Mormonism, as authority on our belief. If you wished to learn of the Catholic faith would it be fair to obtain your information from a Presbyterian clergyman? In all fairness should not the rule you apply to others apply to us? You have simply quoted from our enemies. By using that rule of reasoning we can even do away with the resurrection of the Master, for did not the Roman soldiers say that Christ was not resurrected, but that while they slept the friends of the Redeemer came and stole the body away? Only the friends of Christ said He was risen, and you build your faith on what our Savior and His friends said. In handling this question why did you not take the Bible, "the rule of your faith and practice," and expose "Mormonism" principle by principle? Perhaps you have profited by the experience of others before you and are too wise to undertake such a large contract? Our faith would be popular today if it had only a form of godliness, and we defy you or any other man to prove from the Bible, or the great book of reason, that "Mormonism is based on a tissue of lies."

You say that Joseph Smith was an idle, vicious disreputable young man, etc. Again, we ask from what source did you receive your information? Again the answer comes back, from our enemies. Joseph Smith was an honest, sober, industrious young man, and we furnish just as many reputable witnesses to this effect as you can furnish that he was the embodiment of all that was bad. Why, the enemies of our Savior said He was a winebibber, a blasphemer, etc. Did that prove Him such? In the case of Christ you would answer no, but in the case of Joseph Smith we presume you would say yes. According to a brass tablet, found in the year 1280 among a quantity of records of the Kingdom of Naples, in the city of Aquilla, Pontius Pilate sentenced Jesus to be nailed to the cross for six reasons, as follows:

"1. Jesus is a disturber of the peace.

"2. Jesus has taught the people sedition.

"3. Jesus is an enemy of the laws.

"4. Jesus calls Himself the Son of God.

"5. Jesus calls Himself the King of Israel.

"6. Jesus disturbed the worship of the temple by leading a mob of people with palms in their hands."

This sounds very much like the usual charges made against Joseph Smith and the Mormon Elders, at the present time, does it not? Joseph Smith sealed his testimony with his blood. He was dragged before the courts of the land, by his enemies, some forty-eight times, and the courts always pronounced him not guilty. Go to the court records and see. His enemies admitted they could not reach him through the law, and declared that powder and ball should.

Evidently you have heard of the Book of Mormon, for you mention it. Get one and read it, and then you will be better able to tell what the Latter-day Saints claim for that sacred book. You claim the Book of Mormon found its origin in the old Solomon Spaulding MSS. Your reference to this long since exploded theory as accounting for this book gives one who is the least bit informed a key to the ancientness of the falsehoods from which you preached your sermon. After you have read the Book of Mormon go to Oberlin college, Oberlin, O., and there examine the old Spaulding MSS., and compare the two; then, if you are wise, you will never rehash that old dried up argument again. The Book of Mormon does not conflict in points of doctrine with the Bible, and it gives a history of the people who once inhabited this continent, accounting for the origin of the American Indians.

You again display your ignorance of the subject in hand when you say that we place Joseph Smith above Jesus Christ. A greater falsehood never was told, but we are pleased to inform you that we believe Joseph Smith to be a Prophet of God, and that he was the instrument in the hand of God in restoring again the Gospel to earth. Is this a crime? If we believed more in Joseph Smith than in Jesus, would we not have named the church after him, as some of our enemies have named theirs after their founders, instead of calling it the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? You know on one occasion the Saints were asking Paul about the second coming of our Savior, and Paul, in second Thes. 2: 3-4, said that He (Jesus) was not to come until or except there should be a falling away first, showing that there was to be an apostasy from the Gospel. Space will not permit me to quote the many other passages in the Bible proving that there was to be an apostasy, and that in the latter days a restoration was to take place, as per the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, interpreted by Daniel, and according to Revelations, 14th chapter, 6th verse, the restoration was to be made by an angel. Now, if that restoration has not been made, it is yet to be made, and believers in the Bible at least should be looking for that angel which was to fly through the midst of heaven. No doubt you believe that we are living in the latter days, and we ask, is there anything unreasonable, especially if we consider Holy Writ, in our claiming that the angel seen by John has flown, appeared to Joseph Smith, and thus fulfilled the prophecy that the Gospel was to be restored? We can give you an abundance of Scripture to prove our point, and if you would read our literature you would have a much more intelligent conception of "Mormonism and Polygamy." To truth seekers, those who are willing to lay aside hatred, prejudice, and investigate, we say we are prepared to give reason and Scripture to prove every doctrine we advocate. Robert Ingersoll says, in his "Best Argument Against Christianity," that there is more proof for the miracles of Joseph Smith than there is for those performed by Christ.

Another proposition laid down by you is "Its doctrines are likewise

PERNICIOUS AND BLASPHEMOUS."

Then you quote from the Journal of Discourses and dilate upon our belief in the materiality of God, etc. We are very sorry to know that you deny the existence of a God that is to some extent comprehensible, and you again make yourself ridiculous in the eyes of those who know something of both sides of the question. You put it down as blasphemy to believe it possible that we, the children (remember children) of God, can become like unto our Father. Did you ever analyze "Our Father which art in heaven?" Your "rule of faith and practice" says man was created in the image of God. It further says that Jesus, our elder brother, was in the image of God, so much so that He said "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father." Why did He say this? Because Jesus was in the "express image" of the Father, and in seeing one, we would virtually see the other. Jesus had flesh and bones, a body like ours, and the Bible informs us that He ascended into heaven after His resurrection, having the same body that He had at the time of His crucifixion. Jesus was so much like other men that He was called the carpenter's son, and for daring to say He was the Son of God His enemies hanged Him on the cross. Now, as Jesus was like we are, and is like we are, having a body of flesh and bones, and is in the express image of the Father, must not God have a body of flesh and bones? How will you twist the Scripture to make Him out otherwise? What do you think of Jesus becoming so corrupt as to eat fish after His resurrection? Are you prepared to say He did not? Do you remember that the angel said (Acts 1: 11), "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven?" Jesus went away into heaven with a body of flesh and bones. Do you think He will return, as promised, with a body of flesh and bones, or do you think He will be just a shadow? Now, is it blasphemy, according to Scripture, to believe God to be a tangible being, with body, parts and passions? Are we criminals, and to be ostracized from society, for believing in the Bible? We refer to a living, practical belief. In your researches of the Bible perhaps you have relied too much on "Commentaries" (private interpretations of the Scripture), and if you will call at our office we will be pleased to point out to you many essential truths which apparently have escaped your notice, and which space will not permit giving in this short communication.

You will remember that the "wise men" took issue with Jesus, and that He chose the illiterate fisherman to be His chief Apostle. Is it not possible that the "wise men" of today might learn wisdom pertaining to salvation from the humble "Mormon" Elder? Pardon the digression. I said that you denied

THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD,

and if the above is not sufficient I will now prove it to you. You are in a worse condition than the infidel, because the infidel says "I don't know," while a definition of your God implies a pure and simple "nothing," an "immaterial" being. You charge us with believing in a material God—"gross materiality" you call it, a God with body parts and passions, etc., which from what you have read above, you will see we are pleased to acknowledge. From your charge we can take it in no other way, and arrive at no other conclusion than that you believe in a God without body, parts and passions, and as the definition goes, nowhere present yet everywhere present, etc. The definition of your God

REMINDS ME OF A STORY.

At a circus one clown asked a brother clown if he had ever seen "nothing." The answer was in the negative. Well, says the first, I will show it to you; shut your eyes. The second shut his eyes and the first said: "What do you see?" The answer came "nothing." "Just as I expected," said the first; "you have seen it, open your eyes." Now, Brother Brougher, shut your eyes and what do you see? "Nothing," of course; well, that's him. The mysterious Santa Claus is "not in it" with such a being. Let me ask now seriously, can you conceive of anything "immaterial?" Pray how are we to know a being without a body, parts or passions? John says it is life eternal to know God, but it is a puzzler to figure out how we can know a being that is everywhere present and yet nowhere present. Are you not mistaken? Of course the things of God are understood by the Spirit of God, but it surely would take a very strong pair of spiritual spectacles to see a being that is nowhere present, without parts or body to see. Perhaps you will turn away from this in disgust, and impatiently say that I don't understand the beauty of your God, but how can I understand the beauty if it has none? Can you figure anything but zero out of it? Come, be honest (if you can't be decent), and forsake your idol.

There are many passages in the Bible to prove that

GOD HAS A BODY, PARTS AND PASSIONS,

flesh and bones, just as have His children. For instance, Adam heard the voice of the Lord, Gen. 3: 9-10. He must have a voice. God talked with Noah, Gen. 8: 13-21, and remembered, Noah, 8-1. So He must have a mouth, tongue and a memory. Abraham ate and talked with the Lord, Gen. 18. Jacob saw God face to face. Moses talked to Him as one speaks with a friend, Ex. 33-11. Moses saw His back parts, Ex. 23; the heavens are the works of Thine hands, Heb. 1: 10; and John says in Revelation, first chapter, that God has a head, and that He has hair like wool. From these passages we learn that God has a face, back parts, head, hair, hands, etc., and it ought to be conclusive evidence of God being a reasonable being. Then the Bible is full of passages telling us of the love, mercy, hatred, etc., of our Father in heaven, which are all passions, are they not? We have only referred to a few quotations on this point, but before closing the subject I cannot refrain from quoting Deut. 4: 28, which says "that the time should come when the children of Israel should so far degrade themselves as to worship gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see nor hear, nor eat nor smell." Can you get any inference from this Scripture other than that God is possessed of all these faculties? Are you certain you are not an Israelite, come to fulfill the above prophecy? Can you show one passage of Scripture to prove that God has neither body, parts, nor passions? No, you cannot.

You make the terrible charge that

WE BELIEVE IN MANY GODS.

We solemnly plead guilty to believing in many Gods. If this is a crime it is time for a new translation of the Holy Scriptures. Does not the good book say "and God said, let us make man in our own image?" What are you going to do with the words "us" and "our" in this Scripture? Does this not prove a plurality of Gods? Ex. 15-11 says "who is like unto Thee, O Lord, among the gods?" Deut. 10-17: "Lord, your God is God of gods and Lord of lords." Paul also refers to the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords, 1 Tim. 6-15, also see 2 Chron. 2-5, Psalms 86-8, Dan. 2-47, Dan. 4-8, Dan. 11-36. If you desire any more Scripture on this subject we will be pleased to give you chapter and verse. Notwithstanding we believe that there are many Gods, we worship only one God, the Father of Jesus Christ. Our enemies do not put it in this light, do they? The Devil is anxious to have you believe a lie and be damned.

You next prate about "Mormonism" being

"A SYSTEM OF LUST"

and that "social purity" is almost an unknown quantity in Utah, and sing the old familiar song about polygamy. Don't you think you could do better by looking closer to home? If the truth were known you would probably find more polygamy (on the European plan) than ever was known among the Mormons (on the Patriarchal plan). In fact, you say adultery and fornication are destroying the nation. We agree with you that these evils exist to an alarming extent, but most emphatically deny that there is any more cause, at least, to make the Mormons a special object of purity work than there is to purify other communities. If Mormonism is indeed a monster, as you claim, and if social purity, as you assert, is almost unknown among us, then what a horrible condition the Mormon people must be in. But stay; the Master says "By their fruits ye shall know them." Mormonism goes into the entire civilized world, and in this age, as in the days of Christ, it is the poor, and you will claim the ignorant, who embrace it. Very well, Mormonism takes them to a place where you claim social purity is almost unknown; what a horrible condition these poor, ignorant, deluded creatures must be in in a few years.

Now, listen, Brother Brougher: 90 per cent, of the Mormon people

LIVE IN THEIR OWN HOMES

and upon their own farms. Utah stands equal to Massachusetts in education—the rate of illiteracy is about 3 per cent. She stands head and shoulders above 90 per cent, of the states in the union when it comes to educational facilities, and until the advent of what you call civilization came to Christianize us poor heathens, there were no brothels or saloons in Utah. And yet, social purity, you say, is almost unknown among us. I leave the public to judge the tree by its fruits, and in passing your wholesale libel upon men, women and children, will drop you by saying "from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." To your heart let me say "thou shalt not lie," and "thou shalt not bear false witness," while to your mouth let me prescribe soap and water. I do not care to

DISCUSS POLYGAMY

with you, because there is a law in Tennessee against teaching it, and punishing those who do teach it; we should obey the law, and right here let me inform you that the twelfth article of our faith reads: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law." This part of our religion is taught and as carefully kept as any other part of our religion. However, Roberts will be cast out of the House of Representatives, and you ministers who are to receive congratulations for accomplishing this mighty victory over B. H. Roberts should keep your sleeves rolled up until you succeed in also banishing the polygamous Bible from the national headquarters. The Bible teaches polygamy, and, looking through your eyeglasses, is therefore antagonistic to the "purity of the American home," and a law breaker, in the state of Tennessee. I enter this complaint against the Divine record, and will now proceed to convict the prisoner at the bar. In accusing the Bible of being antagonistic to purity in the American home, by charging that it teaches polygamy, I ask that, in addition to the evidence which I shall produce, all the evidence introduced against Roberts be accepted and made a part of the case. Now, if I can establish that the Bible is a teacher of polygamy, I contend I have made my case, and ask that the law be enforced and the offending parts of the Bible cast out.

Abraham was a polygamist and the friend of God. God knew he was a polygamist when He made him His friend. Jacob had four wives, and their polygamous sons, we are informed, are to be honored by having their names inscribed over the pearly gates of the beautiful city. Suppose you were to fool Saint Peter and get into heaven, how would you feel clasped to the bosom of the polygamous Abraham? Do you suppose that you can sufficiently humble yourself to go in at one of those polygamous gates and mingle with the polygamous sons of Jacob? Moses had more than one wife, and yet he was a Prophet of God. Just think of a polygamist leading the chosen people of the Lord. All the Judges of Israel and all her chosen kings which were appointed by God, including Saul, David and Solomon, were polygamists, and the descendants of these polygamists were highly honored of the Lord. The Prophet Samuel, and even Jesus, our Saviour, came through polygamous lineage. The Bible also says that polygamous relations shall exist in the last days when men would become decimated, that their scarcity would cause seven women to take hold of one man and desire to be called by his name to take away their reproach, Isa. 4-1. Are we not informed that David did not sin except in the case of Uriah, the Hittite? Did not the Lord say through Nathan the prophet that He, the Lord, had given David Saul's wives? If all these parties could find favor with God, although they were polygamists and God knew it, would it be unscriptural to believe that polygamists might find favor with our Heavenly Father in these days? The Bible does not say that we shall have no more than one wife, and can we get anything else out of these instances than that the Bible sanctions polygamy? Of course you will say that Paul says a Bishop is to be the husband of one wife, but we ask does he say a Bishop cannot have more than one wife? Now, from these passages of Scripture, I ask that the prisoner, the Bible, be convicted and be punished under the laws of Tennessee.

We are charged with being

"DISLOYAL AND UN-AMERICAN."

To substantiate this statement would you bring forth the record of the famous Utah batteries in the Philippines? Or would you point to the Mormon battalion in the war with Mexico, or to the raising of the Stars and Stripes on Ensign Peak, when the Mormon Pioneers entered Salt Lake valley? Kindly furnish proof. Your rule of faith and practice says "by their fruits ye shall know them," and we are perfectly willing to be judged by that rule, in loyalty as in all other things.

To create a greater impression upon your hearers, I am also informed that you said we would be willing to pay the railroad fare of any of the fair mothers and daughters of this land to Utah, if they could but be induced to identify themselves with the "monstrous and destroying system." Did you believe that when you said it? We again ask for proof. Remember that the burden of proof falls on the accuser. This is only another of the falsehoods circulated about the Latter-day Saints, and you cannot point to a single instance. We do not coax, or persuade, or inveigle people into our church. We lay before them the principles of the Gospel, and if they want to accept them, all well and good, we rejoice over it; but if they do not choose to accept it, we do not send them to the bottom of a bottomless pit, there to fall into a lake of fire and brimstone and burn, and sizzle and fry forever and forever. Your hell is as big a monstrosity as your God. Incomprehensible, unfathomable, beyond the bounds of time and space, reason and everything else.

I must not forget the preface of your remarks to the effect that there were some things about the "Mormon" church that

MUST BE GIVEN UP

before it could be looked upon as a Christian church. What constitutes a Christian? Is it not one who lives up to the Gospel of Christ? We are very anxious to be set right; if we are wrong, we would like you to take your "rule of faith and practice" and point out to us wherein we differ with the Bible. I have made somewhat of a study of the teachings of our Savior and would be pleased to have you answer the following questions, keeping in view the injunction of Isaiah, "to the law and to the testimony, and if they speak not according to these words it is because there is no light in them;" also the word of Paul to the Galatian Saints to the effect that if any man preach any other Gospel than that which he preached, let him be accursed. First, where does the Bible give you authority to call your church "The First Baptist?" In Ephesians 5: 23-24 it is recorded as wives take husbands' names, so the church takes the Savior's name (Jesus Christ); how do you harmonize that passage with the name of your church? Can you find any other name given God's people than "Saints" of the Most High?

WHO CALLED YOU TO PREACH?

Paul says, Heb. 5-4, "and no man taketh this honor unto himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron." Remember Paul says "no man," and you know Aaron was called by revelation through a Prophet of God. Were you called by a Prophet of God? If you say the Bible gives you authority to preach, then "any man" can get a Bible and thereby have authority to preach, baptize and minister in the ordinances of the Gospel.

On the same principle, and with as much propriety, I could purchase a law book and set myself up to be a justice of the peace, or Governor of Tennessee. Is this not so? "Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the Saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth into an holy temple in the Lord." (Eph. 2: 1.8-21.) No one will dispute that the foundation of Apostles and Prophets is revelation. Christ said to Peter: "Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Is your church founded on revelation—living, modern, and not dead? "And He gave some, Apostles; and some, Prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, etc. (Eph. 4.) Have you Prophets and Apostles in your church? These officers were to remain in the church until "we all" come into a unity of the faith.

ARE WE TO A UNITY?

Surely you and I are not in a unity of the faith, and what about the hundreds of other denominations claiming to be the true followers of Christ? Do we need perfecting and edifying? If so, we must need Prophets, and Apostles, and all the other officers mentioned by Paul, to perfect us, and to keep us from being driven and tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. Can you find any Scripture changing this order of things? You cannot.

Do you believe that signs shall follow the believers, as recorded in Mark, 16th chapter? We have no record of this promise to the believers being repealed, and Paul says (I Cor., 13th chapter), that spiritual gifts were to remain in the church until that which is perfect is come. Has perfection come? Peter says (Acts 2: 38) that baptism is for the remission of sins. Do you believe it?

You teach that

BAPTISM IS NOT ESSENTIAL

to salvation, and that it is only an outward sign of an inward grace. Jesus says, Mark 16: 16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not (and consequently is not baptized) shall be damned."

Peter commanded the people on the day of Pentecost to be baptized. Peter was the chief Apostle and had the power to bind on earth and it should be bound in heaven. Does this not make baptism a command of God? If it is a command of God is it not essential to salvation? If this is not essential, why not do away with that part of the commission which commands His disciples to go and preach? Are you sure the teachings of your church are in strict accord with the Divine record?

James says, 5: 14-16: "Is any sick among you, let him call for the Elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him." Do you call for the Elders? You took for

YOUR SUBJECT LAST NIGHT

"If Christ should come to Chattanooga, where would He go?" Now, Brother Brougher, stand up. If He should come, where would He go? He commanded that His Gospel should be made free and His ministers should travel without purse or scrip. If He were hunting for His friends, would He call upon those who declare that His promises have fallen to the ground unfulfilled, and that the blessings do not follow the believers? He has placed Apostles and Prophets in the church, with a decree that they should remain until we all come to a unity of the faith. Would He call those His friends who declare "they are no longer needed and are not to remain until we all come to a unity of the faith?" He told the generation to whom He came (1800 years ago) that their great sin consisted in worshiping dead Prophets, while they persecuted those who believed in living oracles. Would He call on those who engage in the same business today? He never resorted to abuse for an argument. If He came would He love those who do? He was not a character assassin. Would He love those who are? But stay, we do not know where He would go, or whom He would call upon, because when He was here before, He said: "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance," and He might say that His mission was not entirely finished, and we cannot tell where He would go, but you might possibly see him.

Now, Brother Brougher, just a word. Did you ever listen to an argument against "Mormons" from the standpoint of Scripture and reason? No, you never have and you never will. Did it ever occur to you that it was a most cowardly ambition which induces you to attack a party in a place and at a time when retaliation would have been anything but decent? If so, will you grant us the privilege of defending ourselves from the pulpit and before that congregation which were so disgraced by your tirade on Sunday evening?

Now, in conclusion, let me say that we are not here to stir up strife, but we propose to defend ourselves whenever attacked; so I close, wishing you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

BEN. E. RICH.

Chattanooga, Tenn., Dec. 25, 1899.

Rev. (?) J. Whitcomb Brougher, Chattanooga, Tenn.

My Dear Sir:—Your second installment of abuse, falsehood and misrepresentation, called "Is Mormonism Anti-Christian," I see, by the News of Jan. 1, was duly delivered, as per previous announcement. As some well-meaning people might take your performance in earnest, I hope you will take it in good part if I make a brief reply before the incident is closed. I am glad that this is a country of free speech, free thought, and religious liberty, even though narrow-minded religious bigots cannot comprehend this basic principle of our heaven-born government, and sometimes abuse it. American history tells us that during the revolutionary days of America's struggle for independence the British once had Gen. Marion and his little band of struggling patriots surrounded; that the British, in order to tantalize the starving patriots, fired wheat from their cannon into the American camp, and as I have authentic evidence of having descended from one of those hungry defenders of the flag, and also that I have proof, beyond truthful contradiction, that my progenitor was once a member of George Washington's body guard, I trust you will have no serious objections to my calling myself an American by birth, and entitled to a small portion of the freedom of speech and thought guaranteed to Americans by our constitution. Should there be any objections upon the possible ground that your progenitors possibly have been on the other side of that fight, I pray you to let family feuds, for this occasion at least, be buried. No people on earth love liberty and true Americanism more than my people, and no people realize to a greater extent that the favorite weapons brought against truth are, generally, ridicule and billingsgate; and in a vain attempt to successfully answer my former letter you liberally employed this unsavory method with the hope of laughing the case out of court. We have not been accustomed to throwing mud in order to bolster up our cause, but in this case, if I should stoop to a little ridicule, avoiding slush, I hope you and the public will pardon me. I understand from parties who witnessed your performance last Sunday night, that the recital of your little piece would have done much credit to a Punch and Judy show; but, shorn of its stagey effects and set in cold type, without even a moving picture accompaniment, I hope that I may be forgiven if I do not fully appreciate the force of your masterful (?) logic. I have no doubt that the thinking people of this city can, without any assistance, distinguish between inflated sophistic bombast, and logic; but a little airing and brushing always takes away the mold, removes the rubbish and gives things a more healthful appearance. Now, as the physician said to his patient, "just hold still, and I will not insert the knife deeper than is absolutely necessary."

You claim to be a true representative of the meek and lowly Master, who said He "came not to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." You are loud in condemning "us" as sinners; yet you said, in your letter to the News, announcing your attack upon me and my faith, that you were not here to convert the Latter-day Saints, that the work was not worth the candle. How very Christ-like! What a humble follower of the Lamb, and how faithfully you endeavor to follow the example of the Master, who said there was more joy in heaven over one sinner who repenteth than over ninety and nine that needed no repentance; but pardon me—I had forgotten that we are now living in modern times, and are told by such eminent divines as yourself that the Bible does not mean what it says.

In the same letter, mentioned above, you also declare you are not here for the purpose of proselyting, which means, of course, that you do not intend to waste your time by calling anyone to repentance. In view of this, may I ask, is your mission here simply to love Jesus for $1,800 per year, and not for a blessed cent less? Great man! Paul told Timothy that the time would come when they would heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears, and I suppose it becomes necessary, in order that these words might be fulfilled, for some one to be engaged in tickling ears, even though it becomes rather expensive. Of course I understand that the march of progression changes things, and perhaps this doctrine of Christ, that "the physician is not for the whole but for the sick," has evolved as completely as the Golden Rule, for we now have it, at least to a very large extent, "Do others or they will do you, and do it first." The theory is just the same as it used to be, but it is only, as you say, "symbolic or a figure of speech," the practical part having been done away with—"we have no need of thee."

Through force of habit (we presume), in your brief note to the News you again charged us with creeping into houses and leading captive silly women, laden with sins, etc. Knowing it impossible to furnish proof, you hide behind the miserable subterfuge that you have only time to sound the key of warning. Our challenge still holds good that you cannot point to a single instance.

You think it a shame and a disgrace that Chattanooga is the headquarters for our missionary work in the south, and no doubt if the solid element of this community, as you assert, thought likewise, you would favor and advocate burning us at the stake. However, as you are a newcomer here, I feel that you are excusable, in a measure, for this rash and un-American statement. We know, as well as you, like our Master and the Former Day Saints, we are not popular, and we can also take consolation that in the world's history non-conformists to popular opinion have always been placed in the selfsame category. For a good many years, over twenty, we have had our headquarters here, and it is strange that, before your advent, the good people of this city did not discover that we were a disgrace and a detriment to this city. During the time we have been located here we have been associated, in a business way, with not a few representative men of Chattanooga, and believe we enjoy their confidence as being honest, paying our bills, etc., and have heard no complaints of any of them missing their wives or daughters, or of any charge being lodged against any of our representatives of conduct unbecoming true ladies or gentlemen. Our expenditures in this city amount to something like $25,000 per year, and I may be excused for mentioning this item, in that you mentioned money on Sunday night in various ways. I wish briefly to explain this, knowing full well your ambition to misjudge and misrepresent us in this, as in other matters. We have laboring in this mission about 500 Elders, sometimes more and sometimes a little less, and in coming here they are called from the plow, the smithy, the work-bench, the machine shop, the counting room, the mine, and the various avocations of life. Some of them leave lucrative position, worth to them, in some instances, one or two thousand dollars per year, or more, while others again are the sons of poor widows and men of humble circumstances financially, but all willing to battle for the Gospel. Now, these men leave their homes, all that is dear to a human, and come among strangers, unto them, a strange land, to preach an unpopular doctrine; to be hated and despised, sometimes brutally treated, because of their convictions, traveling without purse or scrip, and depending upon God to raise up friends to give them a place to sleep and something to eat. These men give their time to the church free of charge, and pay their own expenses, such as clothing, railroad fare, literature, etc., necessary to carry on their work.

When an Elder arrives in this city he is assigned to his field of labor, and remains in the field usually from two to three years; when, in the course of his labors, it is necessary for him to have books, tracts, clothing, and other supplies, he sends here for us to send him these needed articles, while the money to pay for the same, if the Elder is unable to bear the expense himself, is forwarded here by relatives and friends, or in some cases by brothers and sisters in the church at his home. This explains how we dispose of money in this city.

Some of our Elders have been shot to death by mobs, some have been cruelly beaten, while others have died in the harness of natural causes.

Could you do as these men do for your religion?

Could you stand to be held up to the derision of the world, leave a comfortable home and work without a salary, derided by such men as yourself, and your mother charged with being worse than a harlot; all for the love of the Master's cause?

Some of our Elders now in the field were with the rough riders in the late war with Spain, others were with the Utah batteries in the Philippines, and some of them returned home about the time the call to arms was sounded, in just enough time to discard their Prince Albert coats and don the uniform of Uncle Sam.

Is this disloyalty? Could you do as much for your religion and your country?

We try to mind our own business, and if the good people of this city or any other place do not care to come out and hear me or any other Mormon Elder preach, that is their business. All I ask is fair play and nothing more. Giving the people an opportunity to hear the Gospel is a large part of the mission of a servant of God, and when it has been preached in all the world for a witness, then shall the end come, then will it be said, as it was said once before by our Master, "how oft would I have gathered you, but ye would not." I remember, too, that Jesus said: "Wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be that go in thereat; while straight is the gate and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

Christ also said that people would kill His disciples and think they were doing God's service, and that all who would follow Him must needs suffer persecution. Are you persecuted? Is it right to look for the true Church of Christ in popularity? When a church becomes popular and persecution ceases, one of the promises of our Savior ceases to be fulfilled, for persecution is one of the marks by which we are to know the true church, says the Bible. Don't you think it is time to begin to look for the cause of the trouble? What do you really sacrifice for the cause of the Master?

You misunderstand me when you try to make believe that I claim my arguments are new. They are old, very old, and are the same as those used by Paul and Peter. I hope you will not misrepresent me on that point again. They may not be Christian, in the accepted use of the term today, but, according to Scripture, they were accepted as Christian over 1,800 years ago.

I did not think I hit so hard when I asked for a chance to give my side of the story before your congregation; I have always been taught to hear both sides before passing judgment, and perhaps it might not be amiss to say here that it is somewhat of a custom among my people to loan, as you would put it, preachers of other denominations their churches, congregations, and a choir to sing for them. There would be no objection even to the Rev. Dr. Talmage, so lovingly quoted by you, preaching in our great Tabernacle at Salt Lake City, if he desired to do so, and be furnished with a congregation numbering thousands and a choir of 500 voices to sing for him. I thought your superior (?) Christianity would make you as fair and generous as the despised Mormons, but I see I overestimated you. Our large Tabernacle at Salt Lake City seats from ten to twelve thousand, our organ is second largest in the world, and our choir, as I stated above, consists of 500 voices.

We think our singers are of the best, as they were given the second prize at the world's fair (the first prize being carried off by the famous Welsh singers). No minister of good character has ever been denied a hearing in that building, and among the many who have occupied our famous pulpit I mention the following prominent churchmen, representing various denominations:

Bishop Kingsley, of Ohio. Rev. A. N. Fisher, of Nevada. Dr. Tiffany, of Iowa. Dr. Allen, of Wyoming. Rev. Hiram McKee, of Missouri. Dr. J. H. Vincent, of New York. Gen. Booth, of the Salvation Army, London. Mr. D. L. Moody. Dr. Reiner, of New York.

Perhaps these eminent divines would have been refused a hearing had the Mormon people been as narrow and contracted as some of their enemies.

When you advise your congregation not to go to hear us, is it not good proof that you are afraid to have your people find out the truth about us and learn the true nature of our faith?

As expected, you made no effort to expose the principles we teach from reason and the Scripture; you claim it would take a lifetime to expose the errors of Mormonism. Well, now, Brother, don't you think you are a little bit inconsistent? Did you not speak before you thought? Just think what would be accomplished if you could only prove Mormonism to be false. We are informed by our enemies, and they preach it to the people, that the very existence of our government and free institutions is threatened by this Mormon octopus, and often has it been pointed out, by preachers and politicians, that we already control four or five states, almost a sufficient number of senators to give us a balance of power in the United States senate. Then the Rev. T. C. Iliff, and other of our enemies, who are proselyting in Utah, say if it were not for our leaders we would be good people; and that it is our priestcraft that makes us bad; fully admitting that they think we have a soul to save. Don't you think you could afford to try and call us to repentance? Is it not worth the candle? Inasmuch as Dr. Iliff was in this city a few months back, lecturing on Mormonism, soliciting donations, is it not possible that some of Chattanooga's good people gave of their means to be used in converting us "heathens," and no doubt we were considered "worth the candle?" Would it not be well worth a man's life to prove Mormonism false, if it would save the nation from going to pieces and be the means of saving some 300,000 or 400,000 or more souls for Jesus? Ministers all over the country are crying that thousands are being won over to the Mormon faith every year, and would it not be worth the candle to check this mighty stream of human souls, which, as you say, "are going to certain destruction?"

As to Joseph Smith, you rehashed the same old stuff, which I have already answered, but I should have thought you would have remembered to tell the people, in your eagerness to be fair, what such men as Josiah Quincy, George Bancroft, the historian, and other prominent and well known men say. In another column we have taken pains to give a few sayings in our favor from men of undoubted veracity, but as they are not clippings from your style of authors perhaps they will not suit you.

However, they will go to show that there are two sides to this question, as well as every other question.

On the Book of Mormon you manufacture another Spaulding story with a hope of covering your defeat on this point, but we want to say to you here that the manuscript of Oberlin college is the very manuscript of which it was falsely said years ago furnished the inspiration for the Book of Mormon, and as President Fairchild said in his affidavit and account of the manuscript published in the New York World, the opponents of Mormonism will have to look elsewhere for an explanation of the Book of Mormon.

You admitted to two of our young men who called on you a few days ago, that you had never read anything about us except from our enemies. Solomon says he that judgeth a matter before he heareth it is not wise. How Solomon-like you are.

You felt very badly because I did not break the law, so you could prosecute me for teaching polygamy, didn't you? You remind me of a booby, who, in playing with his big brother, cried out, "Ma, he won't let me hit him." Solomon and David both sinned, we admit, but you took special pains not to tell the audience "when" they transgressed. But then this was necessary in order to keep your "clay brick" logic from going to pieces. Does the fact that God has a body, parts and passions, debar Him from being an intelligent being, omnipresent, etc.? The glory of God is intelligence, and He, being a real live God, and not a nonentity, would His materiality prohibit Him from controlling the intelligences for the just governing of His children and the universe? Let us look at your syllogism. "A brick is made of clay, a man is made of clay, therefore a man is a brick." Now let us construct one from the Bible, taking care to have our premises correct. "All sons are in the image of their fathers, Jesus was a Son, therefore He was in the 'express' image of His Father." Now, Brother Brougher, what was the image of His Father? Jesus had a body of flesh and bones—can you explain or ridicule it away? If the words "God is a spirit" mean that He has neither body, parts or passions, then are we to dispense with our body, parts and passions in order to worship Him in "spirit" and in truth? When you find some quotation in the Bible that suits your idea, you seem to be willing to take the words literally. If the symbolical or figurative parts of the Bible are so plain, why is there such a wide difference of opinion, among the learned even, as to its teachings? I remember that Peter declared that "no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation." I do not mention this by way of belittling your great knowledge of interpretation and for calling me a fool for taking the book literally, but speak of it that the public might know how ignorant and how very little Peter really knew about how to read the Bible.

You say Mark 16: 16 is spurious, to justify yourself in not believing baptism to be essential to salvation, don't you? "Only believe and you shall be saved;" you may just as well say to the farmer, "only believe in planting and your crop will grow." But let us see where your declaration "that this part of the Bible is spurious" leads us. There are other passages of Scripture which say baptism is essential to salvation. Are they also spurious? John 3: 5 reports Jesus saying to Nicodemus, "except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Matthew says, 3: 13-15, that it was necessary for our Savior to be baptized in order to fulfill all righteousness. Jesus also says, Matt. 28, in giving the Apostles their commissions to go to teach all nations, baptizing them that believe; and Paul also enumerates in Heb. 6 that baptism is a doctrine of Christ. We are told that it was necessary for Paul to be baptized, likewise the jailor, the people at Ephesus, the people at Samaria, the eunuch, and even a man as just as was Cornelius could not escape, and according to St. Luke, "some rejected the counsel of God against themselves, not being baptized." According to the practice generally in vogue, is it not about time for a revision of the Bible, that the offending parts may be cast out? Ought you not to use your potent influence to accomplish this end, as I contended in my former letter? You charge me falsely with misquoting Mark 16: 16, because I placed within the quotation an interpolation in brackets, and if this is misquoting I surely had no intention of doing so. Any school boy would have known that the words in brackets were mine. You say the passage does not mean what my interpolation indicated, but you failed to point out what it did mean. Look at it again, even if it is spurious and of no consequence. The words "belief" and "baptism" are placed on even terms by our Savior, and there is no other conclusion but that the believer must be baptized (unless it is one of your figures of speech). This being true, the unbeliever very naturally would not be baptized and be damned, as Christ says, in consequence of unbelief and nonconformity to this ordinance. Really, brother, over whose "shop" should the sign "All kinds of turning and twisting done here" be placed? I am perfectly willing to leave that to an intelligent public. You entertained your congregation last Sunday evening by relating to them a pretty fable about a jackass, who was in the woods braying. It was nicely related and caused much laughter and mirth; and no one could become offended by a jackass story; therefore, kindly allow me the same privilege, Brother Brougher, as I also have a jackass story.

"Once upon a time" there was a jackass who imagined he was preaching the same Gospel that was taught many hundreds of years ago; he stood before a large, fashionable congregation of people and started to bray. He opened his mouth and said: "Oh, money, oh, money, thy praises I'll sing; thou art my Savior, my God and my King; 'tis for thee that I preach, 'tis for thee that I pray, and make a collection twice each Sabbath day. Money's my creed, and I won't pray without it, the heavens are closed against those who doubt it This is the essence of popular religion, come regular to church and be plucked like a pigeon. I'll have carriages, horses, servants and all, I'm not going to foot it like Peter and Paul; neither, like John, feed on locusts and honey, so out with your purse and down with your money. I gather my knowledge from wisdom's great tree, and the whole of my trinity is D. D. and C.; dimes, dollars and cents are all that I crave, from the first step on earth to the brink of the grave. In the cold earth I may soon be laid low, to sleep with the just, that have gone long ago; I shall slumber in peace till the great resurrection, and be first on my legs to make a collection." Then he blessed the contribution boxes and the show closed.

Now, dear brother, don't you think that my jackass story equals yours, and contains a better moral? I am sure it is just as funny; so now we are even, on jackass stories, anyhow.

We see how careful the nations of the earth are in throwing their protecting arms around the principle of authority; how careful they are that all representatives acknowledged by them are endowed with proper authority from their respective governments. In this nation of ours no man has the right to initiate a foreigner into the government unless he be endowed with authority, beyond the question of a doubt; the government would undoubtedly punish any man who might read of a commission given to others, and then take the authority unto himself to initiate foreigners into the government of the United States.

We see the same careful protection thrown around the principle of authority throughout the different states of the union; throughout the different counties of the state, and throughout all the different cities of the various counties. All will admit that without this strict attention to authority, there would be no law, no order and no protection. Out of all known governments the great government of God, according to our opinion, is the only one that treats the principle of authority in a careless and reckless manner. Anciently a prophet of God, through the principle of revelation, called Aaron to the ministry; at a later period, an Apostle of Jesus Christ said that no man was to take this honor unto himself save he be called of God, as was Aaron. Yet men of our day will read where men were commissioned by Jesus Christ eighteen hundred years ago, with authority to initiate foreigners into the great government of God, and by virtue of that authority, given to others, they take the honor unto themselves; while declaring that the great God has sealed up the system of revelation; and through the heavens, as you say, being as brass above our heads, no man can be called, as was Aaron. In the face of all this, any man purchasing a Bible, which contains that commission once given to others, imagines he is called of God to preach the Gospel; and the result is we are living in a babel of confusion; God says "He is not the author of confusion."

Of course I realize these words of mine will have no weight upon you, but they may be read by some fair-minded, thinking man, who may stop, ponder and investigate.

By innuendo you advocated mob violence in your sermon last Sunday night. Do you think it was becoming to a man who professes to be a representative of the meek and lowly One whose mission was peace on earth and good will to man? In carefully looking over the history of this Mission for a number of years back and noting the number of mobbings to which our Elders have been subjected, and the number is not small, we find by careful comparison that 90 per cent of the mobbings have been led in person or inspired by so-called Christian ministers.

Do you think you were serving God on the Sabbath when you so nearly sanctioned brute force against a people who have never harmed you or any of the good people of Chattanooga? Do you really believe that such a course will make you popular with the liberty-loving and law-abiding population of your new home? Think over the matter carefully and perhaps you will admit you over-reached yourself a little.

You took for your text, "Answer a fool according to his folly." In closing allow me to respectfully present you with the words of our Master, "He who calleth his brother a fool is in danger of hell fire."

Respectfully,

Ben E. Rich.